Statistics, Democracy, and Rights

Most policy arguments revolve around the use of statistics and conversation about how much better our future will be if we pass this law or that law. The conversation is almost always "Will banning guns make us more or less safe?" or "Will legalizing drugs turn more people into addicts?" but never "Do people have the right to ____ and if so, is it right to take ____ away?" Politicians are enamored with improving the world so long as the benefits outweigh the cost, and even this may be a little too generous of an assumption for the intentions of many. For the most part, people are okay with this process, and many people love it so much that they want to make it easier.

Most politicians are convinced that, if only they have enough power, they can shape the world into a better place. When they are in power politicians aggressively seek to expand their scope of influence in order to fulfill their anointed vision of the future. Their opponents do their best to slow down or prevent what they see as harmful legislation, and inevitably both sides cry foul against the other. Without fail, the majority party will complain that the minority is stopping progress mandated by the people, while the minority party will whine that majority is abusing their power. It does not matter which political party is in the majority or minority, these roles are bipartisan.

It is certainly ironic that both parties complain so bitterly about the behavior of the other, when it is no different than how they would act if the positions were reversed. Even if it is ironic it should not be surprising because that is the game politicians play when people worship the god of democracy. There is nothing particularly effective or ethical about democracy, it is simply majority rules when reduced to its simplest form. Nobody would voluntarily submit to living in such a society where their actions were governed by the whims of the majority, but somehow we have found ourselves in nearly that very position. By failing to adequately defend our liberty on the basis of inalienable rights, we now must prove our points based on utilitarianism and consequentialism. The necessity of these approaches signify that true believers in liberty have already lost the deontological, principled, argument for liberty. That is to say the principled argument for liberty has been largely conceded and liberty's defenders have largely been relegated to less than ideal statistical arguments.

Here lies the biggest threat to liberty, that many no longer believe in liberty as an inalienable right. Instead they view it as something nice, worth preserving, but only so long as it suits their vision of society. If people use their liberty in a way which does not please others those offended think they ought to be able to take it away. This idea is morally wrongheaded, it is this type of consequentialist ethics which inevitably leads to the systematic destruction of personal freedom. Accepting this unethical framework means that the ends always justify the means, and that people have the moral authority to exert power over other people if they see the consequences as positive. Perhaps the biggest flaws of political consequentialism is that it requires centralized decision making, which is impossible because of the decentralization of knowledge, and allows for only one vision for the future. In essence consequentialism, when applied politically, will destroy individual freedoms and never attain its desired results.


Despite this gloomy diagnosis of the state of our world, there is still much hope. As more and more people begin to realize that the government is giving them a raw deal they stop believing exclusively in utilitarian arguments. They stop believing because the results are never as good as the initial promises. People are beginning to realize that by forfeiting their rights to the legislature in search of safety and security they receive neither. Though it was through the use of statistics which many of our rights were taken away, the results speak for themselves, and statistics will be part of the damning evidence which helps us get our rights back. But statistics must not be relied upon completely when arguing on behalf of everyone's freedom, because our freedom does not come from statistics, they come from God, our humanity, nature or whatever else people may believe they originate from.

The next time you argue on the side of freedom, prove what a bad deal government is and back up your points with statistical and utilitarian arguments. But remember to never neglect the principled stance, remind people that our rights are not contingent on the latest statistics, opinions of the majority, or anything else. Our rights come from within ourselves, from nature, from our humanity, from God.