Where in his op-ed does Sunstein argue that “the mere existence of government guaranteed liberties”? His argument is not that dependency leads to liberty per se, but that some dependency on government is necessary for the liberty enjoyed by the citizens of a “civilized” nation. Nothing in Sustein’s article suggests that dependency could not potentially lead to totalitarianism as well.
Just as I am dependent on the train to get me to and from work, all citizens are dependent upon government to secure our rights. This does not mean that we the people exist for the government’s sake, anymore than I exist for the sake of the train system. Quite the contrary – the government exists for the benefit of all citizens. Again, the author makes no claim that we exist for government’s sake.
Sustein suggests that dependency is a choice a free people make when forming a government. This follows directly from Jefferson’s line from the Declaration of Independence: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” Neither Sustein nor Jefferson is saying the government is capable of granting the people rights, as our rights are natural, but that government’s role is to SECURE those rights.
Jefferson’s choice of the word “secure” as opposed to “protect” is profound. In once sense, security means protection, and implies that it is governments role to protect the natural rights of it’s citizens from outside forces and even from the government itself. But secure also means to bring into effect. This implies an active role of government in assisting citizens in making their natural rights a reality.
Jefferson remains broad on the topic of how a people ought to secure their rights, stating that the citizenry should grant powers to government “as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” There are many Americans who believe that government programs such as those that give assistance to the unemployed, shelter to the homeless, better access to education for students, etc. are exactly the kinds of powers that best affect our safety and happiness. I think debates about such ideas as national health care get derailed when the right of government to enact such a program is called into question. The question is not CAN enact such a program, but determining which (if any) proposed programs best benefit the people of the United States.
