Liberty for Me, Not for Thee

By Joe Palaggi

Americans love to talk about freedom. It’s stitched into our national DNA, the common thread of our Declaration, our Constitution, and our politics. But scratch beneath the surface, and “freedom” doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. On issues like abortion, vaccine mandates, and the death penalty, the principle of liberty is applied not consistently but selectively—shaped by political loyalties and moral priorities.

The irony is that everyone claims to be defending freedom.

Abortion: Whose Liberty Counts?

For progressives, abortion is a question of personal autonomy. My body, my choice has long been the rallying cry—framed as a woman’s right to decide her future without state interference. Conservatives counter that there are two lives involved, the woman and the fetus. Liberty for one, they argue, cannot come at the expense of another’s right to life.

So the clash is not whether liberty matters, but whose liberty matters more. Progressives protect the woman’s choice. Conservatives defend the unborn’s life. Both wave the banner of liberty, but for different parties.

Vaccine Mandates: Liberty vs. Public Safety

The alliances shift when the conversation turns to mandatory vaccines. Progressives who defended “my body, my choice” in abortion debates often argue that individual choice must yield to public safety in the case of vaccines. Conservatives, meanwhile, rediscover bodily autonomy—resisting what they see as government overreach in forcing a medical procedure.

Once again, the principle of liberty is preserved but applied selectively: the fetus is central in one case, the community in another.

The Death Penalty: Innocence and Guilt

The government’s authority to execute criminals presents perhaps the starkest test of liberty. Progressives typically oppose the death penalty, framing it as cruel, error-prone, and disproportionately applied to minorities and the poor. They argue the state should not hold the power to take life, even from the guilty.

Conservatives generally support capital punishment as justice served and as a deterrent. In their view, innocence is sacred, but guilt forfeits certain rights. Libertarians often oppose executions not out of mercy but because they fear granting the state such absolute power.

Here the divide is not liberty vs. order, but innocence vs. guilt—and who gets to decide when life is forfeit.

Small vs. Big Government: Two Lenses

These debates inevitably collapse into the old fault line between small and big government.

• Small-government advocates see liberty as the natural default and government as an intruder, to be limited wherever possible. They tend to resist vaccine mandates, question the death penalty, and oppose abortion on behalf of the unborn.

• Big-government advocates see the state as a tool to advance equity and protect safety. They defend abortion rights, support vaccine mandates, and oppose the death penalty as state violence.

Both camps are internally consistent—but only within their own definitions of what “life,” “innocence,” and “safety” mean.

The Real Divide: Who Counts as ‘The Other’?

That’s the uncomfortable truth beneath all of this. The axis is not liberty versus control—it’s who counts as the “other” worthy of protection.

• In abortion debates, it’s the fetus.

• In vaccine debates, it’s the vulnerable neighbor.

• In death penalty debates, it’s the convicted criminal.

Progressives extend liberty to the woman and the convicted but not to the unborn. Conservatives extend it to the unborn and the unvaccinated but not to the guilty. Libertarians try to extend it broadly, but split on abortion depending on whether they see the fetus as a rights-bearing individual.

Selective Liberty

The result is a patchwork application of principles that makes political debates look hypocritical. My body, my choice is invoked one day and dismissed the next. The left insists government cannot force childbirth but can force vaccination. The right insists government must forbid abortion but cannot compel a shot. Each side calls the other inconsistent, but both are guilty of the same thing: redefining liberty depending on whose liberty is at stake.

A Call for Consistency

This selective liberty corrodes public trust. If liberty is sacred, then it should not depend on whether we personally approve of the life being protected. If public safety is sacred, then it should not be set aside in one debate and elevated in another.

Our country would benefit from a more honest reckoning with these inconsistencies. It may be that liberty always carries limits. It may be that the common good sometimes requires collective sacrifice. But we should be clear and consistent about when and why.

Otherwise, “freedom” risks becoming nothing more than a partisan slogan—an empty word that means whatever is convenient for the moment. And if that happens, liberty will no longer be the heartbeat of our democracy, but its Achilles’ heel.