If one person violates the rights of another person, and if the government wishes to protect the rights of the victim, then the government must restrain the aggressor. If the aggressor is restrained, then the aggressor has less freedom. The government cannot restrain the aggressor without intervening in the life of the aggressor.
It is a paradox that the government cannot protect one person's rights without violating another person's rights.
The only ideological group which recognizes the paradox are the libertarian anarchists. If there is no government, then the government cannot protect anyone's rights, and the government cannot violate anyone's rights.
Most libertarians are in denial about the paradox. Libertarians think the government should not violate peoples' rights, but libertarians also think the government should protect peoples' rights. Yet I have never heard a libertarian admit that these two principles are incompatible.
Lefties often say they favor human rights, while supporting government policies which reduce human rights. Righties are just as bad as lefties in their support for government policies which reduce human rights, but at least righties are not hypocrites like lefties. In other words, lefties are dishonestly good while righties are honestly evil.
I think that people should be more aware that the government cannot protect one person's rights without violating another person's rights.
I think that the government should try to achieve the maximum protection of peoples' rights with a minimum violation of other peoples' rights. A government policy which provides little protection of peoples' rights while providing a lot of violation of other peoples' rights is a bad policy. A government policy which provides a lot of protection of peoples' rights with little violation of other peoples' rights is a good policy.
For example, the nazis said that the persecution of jews was neccessary to protect the rights of germans. But the result was a lot of violations of the rights of jews and very little protection of the rights of germans. This was a bad policy because the protections of the rights of some people were less than the violations of the rights of other people.
In the first half of the twentieth century, the american government persecuted blacks in order to protect the rights of whites. But the result was a lot of violations of the rights of blacks and very little protection of the rights of whites.
When the government considers enacting or repealing some policy, the government should consider whether or not the resulting protection of peoples' right justifies the resulting violation of other peoples' rights. The costs should be compared to the benefits. But there cannot be an honest debate unless people admit that protecting one person's rights requires violating another person's rights.
People should be suspicious of politicians who promise to protect human rights because those politicians might violate the rights of other people.
When the government violates the rights of some people to protect the rights of other people, the government is saying that some people are more deserving than others, that people are not equal.
The principle that the government should protect people's rights conflicts with the principle that the government should not violate peoples' rights.
If the principle that the government should not violate peoples' rights is more important, then the government must never do anything at all, and the result is anarchy.
If the principle that the government must protect peoples' rights is more important, then no one can have any rights. The government must have complete control of lives of all people, and no one may have any freedom, in order to guarantee that no person is able to violate the rights of any other people.
I think that neither principle is more important, and therefore the government should achieve a compromise between the two principles. If the government can provide a lot of protection of peoples' rights with only a little protection of other peoples' rights, then that is a good policy. But if the government must make large violations of some peoples' rights in order to provide small protections of other peoples' rights, then that is a bad policy.
But if the government must decide when to violate the rights of one person in order to protect the rights of another person, then the government is in effect deciding whose rights to protect and whose rights to violate. Most people will want to protect their and their friends' rights, and to violate everyone else's rights. Ideally, government policies should be debated on the basis of whether or not the benefits exceed the costs. But in reality, goverment policies are likely to be debated on the basis of who wins and who loses. This is unfortunate, but I see no alternative.
However, this will not be a major problem in a society based on competive federalism. The central government has very limited power, and so there are few debates about central government policies, and the distortion of debates is insignificant because there are few debates. The competing governments which find ways to prevent the distortion of debates will be more successful. Competitive federalism gives competing governments an incentive to find ways to prevent the distortion of debates.