"The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire"

Rick Santorum's declaration expresses a perspective on the balance between private freedom and societal regulation. At its core, it shows a debate central to political viewpoint: to what extent should the state control individual behaviors and desires for the more comprehensive societal good?

Santorum begins by referencing a common libertarian or classical liberal viewpoint, which proposes very little state disturbance in individual affairs, stressing that people must largely be free to pursue their own desires as they wish. This perspective values individual liberty and autonomy, arguing that people understand best how to make choices that align with their individual happiness and wellness. Such a position frequently posits that the state's function need to mostly involve safeguarding individuals from harm rather than restricting their freedoms.

However, Santorum disagrees with this notion, suggesting that enabling individuals to act solely according to their desires can have negative repercussions that justify state intervention. His counterargument indicates that unchecked individual liberty can cause actions that are destructive to society, whether through direct means (such as criminal activities) or indirect consequences (like social deterioration or increased inequality). Santorum's viewpoint most likely originates from a more conservative or communitarian perspective, where the collective great, moral worths, and social harmony are thought about foundational to a thriving society.

By advocating for the state's right to impose restrictions, Santorum underscores a belief in a structured social framework where flexibilities are not outright, however balanced against the potential for damage to others and social norms. He seems to suggest that while specific desires are essential, they need to be weighed versus the prospective consequences they might have on societal order and the well-being of others. This reflects a viewpoint that prioritizes a determined approach to liberty, lining up individual flexibilities with the overarching requirements and values of the community.