The Ability of Man

Philosophos: In my opinion the primary reason that liberals are wrong on a number of issues is because they misunderstand the nature of man and underestimate the ability of man.

Nomodiphas: You say this about liberals? But liberals are strong believers in the progress of man. They think that man is continually evolving and becoming better and eventually he will reach perfection. If anything it appears to me that liberals overestimate the ability of man.

Philosophos: I think they overestimate man’s goodness, but I meant what I said: they underestimate the ability of man. Liberals say they believe in the progress of man, yet they constantly want to limit people’s freedom and make their choices for them—for they believe they alone know what is best for people.

Nomodiphas: I am not following you, I don’t see evidence for the claims you’re making.

Philosophos: Ok, liberalism, because of its view of the inherent goodness of man, has too low an opinion of the ability of man. In order to keep man’s goodness intact liberals remove all choice from man. They begin with the premise that man is all good, so they need a way to excuse man’s bad behavior. Liberals say that bad behavior is a product of man’s environment or upbringing. Liberals defend criminals and say it is because of some factor besides free will that they committed a crime. Liberals advocate the doctrine of unconscionability to make sure that poor people are not held to the contracts that they make—liberals seem to believe that the poor are too stupid to act on their own behalf and that they need the government to choose what is best for them.

Nomodiphas: Ok, I see what you are talking about. Liberals, because they believe men are good, tend to excuse bad behavior and say it is a product of bad environment or bad education. By doing this they fail to hold people responsibility for their actions. But I don’t see how this degrades the ability of man.

Philosophos: Isn’t it obvious? Man’s ability is degraded when man’s free will is not recognized and respected. We are influenced by our environment no doubt, but we are not bound to and controlled by it like animals are. Are not men distinct from and above the animals? Are we not resilient enough to overcome our upbringings? To say that man is bound and controlled by his environment is to deny man’s free will—but liberals must do this for it is the only way to keep man’s goodness intact. If man has a free will and can overcome his surroundings then men are not naturally good, but rather sometimes they choose to do evil. Liberals cannot accept the fact that some men are evil, so they deemphasize man’s free will. They say evil is not a choice, but rather the result of a bad environment.

But if man lacks a free will he may not be held responsibility for his actions, which is (as we will discuss later) a core function of government. Because liberals believe man is good they reject the notion of man’s free will in order to explain the evil that man does on his environment, this prevents them from justly holding men responsible for their actions.

In order to prevent men from doing evil, they seek to take man’s liberty from him. The only way to keep men from doing evil is to take away the possibility of doing evil—they seek to take away man’s choices. But defending liberty, man’s ability to choose, is another core incident of government. That is why liberal theories of government do not work—they are based on a wrong understanding of man’s goodness and ability. Because they misunderstand these things they create overreaching governments. They want to have perfect societies, but that is impossible, there are real limits to government. For example verbal abuse may be more damaging to a child than physical abuse, but how can the government prevent it without destroying the family structure? Men are not always good, yet we must tolerate evil in order to protect liberty. This is something liberals fail to understand.

Nomodiphas: I understand how treating man like an animal, completely bound by his environment and lacking a free will degrades the value of man, but I don’t see evidence of the taking of liberty from people by liberals.

Philosophos: As the historian Daniel Pipes explains, traditionally, human beings were believed in the West to be made of body and soul, both given their shape by their Creator. The soul was viewed as filled with ideas and values implanted in it at birth. Because all men had an immutable nature and immortal soul with knowledge of right and wrong the government could be the same for all nations and ages. This was a conservative notion since it posited the immutability of human nature: such as it was such it would always be. This premise was first challenged by the English philosopher John Locke, who, in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), denied the existence of “innate ideas.” According to him, at birth the mind (or soul) is a clean slate: all ideas and values derive from sensory experience—our environment (not our choices, for there is no free will) completely makes us. This theory implies that human nature is malleable rather than constant. Therefore proper instruction (education) and legislation not only enable, but compel humans to attain complete virtue. There is no reason for evil to exist. The government can eradiate evil through laws and education therefore the government must eradicate evil through perfect laws and education. So it is the responsibility of the government to create a perfect society in order to mold perfect men. The government is not to create optimal conditions for man to reach his potential, but rather perfect conditions to render man perfectly virtuous, to refashion men into what they should be.

This thought has justified the government’s intervention into men’s lives throughout history. Men may not realize it best for them; nevertheless the government must impose restrictions on men to make them perfect. After they have reached perfection the thought is they will realize it was the best way. Rousseau espoused this line of thought in his work Emile. There, through education, a perfect man is created. When the character reaches perfection at the end of the book he says “I have decided to be what you have made me.” Liberals rest assured in this thought. After their programs are complete they believe people will thank them for what they have imposed upon them.

People will not reach perfection if they are allowed to freely live their lives, so the government must check their liberty and make choices for them so that they will reach perfection. For example, as I mentioned before, liberals advocate that the government limit when and how we may freely contract with one another for they doubt we know what is best for ourselves.

Nomodiphas: I understand your position regarding the doctrine of unconscionability. Still I think liberals would justify it as necessary to prevent the poor from the predatory practices of the rich.

Philosophos: Predatory practices? We are talking about freely made contracts that liberal judges refuse to honor for they see it as their duty to keep people from making choices that they believe are not the best choices. How would you like me to tell you what is best for you? Tell you what you can buy, where you can work, and how much money you must be offered before you can accept a job?

Nomodiphas: I wouldn’t like that at all.

Philosophos: Then why do you assume that poor people like the government involving itself in their personal decisions and making these decisions for them? I imagine that they, like you, believe they can determine their own interests better than some judge can.

Nomodiphas: Point taken. But this seems to be an isolated occurrence. Liberals are known as strong supporters of democracy. They are the ones that stage rallies, protests, and believe in the power of the people.

Philosophos: Liberals only claim to believe in democracy and to follow the will of the people when it serves their interests. Like Rousseau they claim that the “general will” is always right, however “the judgment that guides it is not always enlightened.” The will of the people may be right, but people don’t know what is best for them, they need the liberal intelligentsia to tell them what is best. Think about how this has been applied. All power to the workers . . . but for the time being we need a dictatorship of the proletariat to guide them to their best interest (for people are unable to determine their best interest).

Further, when power is taken by liberals because they claim to have popular support this support from the people is never demonstrated by a vote, (for liberals claim the support of the people not as they are, but as they should be). The example I have been referring to of Lenin taking power is an extreme example, but you see this to lesser degrees by liberals in this country all the time. They claim to support popular involvement, but ridicule it when popular involvement leads to decisions they disagree with like electing a president they disapprove of or when a state chooses to ban gay marriage. When this occurs liberal say the people are wrong. Liberals think: if only the people knew best they would agree with us. So they turn to their allies in the Supreme Court to overrule and overcome the freely willed choices of the people.

Beginning with a correct understanding of man is essential to forming a good government. Man has the potential to do great good, but also great harm. Man is influenced by his surroundings, but not bound by them. When man tries to create a new man he destroys man. Think of the extreme liberal endeavors like the French or Russian revolutions. Think of how many people perished so that the perfect society could be made. At the height of the Stalin purges (1937-1938) 1,548,366 people were detained and sent to the gulags and 681,692 were shot (about 1,000 were shot every day). I know what you are thinking, that conservative governments have killed people too. This is indeed true. Consider the Tsarist government that preceded the Soviets. This government was a hereditary, absolute monarchy that justified its existence on the theory of the divine right of kings. This government was as conservative and reactionary as a government can be. It did execute people in an abuse of its rule. From 1825 to 1910 the Tsars executed a grand total of 3,932 for political crimes.

No perfect society can be made for evil is a choice of man, the only way to abolish evil is to abolish man’s free choice, which is in fact is the abolition of man. Government must interact with men as they are and not attempt to make men as they ought to be.