The totalitarian tendency of the left on display
November 23, 2009Immanuel Kant was an 18th-century German philosopher who asserted that moral autonomy as central to humanity and that human beings should be treated as ends rather than as means. Kant was opposed to most forms of collectivism and believed that the life and rights of the individual reigned supreme in public matters.
Because of this worldview, Kant opposed direct democracy believing that majority rule posed a threat to individual liberty. He stated, “…democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which ‘all’ decide for or even against one who does not agree.” Since humanity could never be trusted to be good, fair, generous or moral, laws and their enforcement would be necessary to protect the rights of the individual from their tyranny of the majority.
Kant’s view of the human condition led him to the conclusion that restraint of man in his management of his fellow man was necessary for freedom and liberty to exist. Kant believed that humanity could never be perfected and that the best we could hope for was to be free of the tyranny of our fellow man. He famously stated that, “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, nothing entirely straight can be built.”
If you believe that humanity is largely self interested and that man is often wolf to man, you will likely also believe that that the role of good government is to protect the rights of individuals from the tyranny of princes, dictators and majorities. You will support the rights of others to do as they please as long as a) they do not impose upon your rights to do as you please and, b) that they acknowledge their responsibility to accept the consequences of their actions. You will be happy with Kant and the Real Revo.
If, on the other hand, you believe that humanity is at its core good and decent and that individualism and self-interest are born only of ignorance, you are a liberal. Unlike Kant, you will see the “crooked timber of humanity” as a problem solved by the application of a governmental sawmill run by an enlightened elite. Humanity, you will argue, isn’t corrupt and crooked it is merely warped by external influences. With the proper application of counteracting influences, you will claim, humanity can be improved and a better society can be created. The state, controlled by a governing elite, is the planer of human imperfections.
Thomas Freiedman is such a liberal. He clearly believes that the American people are ignorant. He also believes that they can be saved from their ignorance and society improved by an authoritarian state. He laments the Constitutional restrictions that prevent his dream of perfecting society in today’s New York Times. He has this to say about Obama and limitations on his power to fix society.
People had hoped that his unique story, personality and speaking skills could bring the country together, overcome paralysis and deliver nation-building at home. A lot of the disappointment settling in among Obama voters today is prompted by their dawning realization that maybe, like Arnold, he can’t.
China’s leaders, using authoritarian means, still can. They don’t have to always settle for suboptimal. So what do we do?
The standard answer is that we need better leaders. The real answer is that we need better citizens. We need citizens who will convey to their leaders that they are ready to sacrifice, even pay, yes, higher taxes, and will not punish politicians who ask them to do the hard things. Otherwise, folks, we’re in trouble. A great power that can only produce suboptimal responses to its biggest challenges will, in time, fade from being a great power — no matter how much imagination it generates.
Friedman would disagree strongly with Kant’s belief that that moral autonomy as central to humanity and that human beings should be treated as ends rather than as means. He clearly sees collectivism as the purpose of the masses and is saddened that China, and not the United States, has the power to use authoritarian means to improve mankind. Kant and modern conservatives accept the nature of the crooked timber of humanity as given and see individual moral autonomy as an inviolable virtue that prevents its forceful straightening. Friedman and the left have little use for individualism. They desire nothing more than to use the power of the state to work humanity into collective monuments to their arrogance and narcissism. Friedman and his ilk must be constantly watched lest they find a way to implement their totalitarian temptation.
Tatersalad :
Date: November 23, 2009
The United States Constitution found in a dumpster behind the White House:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=UZkvkLmkYVg
Bman :
Date: November 23, 2009
I somewhat disagree with part of this. I believe, for the most part, that the core of humanity IS good, and it is at it’s best when people, for the most part, govern themselves, take responsibility for their actions, and seek their own interests. Our founding Fathers believed in this as well I believe. I believe they saw humanity at its best when there was less government involved in their lives. They set up our government to model that because, I believe, they thought that humanity was, for the most part, good. They trusted the people to govern their own affairs, and seek their own happiness. The Fathers wanted limited government so people could pursue their own happiness. The Fathers knew that the ordinary citizen knew what was best for themselves. To me, this type of humanity is, at its core, good. I hope Im making sense. Hard for me to express my thoughts on keyboard today.
R.D. Walker :
Date: November 23, 2009
Let me explain. The Founders didn’t think men to be saints. They knew that self-interest was a manifest and permanent part of the human condition that drives industry.
They would have been familiar with Adam Smith’s quote: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our necessities but of their advantages.”
They understood that all people are corruptible and that power is the ultimate corruptor. Those with Puritan sensibilities like John and Samuel Adams would have seen man as fallen and endowed with Original Sin. More secular Founders such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin feared the passions and greed of man. Jefferson said, “If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”
None believed humanity to be perfectible. Universally the Founders saw humanity as ultimately self-interested. Their trust in the people to govern themselves was a trust that self-interest would, through civil law, property rights and the enforcement of contracts, be channeled into the general good. None of the founders were willing to submit to a benevolent monarch because none believed that such a monarch could exist. Their view of mankind was that all are corruptible and that no people could remain free if they put themselves in the hands of a tyrant; no matter how gentle and well meaning he may be.
This is in great contrast to the views of the architects of the French Revolution who believed that a better society could be created my molding citizens into better people. The French Revolution came only a few years after the American Revolution but was based on a very different view of human nature.
The French view was a Rousseauian view that saw humanity in a state of nature as good and decent and that corruption is caused by institutions. All that need occur, the French revolutionaries believed, was that better institutions be created and the basic goodness of humanity would shine through. Those who resisted, therefore, were opposed to human improvement and enemies of the people. The American Revolution did not see the guillotines and rivers of blood in the streets seen by the French Revolution. Americans accepted the imperfections of their fellow men and worked to channel their self-interest into supporting the greater good. The French despised those who would interfere with their noble efforts to improve humanity and the result was thousands of heads rendered from shoulders.
The French revolutionary’s view of human nature carried through to other leftists. When Karl Marx said, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” he was giving voice to this view of human nature. Clearly, Marx saw human nature as perfectible and that, given the right institutions, people would lose their self interest and greed and work hard and take no more than their share out of basic goodness. The Founders didn’t see humanity this way and neither do conservatives today. We know better.
Ultimately, the view of the Founders and conservatives are much alike. Humans look out for their self-interest and do so largely without attention to morals or ethics. The leftist view of humanity is that the people are automatons who are infinitely malleable and, if they are corrupt, it is the fault of the institutions that define them. Conservatives believe that people corrupt institutions. Leftists believe that institutions corrupt people. Conservatives accept imperfections and self-interest and create societies to channel self-interest into the general welfare. Liberals try to create new societies by reforming human nature. The ultimate result whenever a reformation of human nature is attempted is the guillotine and the gulag. Every time.
James :
Date: November 23, 2009
The restoring force in civilization is property rights. Organisms expend the minimal energy required to survive. Those that don’t go extinct. There is no morality or manmade concepts of good or bad in nature. Only survival.
Man is no exception.
If law did not protect ownership, it would be easier to take than produce. There would be little because anything more than a little would be taken. That’s the jungle.
Of course, elected officials are creating a legalized jungle.