The Nature Of Liberalism: Evil
While sitting in my leftist infested American Foreign Policy class, my professor, also a jaded communist, keeps pronouncing that human nature is evil. He says it so much that the rest of the class has now begun the practice of finishing his sentence for him. "Things are bad because human nature is...class? 'Evil!' That's right, evil, very good." It was after hearing this for the countless time that I dove deep into thought, very deep, right past the usual fare of "Mmmm a cheese steak sandwich sure would be good right now," and "I miss hockey, damnitt," to the point where I realized the very essence of liberalism itself! I had finally grasped the very root, the core that supports all their silly little corollaries, and I was disgusted and yet free from any sense of surprise.
Liberals are always advocating increases in governmental power, oversight, funding and influence on our lives. To them government is the solution, not "a" solution, but "the" solution to almost every problem that a human being or society faces in life. If people are poor, then the government should give them money, if people are rich they should take it, if people are sick, the government should make sure they get medicine, if there are charities, the government should make sure people give them money... and so on and so forth.
When someone offers a view with a conservative bent to it, liberals usually resort to either attacking the person making the argument, making accusations of ulterior and selfish motives, or they dismiss the idea as naive as conservatives obviously have no knowledge of people's suffering in the world. When they hear arguments for a free market, no minimum wage or social security, they scoff, not able to imagine that such a world could actually operate successfully.
Initially, I was always a bit baffled. How could they not see the beneficial effects of freedom, of individual rights and responsibility? Don't they see that all these government interventions are wrong, unnecessary and detrimental to the well-being of individuals? But there was my professor, standing right before me, professing the stripped down and ugly essence of liberal thought in such plain and truthful language. "Human nature is evil."
Most liberals, whether consciously or subconsciously believe that humans are by nature evil creatures who, if left to their own devices, would rip each other limb from limb. Conversely, most conservatives hold humans to be good by nature.
Let's examine the consequences of these positions. If humans are by nature good, then freedom is possible and recommended. With a small role for the government, that of ensuring peace (individual rights), people, for the most part, can be left to their own judgment as to how to live their lives. People will naturally look to what is in their best interest, which is coexisting peaceably with their neighbors and using the concept of trade to increase the quality of their own lives and the lives of others. Thus people who hold this position advocate smaller government and more freedom.
To the liberal this position seems absurd. Since he holds human nature to be evil, he cannot fathom why anyone would advocate the above positions, thus he always suspects some ulterior motive of the speaker or claims the positions to be naive and unworkable. If people are evil by nature then they cannot be given freedom. Freedom simply allows humans to indulge in their evilness. People will constantly be stabbing their neighbors in the back as they strive to crush their competitors under their heels in a struggle to gain power. They will look to enrich themselves by impoverishing others and generally get away with any dastardly deed they can manage. Freedom simply breeds chaos and misery.
To the liberal the answer lies in the government. It acts as the parent or benevolent god that keeps us evil children from pulling out each others hair on the playground of life. To create more prosperity and foster greater well-being, more government intervention in the lives of individuals is necessary. The only way to lessen poverty is to mandate solutions by force, since people, by their evil nature would never voluntarily help each other out. People can not be trusted to live their own lives and make their own decisions.
Conservatives look aghast at government actions that continually chip away at an individual's fundamental freedoms. They wonder how someone could advocate such encroachments onto freedom. What they don't realize is that the liberal doesn't hold freedom to be a good thing like he does. Freedom is evil, or more accurately, freedom allows the evil of humanity. Actions that curtail that freedom, curtail evil and are the only path to human prosperity.
Is it any wonder that Democrats always focus on the negative and a general cynicism and pessimism pervades everything they say? If only we would realize that they are our saviors from evil, our saviors from ourselves.
Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman
Liberals are always advocating increases in governmental power, oversight, funding and influence on our lives. To them government is the solution, not "a" solution, but "the" solution to almost every problem that a human being or society faces in life. If people are poor, then the government should give them money, if people are rich they should take it, if people are sick, the government should make sure they get medicine, if there are charities, the government should make sure people give them money... and so on and so forth.
When someone offers a view with a conservative bent to it, liberals usually resort to either attacking the person making the argument, making accusations of ulterior and selfish motives, or they dismiss the idea as naive as conservatives obviously have no knowledge of people's suffering in the world. When they hear arguments for a free market, no minimum wage or social security, they scoff, not able to imagine that such a world could actually operate successfully.
Initially, I was always a bit baffled. How could they not see the beneficial effects of freedom, of individual rights and responsibility? Don't they see that all these government interventions are wrong, unnecessary and detrimental to the well-being of individuals? But there was my professor, standing right before me, professing the stripped down and ugly essence of liberal thought in such plain and truthful language. "Human nature is evil."
Most liberals, whether consciously or subconsciously believe that humans are by nature evil creatures who, if left to their own devices, would rip each other limb from limb. Conversely, most conservatives hold humans to be good by nature.
Let's examine the consequences of these positions. If humans are by nature good, then freedom is possible and recommended. With a small role for the government, that of ensuring peace (individual rights), people, for the most part, can be left to their own judgment as to how to live their lives. People will naturally look to what is in their best interest, which is coexisting peaceably with their neighbors and using the concept of trade to increase the quality of their own lives and the lives of others. Thus people who hold this position advocate smaller government and more freedom.
To the liberal this position seems absurd. Since he holds human nature to be evil, he cannot fathom why anyone would advocate the above positions, thus he always suspects some ulterior motive of the speaker or claims the positions to be naive and unworkable. If people are evil by nature then they cannot be given freedom. Freedom simply allows humans to indulge in their evilness. People will constantly be stabbing their neighbors in the back as they strive to crush their competitors under their heels in a struggle to gain power. They will look to enrich themselves by impoverishing others and generally get away with any dastardly deed they can manage. Freedom simply breeds chaos and misery.
To the liberal the answer lies in the government. It acts as the parent or benevolent god that keeps us evil children from pulling out each others hair on the playground of life. To create more prosperity and foster greater well-being, more government intervention in the lives of individuals is necessary. The only way to lessen poverty is to mandate solutions by force, since people, by their evil nature would never voluntarily help each other out. People can not be trusted to live their own lives and make their own decisions.
Conservatives look aghast at government actions that continually chip away at an individual's fundamental freedoms. They wonder how someone could advocate such encroachments onto freedom. What they don't realize is that the liberal doesn't hold freedom to be a good thing like he does. Freedom is evil, or more accurately, freedom allows the evil of humanity. Actions that curtail that freedom, curtail evil and are the only path to human prosperity.
Is it any wonder that Democrats always focus on the negative and a general cynicism and pessimism pervades everything they say? If only we would realize that they are our saviors from evil, our saviors from ourselves.
Fly Higher,
Icarus Goodman
posted by Icarus Goodman at
6:36 AM
10 Comments:
I miss hockey too!
Well, I'm at a loss here, I usually agree so closely with you. This is the first time I've disagreed with the major theme of your post. I've always contended than man, in a state of nature and not guided by a religion or philosophy, is self-seeking. Maybe you assume that the majority of people have a moral compass instilled by religion or philosphy? If not, we're in disagreement.
The harm principle forms the foundation to classical liberalism. It contends that the only true requirement of a government is to protect individuals from other individuals. Why? Because if unchecked, individuals will violate the liberty of others. So with a government guided by the harm principle, we sacrifice the liberty of attacking our neighbors, but in return we have a much higher degree of safety in our own lives. Most people would agree it's a worthwhile trade. I believe if people were truly good, the harm principle would not exist, because there would not be a need for it.
It's funny that your pinko professor would monotonically recite that human beings are basically evil. Communism/Socialism puts more stock (intentional Capitalistic pun) in the overall goodness of mankind more than any other socio-economic theory. Because man is primarily self-seeking, communism - which relies on man's altruism - has always resulted in catastrophic failure. Here's a perfect example: Marx believe that people should/would work hard not because they get more money for doing so, no he thought that they would get sense of satisfaction and belonging just from the nature of the work itself. How wrong this is. If I can work half as hard and still enjoy all the same benefits (food, housing, etc.) why the hell shouldn't I? Only a fool or someone completely brainwashed will honestly keep working hard. Marx theory relies on an appeal to the decency of the worker, which is the ultimate downfall of his theory.
It's not a black and white issue though; you make good points about how liberals exhibit their distrust of the individual. I think more discussion is needed!
By
Matthew, at 4:40 PM
Hockey is a bit over rated gents.
G.K. Chesterton is oft referred to having said if man does not worship something he ends up worshipping everything.
This possibly expalins the government must be everthing to all people of modern liberalism.
By
neonormal, at 11:37 PM
funny, the first thing i wanted to say after reading your post was 'yeah, having no hockey sucks.'
it appears that i'm not alone, as both matthew and neo began their comments with related observations. way to place a red herring in the path to confuse the underfed hockey hounds!
anyway, i think that you've touched upon something important here. i believe at the heart of your argument may be another seemingly unrelated one: nature versus nurture.
in my understanding, the argument here, and in fact the fulcrum of the teeter-totter (do americans say this or 'see-saw'? whatever) is about what we're going to call natural. although i do agree with matthew when he says that, left alone, people will work out their dominance issues upon each other until the most efficient combination of cunning and strength and self interest eventually seizes its version of control and employs its solution to the political struggle inwhich everyone in the room has become embroiled, i also feel that to say that this is natural is calling everything good into question.
i mean, if bad is so natural, then where does good come from?
no, i think that at the centre of icarus' conservative political agenda (arguably, i don't have a clue what the heck i'm talking about here...) is an acknowledgement of what it means to be created in the image of God.
the fact that the decency of the worker is his weakest attribute has more to do with integers than it has with whole numbers. what i mean is that any whole number begins as a neutral quantity- most concretely speaking: how many somethings we are counting (even if we are simply seeking to quantify a something by identifying its qualities and assigning values to them.) this is how kids learn basic math: by counting sticks and things.
however, if you want to figuratively turn a kid's numerical world upside down, just introduce the notion of multiplying integers a little too early. suddenly everything is wearing either a white or a black hat, and something's white-hattedness can be reversed simply by multiplying its positive quantity by a simple little -1. now all of that positive potential, or in the case of our western world's preoccupation with bigness (even in the silicon chip where we have latched onto capacity and virtual muscle, bragging about the unfathomably huge number of pages of typewritten text that can fit into something so small...) all that power becomes destructive rather than constructive.
nope, i believe that in the beginning we were positive by default, but that in accepting the challenge to know first hand the difference between good and evil, we allowed all of our potential good to be manipulated by -1... an outside factor and therefore 'nurture.'
so am i talking about 'the devil.' oh, probably. (simply placing my own fish in the road)
By
jollybeggar, at 12:07 PM
Being from Tampa, I must say that last season was my greatest sports memory and this season (or lack thereof) is the worst. But hockey is a differnt, yet very good, topic.
I think I may have failed to hit upon a few points in my original post. I don't hold humans to be naturally/born good or evil. I think it is just a bit silly to think that we sprout from our mother's wombs with little horns or halos above our heads. I hold to the believe that humans are born with a blank slate. As we grow we learn through observation the realities of our existence. We learn basic things like "when i close my eyes, things actually don't cease to exist," and "when i drop something it falls to the ground," and "hey, I have hands!"
When talking about bad and good, you have to calssify to whom or what. When I say good, I mean that which is beneficial to an individual human's life, not the good of society, or god, or of a beast, but an individual man. What makes a good man and a bad man lies not in genetics or even nurture (although it certainly has an impact) but in his choices. Each person must make choices as to what he values and he thus chooses his actions based on his values. A bad man, chooses bad actions (action that are actually contrary to his own best interest) because he has placed a high value on corrupted values.
For instance, a person may value the opion of others greatly. He will then do thing that he even knows to be bad because he values the opinion of others more than his own well being. Most people hold a mix of contradictory values and are thus a mix of good and bad.
As regards politics, since knowledge of what is good and bad isn't genetic but must be learned, parents teach there children what they have learned and we thus build upon the previous generation's knowledge. Through this process man has learned that living in a society is very beneficial to his life. Through such attributes as the division of labor, a society allows man many advantages that he simply could not have on his own.
But a society is not without it's problems. While no one is born evil, and we all have the ability and even desire to live good lives that produce personal happiness, we know that many adults don't properly teach their children, and traumatic events happen that warp people and some people are simply weak and make poor choices as to what to value, giving into fear. While most people are mostly good (otherwise society wouldnt even be possible) there is always the danger of those who are not good or simply do not have a good understanding of what is good. thus a man learns the concepts of individual rights. A society that protects these gives the individual all the benefits of society while being able to retain as much personal autonomy as possible, this sytem is the most beneficial to an individuals life, it is the best(most good) political system.
It's not that humans are evil that the government must exist, but that some huamns (a small minority) choose to do bad (for whatever reason) that it must exist to protect the majority of us.
I want to disagree with your assesment of Marx aswell. Communism has a completely differnt idea of good and evil. It is not the good of the individual life that it seeks but the good of scoiety, or the collective, which of course is ridiculous as no such thing actually exists. You're right, there is no incentive for a person to work harder in a communist system. Doing so does not benifit his wel-being in any way, infact it might actually harm it, it does good to "society" which basically means it benefits someone else, just not himself. It's because communism completely diseregards actual good (good for an individuals life) that it fails. Actually I don't think it fails at all, it does exactly what it's supposed to do, it's an inherintly flawed and evil system that produces predictably evil consequences.
Communist governments cannot exist without force. If they fail to force people into their economic system with the barrel of a gun, then pockets will decide not to participate and they will enevitably prosper and undermine the communists. Conversly in a free society there is nothig stopping a group of individuals from voluntarily choosing to live a communistic lifestyle.
There's also nothing stopping individuals from giving as much if not more money to charities than is given though governmet force through such programs a welfare. But liberals distrust the masses, thinking them stupid and base, and therefore they must be forced to give. I mean, if people would give voluntarily why would you need force? It's because of their dark view of human nature (or at least the human nature of us heathen masses, non liberals) that force is required.
Remind me never to write a response while watching the NBA Finals, it apparently leads to incessant rambling. Sorry about that.
By
Icarus Goodman, at 9:53 PM
I think one thing should be clarified, I view 'good' and 'evil' as different than you. To me, good and evil are absolutes, and it doesn't have anything to do with which person we're talking about. Therefore, when I say I hold mankind to be basically evil, I mean that an individual is quite likely to steal, lie or kill his neighbor, in the absence of a force (government) to prevent it. The problem with your definition as I see it, is that those who commit 'evil' are just being ignorant... which is not always true. As I've said before, if I could steal that shiny car without ever getting caught, it was to my benefit and I don't suffer at all. I know that was a bit of a sidebar, but when we talk about good and evil or right and wrong, we need to remind ourselves what exactly we mean.
I have another example of the altruistic nature liberals tend to impart to humanity. I think warfare demostrates a significant difference in principle between the liberal and the conservative. Liberals generally regard war as the ultimate failure of mankind - resorting to clubs instead of words basically. I think liberals have trouble understanding war because man is supposed to be for the most part good. Conservatives tend to accept war as inexorable, as tragic as it is. We believe humans are corruptable, selfish beings. As long as there is free will in this world, humans will fight other humans for pride, land, money, or what have you. It doesn't fail my overall view of humanity however, because I impart these nasty characteristics to humankind. A liberal generally will have a harder time explaining why man has to resort to violence when words and discourse should be a valid option. More later...
By
Matthew, at 9:00 PM
i guess i'm growing a bit uneasy concerning the apparent liberal/conservative friction that so often characterizes these threads.
is it really possible to categorize people's politics so cleanly into two distinct categories?
***
whole new fish in the road: http://e-pistles.blogspot.com/2005/06/finding-neo.html
By
jollybeggar, at 12:22 AM
I don't know exactly where I lost you, but I beleive good and evil to be absolutes aswell, such as the refusal to think, and the initiation of force or basically that which isn't conducive to the life of a rational being.
Now i certainly remember your comment on an earlier thread about doing injustices if you won't get caught. The question is whether these actions are truely beneficial to your life or not.
You seem to be saying that the proper philospophy for a person to have, is to basically committ whatever injustices he can get away with because doing so is beneficial to his life, such as stealing a shiney new car. Now if you hold this to be the proper philosphy for men to follow then certainly youmust expect most everyone one else in "society" to adopt the same philosphy, is this not so?
The "society" that would result from such thinking would be slightly analogous to a prison. We have a "society" comprised of criminals, each living every minute of his life fearing the next rape, beating, or stabbing from his fellow inmate and at the same time biding his time for the opportune moment when he can do the same evil back. They only thing stopping them from degenerating into complete chaos is the presence of the prison gaurds who keep them in their very suitable homes: cages.
This is the society that you would live in if what you said was true. Now sure, you may gain some value for nothing (looting, mooching, basically living like a parasite of the value production of others) but if you take into account everything, is it truely a gain? Let's take a closer look.
First off, if most people are living by this creed, then you are likely to lose as much property as you gain through theft. So there is no real net material gain. Secondly, you must constantly be on your gaurd, using your assets time and energy to protect that which you have gained. So you might actually be losing out materially.
You live in a constant state of fear, always looking over your shoulder to see wif someone is there to mug you, and nothing you have gained is ever secure since everyone else is trying to get it just like you did. Also, since you are taking things you have not earned, produced, and deserve you lose out on any possibility of pride, an exceptional emotion that adds greatly to the lives of good men. Also, since you can not possibly trust anyone, since it is in their interest to betray you and take from you whenever possible, such concepts as freindship and commraderie are completely impossible. Is a life without meaningful human relationships worth much?
It is the rational man that realizes that such a philosophy does not benefit him. It is the rational man that realizes true flourishing and happiness can only come about through value production not value stealing. Only by living the life of a producer and not a looter. It is the rational man that discovers the concepts of rights(life, liberty, property) and the benefits they give him and his fellow man. It is the rational man that realizes not all men act rationally and choose to value good. It is the rational man that institutes governments and police forces and militaries to protect himself from those who refuse to act rationally and recognize his rights.
It saddens me to know that you would steal something that I made, something that I produced and I earned if yo could, and the only reason you don't is because you could go to jail or God would punish you. i know you are a god fearing man. Well, don;t you think that there is a reason that god made certain things good and cerain thigns bad? Isn't there a reason he said "Thou shalt not steal,"?
God is like a parent, he sets down rules, but they are not arbitrary. He gives you guidelines that he believes or knows are trulely beneficial to your life, although you might not see the logic right away. I don't think the message Jesus wanted to send was "be good to you fellow man, because if you don't my father will pusnish you." He said be good to you felow man because that is good, it is just, which means it is that which leads to men living peaceably with each other, to men being able to live good lives, and flourish.
If you met god and he asked, why did you believe in my son and follow his teachings, and you said "because if i didn't i would go to hell" I don't think he'd be pleased with your answer. He might like you to realize that believing in his son and following his message was the true path to the good life, to peace, and to happiness.
As for Liberals and war, it sems to me they hold the majority of man as evil, who naturally war with each other, but luckily they are enlightened and are here to save us from ourselves by instituting world organizations liek the UN which can dictate to us mere mortals what is good and what is bad. Conservatives on the other hand realize that some people are good and some people are not. There's an old mantra that says Democracies don't go to war with Democracies. meaning that they hold people who hold democratic beliefs (individual rights) good and able to get along well even if they do disagree on certain technical issues. War is necessary because not all people hold those values and their existence threatens those who do. That's why democracies do go to war against dicatatorships and the like.
But to be clear, when I say Liberal I'm talking the more extreme left wing, the moveon.org and Ward Churchill, Howard Dean, Michale Moore crowd. And when I say Conservatives Im talking those who believe in individual rights, those who are economincally conservative, believe in small government and such. More libertarian than most republicans of today's party.
By
Icarus Goodman, at 9:49 PM
thanks for this last paragraph. it clarifies for me that you are in fact refering to extremes, and that extreme conclusions can be drawn from the wings rather than from center ice.
By
jollybeggar, at 4:56 PM
It's somewhat difficult to understand why exactly this conversation went awry, but part of it is due to the definition of 'good' and 'evil.'
I still hold that the most beneficial behavior for an individual (without categorical imperative, i.e. God) living in a democracy is to present an image of honor and trustworthiness but be as self-seeking as possible when not in the light. In economics, there is something called a public good. This is a good in which everyone equally benefits no matter how much there own personal contribution. It is easy to make show that public goods (roads, police) will easily go bankrupt if people are given the choice whether to fund them or not. This is because I will receieve basically the same quality of police or roads whether I contribute or not. People will not support the public good in fear of its collapse; people don't think that far ahead. I believe that a great deal of the founders of the United States had a deep-seated belief in God and so did the citizens of this young country. That was the glue to holding this country together; a belief in right and wrong that was clear-cut, rather than one that would encourage facades and backstabbing. I think even you Icarus might be guilty of over-estimating your fellow man when it comes to reason versus his own pleasure. Of course, this is just my own opinion.
I am in the middle of reading a book called Unholy Alliance by David Horowitz. The more I learn about the communists and neo-communists, I realize that some honestly believe we can create this utopia of 'social justice.' It boggles me how they can ignore the entire history of mankind - all the greediness, powerlust, genocides, rapes, honor-killings, the list goes on. Those neo-coms believe in the goodness of man, and that only the conflict of the opressors and the opressed needs to be eliminated via the abolition of private property. After that, we have no need for conflict, and we'll live together in a communist paradise. Of course, this has no basis in reality, but it's informative to know that communists and the neo-left honestly believe this on-earth paradise is possible, and they'll destroy the US as we know it to obtain it.
By
Matthew, at 11:55 AM
This post does seem to have gone down some unrelated roads. Speaking of roads, just a point here, in a libertarian type society, I woudlnt expect people to voluntarily pay for "public" rodas, that would be like commuinism, a system where the good are punished and the looters are rewarded. In a lbertarian society, if you want to use the road, you have to pay, its just like purchasing any product or service. If people think that being able to drive on a road is worth the price they will pay for it.
I want to leave a discussoin about communism for another time, but as far as them believing people ot be good, i have to disagree. They might have an ideal visionof amn that is good, one who has subdued his natural instincts to "selfishness" and freedom and the abiltiy to value. The Commie holds these natural traits as evil, things to be overcome and reeducated about. So he doesnt hold man as he is to be good, only man as he is not. I belive it is these natural traits, slef-interest, reason, freedom, property yada yada that are good, they are the tools that lead to a good life.
I believe a "utopia" is possible on earth aswell, but then my form of utopia is far from what most would think. There would still be death, crime, there would still be rich and poor, those who thrive and those who decay. You cannot get rid of those things nor should you try. I don't want equality of results, i want equality nder the law and justice of results, people reaping what they sow.
By
Icarus Goodman, at 12:51 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home