After reading of the deplatforming of Polish intellectual Ryszard Legutko at Middlebury College I thought I should buy his book, The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies.
Demon starts with the argument that both communism and liberal democracy have a progress theory of history: we are progressing towards a better world. Thus more communism, or more liberal democracy, equals more progress.
Obviously this doctrine is pretty reductive. How do you know, lefties?
Obviously, they don't. They have a religious faith, and their faith is faith in progress, as defined by them.
In fact, we all believe in some version of this faith, whether it is faith in economic growth, in more freedom, in more creativity, in more godliness.
In fact, returning as always to my reductive Three Peoples theory, we could say that the People of the Subordinate Self believe in progress towards a level playing field in which the government distributes free stuff more equally; the People of the Responsible Self believe in progress towards a world that rewards people that lead responsible lives obeying the law, going to work, and following the rules; the People of the Creative Self believe in progress towards better opportunities to live a creative life.
What do I believe in? I believe in a government that defends us from enemies foreign and domestic. I believe in social institutions such as churches, and civic associations in which we can develop our faith in the meaning of our lives.
The problem with the faith in progress is that it combines the need for safe spaces against invaders and robbers with the need to act according to a faith in the meaning of it all. "Progress" is, after all, a thing that armies do, as in advancing towards our inevitable victory.
There is a name for this sort of belief system that conflates the political and the moral: totalitarianism.
But, hey, everyone of us is tempted by the opportunity to use force to advance our notions of the just and true, and the meaning of life. There is, after all, no fixed, sure boundary between the need to repel boarders and the passion to elbow all the competing visions of the meaning of life to create breathing space for our own vision.
I suppose it comes down to drawing the line between "must haves" and "nice to haves." We must have protection against what I call existential perils. But not so much against things that would be nice to have, like bike paths that are separate from roads with cars on them.
But what about welfare for the poor? You could argue that it is a "must have" because it keeps the poor down in the ghetto and not peacefully protesting in the streets in what used to be called "bread riots." Or you could argue that it is better for our souls for each one of us to be engaged in relief of the poor instead of letting the government do it.
Here's a notion. Let us insist that nothing the government does relates to progress or the advancement of humanity. Let us merely say that government is there to protect us from existential perils, and it usually and probably forever will do the job badly. But as to progress, to the improvement of the race, to the question of justice, of enlightenment, of creating a better world, that is up to people in their voluntary social groups to work on. And it is up to each one of us to persuade other people to join our voluntary community, rather than force them by government edict or by naming and shaming.
Of course, the problem is that people instinctively know this, and so they cheat. They invent existential perils so that they can get the government to force each of us to enlist in the government's war on whatever: poverty, ignorance, climate change.
And as for curbing the naming and shaming: good luck with that, pal.
Demon starts with the argument that both communism and liberal democracy have a progress theory of history: we are progressing towards a better world. Thus more communism, or more liberal democracy, equals more progress.
Obviously this doctrine is pretty reductive. How do you know, lefties?
Obviously, they don't. They have a religious faith, and their faith is faith in progress, as defined by them.
In fact, we all believe in some version of this faith, whether it is faith in economic growth, in more freedom, in more creativity, in more godliness.
In fact, returning as always to my reductive Three Peoples theory, we could say that the People of the Subordinate Self believe in progress towards a level playing field in which the government distributes free stuff more equally; the People of the Responsible Self believe in progress towards a world that rewards people that lead responsible lives obeying the law, going to work, and following the rules; the People of the Creative Self believe in progress towards better opportunities to live a creative life.
What do I believe in? I believe in a government that defends us from enemies foreign and domestic. I believe in social institutions such as churches, and civic associations in which we can develop our faith in the meaning of our lives.
The problem with the faith in progress is that it combines the need for safe spaces against invaders and robbers with the need to act according to a faith in the meaning of it all. "Progress" is, after all, a thing that armies do, as in advancing towards our inevitable victory.
There is a name for this sort of belief system that conflates the political and the moral: totalitarianism.
But, hey, everyone of us is tempted by the opportunity to use force to advance our notions of the just and true, and the meaning of life. There is, after all, no fixed, sure boundary between the need to repel boarders and the passion to elbow all the competing visions of the meaning of life to create breathing space for our own vision.
I suppose it comes down to drawing the line between "must haves" and "nice to haves." We must have protection against what I call existential perils. But not so much against things that would be nice to have, like bike paths that are separate from roads with cars on them.
But what about welfare for the poor? You could argue that it is a "must have" because it keeps the poor down in the ghetto and not peacefully protesting in the streets in what used to be called "bread riots." Or you could argue that it is better for our souls for each one of us to be engaged in relief of the poor instead of letting the government do it.
Here's a notion. Let us insist that nothing the government does relates to progress or the advancement of humanity. Let us merely say that government is there to protect us from existential perils, and it usually and probably forever will do the job badly. But as to progress, to the improvement of the race, to the question of justice, of enlightenment, of creating a better world, that is up to people in their voluntary social groups to work on. And it is up to each one of us to persuade other people to join our voluntary community, rather than force them by government edict or by naming and shaming.
Of course, the problem is that people instinctively know this, and so they cheat. They invent existential perils so that they can get the government to force each of us to enlist in the government's war on whatever: poverty, ignorance, climate change.
And as for curbing the naming and shaming: good luck with that, pal.
No comments:
Post a Comment