Imagine you were presented with the choice of planning for your own retirement or letting a bureaucrat do it for you, what would you decide? And if it was also stipulated that the second choice would pay lower returns and you would have no control over the amount you contributed, would that make it more appealing? How about if you were given the choice of providing your own health care or else paying just as much or more but getting waiting lists, rationing and substandard care, what would your decision be?

That is the irony of most liberal policies, that no one would choose them for themselves, yet many, in some cases a majority, continue to support them. If social security would be no one's first choice in retirement planning, why does it continue to exist? If socialized medicine would clearly be worse than the options most people now have available, how has it gained any support?

The answer is a combination of the best and the worst in human nature. While no one would think social security was good for them, they think that there are others out there who have not planned and, for those people, social security is better than nothing. Likewise, socialized medicine is viewed as a safety net for those who are unable or unwilling to provide for themselves.

And there we have the benevolent aspect of liberal policies, the support they receive due to people's charitable nature. Social security, socialized medicine, welfare, and others are embraced by many because the supporters think that they provide for those who have no other option. Rather than see people destitute, starving or dying of disease, they imagine that it is the obligation fo the state to help those in need.

The uglier aspect comes out when they are asked why those few who are so utterly unprepared cannot rely on private charity. It then becomes clear that not only do they think there are "some" who need these safety nets, but that they think most people do. If it were just a handful of irresponsible people these massive safety nets would not be needed. The supporters of liberal programs do not embrace them because they think that there are a few in need, they embrace them because they think they are much smarter and better prepared than most of their fellows. In short, they arrogantly think that most people are not bright enough to prepare for the future and need the help of the enlightened few to survive.

That attitude is largely what divides conservative and liberal policies. Neither side wants to see their fellows suffer or live in poverty. The difference is that most conservatives think their fellow citizens are a lot like them, competent enough to prepare for the future on their own, and best left alone to pursue their own goals. Conservatives think that, as they would prefer the government leave them alone, msot people would like the same. And in the case of those few who are unable to prepare, or the handful who are caught by some unexpected tragedy, private charity will be more than sufficient to provide for them*.

The difference is a basic one, how we view our fellows determines how we think things should be run. Liberals view themselves as better than the crowd, and the rest of society as children who need guidance, and their policies reflect that. Conservatives tend to see their fellows as equal to themselves,  and the policies they adopt are suitable for dealing with equals.

What is more interesting is when we look at the logical outcomes of these two philosophies.

The conservative philosophy is easy to understand. It is already at the end point. Once we assume that others are our equals, and that government should treat everyone the way we want to be treated, we end with something like the constitutional republic we once had. A limited government with a focus on defense against aggressors both internal and external. In other words, there is no logical extrapolation needed, the conservative position has already drawn the ultimate conclusions from the theory with which it started.

On the other hand, liberalism is but the first step along that road. If we start form the assumption that people are not capable of caring for themselves and need to be helped out by their betters, then we will not stop with simple nanny-state socialism. From the basic premises of liberalism, there are several inevitable conclusions.

First, the concept of representative government is not really compatible with those premises. Liberals may embrace them now, but if they are consistent in their beliefs, only a government limited to the best and the brightest makes sense, as why should those too incompetent to care for themselves have control of something as complex as a state? Taking the liberal beliefs seriously,not only should office be limited to the elite, but so should voting, as the proles are not clever enough to understand the issues confronting them. In fact, as some among the elite are probably smarter than others, the liberal hierarchy of competence suggests that some sort of meritocratic dictatorship is the best choice.  Liberals will deny this is the logical outcome of their theories, but if they believe those with foresight should care for the unprepared, against their will if necessary, then what argument could there be to establishing such a state? If the state can compel people to act in their own best interest, then should it not be led by those who know everyone's interests best? And why should they not have the power to compel obedience from everyone else as well? The logic is inherent in the liberal doctrine.

Which brings me to the second change liberalism requires, an absolute authoritarian state. At one time this would have sounded more absurd, as the liberals were known as the champions of free expression. As the liberals have begun to embrace hate crime laws and speech codes, this has become less absurd, and the left has started to show its true colors. Authoritarianism is the logical outcome of liberalism as well, as if one can be compelled to save for his retirement or to provide medical service at a price not of his choosing, what is the argument against compelling him to do anything. If we accept "the public good" as the standard which any act of compulsion must meet, then all acts of compulsion are eventually justifiable**.

I doubt my argument will persuade many liberals that their liberalism inevitably leads to authoritarian dictators, but that does not mean I am wrong. Most dictators started out with limited powers, and argued that some public good required their expansion, and, in almost every case, most could not believe that giving him "just a little more power" would lead where it inevitably did. Just because followers lacked foresight does not mean that the outcome was not foreseeable.

And, in the tenets of modern liberalism, even in something as simple as how they view their fellow citizens, are the seeds of dictatorship. Whether we choose to see them or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------

* It is not really within the scope of this essay, but it is interesting that most conservatives are willing to believe private charity will be able to provide for the destitute while most liberals think people will be too selfish to help out their fellows. Even more interesting are the repeated surveys that show conservatives give much more to charity than liberals. I may writ eon this later, so I will say little about it here, but I do have to say that the public outpouring of support following any disaster seems to support the conservative position.

** For those who will object that this theory means I endorse no compulsion, I would argue that I do accept that the state must be allowed to use force. The difference is that my standard requires the state must be acting to prevent or punish an act of force or fraud committed against a citizen. That very strictly delimits justifiable uses of state force and does not have the problem of being infinitely expanded the way nebulous ideal like "the common good" can be.