I have written often about the political consequences of arrogance on the part of politicians and political theorists, but only recently have I started to discuss the pessimistic view of man which underlies that arrogance. Doubtless, some have heard me decry liberals as arrogant, or that they have a very negative view of man, and thought it was some effort to insult the left, but that is not the case. The fact is, many on both the left and right share the same negative view, and the consequences are the same. My discussions of how we view others are not intended to denigrate any political philosophy, but to illustrate one of the most important questions in political philosophy, a question which determines almost every other thought about politics.

The question to which I refer is really the foundation question of all political philosophy, it is the dichotomy political science professors love to illustrate by juxtaposing Burke and Locke. The question, simply put is whether man, left to his own devices, will generally succeed or fail. To put it slightly differently, is man competent to manage his own affairs, or does he need to be told what to do.

Now some will argue that the question as I present it is too black and white, there are positions in between. But I say otherwise. Whether or not you allow man is competent in some areas, once you admit that man needs to be told what to do in one area, the inescapable logic is that he can be told what to do in any area. So, a view of man as partially incompetent almost inevitably leads to the view of man as wholly incompetent.

Some others will dispute the validity of this question by creating a straw man on the Locke end of the spectrum, pretending that those who argue for competence believe there are no criminals, no antisocial types, and that the government should have no policing or military powers. That is just absurd. Those who believe man is generally competent do not deny that a minority of individuals can become criminals or sociopaths, nor that there can exist bad governments which coerce or persuade large numbers of their citizens into hostility against their fellow man. Nor do they deny that, even though generally competent, man can be convinced of incorrect beliefs which, for long periods of time, can send him in the wrong direction.

In short, a belief in competence is neither a belief in omniscience nor in the universal benevolence of man.

Having said all that, let us look at the question itself and see why I say it is the fundamental question of political philosophy.

There are simply put, two ways one can view people as a group, either our fellow citizens are mostly competent, capable of knowing their own desires, choosing their own actions, and should generally be treated as our equals, or they are not.  It does not matter whether we view them as wholly incompetent or incompetent in specific matters, whether we view them as stupid, or easily manipulated, or simply subject to the machinations of sinister forces, so long as we believe that other people are in some way incompetent, the outcome is the same.

And what is the outcome? If we view other people as incompetent,. either unable to know what they need, or unable to figure out how to reach it, or even that they simply can be easily mislead or distracted, provided people are not entirely competent, the conclusion must be that it is the purpose of the state to tell them how to behave.

On the other hand, if we assume that people are generally competent, and can organize their own affairs, then it makes no sense to have the government interfere. At best the government will produce the same solution they would, at greater cost, but more likely it will make them generally less happy.

What some fail to recognize is that the inverse of this is also true. If you argue for government interference in people's lives, then you are assuming, whether you admit it or not, that people are incompetent. If you say that there should be a minimum wage, for example, you are saying that people are too foolish to know that a job is not paying enough, that, but for the intervention of the state, they would accept too little pay for their work. You may not realize it, at least you may not want to admit it, but any interventionist philosophgy is based on nothing but the incompetence of the majority of humanity.

And why does this matter? Why do people try to deny that they think their fellows are incompetent?

Well, partly because it is quite arrogant to say that you know better than most of mankind. But, more important than that, because the other logical conclusion drawn from universal incompetence is even less popular. You see, if most people are incompetent, yet they need to be told what to do, then we have to assume that there is an elite who know what everyone else should be doing. And that leads, whether interventionists admit it or not, to the conclusion that the government should be an all powerful one, controlled by this elite. Those who are competent should be given unlimited power to make sure those who are incompetent don't harm themselves. There really is no other conclusion.

And that is the truth no one wants to face. Whenever someone proposes government controls, be they Democrat or Republican, socialist or communist, they are saying they oppose representative government. Now, I am sure those who argue for trade barriers or caps on loan rates don't think they are arguing for dictatorship, but they are. The logic is inescapable.

It is a simple progression. If the government needs to intervene, then people are not able to order their own affairs. However, as the state knows what to do, that means there must be SOME who are competent enough to know what the rest should be doing. But, in representative governments, the incompetent masses select the leaders, and, being incompetent, they are not likely to pick competent leaders. Since we need this competent elite to tell the rest what to do, lest the come to harm, we need to ensure the elite retains power. How else can we do that but some form of dictatorship of the elite?

I wrote before that representative government exists primarily to allow for the peaceful and orderly adjustment of political priorities,  and not because of the popular misperception that rational adults will eventually reach the right conclusions. There is no inevitability that, even with rational voters, a representative government will ever get it right. On the other hand, if we postulate an irrational electorate, there is every reason to oppose representative government. Irrational people vote for irrational reasons, so, provided there is an elite within the electorate who can better run things, there is every reason to establish an authoritarian, non-representative state.

And that is the conclusion interventionists don't want to face. No one wants to admit that the logical conclusion of their political philosophy is an all powerful political elite, ruling without the consent of the governed. But whether they face it or not, that is the logical conclusion.

The moment you stop seeing others as being your equals, the moment you think you know best, there is really no other outcome but a dictatorship of one form or another.