Posted by
Andrews on Monday, March 16, 2009 12:51:10 PM
Actually,
my last post pointed out an issue where I think I differ from some fellow conservatives. In arguing for returning the question of abortion
to the states, I implicitly assumed that, over time, people would come to appreciate when other states made good decisions and would adopt the best laws from other states themselves, allowing a federal system to produce better results than an imposed, top-down, monolithic system.
However,
my basic assumption is that people are, by and large,
both competent and generally good. Not perfect, of course, nor immune to error. People can often persist in error for a long, long time, and they can be driven by irrational impulses. People can make mistakes, and they can be driven by base motivations, but, over time, they will generally behave in ways that produce the best outcomes. Even if they only pursue their self-interest, if we adopt a free market, that self-interested action still tends to produce the best outcome for the greatest numbers.
On the other hand, those who would wish to impose their decision, either for or against abortion, tend to think that man will generally choose the wrong path, and so needs to have the right choice imposed upon him. And, if you assume that man is basically incompetent or evil, then I really can say nothing to persuade you. I can try to convince you man is not as you see him, but so long as you persist in that view of man, you are correct that my faith in federalism is misplaced, at least if one accepts your perspective. With incompetent or evil beings, federalism is probably a bad choice and we would be better off with a dictatorial, imposed system devoted to reining in man's worst impulses.
Then again, if man is uniformly evil or incompetent, even an imposed system won't work, as the dictators themselves will be evil. So, we are left asking "who will rule?" And that reveals the true agenda of those who would impose solutions, the rulers would be those who are a bit brighter, or less evil. In other words, an elite. And, not surprisingly, most who suggest this solution see that elite as being, not exactly surprisingly, people pretty much like themselves.
And that is the one unspoken assumption behind those who view man so pessimistically. Not only do they think man is evil or incompetent and needs strong control, they also think that they are just a little bit better than the rest of us, so we ought to listen to what they tell us to do.
Of course arrogance itself does not prove a philosophy is wrong. Perhaps the people suggesting these authoritarian solutions really are smarter or better. I just think if they are going to base a philosophy on their own superiority, they should at least do us the courtesy of saying so explicitly.