With the last posting, this writer brings forth evidence –
Columbus’ account of his first voyage to the West Indies’ islands and his encounters
with their inhabitants – that questions Jonah Goldberg’s view of human nature. Goldberg’s view is that human nature disposes
people to be self-centered – egoistic – and apt to pursue self-interests
irrespective of others’ property or other rights.
According to Goldberg, one must be
taught to think and even feel differently.
Such a human nature leads to the establishment of governments for the
sheer purpose of robbing a populace in a way that allows bandits to
continuously pilfer from a victimized population. How?
By leaving enough among the targeted people, so they can continue to
create wealth, and the robbers to continue to steal.
That is, by
leaving enough, those pre-historic societies become ongoing victims of those who
establish and maintain power by establishing government with the power to tax. Here is another writer’s account of this same
process:
The American economist Mancur Olson
traced the origin of civilisation back to the moment when pre-historic ‘roving
bandits’ realised that, instead of raiding groups of humans and moving on, they
could earn more by staying put and stealing from their victims all the
time. Early humans submitted to this,
because – although they lost some of their freedom when they submitted to these
‘stationary bandits’ – they gained in return stability and security. The bandits’ interests, and the community’s
interests, became aligned. Without
bandits constantly raiding them, and stealing their property, groups of humans
built increasingly complex communities and economies, becoming increasingly
prosperous, which led eventually to the birth of the state, to civilisation,
and to everything we now take for granted.
‘…
Roving banditry means anarchy, and [sic] replacing anarchy with government
brings about a considerable increase in output,’ Olson wrote in his 2000 book Power
and Prosperity.[1]
Olson’s account of the beginnings of civilizations varies
significantly from that offered by Arnold J. Toynbee[2] which
was described in the last posting.
All this blog’s writer can state is
that Toynbee was a historian looking at the effects natural challenges have in providing
the conditions for the beginnings and subsequent health of civilizations and
Olson, an economist, seems to have applied rational theory to the economic fate
of the former communist bloc nations after the fall of communism. Toynbee’s review, it is felt here, of over 20
civilizations has more explanatory power, at least, in terms of the overall
factors affecting the development of civilizations.
The important point is that human
nature has not been shown to be this one-dimensional factor; it is not necessarily
an egoistically disposed force within people which calls on selfish,
short-sighted behaviors and, therefore motivates the establishment of
governments.
It might be the case that one person
has such a nature, but another does not.
It can be the case that another has a nature that is charitable and
especially disposed to seek opportunities to be of service to others. In either case, the individual, with the
appropriate socialization can turn to be of one sort or another and every other
possibility in between.
In addition, any disposition under
the right circumstances can be motivating someone to be involved with the processes
involved with building a civilization. Therefore,
in terms of considering human nature and the origins of government, one should
see that it is too simple to ascribe such motivations to a desire to steal. That conclusion has implications as to the veracity
of the natural rights’ argument.
That argument basically states: in terms of governance, the governing class
needs to give in to human nature – in its disposing power to lead one to have
tunnel vision in terms of one’s self-interest – so that the trade-off is for a
person to abide by the rules of the game and enhance a mutual well-being and
the stability to which Olson refers. Such
a regime, that theory holds, helps establish a social landscape in which a mutual
welfare can be created and maintained.
Or stated another way, it allows for
the Miracle – what Goldberg calls the development of liberal democracy and
capitalism – that has led to the economic explosion of the last several hundred
years. This writer acknowledges that this
“explosion” occurred. He agrees there
are those who have such anti-social dispositions that leads one to wonder how
natural their antagonistic behaviors are.
But he highly questions that there are not enough natural tendencies
toward benevolence among a given population that actively initiates and supports
public action that leads to a more federated arrangement among a citizenry.
As Thomas Reid and Francis Hutcheson,
two Scottish writers of the 1700s, claimed:
being kind, benevolent to others feels good, it’s a natural high. This, in the mind of those writers, was part
of human nature and unalienable. If this
is true, public policies that address common needs – like, for example, health
care – that impinges on liberal values – like mandating taxes to pay for a
single-payer health care system – does not necessarily undermine the
foundations of the economy or of a viable democracy.
They can, on the other hand, introduce
and support the assumptions upon which a federated – as opposed to liberal – democracy
is based. This blog does not argue for a
public health program. That is not the
intent here. What it does argue is that a
public health program – like Medicare for All – should be argued on its merits
– is it efficient enough; is it politically viable enough; is it effective
enough? – not on its threat to the Miracle.
And by the way, a poor health care system
undermines the claim that a system honors equality and that such a program
threatens the Miracle as would any examination of the tenets of liberal liberty. Addressing the extent of any social,
economic, political condition that undermines the values of a federated union
is legitimate given the values of such a union.
Addressing it legitimately picks up on an aim of the Constitution,
to “promote the general welfare.”
With that, this blog completes its
critique of Jonah Goldberg’s foundational construct. Again, this writer highly recommends
Goldberg’s book. To the extent humans
are naturally the way he describes them, his arguments are useful. It also goes a long way in explaining the
conservative mind set. But as this
posting and the last one indicate, this writer has fundamental reservations as
to that writer’s take is on the origins and functions of government.
[1] Oliver Bullough, Money Land: Why Thieves and Crooks Now Rule the World and
How to Take It Back (London, England:
Profile Books, Ltd., 2018), 24.
British spelling. For
reference: Mancur Olson, Power and
Prosperity: Outgrowing Communist and
Capitalist Dictatorships (New York, NY:
Basic Books, 2000).
[2] Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History (New
York, NY: Dell Publishing Co. Inc.,
1971).
No comments:
Post a Comment