Political Theories on Human Nature

"It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."
-Thomas Jefferson

So I was listening to Ben Shapiro the other day and he said something that surprised me. I find Shapiro extremely intelligent and reasonable, and though I disagree with him on many issues, I often go to him for much of my news and his logical, libertarianish-conservative spin on it. What he said that surprised me was (paraphrasing) that it is the left that think people are inherently good and external conditions like poverty and even global warming are the causes of crime, predation, and terrorism. The right differs, he claims, in the recognition that people are capable of great acts of evil. I don’t disagree with that, but the fact that people have the potential to do terrible things is not exclusive to people being innately good.

See, I always was under the impression that the argument of the conservative side, in its desire for a smaller, more limited government, was that that people will generally act right if left alone by the government. Does the idea of freedom not rely on responsible citizens? The paradox I always saw was progressive politics claiming to be on the side of the people, and the more compassionate side, but at the same time demanding more laws, regulations, and control over people; thus the average citizen cannot be trusted to do the right thing, or be trusted to take care of him or herself. Now we all know politicians betray their promises like they breathe, but at least in ideals, this would lead me to think that the right believes more in the innate goodness of people in their words and policies.

The confusion is in that the right claims to be the standard bearers for the Enlightenment and Romantic ideals that inspired the formation of my country, but these ideas are very anti-authority and the right has become an authority in its own right. Thus we see the modern Republican Party push for more severe punishment for crime, as if we need to scare people into acting straight. I think this authoritarian streak shown especially in the Neo-Con movement came mainly from the Fundamentalist Christian influence in the party, the prevailing Judeo-Christian mindset, and others that moved to that side because they did not trust other kinds of people to have the degree of freedom they enjoyed. So, most of the people in the mainstream right today probably believe that some people are good and some bad, at best dividing them based on their actions and behavior, at worst by ethnicity or religious beliefs.

The left, on the other hand, seems to believe that only those that agree with them entirely are worthwhile, and all those that oppose their beliefs are ignorant, racist, sexist enemies of progress. But even their followers cannot be trusted completely to make up their own minds. This can be seen in the crackdown on Freedom of Speech at campuses across the country. Certain people are not allowed to say certain things (based on their group identity, which sounds racist or something -ist to me), and certain ideas are not permitted to be voiced because they are dangerous. Dangerous to whom, I ask? If people, even college students, cannot be trusted to hear opposing viewpoints, then that says their party doubts the convictions of its own adherents. Extending this idea, Social Justice Warriors assert you are guilty (or not) based on what your ancestors did and you are racist (or a victim) simply by being brought up in this culture, and questioning this logic means you are definitely evil. Socialism and communism likewise profess that the desires of the individual need to be reigned in order to mold an effective collective. If an ideology says that humans need to be forced into participating in the common good and coerced into morality, what does that say about that philosophy’s view of human nature?

The truth is any theory of government relies on the belief that people are incapable of governing themselves, so all systems have a somewhat negative view of humanity. The best you are going to get is the belief that some are good and other evil, because a state needs to employ the "us and the others" attitude to survive. The ideals represented in the founding of the United States of America held all people to be equal in their rights and entitled to freedom, but were also based on the awareness that people with power over others tend to abuse it. This led them to try to create a government that had as little power as possible over its people and limited the power of any one individual public servant to the bare minimum as well.

In the end, only anarchy (or anarcho-capitalism especially) genuinely believes in the Natural goodness of human animals. Only anarchy is genuine in its belief that, if allowed to interact freely without any outside invention, people would still be able to run their own lives and treat people decently. Only a political ideology that denies the necessity of politics and governments can truly be said to love humanity. What do you think? Does anarchy have the most positive view of humanity? Which political theories truly believe humans are good?

"The government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."
-TJ