I read the Federalist papers in college and taken their dim view of human nature as my own, and never been disappointed by political behavior ever since.
This is a very interesting article, and I agree with lots of your points, but I am not sure that those on the Left have such a benign view of humanity. Many are actually quite cynical. I know many of them claim to believe that, but I think their views are more complicated.
I think the Left externalizes Evil onto other people and cannot see the Evil that exists to a certain extent in all others. They believe their group is inherently good, and the victims of society should not be judged negatively because their bad actions are due to what other bad people did to them. They also believe that those with very different viewpoints have a moral failing that can led the Left to act harshly against those who disagree with them.
So they group individuals into one of three groups and treat them very differently:
1) Oppressors
2) Victims or Oppressed
3) Saviors (i.e. themselves; who rescue the Victims and morally educate the Victims and the Oppressors.
This is maoism. The reds (revolutionaries) the blacks (counter revolutionaries, undesirables, bourgeois etc) and the token classes labourers (hammer) and farmers (sickle)
The major issue in homelessness is not the lack of housing. It's the refusal of society to say no. No, you can't camp in this city. No, you can't shit in the streets. No, you can't panhandle aggressively. No, you can't shoot up publicly and leave your used needles lying around. The fact that we are not going to allow you to destroy our city by doing these things is not our problem. It's your problem. You can solve your problem by not doing drugs, getting help for your mental problems, getting a job, and sharing rent with others so inclined until you can afford a place of your own, probably in a lower cost community. This is not going to happen because the people we have elected allow the homeless to wallow in their victimhood rather than accept personal responsibility for their self destructiveness.
What specific steps should be taken by cities to deal with the problem? Cities should use all existing shelters and further provide simple shelter space with surplus military tents with mess and recreational tents, a medical tent and restroom and shower facilities (the way I lived in the army) on leased or purchased unused commercial or industrial sites on the outskirts of the city. Individuals could use surplus military squad tents or their own for sleeping. When those facilities were available I would send in crews to clean up existing encampments, without arresting anyone who did not violently resist. I would require custodial care for those who are so mentally or drug addicted that they cannot care for themselves. We did a huge disservice to the mentally ill when we closed rather than reform our state mental hospitals. We need them back. This approach actually would cost far less and be far more effective than the current totally useless housing first attempts to fix the problem.
I did believe people were inherently good at one time. I remember saying so when asked. I was in my 20s. With a lot more experience with the world I’m now firmly on team Locke. I still wonder why my default view was Rousseau. Maybe at a young age it’s simply what you wish to believe. Or perhaps a legacy of middle class midwestern nice - the idea that if you’re nice to people they’ll be nice back. But it doesn’t really make sense - any school kid will tell you some kids are just bad.
Democrats can't run cities because it is near impossible to deal with the power of public employee unions in a coherent way. There is a deep tension between delivering services efficiently and organizations which (as is their right and mission) fight daily to increase compensation to their members (and expand their membership rolls). The quickest way to be exiled into political oblivion is take this beast on. Don't need to understand political philosphy - just go to Mancur Olson for the win.
Is the question—whether people are good or bad?— really the right question? Or is the question actually whether governments are good or bad? The founders designed the constitution with the idea that governments tended toward tyranny. I understand the Locke/Rousseau opposition, and the tragic nature of human beings, and I vastly favor conservative solutions, but there is so much cheesy low-budget cynicism in the world today, I hate to give it an endorsement without some qualification.
I don’t think government is inherently good or bad. It’s just what the people in power do. Those people, like people generally, are sometimes good but frequently disappointing. We worry about government because it’s powerful, but it’s also not the only powerful institution that people control. This is why I agree with the Founders that it’s a balance. People are sometimes good, frequently disappointing, sometimes bad, and every institution must check the others to ensure people are free to flourish.
I agree and my only objection is so obvious, it’s a cliche. Power does something to people over and above the bad things people usually do. The last four years, for example.
I never cease to be amazed by the naivety expressed by so many liberals in the arts and academia. Artists and performers in particular seem to cultivate a childlike view of the world. However, I'm not sure whether a Rousseauist concept of human nature explains it entirely. Ingrained guilt about their own good fortune seems partly responsible.
I wish it was just that! If so why don’t focus on helping the ordinary folks who are victims of distinction instead? If you just had guilt but understood humanity I think you would do that.
Can't say I disagree with a word of this -- I tend to say the most fundamental divide in politics is whether you have a tragic view of mankind (i.e. original sin) or a sunnier POV of human perfectibility through carefully administered institutions.
I'm one of the smart Machiavellian types you mentioned. I definitely don't think people are inherently good at all... however I favor the removal of societal restrictions on individuals which prevent them from embodying their true nature. I'm fully aware this leads to the types of problems you see in Democrat run cities and even the destruction of society. That's the price of valuing the freedom of the individual over the good of society.
I read the Federalist papers in college and taken their dim view of human nature as my own, and never been disappointed by political behavior ever since.
Marxists were not bleeding heart liberals. Stalin eradicated homelessness in Soviet Union using working penal colonies among other things.
This is a very interesting article, and I agree with lots of your points, but I am not sure that those on the Left have such a benign view of humanity. Many are actually quite cynical. I know many of them claim to believe that, but I think their views are more complicated.
I think the Left externalizes Evil onto other people and cannot see the Evil that exists to a certain extent in all others. They believe their group is inherently good, and the victims of society should not be judged negatively because their bad actions are due to what other bad people did to them. They also believe that those with very different viewpoints have a moral failing that can led the Left to act harshly against those who disagree with them.
So they group individuals into one of three groups and treat them very differently:
1) Oppressors
2) Victims or Oppressed
3) Saviors (i.e. themselves; who rescue the Victims and morally educate the Victims and the Oppressors.
That is my take.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/understanding-the-left-49e
This is maoism. The reds (revolutionaries) the blacks (counter revolutionaries, undesirables, bourgeois etc) and the token classes labourers (hammer) and farmers (sickle)
This is more than just Maoism. It is a common set of assumptions of virtually all ideologies of the Left. Some just make it more obvious than others.
The major issue in homelessness is not the lack of housing. It's the refusal of society to say no. No, you can't camp in this city. No, you can't shit in the streets. No, you can't panhandle aggressively. No, you can't shoot up publicly and leave your used needles lying around. The fact that we are not going to allow you to destroy our city by doing these things is not our problem. It's your problem. You can solve your problem by not doing drugs, getting help for your mental problems, getting a job, and sharing rent with others so inclined until you can afford a place of your own, probably in a lower cost community. This is not going to happen because the people we have elected allow the homeless to wallow in their victimhood rather than accept personal responsibility for their self destructiveness.
What specific steps should be taken by cities to deal with the problem? Cities should use all existing shelters and further provide simple shelter space with surplus military tents with mess and recreational tents, a medical tent and restroom and shower facilities (the way I lived in the army) on leased or purchased unused commercial or industrial sites on the outskirts of the city. Individuals could use surplus military squad tents or their own for sleeping. When those facilities were available I would send in crews to clean up existing encampments, without arresting anyone who did not violently resist. I would require custodial care for those who are so mentally or drug addicted that they cannot care for themselves. We did a huge disservice to the mentally ill when we closed rather than reform our state mental hospitals. We need them back. This approach actually would cost far less and be far more effective than the current totally useless housing first attempts to fix the problem.
XXX
I think the take home point is we refused to take responsibility for the problem. We hoped
I did believe people were inherently good at one time. I remember saying so when asked. I was in my 20s. With a lot more experience with the world I’m now firmly on team Locke. I still wonder why my default view was Rousseau. Maybe at a young age it’s simply what you wish to believe. Or perhaps a legacy of middle class midwestern nice - the idea that if you’re nice to people they’ll be nice back. But it doesn’t really make sense - any school kid will tell you some kids are just bad.
What a fantastic analysis. Really puts humanity into perspective.
Good work!
Democrats can't run cities because it is near impossible to deal with the power of public employee unions in a coherent way. There is a deep tension between delivering services efficiently and organizations which (as is their right and mission) fight daily to increase compensation to their members (and expand their membership rolls). The quickest way to be exiled into political oblivion is take this beast on. Don't need to understand political philosphy - just go to Mancur Olson for the win.
Is the question—whether people are good or bad?— really the right question? Or is the question actually whether governments are good or bad? The founders designed the constitution with the idea that governments tended toward tyranny. I understand the Locke/Rousseau opposition, and the tragic nature of human beings, and I vastly favor conservative solutions, but there is so much cheesy low-budget cynicism in the world today, I hate to give it an endorsement without some qualification.
Government is just people.
I don’t think government is inherently good or bad. It’s just what the people in power do. Those people, like people generally, are sometimes good but frequently disappointing. We worry about government because it’s powerful, but it’s also not the only powerful institution that people control. This is why I agree with the Founders that it’s a balance. People are sometimes good, frequently disappointing, sometimes bad, and every institution must check the others to ensure people are free to flourish.
I agree and my only objection is so obvious, it’s a cliche. Power does something to people over and above the bad things people usually do. The last four years, for example.
I never cease to be amazed by the naivety expressed by so many liberals in the arts and academia. Artists and performers in particular seem to cultivate a childlike view of the world. However, I'm not sure whether a Rousseauist concept of human nature explains it entirely. Ingrained guilt about their own good fortune seems partly responsible.
I wish it was just that! If so why don’t focus on helping the ordinary folks who are victims of distinction instead? If you just had guilt but understood humanity I think you would do that.
Can't say I disagree with a word of this -- I tend to say the most fundamental divide in politics is whether you have a tragic view of mankind (i.e. original sin) or a sunnier POV of human perfectibility through carefully administered institutions.
That’s also a great way to put it!
I'm one of the smart Machiavellian types you mentioned. I definitely don't think people are inherently good at all... however I favor the removal of societal restrictions on individuals which prevent them from embodying their true nature. I'm fully aware this leads to the types of problems you see in Democrat run cities and even the destruction of society. That's the price of valuing the freedom of the individual over the good of society.
I think we can do both. We allow the individual to flourish while eliminating behavior that harms others. The classical liberals had it right.