THE POLITICS OF HUMAN NATURE
The number of replies I received to my previous article, “Does the State Own Your Kids?”, took me by surprise. Perhaps I underestimated the reach of LRC, or more horrifyingly, perhaps I have something of some value to offer, which will now be an impetus for me to continue writing. Oh, the horrors! There was one reply from Jim H. that was particularly penetrating, and my answer to him is the present impetus for this article. The matter of not only that article and Jim H’s reply, but of all things political, is supremely and conclusively concerned with the grand topic of Human Nature.
Before proceeding further, I must inform the squeamish, that this article must make use of Biblical scripture. Any libertarian vampire is forewarned to turn aside at this point. It is not my intent to wax theological, and thank God, I have no ability to do so anyway. I am coming at it strictly for purposes of a logical argument. That is, if scripture verse A says this and that, and proponent A says, “I am the representative of scripture”, and anti-proponent B says, “I am the anti-representative of scripture A”, and both do and say that which is contrary to their proclamations, then logically both are full of crap.
Let’s take as my simple supposition that Locke and Rousseau are at disparate ends of the political spectrum. Sure, there’s more that could be added to this simplicity, but that will be my starting point. One can go back to the battle between the Gnostics and the Church Father, but there is not need to. It was what it still is now, and was in between in the times of Locke and Rousseau.
I do draw your attention to Igor Shafarevich masterful work, The Socialist Phenomenon, and what Alexander Solzhenitsyn says concerning Gnosticism in his intro;The central matter that would lead to this antagonism between the Locke and Rousseau camps would be their contrary views of human nature. It is my contention that all the opposing political structures that are built upon opposing ideologies, are at their genesis, their germination and sprouting, simple spiritual matters. In the case of Locke and Rousseau, as on all others that abide in either camp, the core spiritual matter concerns the nature of man. What is to do or not to do with the nature of man is the overriding question of all things governmental. As James Madison said as well:
In the Locke camp you would have the concept of a human nature as that of an essentially and incorrigibly depraved one, a “sinful human nature.” It is clear to anyone who reads deeper into Locke, that though he did not believe in an inherent sinful nature with an Adamic source, he had no illusions about a serious “problem”, and he did pin this problem on “human nature.” As for Rousseau, he believed in the “nobility of the savage”, those who had not had their inherently good human nature ravished by the restrictive moral codes of the unnatural property grubbing mutants. There’s wiggle room this way and that, but this simple supposition holds nonetheless.
What to do with these disparate views of human nature? Well, create ideologies about them, and build political structures upon those ideologies, of course! The core focus of the matter remains human nature. One camp calls for governmental restraint on “sinful human nature”. The other calls for an unshackling and perfecting back into the image and nature of the “noble savage” (by means of such artificial mechanisms as The GIVE Act).
Here I quote Jim H’s response, and his view of William James’ essay “The Moral Equivalent of War” mentioned in my previous article:
For me, Mr. James’ take on the nature of man, and by extension all like statists, as being that of a brute, doesn’t matter a whit. It is his opinion, and in my opinion he is wrong, as I will demonstrate below. What does matter, and is correctly pointed out by Jim H, is that he announces a war against human nature in order to change it. He and his fellow statists will fail miserably, as they always do, and will only accomplish making all miserable that they war against, along with themselves.
A final warning for any libertarian vampires, things get dawnish from hereon out. I give you two scripture verses that are pivotal to my argument:
Purely logical now, not theological…why is this relevant to politics? It is relevant to politics because ideologies and political structures exist, that are either ignorant or errant on these verses concerning human nature. These ideologies and political structures have led to the misery and slaughter of countless millions. That is relevant. Let me take them one at a time:
1) Romans 2:13-15; The Locke camp tells us that human nature is somewhat irrevocably depraved, it is a “sinful human nature.” Locke does in fact accept the representative mantle of this alleged scriptural truth, even though he denies its inheritance from Adam. Rousseau on the other hand does not take upon himself a scriptural mantle. He instead one-ups it, he usurps the throne of The Divine and all its restrictive moralities, and places in that empyrean chair deified Human Reason. Fair enough, which of our antagonists is in the better, from a logical perspective? What does the scripture verse claim? It says, “of the nations that have no law, by nature are doing that which the law demands.” Most importantly it says, “by nature.” Being that “the nations” are comprised of humans, it is stating that human nature is in accord with the Divine law. This accord is in the created nature of man, for it is “written in their hearts”, and their “consciences testify to each other” down through the centuries the properness of what is written therein. Further down in the chapter it is stated again that “the nations by nature, are discharging the law's demands.” It is understood in the study of Natural Law, that all law written by men must be in accord with this biblically mentioned Divine Law “written in their hearts”, and testified to by the collective testimony of their consciences, or it is no valid law at all. From the logical perspective, Locke would be more the loser, though not entirely alone. Locke does claim the scriptural mantle, and he in fact pins “sinfulness” directly to human nature, though the scripture he stands on says otherwise.
2) Romans 5:12; At first glance, this one seems to have nothing to do with human nature. Upon giving closer scrutiny to the original Greek, it bears some unexpected answers. Strangely enough, the words that need scrutiny are “on which.” In the most widely used English translations, the words would read “for that”. This translation implies “because”, or that which causes. The “on which” translation can more accurately and idiomatically be read as “on account of which”, or that which is the result of a cause. This meaning carries conclusive weight when all its usages are viewed throughout the Biblical scriptures. Why is this important to understanding the scriptural concept of human nature? If read, “death passed through into all mankind, for that (because), all sinned…”, it says man is mortal because his nature is sinful. If instead it reads, “death passed through into all mankind, on (account of) which all sinned…”, then it is mortality which causes man’s sinfulness, not his nature. Death and its outcome, sin, are then shown to be “unnatural”. This rendering would be in accord with what is said in #1, that it is the nature of man to be in accord with Divine law. Put more succinctly, men sin because men die, not men die because men sin, or are inherently sinful. The nature of man is to be in accord with Divine Law, and this is in turn what Natural Law must accord with.
Who is the logical loser in this second conflict, Locke or Rousseau? Rousseau is, but it is difficult to put into logical terms in the context of this article. It is difficult because the scripture verses are rejected by the Rousseau camp. This can be said though, the Reason which the Rousseau camp enthrones shows itself to be unreason, by its very rejection of the scriptural concept of human nature being in accord with Divine and Natural law. Does it not reject the scripture? Or does it accept the notion and reject the scripture? Either way, it accepts the truth. That is what is known as a checkmate. But more importantly, he loses here because he is dead. His enthroned Reason does not perfect his nature, and I know this is so because he is dead. One would assume a most perfected nature would not suffer death? Does the Rousseau camp deny yet again? At some point you have to say, “So the hell what, you and your asinine denials. Who the hell are you to do nothing but deny, and expect me to respond?” Here’s the facts…the ideology of the perfectibility of the nature of man died with its grandpappy long ago. Go now, and overturn the verdict, shovels are cheap enough. Rousseau’s opinion is shown not to trump the “opinion” of God.
So what lessons of logic are reaped from all this? Much more can be written, and I hope to complete it all some day in a book entitled The Politics of Human Nature (the first portion of which can be read in Huckleberrian Maglette Ishoo no.17). But for now, here are the facts of logic:
Whether one wants to use the phrases of the Darwinist, and speak of man’s evolution to a higher nature; or that of Rousseau, and the returning into the image of the “noble savage”; or that of the perfectibility of human nature; or that of Nietzsche’s, the human nature is the will to dominate, and his elevation of the aristocracy of man into the Superman…it’s all one and the same at its source for me. It is as Jim H. said to me in his reply, “This is the first time that I have considered propaganda, not as a contrived or intended product, but as a flow, directly from the foundation of belief.” It is like the primeval propaganda that flowed forth from its Genesistic voice in Eden that said, “Has God really said you shall not…you shall not die, instead your eyes will be opened to know good and evil, and you will become as God.” Its seems that Jim H. now hears this voice, for he says, “You have illustrated what I can only refer to as the concepts of Good and Evil, which I have never really accepted.” Quite correctly he also pointed out that, “Those that constitute The State, the True Believers that will produce utopia, the salvation of mankind…say to themselves, “We don't need God or Gods, we are Gods.””
Lessons in logic aside, what is it to be at war with human nature, and seek to change it? It is to attack what is in accord with Divine and Natural law, and turn it into discord. This human nature cannot ever be changed, any more than one can change the nature of a peach tree into the nature of a donkey. Nonetheless, the Dukes of Reason will continue to whack at it. That the Reason enthroned by the Age of Rousseau cast off the false religion of the inherent sinfulness of human nature, is a great good. That it in turn cast off all Divine and Natural law, is catastrophic. The proverbial baby with the bath water, but much worse. Reason becomes then immorality, and immorality becomes the liberation of Reason. The deeper the plunge into immorality, the more at liberty the mind of Reason claims to be. When this mind of Rousseauian Reason holds the reigns of power, immorality is then its guiding governmental light. Immoral means will justify immoral ends (even though they delude themselves they are of the highest ethical quality), those which enthroned Reason demand.
It is not by accident that the scripture claims, “Sin is lawlessness.” That is, an absence of Divine and Natural Law. To define “sin”, it is that which results from the absence of Divine and Natural Law. Do we have enough example of that in the nation, and in the halls of Congress today to make it clear? While I’m at it, let’s define death. Scripture again claims, “The day you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall die.” A better translation of that is, “to die, you shall be dying.” It bespeaks of a process of ebbing, to a conclusive end. I can most assuredly say that the processes of mortality are demonstrated through the ebbing away of Divine and Natural Law, and the filling of the godless vacuum with the mind of enthroned Reason. This is death.
Scripture also pointed out immediately after Adam and his human nature were created, that “It was good.” Not, “It looks kinda good for now. I’ll leave it to be perfected by Rousseau, James, Carolyn McCarthy D-NY and Barrack Obama C-Kenya, by means of the GIVE Act and martial virtues producing involuntary servitude.”
What then is the answer? Do we seek a political answer, or a spiritual one? I say they are one and the same. Without a spiritual answer concerning human nature, we can have no political one. Is the answer then conscience? This I believe is the most libertarian answer. Will that do the proverbial trick? What then of this “good” human nature of which I trumpet so highly? What of healthy sound reason that does not dismiss Divine and Natural Law? It seems men will more often side with the little gods of enthroned Reason, than they will listen to their consciences, which testify of the Divine Law written in their hearts. Why is that? Before giving my concluding statement, I quote from Jim H’s most poignant and concluding question in his reply to my previous article: “…those that constitute The State, the True Believers that will produce utopia, the salvation of mankind, that say, “We don't need God or Gods, we are Gods”. William James says, “It is but a question of time, of skillful propagandism, and of opinion-making men seizing historic opportunities." Will it really, unavoidably, be so...?”
My answer is yes, it will unavoidably be so. I have reasons to believe that, which calls on me to, gasp, wax theological (or, illogical, as some would have it). There is the parable of the wheat and the tares. The wheat is the good of the harvest, and the tares are the noxious counterfeit that grows along side it. The harvester is commanded not to harvest till all comes to fruition. Why must the noxious come to fruition, as well as the good? There are two reasons for this:
Evil will come to its fruition, then there is the winnowing and the fire, where the noxious is separated from the good. To explain further is to wax way too theological for the context of this article and this political theater at LRC. It involves the Divine purpose of evil. There is a beyond the noxious brain of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil, and it is in the discussion of the Divine purpose of evil, with much more glorious results than that of the Third Reich.
Let me for the sake of long overdue brevity end with this…God’s purpose for man is to gain a knowledge of good and evil, so then to truly and completely be made into the image of his Creator. How could we gain that knowledge if both good and evil do not come to fruition? Human nature was created to be “good”, to be in accord with the Divine and Natural Law. It seems men will more often side with the little gods of enthroned Reason, than they will listen to their consciences, which testify of the Divine Law written in their hearts. Why is that? It is mortality that saps human nature’s vitality, hampers the conscience from operating fully, and leads it down the path of the false little gods of Reason, who perniciously promises it perfecting of all sorts, and the life of that One that whispers, “Surely, you shall not die. We have universal health care coming.”