Liberals are sociopathic. I will explain why liberalism turns its adherents into political sociopaths.
Prior to any discussion of a specific procedural form of government or type of government (e.g. monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, republic), we must talk about the nature or telos of government. For example, the number 3 is an example of a prime number, but it isn't essentially a prime number. The essence of a prime number is any number divisible by only itself and 1. Likewise, explaining the procedural process of a particular government is an example of a government, but it isn't essentially a government. The nature, essence or telos of government is to resolve controvertible issues according to some conception of the good through authoritative discrimination. For example, the government must discriminate between property owner and trespasser according to some conception of property. Any government, regardless of its particular procedural form, must act, make decisions and resolve conflict and it necessarily must do so according to some conception of the good and true.
Liberalism is the political doctrine that securing individual freedom and equal rights is the primary purpose of government. A liberal is thus anyone who believes securing individual autonomy and unfettered choice is the primary purpose of government. Thus, individual autonomy is the liberal conception of the good. This liberal conception presupposes a particular metaphysics and theology; the nature of liberalism comes bundled with its own metaphysical and theological presuppositions. Now throughout the history of liberal thought, liberal thinkers honestly believed liberalism to be neutral on metaphysics, theology and the good by simply securing the ability of every individual to determine for himself through his own reason and will, his own metaphysics, theology and concept of the good. But this position itself is its own conception of the good, bundled with its own metaphysical presuppositions (i.e. the liberal conception of the good). Thus when liberals claim “neutrality”, the resulting politics is not neutral, for neutrality is impossible, but instead begs the question in favor of a liberal conception of the good.
A less dogmatic liberal may not be ontologically committed to individual autonomy as the supreme good. In fact, he could be open to the possibility that there is truth and objective goodness, but his skepticism prevents him from accepting the true good. Nevertheless, he is committed to the epistemological claim that what is good and true cannot be known. His liberalism thus comes bundled with its own epistemological presupposition, which while differing ontologically with the more dogmatic liberal, will ultimately govern in an identical manner (i.e. the state supporting, defending and celebrating the right of each individual to self-create and self-define according to his own reason and will). He will still hold that securing individual freedom and equal rights is the primary purpose of government. Skeptical liberalism will function identical to dogmatic liberalism because they are committed to the same governing principles.
Now we arrive at why liberals are political sociopaths. Having a political theory is one thing, but wielding the authority and power of the state is quite another. Once in power, liberals must make decisions, which is another way of saying liberals must resolve controvertible issues according to some conception of the good and they will do so according to a liberal conception of the good. There are numerous examples of this. For instance, the Supreme Court discriminated in favor of sodomites in Lawrence v. Texas. Liberals are political sociopaths because they have a conception of the good while actively using the authority and power of the state to advance that conception of the good while sincerely believing they are not doing the very thing they are actively doing. In other words, liberals are sociopathic because they use the authority and power of the state to coerce subjects while simultaneously believing their liberalism is opposed to all authority, coercion and discrimination.
Now all I have been describing is the ontology of government and one particular political doctrine. From this, I conclude that anyone who has a political opinion is an 'authoritarian' in the sense that he has a vision of how things ought to be and will use the authority and power of the government to advance that vision; government just is the use of authority to resolve controvertible issues. The point is that when liberals (and libertarians) accuse their political opponents of being 'authoritarian' that is merely a symptom of being a political sociopath. What I have not done is explain what I believe the correct conception of the good is. However, we cannot even begin to have an honest discussion of politics, the good, the true, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology or theology because our sociopathic political enemies (and sometimes allies) refuse to accept my diagnosis of them as political sociopaths. Only when they begin to understand the ontology of government and liberalism will such a conversation begin to be possible.
Comments
No posts