Skip to main content

Human Nature

Kirk's six points, part six
Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irredeemably from certain faults... Man being imperfect, no perfect social order can ever be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent - or else expire of boredom. To aim for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably may expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are forgotten, then the anarchic impulses of man break loose...
Kirk winds down his six points by reminding his readers that they are not dogmas, but descriptions. He adds that if one wants to boil conservatism down to a single sentence, it ought to be that "for the conservative, politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal." Does this mean that conservatives have no principles? Kirk follows Edmund Burke and makes a distinction between "abstraction" or a priori ideas, divorced from a nation's history and particular necessities, and "principle," which he describes as sound general ideas derived from knowledge of human nature and the past. He hastens to add that principles need to be tempered by prudence because "particular circumstances vary infinitely" and should take precedence over "universal notions drawn up in some study." In Canada, our Federal government is of quite a different view than Kirk or Burke, and seems overly enthralled with universals - even (perhaps especially) in areas that are not part of its jurisdiction, such as health care and education. Now it seems set to step into daycare. The pattern seems to always be the same. First, it offers up money in return for which the Provinces, who do have jurisdiction in these areas, must agree to comply with what are called "national standards." What happens, however, is that the money is quickly cut back but the "national standards" last forever. In fact, as with most regulation, it tends to grow, becoming more complex and burdensome as the years go by. I would describe the money as a fishhook through which the provinces foolishly become enslaved to the ideology of the Liberal oligarchy, because that is what the "national standards" are. Not that long ago - before 1950, say - the Federal government respected the different traditions of the various provinces. Health and education were run by each province as they saw fit. Religious schools and hospitals were common, ensuring that there was a diversity of approach to the issues. If someone did not like the service, that person could seek help elsewhere, in another school or hospital, or in another province. Now, there is no escape when these unified "national" systems break down and there is a tremendous amount of hand wringing over what the "national standards" ought to be. Rather than being unifying, this experience is divisive. Circumstances really do vary infinitely and our system can't cope with this reality. In truth, it wasn't intended to. It's about power, not service. The solution offered is always to bump up the expense factor in a lame effort to please everyone. But not everyone wants everything. They want what they want when they want it. That is a simple rule of business that government will never be able to accommodate due to structural reasons. Most often those clamoring for the gold star package are those who see themselves giving those services, not those who will get them. Our large and cumbersome services are ripe for the virus of unionism, further putting the Canadian people under the foot of bureaucracy and coffee house metaphysicians. A culture that recognizes these human tendencies to power and aggrandizement would take steps to ensure that power is divided rather than concentrated. That is what the founders of this country did, and that is what we have undone. If anyone has Tolkien's ring of power, it is the Liberal Party. "One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them." How ironic that the ring is our own money given back to us, with a hefty carrying charge taken off the top. There is more irony in that resistance to a properly Canadian division of power is so easily dismissed as "American." The charge of Americanism is due to a lack of understanding our own history, so we just reach for the closest temporal approximation. The concentration of power is, I think, due to a not so latent materialism and a denial of human nature. We clamour for the dollars because we think that more of the right things will make us a better people. We don't recognize the threat of concentrated power and we confuse health and education with moral virtue. Both errors arise from thinking that there is no such thing as sin, only material want. The final irony is that our errors cumulate in more material want, as our dollars get burnt up in the wasteful scheming of men who put political power ahead of public service.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi