Aug
4
Utopia versus freedom
August 4, 2009 | 3 Comments
Thomas Sowell is one of the most – if not the most – perceptive writers of this era, and he hits another one out of the park today.
Let’s go back to square one. The universe was not made to our specifications. Nor were human beings. So there is nothing surprising in the fact that we are dissatisfied with many things at many times. The big question is whether we are prepared to follow any politician who claims to be able to “solve” our “problem.”
If we are, then there will be a never ending series of “solutions,” each causing new problems calling for still more “solutions.” That way lies a never-ending quest, costing ever increasing amounts of the taxpayers’ money and– more important– ever greater losses of your freedom to live your own life as you see fit, rather than as presumptuous elites dictate.
Ultimately, our choice is to give up Utopian quests or give up our freedom. This has been recognized for centuries by some, but many others have not yet faced that reality, even today. If you think government should “do something” about anything that ticks you off, or anything you want and don’t have, then you have made your choice between Utopia and freedom.
Back in the 18th century, Edmund Burke said, “It is no inconsiderable part of wisdom, to know much of an evil ought to be tolerated” and “I must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes.”
As always, Sowell cuts right to the heart of the matter. Here he seems to be echoing the theme of his masterpiece, A Conflict of Visions, where he explained the divide between people who have a “constrained” vision of the world and an “unconstrained” vision. I categorize this more simply as the Burkean vs. Rousseauian conflict, but no matter how you dice it you are left with two very different conceptions of viewing the world.
Non-radical supporters of health care reform might reasonably object that this is an unfair and exaggerated way of framing the argument. Surely one can be in favor of reform without holding on to utopian ideals. Yes, but in the end I think that reformers still cling to some sliver of utopian idealism. Any degree of unhappiness is to be amleriorated by some greater authority. So we get George Bush vowing that when someone’s hurt, government’s got to move. A noble sentiment, but reformers often fail to see that their proposals have unforeseen destructive consequences. This is a theme I have hammered home myself by referencing the Frederalist Papers and the recognition shared by Hamilton and Madison about the dangers of an unrestrained government. Sometimes it’s not the blunt authoritarians you have to worry about, but rather the kind-hearted reformers who “just want to help.” Well, careful with the helping hand, because it can cut sharper than an axe.
No TagComments
3 Comments so far
Ultimately it’s not even a choice between Utopia or freedom, because Utopia is impossible to achieve. This makes those who are afraid of or wish to destroy freedom even scarier, because they are expending all of our energy towards a goal that can never be reached.
Barb,
but that just means they’ll always be needed. As long as anyone’s uncomfortable, lying opportunists will find employment with promises to make everything better.
[...] between those who have a constrained vision and an unconstrained vision. I have blogged about this before, but Sowell’s book is one of the most perceptive and insightful works of political [...]