Is Man Capable of Governing Himself?

       Is man capable of governing himself?  The answer of the Statist, the Fascist, the Communist, the Democrat, Republican, and the Libertarian is precisely the same.   Man is not capable of governing himself. If man were capable of governing himself there would be no need for any sort of  government, consensual or otherwise at all.  None would need defend his person or property at any time. But, this is not the case.  As Paine said, "government is built upon the ruins of the bowers of Paradise."  Government in its very nature presumes  to stand in an executive place of a moral authority not found in any man.

      When one surveys the long and sorry history of man, one can draw no other conclusion than that he is incapable of governing himself.   One may wish to search the record of ancient civilizations or take the progressive approach and only look at  modern times.  The answer remains the same.  Man is not capable of governing himself.   This is a demonstrable fact. There is no need to adduce here a lengthy list of wars, genocides, mass murders, national bankruptcies, or intrigues which have punctuated history.  That  man may occasionally rise above himself does not negate this fundamental principle.  Man is not capable of consistently and without flaw governing either himself or all of his affairs much less the lives of others.

       The statist of any variety reasons that because man is incapable of governing himself, he must be governed by another.  The statist view is that the vast panoply of activities of every man must be circumscribed, lest his predatory nature be loosed on the rest of mankind.   However, this is faulty logic.  If man is incapable of governing himself, how could any honest person presume to govern others and manage the minutia of their lives?  Is not the fundamental flaw of any statist government hubris?  If those whose lives are to be regulated are free moral agents, certainly the same must be true of rulers.

      All of mankind are free moral agents who act primarily in self interest.   What then are the limits of action in self-interest?  Are there not equally limits of actions of government so as not to extend to hubris?  The limits on self interest applicable to individuals must equally be applied to governments.    I am free to act howsoever I wish so long as I do not invade the same space of another.  This  must equally apply to any form of government.  Persons may not by consent grant to government a power not resident within themselves by Nature.  The power granted to individuals by Nature are powers of self preservation.  No other power or authority exists. 

      The Libertarian stands out from every other view of human governance in society.  The Libertarian refuses to accept a dichotomy in the nature of man. Thomas Paine wrote of the 'unity of degree of man.'  Thomas Jefferson used the phrase 'created equal.'   The view of the Libertarian is that all men are equally free moral agents, made so by the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.  If the individual is by nature prohibited from imposing force on another except in self preservation, then the same must be true for any government formed by consent.  Government may not exercise force except in self preservation of itself and those whom have consented to its formation.

      All of the statist views presume an elite which is in some way 'better' than other men, and that these two conflicting groups  exist side by side.  Statism always implies some sort of moral transcendence, i.e. that not all of mankind are morally imperfect.   Through whatever mechanism:  birth, ideology, indoctrination,  racial or religious identity, all statists believe and accept a dichotomy in man.  There are those who are holy and whose behavior is laudable who are endowed with rights to dominion.   There are others who are sinful and whose behavior is odious who are endowed with obligations of servitude.

     The statists of any variety see the fundamental existential truth of the universe as the punishment of the sinful obligors into submission.   It is their view that the great bulk of humanity (the obligors) must be led, fed, and most of all punished. The statist claims free moral agent status for himself, and that unlike others he neither stumbles nor falters.    Nevertheless he repudiates the notion of the same claim made by any of the obligors. The statist view is that he is entitled by his own transformed humanity to punish the obligors into submission and that if this is done without mercy and with sufficient vigor, all of man will be transformed.   The statist believes that by denying  the status of  free moral agent to all of the obligors  he will usher in an Utopian state.

      But man is a free moral agent.  A man may be denied the use of a limb or an eye.  He may be tortured, starved, beaten, and compelled to suffer every imaginable abuse.  Nevertheless, he remains a free moral agent. He may choose.  Sometimes he may choose the 'good,' and other times he may choose the 'evil.'  Man is made this way by the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.  There is no evidence of any group or sub-group of  elites who are not  subject to the same errors and  infirmities as the obligors.   At some point all men make mistakes which uncorrected  lead toward a path of self destruction.  

       The obvious truth that all men are free moral agents implies self ownership.  I am not compelled by any Law of Nature or of Nature's God to any moral course. Nature might have made me without moral choice, indistinguishable from the animals of the field, but I have been left free to choose.   I own my own body even as I own the right to choose.  This does not mean that a man is always going to choose wisely or 'rightly.'  In fact, experience shows that all men choose badly.... some more or less frequently  than others.

       What then are the alternatives for the social relations of man?

      Men may form by consent a state based on the dubious ideology of the punishment of man into submission.  One may honestly accept the notion of two types of human beings.  One may accept a dichotomy in the nature of man.  The vast majority of all societies which have ever existed have taken the approach of a dichotomy of man and of the punishment of the obligors into submission.

       Alternatively, men may form by consent a state based  on the idea of a contract for mutual protection without any jurisdiction beyond the self preservation with which all mankind are empowered within themselves, and leave all other considerations to individual choice and action.   The Libertarian does not suggest that such a course of action ushers in an Utopia, but only a flawed reality preferable to others.   All mankind remain free moral agents, and the only function of the government formed by consent is to protect all equally from the predations of any other.

       That 'evil' exists in such a state is no different from its existence in the absence of such a government formed by consent.    Such a government is not empowered to transform or perfect man, but instead accepts the idea that the fundamental existential truth of the universe is grace triumphant in the affairs of man.    If anything 'good' is to happen, it must be done by the broad self interested acts of all men or the narrow altruistic activities of individual men.  Short of those activities all of society would end in greed and squalor.

        It is the judgment of the Libertarian that capricious acts of punishment do not form as sound a basis for human governance and civil society as fortuitous acts of grace.   These are the two societies from which man as a free moral agent  has always been compelled to choose.