This is a philosophical piece, there will be no citations.
I have been party to, and an observer of, several conversations recently concerning the state. As this is just after Thanksgiving this should not be that much of a surprise. A conversation point has come up several times: should the State enact a positive force on society? To quote Plato, should the State enact some version of “The Good? What would that entail? What even is The Good?
Plato had this idea of forms, and even abstractions like good and evil had perfect forms. The Good to Plato is an actual form of an abstract; anything that is good, must participate in The Good. If you’re confused, just get that to Plato, anything that is good, must intrinsically be part of The Good. So what does that mean? Plato isn’t ever really clear other than The Good is the highest virtue. I know, wonderfully vague (And to be fair, I’m not a Platonist).
Dispite what Plato said about The Good, different philosophers and societies have come up with more concrete definitions of The Good. Regardless, I am going to continue discussing The Good as an abstract, so as not to confuse the reader with any particular definition of The Good. It is the ideal of “the good life,” but this essay is not to debate which path to The Good you should take, but rather whether the State promote any particular path, regardless of which ideal we speak of.
As my previous paragraph discusses, what is The Good is up to some debate. What is The Good for one person might not be to another. So how would a State promote The Good? I find it difficult for a State to promote any form of positive-statement-The-Good without becoming arbitrary, tyrannical, or both. States often attempt to promote “good” actions by making vices more expensive. States can positively promote their idea of The Good by lowering the cost of that good, such as with tax cuts or subsidies. An example would be subsidies for the cost of college, be it grants or publicaly-backed loans. While this gives the positive promotion of extra education at a lower rate, it also depresses the value of that education, making even higher education more and more mandatory.
Most governments have “blue laws” or “sin taxes” where governments place huge taxes on alcohol and tabacco, in order to discourage their use though pricing out the market. The science is clear the excess use of alcohol and nearly any use of tobacco are harmful, but do these promotions of a good have any effect? Not really, while tabacco consumption is plumetting decade-over-decade this might have more to do with the banning of tobacco ads on TV and radio and the education campaign against tobacco. Alcohol consumption has been fairly stable, and the consumption of soda, while decreasing, is somewhat stable. Prostitution, gambling, even murder, and suicide all still exist, with huge taxes or outright bans on them. With this said, can we say the positive or negative promotion of The Good has any positive effect toward the population collecively moving toward The Good?
I would not be so vain as to rest my laurels on trivial anectodes of failed policy, so let us assume the abstract. Let us assume that such a thing as The Good in fact exists, and is understandable by humans. These humans who have the ability to understand The Good organize themselves into societies. These societies are governed by members of the society and form States. While the founders of a State may have had an idea to promote The Good, given time, the idea of what The Good is will change. As new leadership assumes authority, the purpetuation of The Good will change. As the founding documents collide with reality, the founding principals will be tested and interpreted to fit the new circumstances. Would not the interpretation of The Good change with that as well?
The problem that exists should be obvious. The interpretation of The Good changes in all States. As time progresses, ideas change and so The Good changes. Further, the State being a human institution being run by humans, it is without doubt that The Good would be used to further the ends of less than scrupulous individuals. The only way to assume the State is always promoting The Good is to make a couple of assumptions:
- The State is always correct
- No counter-narrative can be correct
While these are not mutually-exclusive terms, the Venn diagram is almost a solid circle. To assume the State is always correct is to “reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.” People in the West criticize North Korea for this very fact and yet those who wish the State to promote The Good fall into the same trap. Further, what would happen should a person come to power who invoked a completely contrary narrative to your own? If they manipulated you by invoking yiour idea of The Good, but then changed policy once in power, would The Good promoted by the State still be The Good?
In my opinion, the only way to ensure The Good is achieved by society is for the State to only enact negative policies. The First Amendment is so beautiful because of its negativity. “Congress shall make no law…” is a much stronger position than “Congress shall ensure the right to…” If your government cannot tell you why and how to think, you have the freedom to find your own The Good, and so does your family, and your neighbors, and that person you vehemently disagree with. The beauty of this system is in its simplicity. Since no The Good is held supreme, everyone’s The Good is treated as equal, so long as it does not violate the rights of another.
0 Comments