The Laughing Wolf: A Fundamental Difference Of Perspective

August 17, 2004

A Fundamental Difference Of Perspective

Recently, I’ve caught myself taking strong exception to the writings of the Armed Liberal over on Winds of Change. Now, taking strong exception to the positions of others is not unusual, but something told me that this was different, and to be honest it bothered me a bit in that I do find myself in agreement with him on occasion. Indeed, the apparent degree of difference in our opinions is not that much at first glance, especially in a two-dimensional model. Two-dimensional models will get you every time, but it took this post for me to recognize the issue.

The Armed Liberal believes in governments, in the duly appointed people doing their job. In short, he believes that ze experten should run things and be allowed to do their jobs. The authorities are supreme, as representatives of “the state”.

I believe in individuals, and in the idea enshrined in the Constitution that each of us is the government, with all the rights and the massive responsibilities that entails.

In the case of this article, the Armed Liberal is pleased, amazed even from his words, that mere individuals did the right thing. They reacted properly because they called in ze experten and let state security handle everything like good little subjects. They were gut peasants who did right by the state, and his words show his surprise and his pleasure that such creatures would react appropriately.

As for me, I am not surprised when individuals do right. In fact, I expect it for they are the state, they are the government, and most often do the right thing. It is only when they don’t that I am disappointed or surprised.

That difference in perspective is what sets us apart. It is also the fundamental divide in politics today: those who believe in the overarching state, impersonal, and populated by those who are designated as experts; and, those of us who believe that the people are the government, for good or ill. There will be more thoughts on this, for it is a vast gulf when viewed from a different perspective.

Posted by wolf1 at August 17, 2004 02:39 PM | TrackBack

Comments

The problem with technocracy (leaving things to the experts) is that the experts generally don't really mean it. True technocracy would call for the legal experts to oversee the law, medical experts to oversee medicine, computer experts to oversee computer technology. My experience is that most who advocate technocracy really mean letting their specialty run everything. So, when a lawyer suggests "leaving things to the professionals", he typically means letting lawyers run everything. Don't believe me? Next time someone proposes "leaving things to the experts" ask if that means that they'll buy whatever computer the computer expert tells them to (at whatever price, presumeably), whatever car the automobile expert tells them to, etc. That'll get them sputtering in no time.

Posted by: Dave Schuler at August 17, 2004 04:42 PM

I've been finding for a long time that I don't see eye to eye with a lot of both Armed Liberal's views. Which is why I seldom read or link to Winds of Change often.

Not sure it should be a surprise to you though: my observation is that even moderate liberals tend to be statist, where as people like us tend to be individualist. Taking a hawkish view to the WoT, or a pro stance towards the second ammendment doesn't take the inherent statist leanings out of the liberal viewpoint.

Posted by: Ironbear at August 18, 2004 07:46 AM

I wasn't surprised, but it took me a while to figure it out. It is something that is in HOW he says things rather than what he says. How he says it shows the thought I identified, even when his words indicate something else. I can almost see someone petting a dog on the head, from how it is said. Shrug.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at August 18, 2004 01:18 PM

Comments are Closed.