The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.
Forums
 »
Economics
 »
Economics Questions
 »
If men were angels

Thank you for your participation and interest in the Mises Community. This software platform has seen its day, however, and so is now closed. We are redoing our entire site, so look for some exciting developments by the end of the year. Thank you for your support of Austrian economics, liberty, and peace.

If men were angels

rated by 0 users
Answered (Verified) This post has 2 verified answers | 12 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Male
239 Posts
Points 5,820
The Texas Trigger posted on Mon, Sep 3 2012 5:15 PM

I recently added this to my signature line:

There is no other philosophical assumption more popular than the belief that all men are inherently greedy; or, to clarify, that each man is chiefly concerned with achieving his own ends before all other's. While this assumption is true in and of itself, there is a pervading and largely unspoken double standard to this assumption, as evidenced by the all-too-common belief that bureaucrats and politicians are immune to this condition of greed. We see this double standard widely asserted by the masses when they proclaim, "If men were angels, we wouldn't need government!" The proper question should then be, "If men are not angels, where shall we find these angels to run our government, lest we let elect demons instead?" 

1. How many of you have used this line of reasoning with people

2. what are the most common rebuttals you get from it. When i realized this myself, I could no longer deny that the justification for the state is inherently flawed. Barring immaturity and the denial of truth, how else could anyone argue with this line of reasoning?

"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?" 

  • | Post Points: 35

Answered (Verified) Verified Answer

Top 50 Contributor
2,679 Posts
Points 45,110
Reply
Answered (Verified) gotlucky replied on Mon, Sep 3 2012 6:14 PM
Verified by The Texas Trigger

Interesting...If they do believe this, then they have to admit that Madison's maxim was only half right; they believe that some men are angels (namely themselves and those they support). How, then, do they combat the reality that government is undoubtedly influenced by demons (if you support Obama but not Bush, then clearly government has failed you because Bush held office for 8 years.) So...again, even if you believe that you and those you support are angels, how does government pass any litmus test for order? Clearly it is capable of not only not eliminating demons, but also granting these demons a monopoly of force. How do they answer this one?

This is why these types of people cannot be appealed to on a rational basis. Look at gun control laws. Liberals who favor gun control want only the government to have guns. But wait, what happens when that government is Bush? Wasn't he evil incarnate? But do liberals see it that way? No.

There is a lot of doublethink and cognitive dissonance in types like that. They believe that someone like Bush is evil incarnate, but at the same time they believe government is good. Which is it? And it's the same with conservatives. Obama is evil incarnate, but government is still good.

These people, they say that government is good but that half the time the people running the state are evil. They then wait for their next chance at election time to vote for the lesser of two evils (unless they think their guy is an angel). If their guy loses, evil wins. If their guy wins, sometimes evil still wins. Sometimes these people truly believe their guy is an angel, but then when he leaves office, is it filled by another angel or a demon?

I don't think these people can be persuaded by logical arguments. These people are already holding contradictory beliefs. I think they need to be persuaded on an emotional level or just ignored.

LibertyHQ and its awesome forum.
  • | Post Points: 40
Top 50 Contributor
2,679 Posts
Points 45,110
Reply
Answered (Verified) gotlucky replied on Tue, Sep 4 2012 1:30 AM
Verified by The Texas Trigger

Serpentis-Lucis:

gotlucky, that's because they see the government system as good, no matter if it's a angel or demon in charge. In a way they see it in the same way a rational person would look at a gun, a tool which can be used to protect, or to cause harm, they would prefer the gun regardless. To convince them you would need to show how the system itself is bad. (That's where their cognitive dissonance really is.)

I see what you mean, but there is a crucial difference between the state and a gun: a gun is a tool, whereas the state is a group of individuals (whether or not those individuals use or do not use aggression is irrelevent to the point, as the comparison could be with a gun and any group of individuals). These people view the state as a tool for sure, but that does not make it a tool. It is a tool only in a metaphorical sense. One way or the other, the individuals that make up the state must act in order to force others to do what they (the state) want. A gun can never do this. A gun requires an individual to wield it.

LibertyHQ and its awesome forum.
  • | Post Points: 40

All Replies

Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,051 Posts
Points 36,080
Reply
Bert replied on Mon, Sep 3 2012 5:23 PM

The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.

Frederic Bastiat, The Law

Pretty much the point you're making, and I think it's necessary to make these distinctions that if we don't have regulations or government enforced laws and rules, we will not progress, which has become a staple in their arguments.  I read a quote recently bring up Stirner, that a lot of anarchist use morality and ethics as their bases to be against the state, but it's a double standard, and Stirner instead transcended, or better yet took down and made such foundations for anti-statism useless just as much as someone can use it for statism.

If we're all so bad and greedy, how do we know the intentions of the voters to vote in politicians are presumed good during an election?  Who's right and who's wrong?  Who's good and who's evil?

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
2,679 Posts
Points 45,110
Reply
gotlucky replied on Mon, Sep 3 2012 5:24 PM

I think the problem stems from people thinking other people are not angels, but they are. They extend this idea to people they like/support unless they have a direct reason to disbelieve it. So while you might be faced with conservatives or liberals who vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils, you also get conservatives who will vote for Romney because they see themselves as good people, and anyone they support must be good too. Ditto for the liberals and Obama.

Of course, it's an unreasonable line of thinking, but I think this is the unspoken premise these people have. So when you face them down with this argument, they just think their guy is an angel and that you are one of the demons that they must be protected from by government.

LibertyHQ and its awesome forum.
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,051 Posts
Points 36,080
Reply
Bert replied on Mon, Sep 3 2012 5:37 PM

I just realized there's different translations of this, from my physical copy of the book:

The pretensions of organizers suggest another question, which I have often asked them, and to which I am not aware that I ever received an answer: Since the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that is not safe to allow them liberty, how comes it to pass that the tendencies of organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their agents form a part of the human race? Do they consider that they are composed of different materials from the rest of mankind? They say that society, when left to itself, rushes to inevitable destruction, because its instincts are perverse. They presume to stop it in its downward course, and to give it a better direction. They have, therefore, received from heaven, intelligence and virtues that place them beyond and above mankind: let them show their title to this superiority. They would be our shepherds, and we are to be their flock. This arrangement presupposes in them a natural superiority, the right to which we are fully justified in calling them to prove.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
639 Posts
Points 11,575
Reply
cab21 replied on Mon, Sep 3 2012 5:38 PM

if men were good, no need for government

if men were bad, no governmentment could be good

if most men are good, the bad men will be attracted to government

if most men are bad, the bad men will be attracted to government.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
239 Posts
Points 5,820
Reply
The Texas Trigger replied on Mon, Sep 3 2012 5:40 PM

 

gotlucky:
Of course, it's an unreasonable line of thinking, but I think this is the unspoken premise these people have. So when you face them down with this argument, they just think their guy is an angel and that you are one of the demons that they must be protected from by government.

Interesting...If they do believe this, then they have to admit that Madison's maxim was only half right; they believe that some men are angels (namely themselves and those they support). How, then, do they combat the reality that government is undoubtedly influenced by demons (if you support Obama but not Bush, then clearly government has failed you because Bush held office for 8 years.) So...again, even if you believe that you and those you support are angels, how does government pass any litmus test for order? Clearly it is capable of not only not eliminating demons, but also granting these demons a monopoly of force. How do they answer this one?

 

"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?" 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
239 Posts
Points 5,820
Reply
The Texas Trigger replied on Mon, Sep 3 2012 5:51 PM

 

Bert:
Do they consider that they are composed of different materials from the rest of mankind? They say that society, when left to itself, rushes to inevitable destruction, because its instincts are perverse. They presume to stop it in its downward course, and to give it a better direction. They have, therefore, received from heaven, intelligence and virtues that place them beyond and above mankind: let them show their title to this superiority.

 

Perhaps I am mis-directed in my affections (and please tell me if you think so), but it is from these beliefs that I hold a slight admiration for monarchists and socialists of the non-anarchic persuasion. I am both a lover and a stickler for consistency. The only hope of coming to terms with what you believe is for your beliefs to be consistent. In this sense, the socialist or monarchist (believing the king to have divine-right and wisdom) is at least consistent. They believe (either implicitly or explicitly) that the state is i possession of heavenly wisdom and knowledge. If one truly believes this, there is no real way to argue with them, other than to persuade them that the state does not posses this wisdom or knowledge. But, again, if you stick with this assumption, then you must agree to disagree. I cannot do this with anybody who believes in a mixture of freedom and statism. On this, it is black and white for me: either the state is totally legitimate or it is totally illegitimate. This is why minarchists piss me off more than socialists do in some ways. They are so close to consistency, yet cannot get there.

Do any of you believe that my respect for these ideologies is ill-placed, with regard to consistency?   

 

"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?" 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
2,679 Posts
Points 45,110
Reply
Answered (Verified) gotlucky replied on Mon, Sep 3 2012 6:14 PM
Verified by The Texas Trigger

Interesting...If they do believe this, then they have to admit that Madison's maxim was only half right; they believe that some men are angels (namely themselves and those they support). How, then, do they combat the reality that government is undoubtedly influenced by demons (if you support Obama but not Bush, then clearly government has failed you because Bush held office for 8 years.) So...again, even if you believe that you and those you support are angels, how does government pass any litmus test for order? Clearly it is capable of not only not eliminating demons, but also granting these demons a monopoly of force. How do they answer this one?

This is why these types of people cannot be appealed to on a rational basis. Look at gun control laws. Liberals who favor gun control want only the government to have guns. But wait, what happens when that government is Bush? Wasn't he evil incarnate? But do liberals see it that way? No.

There is a lot of doublethink and cognitive dissonance in types like that. They believe that someone like Bush is evil incarnate, but at the same time they believe government is good. Which is it? And it's the same with conservatives. Obama is evil incarnate, but government is still good.

These people, they say that government is good but that half the time the people running the state are evil. They then wait for their next chance at election time to vote for the lesser of two evils (unless they think their guy is an angel). If their guy loses, evil wins. If their guy wins, sometimes evil still wins. Sometimes these people truly believe their guy is an angel, but then when he leaves office, is it filled by another angel or a demon?

I don't think these people can be persuaded by logical arguments. These people are already holding contradictory beliefs. I think they need to be persuaded on an emotional level or just ignored.

LibertyHQ and its awesome forum.
  • | Post Points: 40
Top 500 Contributor
165 Posts
Points 2,745
Reply
Serpentis-Lucis replied on Mon, Sep 3 2012 8:45 PM

gotlucky, that's because they see the government system as good, no matter if it's a angel or demon in charge. In a way they see it in the same way a rational person would look at a gun, a tool which can be used to protect, or to cause harm, they would prefer the gun regardless. To convince them you would need to show how the system itself is bad. (That's where their cognitive dissonance really is.)

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
639 Posts
Points 11,575
Reply
cab21 replied on Mon, Sep 3 2012 8:58 PM

the system is supposed to have checks and balances and limits. so someone on the other side can be replaced and repealed or balanced and countered.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
2,679 Posts
Points 45,110
Reply
Answered (Verified) gotlucky replied on Tue, Sep 4 2012 1:30 AM
Verified by The Texas Trigger

Serpentis-Lucis:

gotlucky, that's because they see the government system as good, no matter if it's a angel or demon in charge. In a way they see it in the same way a rational person would look at a gun, a tool which can be used to protect, or to cause harm, they would prefer the gun regardless. To convince them you would need to show how the system itself is bad. (That's where their cognitive dissonance really is.)

I see what you mean, but there is a crucial difference between the state and a gun: a gun is a tool, whereas the state is a group of individuals (whether or not those individuals use or do not use aggression is irrelevent to the point, as the comparison could be with a gun and any group of individuals). These people view the state as a tool for sure, but that does not make it a tool. It is a tool only in a metaphorical sense. One way or the other, the individuals that make up the state must act in order to force others to do what they (the state) want. A gun can never do this. A gun requires an individual to wield it.

LibertyHQ and its awesome forum.
  • | Post Points: 40
Top 500 Contributor
Male
239 Posts
Points 5,820
Reply
The Texas Trigger replied on Tue, Sep 4 2012 1:41 AM

 

gotlucky:
I see what you mean, but there is a crucial difference between the state and a gun: a gun is a tool, whereas the state is a group of individuals

epic response...i like it

 

"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?" 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
2,679 Posts
Points 45,110
Reply
gotlucky replied on Tue, Sep 4 2012 1:50 AM

LibertyHQ and its awesome forum.
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (13 items) | RSS

Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119

contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises

Mises.org sitemap