I was thinking that various political parties have different conceptions of human nature, which are evident in their policies.
For example, consider attitudes toward charity. When the Australian Liberal party saying we should rely on voluntary donations to charity, they place a (perhaps misguided) faith in participants in free markets to give money to the poor (say, by setting up, and donating to, a charitable institution). In doing so, they affirm that they believe human nature is good enough to ensure that the most destitute will be looked after by the more fortunate individuals. An individual who doesn’t believe this may believe it necessary to charge a higher tax rate than the Liberals would. ie, the Australian Labor party.
Any dimension of policy could be analysed with the respect to the party's implied ideas about human nature.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Exactly right! When the Founding Fathers of the US set up the American government, they did so with a profound distrust of human nature, hence their system of checks and balances.
When the Soviets came to power in Russia, they apparently believed that human nature would change once capitalism was swept away. No need to "guard the guardians."
We know what the result of that was.
America hosted many starry-eyed communal experiments itself during the 19th century. Very few have survived, and those that have survived, have had to take human nature into account.
As far as the donation example, I believe it is better for the private sector to be encouraged to donate, rather than supporting the poor through taxes. Personally helping out poor people builds one's character; paying compulsory taxes does not.
Post a Comment