I just noticed something interesting -- interesting to me, anyway. Because I am both (a) a Christian and (b) someone who hasn't spent his life locked in a closet, I've noticed that people are basicly, well, how to put this nicely -- ummm... not good.

Forgive me for not defending the idea in exquisite detail -- if I had to do that every time I posted, I'd never say anything of substance -- but for reference I'd point out that even most the "good" acts we do are motivated primarily by self-interest. Yes, of course, many of the acts themselves are helpful and good, but that doesn't mean the ones doing them are being morally "good" -- even the most evil people can temporarily do "good" when it aligns with their self-interest. Or, if you didn't buy all that, just grant me that capitalism works because it correctly acknowledges that most people are driven by greed or self-interest, not altruism.

So here's the odd part: I've noticed, even though my philosophy is that people are evil, that in real-life matters, I tend to trust people far more than my political opposites, who claim that people are inherantly or basicly "good".

I mean, here I am, a person who says that most people, most the time, are basicly flawed and self-centered, and yet I want to let them live in a democracy and get their way. While my opponents say people are inherantly good, and yet attempt to wrest control over each aspect of their lives and put in the hands of the state.

How odd! What on earth explains this?

Well, I've noticed that our conversations frequently go like this:

Conservative: Hey, this is what people want. And it's not unconstitutional, so we should allow that to be the policy.
Liberal: Oh, that's ridiculous. It's racist/sexist/unscientific/less-than-optimal/uncaring. What do people know? We need wise rulers and wise laws to keep them from hurting themselves.

Now, note I usually don't agree with the liberal's view. He'll look at some policy, like affirmative action, and call it "helpful and just" where I see it as "harmful and racist." But all that is beside the point: the salient issue here is that the liberal is arguing for more state power for his policies, not those he disagrees with. In calling for the state to have more power, the liberal is actually demanding he and his views be given more power.

Likewise, note that the liberal's call for state power arises from his comparatively lower view of "the masses" -- the vulgar know less about science, or about politics or whatever than the liberal in question, or the leaders he would support, so of course his views and preferences should carry the day -- even if they are in the minority.

So why doesn't the conservative do the same? I mean: look at me. I test well above average, and, since I'm writing this sentence now, which says so, I clearly know it. Why don't I similarly demand that I and my people be put in charge, even if against the will of the governed? Why do I instead demand a smaller government, and wish the people I vote for would too?

Again, because I don't trust people. I don't trust Republicans, for example. (I just think they're marginally better than Democrats.) I don't trust anybody to be dictator, including even myself -- I fear that even if the experiment started well, it would end poorly. And even if a comparatively good person could be installed, that power might pass into other hands: evil people rise to the top, and power corrupts -- and both trends mean that you eventually end up with the nastiest people holding onto the most power.

I also, frankly, would rather not have the responsibility.

And that touches on another point: if things went wrong, I would be responsible. Whereas, at least in my own experiences, it seems many liberals never seem to understand that they are at least a tiny bit responsible for damage done by their policies.

So, anyway, the salient point here is that though the liberal says everyone is good, others are NOT as good or enlighted as she and her friends. Likewise, the conservative thinks people are evil and fallible -- including even himself and "his" people -- and thus aren't convinced really that anyone can be trusted to have complete control. He doesn't think that utopia is within human grasp -- not even his own, and thus is willing to live with something admittedly less than optimal in order to avoid the worst-case scenarios which occur when power is concentrated, rather than spread out.