Letter to Mr. Kessler 2 - Benevolent Despotism vs True Democracy

Mr. Kessler,

     You were talking about how government, like religion, rules by keeping its people ignorant and keeping them afraid. And, as members of the people, we can agree that this is obviously something that we should strive to change. However, from the perspective of the government, is this not the best way to rule? Dissenting opinion creates gridlock. Unanimous opinion creates reform. The easiest example of this is the current gridlock in Congress. In an era of new technology, it has suddenly become much easier to learn about our government's policies and their effect on us. This ability to "free think" also means that we arrive at different conclusions. While previously most people agreed that gay marriage is anti-religious, we have only to think for a few more minutes before we begin to question that assertion. This questioning creates disparate groups that have different ideas. For gay marriage, we have a side that wants to pass legislation legalizing it, a side that wants the government to take no action, and another side that wants the government to ban gay marriage. This "free thinking" split our people in three. Before, everybody wanted a ban on same-sex marriage (SSM), but now, there are three groups that are each pressing to have their opinion legalized. This creates immense problems for a government that relies on a majority vote to determine what passes and what doesn't. Because we have three groups, it has now become nearly impossible for any legislation whatsoever to be passed. For something to pass, it would require the unanimous support of one group and the majority support of another. When the stances are so far-ranging and the similarities so few, such a result would be highly unlikely. And so the government's use of fear and ignorance to pass legislation is a justifiable one. If we adhered to our radical right-wing, superreligious views, we would be able to pass a bill that bans gay marriage. While some people may not agree with this, most will, because they are too ignorant and too stupid to think about the consequences. Are all people happy? No. Are most people happy? Yes. Ignorance is bliss for many. My point is this: ignorance/fear allows the creation of a majority. Free thinking only allows for the creation of permanent minorities and dissent. 

     In addition, people who are afraid or stupid are malleable. A person who thinks is not. Malleability is key to an electorate because it allows for rules and order. If, for whatever reason, I thought about drunk driving and reached the conclusion that I disagreed with the drunk driving law and chose not to obey it I would cause chaos for many people. Similarly, a minority that takes action based on their opinion can create havoc. If I were, however, malleable enough to agree with whatever explanation the government offered, it would serve society. Malleable also means more porous. If we believe that the information that we get from our government is always true, we are more likely to believe it and to absorb it. If we continuously question, however, we will likely form independent thoughts and "conspiracy theories." My point here can be summed up with the phrase: People who think are hard to govern. The more a constituency thinks, the harder is is for the government to institute change. The less a constituency thinks, the easier it is to institute change. 

     Perhaps it would be easier for you to see this from a parenting standpoint. Do you teach your kids about the reproduction cycle as kids? I would venture to say no, because you feel either that "they don't need to know yet" or that
"they're not mature enough yet," or some other argument that follows that logic. But it's for their good, right? It's always for their good. And so it is the same with government. Following this analogy, I would associate free thought with puberty. This is literally the time where children begin to think for themselves and begin to question the decisions of their parents. You may have a different idea of what's best for your child than your child does. And, just like government gridlock, we now have parents that panic and are unable to "parent" their children. It is also in this period that many children experiment with drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Think about it as a parent. would you want your kids to follow your instructions or to question them? I realize that you are likely going to say that "I want my kids to be able to think by themselves," but you will probably get to a point where you would just wish that they would do as you say. 

     Ironically, it seems to me that you're arguing a form of libertarianism. Your goal, through free thought, is to maximize political freedom and to allow for individual opinions (minority opinions) to count in the how our government works and runs. I believe you're arguing for free thought as a form of individual liberties. Not important, just wanted to point that out.