Let us start with an abstract arguement: Do the means justify the ends? Well what ends you might ask and what means? The end is the perfection of society and man - the means are any and all available. And why are any means permissable? Since the end is itself perfect, nothing should be aloud to stand in it's why surely?
And here is the problem - the definition of perfection of society and man. Who's perfection are we talking? Is it the perfection of the rulers of Aldous Huxely's "Brave New World"? The perfection of Orwell's Ing-Soc? The perfection of Mao-Tse-Tung, Kim il Sung or Pol Pot? The perfection of Louis XIV or Hitler?
Why is it that high ideals and utopian ideology seem to end up with a state of affair that the Greeks described 2000s or so years ago as tyranny? The absolute rule of the many by the few - alledgedly for their own good...the many regarded by their subjects as clay to be moulded, blank slates to be written on with party slogans, ignorant children to be educated and indoctrinated. And the perfect society is always an omlete which requires the breaking of a few eggs...minorities who must become the sacrificial victims for the good of society - like the Aztecs whose religion required a wholesale sacrifice of captives in order to feed the sun, these victim classes - racial, religious, political and class minorities are sacrificed with as spurious a justification for the good of the whole. And the real reason? A tyranny must be fed constantly on the blood of its subjects - this Leviathan must be nourished and it will be because all men fear the heart of darkness of anarchy - a breakdown of society and human relations where society framents into it's constituent tribal units based around strong leaders and the whole evolution of human society must take it's bloody course once again.
Human life is fragile, imperfect and uncertain - we long with all our heart to make it otherwise - we often feel the pain of our vulnerability when confronted with extrememe situations such as death and violence. Every social structure is a collective attempt to control our lives since we know that as an individual we will not survive in the wild for long. This individual has much freedom but little power. And yet what is the best way for a group of people to organise themselves? What political structure will guarentee the greatest liberty for the greatest number of people, afford the greatest measure individual control, resist the ravages of time and endure the attempts of other states to destroy or subjugate it?
I know not - but I feel that the attempt to control men is futile - the average man cannot share the desires and visions of those at the apex of the pyramid. The average man wishes for a life which is modest and unsupposing. Napoleon once called England "a nation of shopkeepers" - is that so terrible? Why can not rulers accept humanity in all it's glorious imperfection? If you treat your subjects as children then they shall behave like children and if you treat your subjects like dogs they shall behave like dogs. And maybe if you treat your subjects like humans they will be humane?
So the saying is that charity begins at home - maybe our society would be better off for all of us if we personally befriended one person in need and took responsibility for helping them improve their life than with all the government social planning, political correctness, bureaucracy. Maybe we should stop seeking perfection and embrace imperfection - stop trying to control everything and allow things to be as they are. Maybe the spectre of bloody anarchy is less real than we fear.
