The "good nature" of man

Submitted by jennifer solis (United States), May 11, 2008 at 02:40

Dear Trans-Parere,

You write,

Our immigration policies have been "liberalized" to fill the demand, and many an uneducated, socially ignorant, and easily manipulated is comming to a new country, a new society, a new reality really, in terms of rights and freedoms, and most of these people want to fit in and become part of our nations.

I agree; however, I would like to point out that our countries have been liberalized to the point of impeding the process you cite.

Think of Ellis Island.

Think of the Italian, Irish, Jewish, Polish, etc. immigrants that came to the U.S. before and after WWII. They were not handed a thing. They worked hard, expected no government assistance, and received virtually none. Consequently: they learned the language. They used capitalism and free enterprise to their great benefit. They "became part of our nation".

They saw the freedom itself as great; and they had the attitude - leave the rest up to them.

Nowadays it's a tad different.

Simply Google "immigration government assistance" and you will receive 400,000 responses.

Which nicely dove-tails into the subject of the "good" that humans do.

I admit my comment that you cited sounds a bit "negative", and cynical. But what exactly is your definition of " 'natural goodness' of man"?

See, my point was, to use the example you put forth in your last post, sometimes this "natural goodness of man" is blind to what actually IS beneficial, or "good". Islamism is trying, and in some cases, succeeding, to thrive in the U.S. and Canada. Out of the liberal mentality comes "good" that paves the way for Islamism.

The Democrats, even a few Republicans, are sure that the "natural goodness" they show, through accommodation, benefit of the doubt, government finance, however one wishes to classify good will toward Islamism, will be rewarded with satisfaction and gratitute on behalf of the Islamists.

One has only to read Daniel Pipes' objective library to realize the ridiculousness of this.

This is but one example of the "natural goodness" of man resulting in something.....not so good.

Affirmative action, welfare mothers, Osama's idea of three-quarters of a trillion dollars in foreign aid, socialized medicine, there are endless examples that initially do arguably seem to come from man's "natural goodness".

And they finish in polar-opposite result.

Notice, in my previous post, I did not say ALL of man's "natural goodness" lies in an actuality of alterior motive, guilt, pretention.

The few-and-far-between examples of the "natural goodness" of man which are true and genuine, would be traced to the integrity, objectivity, and absolute complete lack of self-interest or self-benefit of the subject. Annonymous and truly beneficial "natural goodness" of man.

Which is why, again, at the risk of sounding negative, I maintain this is RARE. But it does happen.

However, more prevelant is the "natural goodness" that, in it's fervor, enthusiasm, and emotional high (not to mention it's anticipation of votes) does not contain actual acknowledgment nor awareness of reality; the result, well-intentioned chaos.

Hence the title of my previous post, "objective perspective". It could be argued that no matter how well-informed, objective, and reality-oriented a person who endeavores to "do good" is, his attentions could be met with bad ends; however, at least he had the humility to get educated on the subject before launching into a self-righteous, self-aggrandizing project. Oh, but this latter one wants to "help", so that makes it admirable.

I don't agree.

Bottom line, however "good" the nature of man, it means nothing if it is not accompanied by wisdom, knowledge, objectivity, and integrity.

The world today is not in overwhelming supply of these attributes.

I'm sure you have a good heart as well, Trans-Parere. What is your definition of the "good nature of man"?

Cheers,

Jennifer

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".