A Mental Barrier to Liberty?

Is it possible to convince others of the benefits of liberty? Can the mass-man ever be convinced that the state impedes on his own flourishing?I have my doubts. Government promises an escape from the drudgery of life. It also provides a means for people to feel as though they are a part of something bigger than themselves. And of course, there is always the monetary incentive to support a generous welfare state.Beyond that, why does it seem so difficult to convince our friends, neighbors, peers, and co-workers of the common sense morality of property rights? Walter Block suspects we are biologically hard-wired to be averse to freedom. Given my belief of natural law being sub specie aeternitatis, I disagree with his view. Man was made to be free. We certainly don’t all realize that fact. Career politicians with small IQs are demonstrative of that. But the truth is there for us to discover and follow.So what’s a better explanation for why the gap between the ruled and rulers shows no signs of decreasing? In a recent blog post, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat explores the dichotomy between the secularist view and the creationist. In Douthat’s opinion, the modern mind, which has been flooded with a surfeit of scientism mixed with disbelief, is not built to handle the occurrences of miracles. He cites the experience of Dutch director Paul Verhoeven who, after having a mystical experience in a Pentecostal church, denied its validity to save his own highly corporeal view of the world. Verhoeven says he could “physically feel…the Holy Ghost descending” and his heart “on fire.” Instead of embracing the experience, he shunned it. In Groucho Marx fashion, he opted for his preconceived notion about the truth instead of believing his “own eyes.”Channeling the work of British philosopher Charles Taylor, Douthat argues that Verhoeven’s experience was tempered by his own mental buffer. This self-imposed barrier acts as a net to capture anything that might contradict his worldview. Even if Verhoeven experienced a genuine miracle, there is no way he would believe it. It wouldn’t be allowed to travel that far down the path of consideration. Secularism is far too imbedded in his mind. His entire perception was governed by a force too powerful to give an inch. Whether this kind of wall is breakable is up to Verhoeven; and all individuals.In his book A Secular Age, the cited Taylor wrote on divine events:

We have great trouble getting our minds around this, and we rapidly reach for intra-psychic explanations, in terms of delusions, projections, and the like. But one thing that seems clear is that the whole situation of the self in experience is subtly but importantly different in these worlds and in ours.

The kind of antipathy, or even ardent reluctance, to accepting what’s real is the culprit of many of history’s tragedies. Dictators who kill millions without any thought of innate morality; the government bureaucrat who stomps out an entrepreneur without thinking of the value lost; amoralists who wax on eloquently about doing right by their fellow man; the soldier who kicks down the door of a home and makes children into orphans while telling himself it’s all for freedom – these types of individuals wage a war in their head against conscience. The wrongness of their actions is apparent. Instead of facing it, they rationalize it with a perverted sense of right and wrong.Leftists typically have one of two problems: either they sordidly pursue authority or they childishly believe in the goodness of their efforts.For the naïve type, there is still hope to mend their ways. Presumably, they only have the best intentions. To them, government is a tool for prosperity instead of a blunt instrument of oppression. Hence their endorsement of state initiatives. But if it can be shown that government regulation only gets in the way of real wealth creation, perhaps the side of the liberty would have some new recruits.Those who use the state purely for their own gain are a lost cause. They know full well what they are doing is wrong. It bothers them little. Government’s trend is always toward more power and more control. Those at the reins rarely want to lighten their grip. Every incentive tells them “pull harder.” Any time morality slow chisels its way into their conscience, it must be blacked out.Rod Dreher writes that if the secular mindset continues to act as a bulwark against any kind of divine evidence, it may soon be impossible to revive religious understanding on a mass level. It will simply refrain from making any sense. As he notes: “having lost the ability to perceive spiritual reality, it will not be possible under normal circumstances to regain it…”As for liberty, the circumstances may be just as dire, at least in Western countries where the influence of classic liberals like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson is strongest. Over a century of progressive indoctrination has transformed schools from places of learning into robot factories. Government provides more services than ever before. Should any of these duties be stripped of state control, many could not imagine how the private marketplace would handle such tasks.If freedom has a chance to influence, it’s with the people who do their best to avoid politics. Their minds may not be so susceptible to pro-government propaganda. That mental buffer may not be so strong; it might be easy to break the levee.The great task for libertarians or proponents of sound economics isn’t necessarily spreading the ideas. That’s a needed step, of course. Thick-headedness is the real obstacle to overcome. You can preach the message of law, property, and rights all day and night; if someone is unable to grasp the systematic way in which things fit together to form a logical whole, then you may as well be speaking gibberish. Breaching a dug-in, epistemological bias is not easy. And yet, it must be done. If it’s not conquered, and progressive government intervention stays the norm, then liberty could very well become extinct.That’s a dreadful thought. But dreadful thoughts make for cold water on warm complacency.

James E. Miller is editor-in-chief of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada, where this article was originally published.

Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!