Lord of the Flies 2

Hey Ryan. Wow. I am impressed that you mentioned Lord of the Flies at Jason's place as it is a fantastic illustration of the argument we were having. It warrants a much more, um, sober conversation than I could have conjured at the party, and I have really found a new respect for Golding. Here's my take - I'd like to start with a few questions.

1. Would you say man's natural state tends toward the honest, able, wise, and kind? (The Lord of the Flies seems to argue this is not the case. I assume your answer is no.)
   
2. Can you grant that if man's natural state did tend toward these things there would be little incentive to create and impose laws? That he could live thrive by consensus and voluntary agreement without government intervention? I think you would agree that he could, but that this is not a fair assessment of man's nature.
   
3. Now, we agree that every person is entitled to make decisions that suit themselves provided it does not prevent another person from doing the same. We agree that everyone has a right to their lives and their property. Right?
   
4. And, as a consequence of man's deviation from these qualities (innate or not), we are all threatened to some degree and must protect that which we all most value - life, property, and individual choice. Basic stuff, right?
   
5. And, government should be instituted to protect these things, and the government's powers must be derived only from the consent of the governed. Standard stuff, right?
   

So, if man's natural state tends toward the dishonest, unable, unwise, and unkind, as one might argue Lord of the Flies presumes; if we are inherently incapable of living without government, how can we expect such flawed individuals to govern us? How can we trust the dishonest nature of our friends, family, and community members to choose from a list of candidates with which we are even less familiar to protect our lives, property, and right to make decisions for ourselves? Where are these angels? But this argument is incomplete and humans are much too complicated to describe with this kind of blanket statement. The book is really about the subtle relationship between individuals and government.

First off, I want to clarify that while we agree that there are some evil tendencies of mankind, I think we disagree what those core tendencies are. I do agree that man's natural state is conducive to self-destruction, but I sincerely believe the cause is not a lack of government, but the pervasive nature of government itself. This puts me at odds with what some perceive as Golding's point; that people require government to save them from anarchy. But this is an incorrect interpretation. I propose his story was intended to illustrate a more sinister and visceral argument, and I believe it does so with chilling precision.

It all begins innocently enough with the boys trust of Jack. By telling the boys what they want to hear, Jack gains popularity. The boys find it easy to believe that which they find agreeable, and decide to follow him. He genuinely believes he is doing what's best for the group, and when they support him, this belief is reinforced. This is the double-edged sword which dooms the party. As much as Jack believes his decisions are best for the group, they are delusional and destructive. A thought vacuum in the minds of his followers prevents them from even realizing they are on a death march. At the point each boy decided to trust Jack, he replaced his own reasoning skills for trust of Jack's. Each was reinforced by the sheep like following of the other boys. At this point, there was no respect for any idea contrary to the will of Jack. Fear of the beast/terror also prevents them from challenging Jack. With complacent followers, a source of fear, and a scape goat (Ralphs tribe), his tyranny was complete. He slaughters the mother sow, initiates a precedence of killing with the death of Simon, then steals from Ralphs tribe.

It was the inability of the boys to discern between their own good, and the good that others saw for them. It was not a human tendency for evil that caused the children to devolve into savages, it was the very opposite - good intentions. Misguided good intentions with terrible consequences. Jack believed he was helping as he led his followers down the death spiral. It was the lack of skepticism and ability to stand up for themselves under pressure from their peers when they knew what was right. It was their weakness of mind to make the assumption that as long as others were doing it, it must be OK. Not only OK, but best for everyone.

Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends… [I]n periods when millions are slaughtered, when torture is practiced, starvation enforced, oppression made a policy, as at present over a large part of the world, and as it has often been in the past, it must be at the behest of very many good people, and even by their direct action, for what they consider a worthy object. -Isabel Paterson

The worthy object in Jack's mind was fun. The boys wanted to believe him. They ended up devolving to savages.

At a given point, Jack's government became destructive to the good of the tribe and to the basic rights of the individuals. At this point, it was the responsibility and obligation of the boys to overthrow their oppressor. Some argue the boys did not have the historical knowledge to foresee the consequences of their complacency, and this is a valid excuse for their behavior and evidence humans are inherently destined for slavery under oppressive dictatorships. But this is not the message Golding intends to leave us with. He did not write this book to illustrate how ignorance is an excuse for human failure. The boys were seduced by Jack's empty promises. They were seduced despite their own better judgment which they chose to ignore. It is the scourge of their own laziness that sealed their fate, and they are held duly accountable as we see by their condition at the end of the book. While Golding's indictment may allude to the fact that knowledge of history and civilization can help us choose more wisely, I believe it is the lack of belief in our own individual sovereignty that condemns us to fail.

Mental laziness and complacency was the natural state of man that caused the tyranny and subsequent fall to savagery. Inability to stand up for his own rights, intolerance of ideas, oppressive use of fear, and a blind trust of well-intentioned but oppressive ideas. It is this well-intentioned enemy we must face.

They are believable because they believe in themselves. They are an able, effective, and powerful enemy - they who have an unwavering trust in their own judgment. We follow them at our own peril.

Yes, history has shown that man's tendency does lead to oppressive conditions - Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Europe, Mao's China. But these are not ill-intentioned individuals. They all thought their vision for humanity was just and, overall, best for mankind. It was their inability to trust the capabilities of each individual to live according to his own best interests. It was their inability to understand that humans are most capable of success when they have the right to deal with each other on an individual and voluntary basis. And for good reason. It was because individuals in each of these communities failed to demonstrate that they are not a mindless cowering heard of sheep destined for slaughter. That they will not live under a repressive and unrepresentative government. A government of hidden, will-sucking, compulsory taxes. A government where each individual carries a national ID. A government who's leader can designate any citizen an enemy combatant and detain and torture him without warrant.

No, I reject the notion that man's natural state is dishonest, unable, unwise, and unkind. I reject it because it implies that without government we are incapable of voluntary, mutually beneficial cooperation. This is exactly what the politicians want us to believe - that we cannot live without them. He or she will spend a lifetime trying to prove it. It is not only false, but contrary to reality. An oppressive state is the very institution which prevents man from being moral, honest, able, wise, and kind. In Lord of the Flies, it was Jack's monarchy. In reality, it's collectivism (socialism and fascism). Just look at the evidence. Observe the reasons why the country with the most respect for individual rights in history became the most successful and the most collective/socialist/fascist counties in history became the most poverty stricken, tyrannical and bloody. The reasons are always, in every case, because individuals were given the freedom to engage in productive behavior with little intervention by the state. The sad tyranny of collectivism oppressed its willing participants to such a degree that its standard of living was beneath our country's poverty line. It is these conditions which foster treachery by otherwise good and moral people, not lack of government. And, this is the trend that history prescribes for every nation with an increasingly powerful government, including us.

For now, we do control our destiny to a certain degree. We do not have the right to blame any other body for our failures, nor do we have the obligation to give credit to any other body for our successes. This will continue until our complacency has allowed others to strip these rights from us. This should only happen over our cold, dead bodies.

Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. -Frederic Bastiat.