I am not sure who first developed these ideas, but I first learned about them while reading Thomas Sowell’s book, A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles.  In short, Sowell explains that, while there are many different forms under each one, there are really only two primary ways to look at human nature.  He calls the first the constrained view.  It is constrained because it sees human nature as permanently flawed: fixed and incapable of change.  Thus, those who hold a constrained view of humanity try to make the best of things by taking the failings of our nature into account when they organize human activities.  On the other hand, the unconstrained view holds that man’s nature is malleable: it can be purposely directed.  In short, those holding the unconstrained view of human nature believe that man is capable of perfecting himself.  For these people, there are no boundaries to what man can make himself to be.  Some have even boasted that man can be and even is his own god.

The following is from a post I wrote on another blog.  Note the last two paragraphs.  They are crucial to understanding the principles of liberty:

In his book, “A Conflict of Visions,” Thomas Sowell defines these opposing motivations and assigns the terms “constrained” and “unconstrained” to each. In discussing his interview with Mr. Sowell, Peter Robinson sums up the book’s major thesis:

Then there is Thomas Sowell, the economist and political philosopher. He prefers an older way of looking at American politics–a much older way. In his classic 1987 work, A Conflict of Visions, Sowell identifies two competing worldviews, or visions, that have underlain the Western political tradition for centuries.

 Sowell calls one worldview the “constrained vision.” It sees human nature as flawed or fallen, seeking to make the best of the possibilities that exist within that constraint. The competing worldview, which Sowell terms the “unconstrained vision,” instead sees human nature as capable of continual improvement.

 You can trace the constrained vision back to Aristotle; the unconstrained vision to Plato. But the neatest illustration of the two visions occurred during the great upheavals of the 18th century, the American and French revolutions.

The American Revolution embodied the constrained vision. “In the United States,” Sowell says, “it was assumed from the outset that what you needed to do above all was minimize [the damage that could be done by] the flaws in human nature.” The founders did so by composing a constitution of checks and balances. More than two centuries later, their work remains in place.

The French Revolution, by contrast, embodied the unconstrained vision. “In France,” Sowell says, “the idea was that if you put the right people in charge–if you had a political Messiah–then problems would just go away.” The result? The Terror, Napoleon and so many decades of instability that France finally sorted itself out only when Charles de Gaulle declared the Fifth Republic.

The threat posed to individual rights and liberty by those who hold an unconstrained view of human nature is that those people sincerely believe they hold a superior understanding of what is best for humanity: what constitutes our “perfected” state.  Consequently, they derive a sense of moral obligation – an imperative, if you will – to save mankind from itself.  Thus, they tend to force their will on others, even to the point of eliminating those who refuse to accept their master plans.  Whether people want to accept this or not, Hitler’s “Master race” was derived the American Eugenics movement, and both are excellent examples of an unconstrained view of human nature in actual application.  It doesn’t matter that both programs claimed to be based on “scientific research,” they both imposed the will of their leadership over the will of others – even to the point of murder.  This is as clear a violation of Natural Rights and Natural Law as one can find in history.

[NOTE: The threat of the unconstrained view of human nature is often coupled with a collectivist view of society.  Most of the regimes in the 20^th Century that committed real atrocities were the result of a coupling of these two ideologies.  The individual who would understand the principles of liberty and seek to protect and preserve individual rights must be aware of these facts as they constitute his/her principle opponent.]

The notion of the collective and the cooperative are not the same thing, and it is essential that those who value individual rights and liberty know the difference.  The collective does not exist outside the mind of man, but the cooperative does.  The collective exists for the benefit of the central authority which directs it, whereas, the collective exists for the benefit of every individual within it.  The collective enslaves everyone within it, often including those who are in the power structure governing the collective, whereas the cooperative relies on the continued free will of every individual within it to survive.  Membership in the collective is imposed: while in the cooperative, it is voluntary.  If a member of a collective wish to leave the collective, it is likely that individual will need the permission of the central authority to do so.  However, should an individual in a cooperative wish to leave, that person is free to do so without any necessity to seek permission from anyone.  So, by definition, the collective rests on the trampling of free will while the cooperative depends upon it.  Thus, the collective is a clear violation of Natural Rights and Natural Law, while the cooperative is the epitome of both in action.

Take the notion of the collective:

Definition of COLLECTIVE

1: denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole <flock is a collective word>

2a : formed by collecting : aggregated

3a : of, relating to, or being a group of individuals

b : involving all members of a group as distinct from its individuals <a collective action>

4: marked by similarity among or with the members of a group

5: collectivized or characterized by collectivism

6: shared or assumed by all members of the group <collective responsibility>

The point of the collective is to treat a group of individuals as a single entity.  However, as it is impossible for more than two individuals to think with one mind, the collective requires a command authority to “think” for the group as a whole.  The primary focus of the group’s efforts then becomes what the central authority determines to be “in the best interest” of the group.  Thus, the needs and desires of the individuals within that group – collective – become subordinate to the needs and desires of the group (i.e. central authority).  This is a trampling of free will, as well as a form of slavery.

NOTE: while the collective often comes about through a process that bears the appearance of the Social Contract, it is impossible for a Social Contract to be created that allows the construction of a collective.  Remember, the Social Contract rests on the restraints of Natural Law, and one of those restraints is that the individuals within a community cannot give any authority to the government that the individual does not himself possess.  As no one possesses the Natural Right to force another to act against their will, the members of a collective would not have the Natural Right to construct a community where that authority is given to the central power.  This is the fundamental flaw in Thomas Hobbes’ assertions in Leviathan: that our rights come from the government and that, once a part of a government, the individual has no claim to leave it.

Now contrast the collective with the cooperative:

cooperative  noun    (Concise Encyclopedia)

Organization owned by and operated for the benefit of those using its services. Cooperatives have been successful in such fields as the processing and marketing of farm products and the purchasing of other kinds of equipment and raw materials, and in the wholesaling, retailing, electric power, credit and banking, and housing industries. The modern consumer cooperative traces its roots to Britain’s Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers (1844); the movement spread quickly in northern Europe. In the U.S., agricultural marketing cooperatives developed in rural areas in the 19th century; other contemporary examples include consumer and housing cooperatives. See also credit union.

As we can see, the cooperative actually exists in nature because it is just a collection of individuals who willingly agree to work together toward a common goal, for the common good.  Essentially, the cooperative is nothing more than an example of a Social Contract.  It conforms to all the restrictions of Natural Law; thus, the Natural Rights of every individual subject to the terms of the contract are preserved and protected.  The rights and responsibilities of very individual within the cooperative are stated, and, should a member wish to leave, they retain the Natural Right to do so without need of permission from the rest of the cooperative.  The cooperative has no central authority other than the written terms of the contract: every member of a cooperative is equal in their rights.  The cooperative does not force its will on its members as it has no will of its own: it depends on the willing and continued participation of each of its members in order to survive.  Thus, the cooperative is in total accord with individual rights and liberty.

NOTE: in Colonial times, communities set themselves up in this manner – as cooperatives.  This is what a commonwealth is all about: a willing participation in a group effort for the mutual and equal benefit of every member in that community:

Definition of COMMONWEALTH

2: a nation, state, or other political unit: as

a : one founded on law and united by compact or tacit agreement of the people for the common good

b : one in which supreme authority is vested in the people

c : republic

4: a state of the United States —used officially of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia

5capitalized : a federal union of constituent states —used officially of Australia

6often capitalized : an association of self-governing autonomous states more or less loosely associated in a common allegiance (as to the British crown)

7often capitalized : a political unit having local autonomy but voluntarily united with the United States —used officially of Puerto Rico and of the Northern Mariana Islands

[NOTE: The threat of collectivism is often coupled with that of an unconstrained view of human nature.  Most of the regimes in the 20^th Century that committed real atrocities were the result of a coupling of these two ideologies.  The individual who would understand the principles of liberty and seek to protect and preserve individual rights must be aware of these facts as they constitute his/her principal opponent.]

This is a huge subject, and one of the most deadly threats to Natural Rights, Natural Law and the Social Contract.  In fact, it could be argued that the notion of the collective is the negation of the individual.  Eventually, there will be many sub-posts written in addition to this one, and you will be able to find them by scrolling down the “Enemies of Liberty” tab at the top of this page until you come to this post, then hovering over it with your curser until the sub posts appear to the right of this post’s listing in that tab.  But, for now, this post will focus on the central threat in every form of collectivization.

First, we need to understand that the collective is an artificial creation.  It exists nowhere in nature; it only exists in the human mind.  In short, the collective is a figment of our imagination.  Unfortunately, because of the way humans think, the notion of the collective is a powerful deception that carries great weight in our reasoning and, even when we are aware of the threat it poses, can deceive us into believing things that are not true.  Some examples:

Someone might say that a beehive is a collective, but it isn’t.  It is a form of tyranny.  There is a queen directing everything in the hive, and those things done by the individual bees that are not directed by the queen are done as a matter of instinct.  This is why the worker bees are called drones: they might as well be machines for all the liberty they have.  Yet, the hive is not the queen’s body, nor does every bee within it think and act as one organism.  It is still a collection of individual organisms working toward a common goal where the only choice rests with the dictator (i.e. queen).  This applies to ant nests and termite colonies, as well.

Similarly, a school of fish or a flock of birds is nothing more than a collection of individual organisms acting in concert.  What’s more, modern biologists have discovered that there are leaders within the school and the flock.  It’s just that the leadership role passes from individual fish or bird to the next so quickly that it gives the impression that the school or flock is moving as though it were of one mind.  As yet, biologists have not determined how the leadership role is passed from animal to animal, but this doesn’t matter: the fact that there is a leader places the school or flock in the same category as the bee hive – with one exception.  Unlike the hive, the individuals within a school of fish or a flock are free to leave the group and function independently from the rest.  Nor do they even have to return to survive.  This demonstration of individual will becomes more and more apparent as the individual organism climbs the evolutionary ladder until, when we reach humans, we find that any attempt to function by a collective will must be forced on the individuals within the given group.

Once we understand that the collective does not exist, we need to understand how and why the idea of the collective is a violation of Natural Law.  We start by looking at the actual definition of the word collective:

Definition of COLLECTIVE

1: denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole <flock is a collective word>

2a : formed by collecting : aggregated

b of a fruit : multiple

3a : of, relating to, or being a group of individuals

b : involving all members of a group as distinct from its individuals <a collective action>

4: marked by similarity among or with the members of a group

5: collectivized or characterized by collectivism

6: shared or assumed by all members of the group <collective responsibility>

From here, if you have been following my series on Natural Rights and Natural Law, you should be able to see that the notion of the collective violates the Natural Right of individual will.  By treating a group of individuals as one being or one entity, the collective destroys the individual.  It is a form of slavery, and slavery is among the most egregious of all possible violations of Natural Law.  It falls just short of murder.  This is also why the collective must always be enforced by a central authority — because there are always individuals within every collective who refuse to submit their Natural Right to free will to the central authority trying to enslave them.  If the individuals resisting are strong enough to threaten the control of the central authority, eventually, the central authority either has to accept the disruption they cause to the collective or it has to kill those who resist.  Force is the only way the collective can be maintained in a human society.  All we need to do to confirm this conclusion is to look to history.  When we look to the historic examples of the collective, we find that this pattern inevitably repeats itself.

This is why, whenever we hear anyone talking in terms of “It’s for the good the common good,” it should sound alarm bells in our mind.  Anyone who speaks in terms of the collective is advocating the group over the individual.  Now, there are a few circumstances where cooperative effort is preferable to individual efforts, but we must understand the difference between the cooperative and the collective.  They are not the same, but, if we do not know the difference, we can and will be seduced by the notion of the collective and it will lead to the destruction of our individual rights and liberty.

SEE ALSO: The Collective vs. the Cooperative

Political Parties are another form of artificial entity, and, as such, they share in all threats posed by artificial entities.  But political Parties present a special threat to individual rights and liberty worthy of their own, separate post.  In the case of political Parties, the principle threat to liberty is that of faction:

Definition of FACTION

1: a party or group (as within a government) that is often contentious or self-seeking : clique

2: party spirit especially when marked by dissension

Under the Social Contract — as constrained by the terms of Natural law — any division over the terms of the contract among the individuals Party to them actually represents a potential violation of those terms, and thus, a violation of Natural Law.  So, if a group of individuals within a community/society ban together to increase their political strength, in essence, what they are doing is forming another contract between themselves.  While it may not seem apparent at first, this is a violation of the Social Contract.

When people form a political Party, they do so with the expressed understanding that those outside the Party are not privy to it.  Unless you are a Party member, you do not share in whatever benefit that Party is intended to provide its members.  Now, because political Parties are intended to influence a community’s/society’s government, and because the Party has expressly excluded all individuals who are not a member, the Party – actually, every member in it —  has declared itself to be an enemy of the government it means to influence.  Remember, the Social Contract forms the community/society, and sets up the system by which it will govern itself.  This is done by the willing agreement of every individual within that community/society.  But the moment that a part of that community/society sets up a separate contract to pursue their own agenda, they violate the terms of their original Social Contract under which they agreed to work toward the common good of every individual in that community/society – not just those in their Party.  In essence, individuals who form a Party do so to use their combined power to force changes to the Social Contract they first agreed to live by.  That is a attack on the Natural Rights of every individual within that community/society.

There is no way for a political Party to exist within another Social Contract without violating the terms of that contract, and thus, Natural Law.  Human nature being what it is, the moment political Parties are allowed, the individuals within a Party will start to shift their loyalty to their Party and not the community/society to which they had willingly committed themselves by accepting the terms of the Social Contract that made that community/society.  In short, by joining a political Party, an individual essentially “changes sides” and places themselves in a state of war against their original community/society.  What’s more, the leaders of a political Party will naturally seek to solidify and grow their Party’s power, as well as their personal power, which further places the Party’s interest at odds with those of the terms of the Social Contract of the greater community/society.  Should a Party become strong enough, it is possible that a Party leader could actually become the de facto leader of a community/society, even if that Party leader is not actually the elected leader of the community/society.  For example: if we elected a President, but both the House and Senate were controlled by super majorities of the same Party, then whatever that Party leader told those Party members to do could conceivably be made law over the objections of the duly elected President of the nation.  Were this to happen, it would be a clear violation of the original intent of our Constitution, of Natural Law, and thus, a clear threat to the individual rights and liberties of every individual in this country.

If we look at this with an honest understanding of human nature, it should be simple to understand: a person cannot serve two masters.  They can either be loyal to a Party or their nation, but they cannot be loyal to both because – by its nature – the Party has declared itself to have a different agenda than that of the nation.  Our founders understood this, which is why the founding father of this nation specifically warned against allowing political parties.  If you would allow me, I would like to end this post by quoting a lengthy section from President Washington’s farewell address to the nation:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

— George Washington, September 19, 1796

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

–Edmund Burke

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil.

— Dietrich Bonhoeffer

So long as we wish to be a part of the Social Contract which forms and governs our community/society, this is a simple but important point.  If we see something happening that we know is wrong, yet we do not do something to try to stop it – even if all we can do is speak out in a strong objection so others know that we know it is wrong – then we willingly become a part of that wrong and share in the guilt with those who are actually committing the action.  But this issue goes further than just staying silent.  The problem here is that of apathy:

Definition of APATHY

1: lack of feeling or emotion : impassiveness

2: lack of interest or concern : indifference

When we agree to the terms of the Social Contract that formed and governs our community/society, we agree to keep our part of that contract.  Unless our Natural Rights are being trampled, we have no claim to object to our duties because we willingly agreed to do them when we agreed to the Social Contract.  In a free and self-governing society, these duties include things such as voting, but voting is much more than casting a ballot.  If we are going to vote, we have an obligation to vote intelligently, so we can vote for those who will protect and preserve the Social Contract and Natural Law.  This means we have also agreed to stay fully informed as to the issues necessary to allow us a reasoned vote.  Now note: there is no option not to vote, so there is no option not to stay informed.  These are obligations of citizenship, and if we do not meet them, we have broken the terms of our agreement with the other individuals in our community/society.  Staying informed enough to vote in line with Natural Law is the duty of every individual subject to a Social Contract.

The Social Contract can also create additional duties.  It can create the duty to participate in jury duty, or in posses.  Just because the Social Contract may provide for a police force, that provision does not relieve us from our individual duty to help protect the Natural Rights of every individual subject to it.  We still have the duty to act on our own – especially when the police are not around.  This duty includes a duty to help a neighbor fight a fire, or to provide first aid to someone who is injured – even to help another individual protect their property from loss or damage.

The social contract creates a duty to teach our children and the rest of our community about the proper principles and ideals necessary to support a free and self-governing society.  This is the primary purpose of education in a free society: not to teach a trade or profession, but to teach the principles and ideals of liberty, to teach Natural Rights, Natural Law and the Social Contract.

 If we expect that every individual in our community/society is going to protect our rights as its part of their obligation under the Social Contract, then we are equally obligated to do the same for them.  We agreed to do so when we willingly agreed to the terms of the Social Contract that formed our community/society and bound everyone to each other.  However, should we neglect our duties, we can have no expectation that others will still keep their end of the agreement.  In fact, if we refuse to perform the duties we willingly agreed to, we have broken the Social Contract.  Breaking the Social Contract effectively makes us an enemy of society, thus creating a duty for those individuals who are still trying to keep the terms of that contract to protect others from us!  In short, if we willingly refuse to perform our duties under the Social Contract, we declare ourselves to be enemies of those who still bind themselves to it.  When this happens, we are attacking the Natural Rights of every individual in that community/society and those individuals become justified in defending themselves from us in whatever manner the Social Contract prescribes (subject to the constraints of Natural Law).

Therefore, in a free and self-governing society, apathy is not only a threat to individual rights and liberty of others, it is a threat to our own individual rights and liberty as it can cause us to lose the protections offered by the Social Contract.