"They are come, but not yet gone."
Thus spoke the soothsayer to Julius Caesar when the dictator perpetuus said to the soothsayer that the Ides of March had come and he was still alive.
Dictator perpetuus has an overly confident ring to it much like eintausendjähriges Reich.
Some history here.
The Death of Caesar (1798) by Vincenzo Camuccini
We are strangely, insanely, conflicted. We care lovingly, or at least dutifully, for the sick, the injured, and the dying. But we also torture people to death in ways that inspire envy in demons. The belief that humans are inherently good is one of the deepest of human delusions. Paradoxically, those who succumb to it excel in the theory and practice of hell, to borrow a title from Eugen Kogon's unforgettable book.
Limited government and checks and balances across the board help keep power dispersed, the power that goes to the head and makes of the half-way decent moral monsters. Prospects for limited government, however, are themselves limited in a high-tech surveillance society in which soft totalitarianism can be expected to give way to the good old-fashioned hard variety.
The following passage from Concluding Unscientific Postscript embodies a penetrating insight:
. . . the legal authority shows its impotence precisely when it shows its power: its power by giving permission, its impotence by not being able to make it permissible. (p. 460, tr. Swenson & Lowrie)
My permitting you to do X does not make X permissible. My forbidding you to do X does not make X impermissible. My permitting (forbidding) is justified only if what I permit (forbid) is in itself permissible (impermissible). And the same goes for any finite agent or collection of finite agents. A finite agent may have the power to permit and forbid, but it cannot have the power to make permissible or impermissible. Finite agency, then, betrays its impotence in exercising its power.
For example, the moral permissibility of killing in self-defense is what it is independently of the State's power to permit or forbid via its laws and their enforcement. The State cannot make morally permissible what is morally permissible by passing and enforcing laws that permit it. Nor can the State make morally impermissible what is morally permissible by passing and enforcing laws that proscribe it.
Here below Might and Right fall asunder: the powerful are not always just, and the just are not always powerful. But it would be a mistake to think that the mighty cannot be right, or that the right cannot be mighty. The falling asunder is consistent with a certain amount of overlap. But the overlap will always only be partial.
Power does not confer moral justification, but neither does impotence. (For example, the relative weakness of the Palestinians relative to the Israelis does not confer justification on the Palestinian cause or its methods.) See The Converse Callicles Principle: Weakness Does Not Justify.
The State is practically necessary and morally justifiable. Or so I would argue against the anarchists. But fear of the State is rational: its power is awesome and often misused. Communist governments murdered some 100 million during the twentieth century alone. This is why the State's power must be hedged round with limits. The Founders of the United States of America understood this. It is an understanding that is approaching its nadir as 2020 fades.
We don't know whether God exists. But we do know that nothing is worthy of being called God unless it is the perfect harmonization and coalescence of Might and Right, of Power and Justice, of Will and Reason.
This coalescence is a mystical unity that cannot be achieved by human effort. The Eschaton cannot be immanentized. If this divine mystical unity exists, it does not exist in the here and now, or in the future of the here and now. If this unity does not exist, it cannot be for us an ideal. Only what is realizable by us can serve as an ideal for us.
Kierkegaard the Corrective is an anti-Hegel and an anti-Marx. Hegel held that the unity existed already, here below. Marx, recognizing the professorial bluster for what it was, turned Hegel upon his head, urging that it be brought about. "The philosophers have variously interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it." (The Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach.) But the conception itself was fatally flawed, already in Hegel.
We saw the sequel. It was a road to slavery and the gulag.
Horribile dictu, having learned nothing, we are about to repeat the same mistakes.
There is no heaven on earth and there cannot be. Because there cannot be, heaven on earth cannot without disaster be pursued as an ideal. If there is heaven, it is Elsewhere, beyond the human horizon.
Believers and unbelievers can live in peace, or at least in the absence of war, if the unbelievers on the Left eschew their totalitarianism, which is a perversion of the dogmatic certainties of the Age of Belief. But they cannot be reasonably expected to do so. It is not 'who they are' in their silly way of speaking.
We who love liberty are in for the burden of a long twilight struggle against forces of darkness in the gloaming.
