A Moral Question of Some Import

I am a passionate believer in limited government because I believe a small subset of people, no matter how intelligent, dedicated and well-intentioned, can never sustainably possess and exercise a level of wisdom that is superior to the collective wisdom of the entire population. In all forms of government prevalent in the world today, those "in the government" comprise a relatively small subset of the population. Aside from the improbability of the people in the government having better than average intellect, a far bigger impediment is simply the limitation of time. The most brilliant geniuses on earth still have the same 24 hours in a day available to them as the most consummate dunces in the world.

The world is increasingly too complex to lend itself to decent "management" by the smarts of the few, no matter how smart in their specific areas of specialization. So in regard to the desirability of limited government I subscribe to the conservative viewpoint that is embodied, and so assiduously codified, in the Constitution of the United States.

That said, I am confronted with another societal challenge that cuts at the heart of fundamental differences between conservative and liberal (to use contemporary monikers to denote certain familiar viewpoints and attitudes) orthodoxies that have lately developed.

One cannot, in all honesty, deny the empirical evidence that the Creator, if you believe in one, or nature, if you will, does not endow all human beings with identical intellectual ability. This is purely a clinical observation devoid of any value judgment. I believe intellect is but only one human endowment and achievement; it is certainly not the essence of our spirituality and humanity.

Now, those with superior intellect cannot claim that the entirety of their superiority in intellectual prowess is attributable solely to their volitional strivings, behaviors and diligence. Superior achievement of any kind no doubt requires a lot of personal and volitional effort and perseverance, but a significant part is played by the genetic apparatus and environmental factors that are not of one's own choosing. In other words, accidents of nature and luck play a significant part. One thus comes face to face with a fundamental question:

Do the people with superior intellect have any moral obligation to develop solutions to common problems that will benefit the whole society? The key question here is about a moral obligation, not about whether some people would do so as a natural bye-product of pursuing self-interest. Think about it. A lot depends on the way you answer this question for yourself.