Uploaded December 2024 | Updated September 2026, 1 hour ago
One of the consequences of the Enlightenment was the acceptance of the idea that the state is responsible for the welfare of its citizens. Until then, it was just the biggest bully in the neighborhood, who provided security from other bullies in return for its subjects’ money and obedience. The Enlightenment about-turn gave us, gradually, universal suffrage, universal education, and other widely shared benefits, thanks to which we can, among other things, meet and discuss the Enlightenment’s failing. But what was the state to do when a group was seen as standing in the way of universal prosperity and progress. It could – and did – educate the ignorant, re-educate the recalcitrant, and heal, or at least treat the indisposed. But if a group was seen as malignant and could not be reformed, the state had the right – indeed the obligation – to dispose of it, in the name of the greater common good. If the group’s malignancy was of an ethnic or racial nature, ordinary mass murder would suffice; if it was of a political nature, totalitarianism was the solution. It is obvious that the creators of the Enlightenment did not desire, approve or even envisage such developments. It is no less obvious that they constitute the bastard progeniture of their creation.
One of the consequences of the Enlightenment was the acceptance of the idea that the state is responsible for the welfare of its citizens. Until then, it was just the biggest bully in the neighborhood, who provided security from other bullies in return for its subjects’ money and obedience. The Enlightenment about-turn gave us, gradually, universal suffrage, universal education, and other widely shared benefits, thanks to which we can, among other things, meet and discuss the Enlightenment’s failing. But what was the state to do when a group was seen as standing in the way of universal prosperity and progress. It could – and did – educate the ignorant, re-educate the recalcitrant, and heal, or at least treat the indisposed. But if a group was seen as malignant and could not be reformed, the state had the right – indeed the obligation – to dispose of it, in the name of the greater common good. If the group’s malignancy was of an ethnic or racial nature, ordinary mass murder would suffice; if it was of a political nature, totalitarianism was the solution. It is obvious that the creators of the Enlightenment did not desire, approve or even envisage such developments. It is no less obvious that they constitute the bastard progeniture of their creation.
