This document records a key thesis: every social or political model has an image of an “ideal subject.” Therefore, the dispute concerns not only the principles of a system, but also what happens when a real human being does not coincide with this ideal.
1) What Exactly Triggers the Reaction in the Dispute
It is important to distinguish two levels:
- freedom as an ethical principle;
- the ideologization of rationality as a cultural substitution.
The critical reaction is often directed not against freedom, but against turning rationality into dogma.
2) Libertarianism Historically and Culturally Are Not the Same Thing
The classical form of libertarianism rests on:
- natural rights;
- the limitation of power;
- spontaneous order;
- voluntary contract.
Within this framework, there is no thesis that “scientists should govern society.”
But in contemporary presentations, another image often dominates:
- rational agent;
- calculation of benefits;
- algorithmic coordination;
- minimization of the irrational.
This is already closer to technocratic rhetoric.
3) The Main Risk of the Model
The problem arises when the system assumes by default that people:
- are rational;
- are consistent over the long term;
- are capable of stable self-control;
- do not form irrational aggressive coalitions.
A real person often fails to meet these assumptions. They may be:
- emotional;
- impulsive;
- vindictive;
- symbolically motivated;
- aggressively coalition-oriented.
If the model ignores this, it becomes a utopia.
4) Where the Proper Boundary of Criticism Lies
Proper criticism sounds like this:
- not “every idea of freedom is false”;
- but “the model is insufficient if it fails to account for the irrational side of human beings.”
In other words, the question is not whether principles of freedom exist, but whether the construction is resilient to dark and coalition-based scenarios.
5) Universal Principle: Every Ideology Has an Ideal Type
Every system is built around a normative image of the human being:
- communism: the conscious proletarian;
- liberalism: the autonomous citizen;
- libertarianism: the rational, contract-making individual;
- technocracy: the competent expert;
- religious systems: the morally upright believer.
Without such a type, the model does not assemble into a whole.
6) The Real Test of a System
The key question:
What does the system do when a real human being does not match its ideal subject?
It is precisely this moment that shows whether the model is workable or dogmatic.
7) On the Dogmatism of Rationality
A dangerous transition occurs when:
- one model is declared universal;
- a human being is reduced to a function;
- “scientificity” becomes a moral authority.
Science is an instrument of description and production, not an automatic source of ethics. Therefore, sacralizing rationality is already a form of faith, not scientific method.
8) How to Formulate a Strong Position
A strong structural formula of criticism:
Every social model must account not only for rational cooperation but also for irrational coalition aggression.
If a system is not resilient to an aggressive coalition, it is utopian.
Such a thesis shifts the dispute from the level of emotions to the level of testable architecture.
9) Operational Conclusion
When analyzing any social model, it is useful to check:
- What kind of “ideal human” is built into it.
- Which behavioral deviations are considered normal and which are considered “model errors.”
- What happens under mass irrationality and coalition aggression.
- Which mechanisms of restraint are built in to prevent seizure of power.
- Whether ethics is being replaced by rhetoric about “rationality.”
This allows the system to be evaluated not by its presentation, but by its resilience under extreme conditions.
