in political philosophy is the one of moral agency. Should you force people to do what (you think) is good? Or do you accept the tragic “dings” and general messiness that inevitably come along with moral agency?
Yeah, if there IS moral agency, there WILL be “dings” and messiness.
Because it [moral-agency-focused governance] cannot do some evil it is prevented from doing some good. Shall we, then, forego the good to prevent the evil, or shall we submit to the evil to secure the good? This is the fundamental practical question of all constitutionalism.
See, Leftism promises a world without illness, harm, cuts, bruises, or “dings.” They prefer to submit to evil in order to secure what they think is good. But obviously, the rulers (even if benevolent) can ONLY do that if they have complete control over people. And know everything.
Yes, the fundamental issue is moral agency, and it has been from time immemorial. A promise to make everyone do the right thing is very seductive, and always has been. It gains a lot of supporters–and it cloaks itself in benevolence (though of an infantilizing sort).
A promise to allow people to do as they want as long as they are not actively harming others is both effective and a tough sell. Moral agency is not “sexy” like a promise of fairies and unicorns is.
But of course, there actually ARE no fairies and unicorns…