Now it may be that the Lost writers feel differently, and are attempting to tell a story that denies that position and demonstrates the goodness or whatever in their characters, but the way it is working out, I don't think so. The contemporary writer and economist, Thomas Sowell, claimed in one of his books that the reason why people who oppose each other on a political issue tend to oppose each other on most or all issues, no matter how seemingly unrelated, boils down to a clash of two outlooks on human nature. The unconstrained outlook holds that humans are capable of almost anything and are infinitely perfectable, and that humanity's problems can be solved with enough effort - that we can do anything if we can just acquire the means, and getting the means is within our ability as well. People are basically good, and if you give them a chance, they will reach out for the best and so on. The constrained outlook, on the other hand, holds that people are essentially corrupt or selfish in general, and therefore must not be allowed to have power over each other, for they will surely misuse that power. This was the basis of the classical liberals, like John Locke and Edmund Burke (both of whom, of course, were the namesakes of characters on the show), the latter of whom is especially cited by Sowell as an exemplar of the constrained view of humanity. In modern political/religious terms, Ann Coulter expressed her (presumably unwitting) support for the constrained view by claiming that conservative/Christians (she doesn't seem to grasp that the two don't necessarily go together) understand that man is a fallen creature, while according to her, (contemporary)liberals (i.e. progressives) believe that they can be like gods and fix/create/improve the world or humanity.


Additionally, Frank Herbert said in one of the Dune novels, that beneath the surface of a liberal, you get an aristocrat - someone who thinks he knows what is best for others, and tries to make things conform to that ideal. As far as I can see, that is exactly what Jacob has going on here - the Others, if we are to believe his statement to Richard, are his attempts to build a perfect community of do-gooders. Though we never actually see them DOING anything that would seem to count as a mission or goal, their superior attitude, their claims of moral supremacy, their condescension towards outsiders, all smack of a group who thinks that they are better than everyone, in a kind of Gnostic worldview. Even Juliet seems to confirm this when she tells Sawyer that they all learn Latin because it is the language of the enlightened, or something to that effect.

All in all, I have to say that Jacob's efforts at proving one position are actually apparently having the reverse outcome, and without some hard and fast reasons (not mystic blather and parabels) why things need to be Jacob's way, I see no reason why Smokelocke, or at least Sawyer (whose agenda is being best helped by Smokelocke), doesn't have the right of it.