One man may not stand alone against the hurricane.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

By which I mean to say: we are a society evolved to deal with causes of catastrophe bigger than any individual can withstand - from volcano, tsunami, earthquake, and fire; as individual units we have significantly less power-over-events than we do as some form of collective.

Outside context problems give us nascent awarenesses of how much shit we could find ourselves in, at any given moment, and without even that moment's notice.

How the collective is led and run is the business of government: economics plays a major role in this, but is not sufficient. Inalienable rights, like personhood, equality before the law, moderated freedom of speech (whether this be by custom or even officially where custom has evidently failed) etc & etc blah-de-blah make up most of the rest of the package. But my point is this: with a truly conservative (in the old-fashioned "High Tory" sense) perspective, accepting that a collective has to exist, what do you conserve?

Experts in leadership don't always have the qualities of good administrators, or even good policy-makers. (I'm being kind here.)

I define myself pretty much as a High Tory. In some respects, that puts me to the left of the Labour Party. I believe that there are limits of propriety, but also good old-fashioned dirty fun has to have a reasonably private place. In my world, everything is judged on a case-by-case basis, with some reference to first principles but with circumstances becoming a significant variable that influences each judgement too. This is, to me, the only principle that works properly for government and law.



Each man in his castle: and to each their allotted estate.


Nah….it's never really been like that. we've (even the poshest of us) all had common relatives whom the posher side of the family would genteelly disdain: I should know, being in that category. The upper classes traditionally loved a successful criminal. The entree of dodgy Russian chaps into the upper echelons is pretty much guaranteed as long as they behave themselves in company. And their kids….well you're not to blame for your father now, are you? Time and generations gentle money: else how could families who built their fortunes on, ahem, sugar, or, ahem, shipping, have become wealthy and titled?

I'm no leveller, by any means: but if it comes to a shit-kicking contest between the Levellers and the Randian Anti-Society brigade, I admit the necessity of society, and am therefore on the Leveller side, which I pretty much despair of. And this is where modern Conservatism has gotten us: where people like me, who are old-fashioned paternalistic types who believe expert opinion is generally better than that of the man-on-the-Clapham-omnibus, unless that man on the Clapham omnibus is by happenstance also an expert; people who believe there is a sensible limit to free speech; people who think that honour, justice before the law, individual freedom within limits, and person's rights, are not incompatible with social justice and being "forced" to pay taxes for things they don't use; these people have been forced into the arms of the political left by the right's move ever rightward.

That's the fucking point of society: other people need and use services they don't pay for individually, but collectively. I live inland, yet through tax I pay for the coastguard. Obviously I can make a case that this fact is personally unjust, and also to society's benefit.

But I am safe from Sabre-Tooths. And my water doesn't contain cholera. And I'm really happy about that. And I also know that I am better-educated than the average man, and wealthier, and posher: and I don't feel any guilt about that fact either. And I have no need to justify myself to myself or others by taking a strict philosophical position about something to which it should be impossible given its randomness: all such systems, even the most rigorous, being prone to paradox, tautology, or outright internal contradiction.

How about you? Is your water clean? Have your children been eaten by wolves recently?

Comments

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Hi, could you please use a cut for some parts? :-)

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Done.

Sorry.

[nairiporter.livejournal.com]

Fanks!

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Have your children been eaten by wolves recently?



Badgers, and thanks for bringing it up!

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Those badgers'll get you every time.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Well, in some aspects you make excellent points as to why libertarianism and simple fiscal conservatism actually aren't the same things and shouldn't be in bed with each other, as they often are.
Are these two factions in bed with each other in the UK as they mostly are in the US btw?

Also, could you explain a little more in specific detail how you are to the left of the labor party? - or is that mostly how an anarcho capitalist would see it?

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Well….my stance on education, and education funding, as well as what I see as other social requirements (healthcare, policing, sewerage, etc) means I often call for higher taxes for the general good. Which even the Labour party can't bring itself to do these days.

I do think there is such a thing as the general good: and this is something which we have to pay for collectively, since we benefit from it collectively. And I also think this is a matter in which the Upper Classes should take the leadership as part of the notion of noblesse oblige, and of recognising that they have duties to society and to other people.

High Tories weren't/aren't simple fiscal conservatives. They believe in the general good as well as the summum bonum. In the UK under Macmillan, they developed into a pragmatic form of government that accommodated many elements of previous opposition thinking that had benefitted the people at large: because they looked on these policies, judged them for their results, and saw that they were for the general good.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

I often call for higher taxes for the general good. Which even the Labour party can't bring itself to do these days

This seems to set you aside from most larger political groups in the UK today, yes?

Macmillan was a centrist or moderate conservative (by European standards), he is interesting, because even though European Third Way centrists are usually to the left of where he was standing, Macmillan still has no small part in the way the Third Way developed after the war.

Would you call your stance close to Third way centrism in some aspects? I realize you can't really pigeon-hole ppl like that easily, but some parts of what you're saying sound like that to me.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Well it's a misnomer (convervative). Conservatism is generally about reinforcing and preserving socially authoritarian structures. Just lately it's been utterly reversed and turned into the law of the jungle.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

That in it's self is a misnomer. Conservatism is and always has been the "Push-back" against rapid social change.

300 Years ago this came in the form of those who supported monarchy against those who wanted to see the king's head on a pike.

In modern times most of the tranformative pressure is coming from Communist, Socialist, and Technocratic forces who emphasize the group over the individual. Thus the "push-back" manifests itself in the form of militant individualism.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

No, it really hasn't. Conservatism supports and and all necessary change to preserve the extant ruling conditions. Which is why W enacted the greatest sweeping revolutions in American political inter-governance we've ever seen in our lifetimes.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Nah, conservatism was not about pushing back, it was about resetting the clock back and preventing any ineffectual change whatsoever. Metternich, Bismarck, and other such triumphant examples of old-school conservatism were discredited by WWII. Unfortunately the new version's platform is "We hate groups X, Y, and Z and getting rid of them solves everything" and nothing more. At least the old version had *something* beyond just *hating* people.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I think more that it's been hijacked through massive propaganda efforts. The people behind it though are the same authoritarian classists as always, but they need to kill off the social institutions that created the middle class power center first. Its sort of like a mystery religion. You have the beliefs for the uninitiated that looks like huge amounts of ideological fanaticism, and you have the beliefs for the initiated.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

what do you conserve?

This is a good question. One for which I do not have an easy answer.

I guess for my part I distrust anyone who would advocate tearing down the current social order to make way for a new one. I believ that utopia's have a 100% failure rate because societies are too complex to be "built" and thus must be allowed to grow organically.

To illustrate...

Two people are walking down an abandoned mountain path when they come upon a fence. The first says "I see no use for this fence and it is in our way, we should remove it" the second replies, "Somebody put this fence here for a reason and I will not allow you to remove it if you don't understand why."

This attitude pushes me to right on many issues because it causes me to favor decentraization and question those who use some nebulously defined "greater good" as justification for their policies.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

So you trust fences for the greater good, but don't like the greater good.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

No, I distrust someone who would remove a fence without first understanding it's purpose.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I distrust anyone who would advocate tearing down the current social order to make way for a new one

This presumes we have an ideal "social order" presently and it presumes any change would harm it.

What do you base both of those presumptions upon?

Two people are walking down an abandoned mountain path when they come upon a fence. The first says "I see no use for this fence and it is in our way, we should remove it" the second replies, "Somebody put this fence here for a reason and I will not allow you to remove it if you don't understand why."

So, you're against pulling the fence. But its more often like this:

Two people are walking down an abandoned mountain path and they come upon a ledge. "someone could fall off of here, I'm going to build a fence". Does the conservative oppose the fence? Does the libertarian oppose the fence?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

This presumes we have an ideal "social order" presently and it presumes any change would harm it.

What do you base both of those presumptions upon?

Likewise you seem to be presuming that any change would be beneficial to which I would ask the same question.

Two people are walking down an abandoned mountain path and they come upon a ledge. "someone could fall off of here, I'm going to build a fence". Does the conservative oppose the fence? Does the libertarian oppose the fence?

This is a good question but note that in this case a specific reason (to keep people from falling) is given. This in turn defines our criteria I.E "Is the fence likely to prevent anyone from falling?", "Does the risk of falls justify the difficulty of building and maintaining the fence" etc...

Rational discussions can be had. Points and counter-points made. Compare this in turn to...


Person A: We need to build a fence for the children!

Person B: I disagree.

Person A: Why do you hate children?

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

The conservative does not necessarily oppose the fence if the fence is for the greater good and the mountain is not particularly altered for the worse.

But so many words are in need of definitions here. Worse is, obviously, what I say it is.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

See, I would support a conservatism that actually had this as an idea. Unfortunately to judge by the current crop of so-called conservative politicians the only concept known to present-day conservatism is the fear of various social minorities and eradicating them to make Jesus happy. If that's what conservatism is, I refuse to demean myself by even appearing to support it, as I have too much respect for how humans actually are to join a bunch of conspiracy-theory prone reactionaries.

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

BTW, congratulations on the upcoming Diamond Jubilee. Whatever the problems with her family or position, Elizabeth Windsor is a national treasure.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Her Maj, as the song says, is a pretty nice girl.

I don't have a problem with the Saxe-Coburg und Gothas.

Not too fond of George Osborne and his economic capitulation to Austria/Chicago, but that's different: especially as he's now having to eat his words and remake policy on the hoof.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

My water is clean--for now.
Hydrofracking, if not prevented, might well stop me from having clean water.
I have no children, so they've not been eaten by anything, however, I frequently hit payday with a meager balance in my bank account--sometimes, even in the negative--although that's just cash borrowed from friends and co-workers.

I'm not living high on the hog. I live across from projects. I hear gunshots at night at least once a week. I am working full time. 45 hours a week, and i'm making under 30K/year.

My life would be improved if more people realized the power of the collective.
My life would be improved if there was UHC in the US
My life would be improved if money was spent on education, so the kids growing up in the projects I live near, won't have to keep up the cycle of violence
My life would be improved if labor was valued above capital.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Your first three improvements I agree with, and can be accomplished. They were this side of the pond, some years ago.

The last may be more difficult.

Sculpt the hills you can manage and leave the mountain for later.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Civilization is what separates man from the apes, which have complex societies with cultures (except Orangutans). I personally am conservative in a sense that I tend to see triggering large-scale change on a social scale in a short amount of time both unworkable and counterproductive when the changes are necessary, but this kind of conservatism seems to exist less in the USA than a variety whose platform is "No Abortions, Atheists, Muslims, and Queers." So long as "conservatism" is represented by the Michelle Bachmann/Santorum variety of politician I'll prefer the Democrats who at least don't *sound* like a tryout for a Leni Riefenstahl film as extras.