10 most rightist posters on poly

[Agathon]

When Burke argued that tradition was a more sound footing than reason for political life, he pwned himself by using the despised reason to prove it.

That kind of Burkean conservatism is the expression of a prejudice, or of the fear of change, not a means for effectively organizing a polity.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whoha


*** NEWS FLASH ***
Arch Duke Ferdinand found alive! World War I a Mistake!

[Ned]

Agathon, on your analysis of Burkean conservativism, two thumbs up!

[Ben Kenobi]

No they don't. That's making Dark Cloud's mistake of misdescribing liberalism as the equally insane opposite of conservatism. Liberalism in its various guises sets down particular moral principles as political goals (things like equality, or Rawls' conception of justice, or EOO). Of course there are various ways that this might be brought about more effectively, but that is a practical question.

No one values change for its own sake, because that's insane. Similarly, no one should value the status quo for its own sake, because that is plainly insane too. Making conservatives value change for its own sake means that they don't have a compelling moral principle for organizing political action.

Granted, and I realised that as I was typing out the statement, that a better description of liberalism in general is that the burden rests upon the defenders of the status quo to show why change ought to be rejected.

That being said, a better definition of conservativism would be that the burden rests upon those suggesting change, to come up for a reason why the change ought to be done.

I don't think this is an insane position to defend, for either the liberal side or the conservative side, and it helps to flesh out the interplay between the two. A liberal asks, show me how this hurts society, while the conservative asks, show me how this helps.

[Ben Kenobi]

When Burke argued that tradition was a more sound footing than reason for political life, he pwned himself by using the despised reason to prove it.

That kind of Burkean conservatism is the expression of a prejudice, or of the fear of change, not a means for effectively organizing a polity

Is tradition always a sounder footing, or is tradition almost always a sounder footing? I'm not sure Burke defends the former position rather than the latter. There are instances, such as this, where one requires the use of the other side in order to properly come to grips with the situation.

A liberal with no understanding of tradition, cannot change anything for the positive, just as a conservative cannot preserve tradition, without understanding change.

[Agathon]

Is tradition always a sounder footing, or is tradition almost always a sounder footing?

As I've been arguing that is an open question. It's something that needs to be defended case by case rather than as a rule for organizing all our actions (which it fails at).

It's not a practically useful principle any more than "we should change as much as we can" is a practically useful principle. There's nothing to stop it being a true generalization extracted from a survey of various cost benefit analyses, but it is those analyses that are useful as guides to action, not the generalization.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think it is a pratical position, insofar as it gives you a basis to begin the analysis. The most important part is to figure out what questions need to be asked, and I think that 'how is this change going to help' always needs to be asked and satisfactorily answered before any change can be adopted.

[Agathon]

How does it.

"How is this change going to help" is not peculiar to conservatives, it's just common sense and is used by people of all political persuasions.

"Gradual change is the best" is not a practical guide to action, since even the most conservative person has to admit that in certain circumstances radical change is best or even necessary.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

As for me 'citing evidence of Japan's nefarious plans for China'- are you sarcastically suggesting it didn't have them ?

The only plans Japan had for China during the period from the start of the Meiji Restoration to the end of WWI was to become an equal participant in the imperialism going on there. Hardly that nefarious a scheme, seeing as Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the US has already beat them there. Things change greatly after WWI, but I doubt you want to delve into the reasons for that, as they give some credence to Ned's arguments.

Which rather ignores the basic geography of East Asia and Japan's proximity to Korea- China's client state. Annexing Korea and supplanting Russia in Manchuria were rather more 'nefarious' schemes than the French annexing Annam or the British leasing parts of treaty ports- something which the Chinese recognised, even if you don't seem to.

In fact, Li Hung-chang relied on the Western powers to temper Japan's aggressiveness and possible future depredations- as witnessed by an unlikely coalition of Germany, France and Russia 'requesting' Japan's withdrawal from the strategically important Liaotung peninsula.

And why was the Liaotung peninsula so important ? Because it was vital to land and sea routes between Korea and Beijing.

In 1896 this well founded fear of Japan's schemes prompted a secret treaty between Russia and China (despite Russia's colonization of the Amur and Ili lands and acquisition of Vladivostok and its Pacific maritime province) in which each bound the other to defend themselves against Japan.

http://www.russojapanesewar.com/clark18.html

The Chinese regarded Korea as their most strategically placed vassal state, with access to the Pechili Bay, and thence on to Beijing.

I've even quoted Li Hung-chang on this before, but I'll do so again:

" Although the various powers are strong, they are still seventy thousand li away from us, whereas Japan is as near as in the courtyard, as on the threshold, and is prying into our emptiness and solitude (i.e. weakness of our defensive measures). Undoubtedly she will become China's permanent and great anxiety."

Li Hung-chang to Tzu'-hsi, quoted in Teng and Fairbank, 'China's Response' .

How surprising a Chinese general should grasp something you don't seem to.

And of course he was proved right- because the indemnity the Chinese paid (increased when Japan relinquished Liaotung) was spent on an armaments programme, and Formosa/Taiwan was developed as a defensive outpost in the south.

I suppose you think WWI really started when Franz Ferdinand got shot...

Don't be stupid- everyone knows it began when Prussia and its allies defeated the Austro-Hungarian Empire at Sadowa-Koniggratz and excluded them from north German affairs.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The only plans Japan had for China during the period from the start of the Meiji Restoration to the end of WWI was to become an equal participant in the imperialism going on there.

If that was the case, could you explain to me why all those "robber pirates" were killing, burning, and pillaging along SE Chinese coastal areas for hundreds of yeas?

[Ben Kenobi]

"Gradual change is the best" is not a practical guide to action, since even the most conservative person has to admit that in certain circumstances radical change is best or even necessary.

Interesting. What sort of situation would force the hand of a conservative in saying radical change would be necessary?

In my mind 'radical change' is synonymous with revolution.

"How is this change going to help" is not peculiar to conservatives, it's just common sense and is used by people of all political persuasions.

Seems that question never gets asked, so common sense isn't so common.

[Dr Strangelove]

I would not characterize the difference between conservatives and liberals as one favoring gradual change and the other favoring radical change or revolution. They have different agendas. Do you honestly think that if I walked into some meeting of the Republican party with a foolproof plan to immediately abolish abortion and the estate tax they'd all jump up and shout "Hey, not so fast"?

Likewise if I walked into a meeting of the Democratic party with a sure thing plan to elevate the economic status of America's poor to that of the middle class over a period of 2 decades would they all stand up and scream "NO! It's NOW or never"?

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you honestly think that if I walked into some meeting of the Republican party with a foolproof plan to immediately abolish abortion and the estate tax they'd all jump up and shout "Hey, not so fast"?

I've been in discussions with prolifers, and I would have to say yes to that. They'd look the gift horse in the mouth, because they know nothing comes without a price.

As for the liberals, well, I'll let them defend themselves. Would they accept a plan, knowing that they might not see any results for two decades?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Likewise if I walked into a meeting of the Democratic party with a sure thing plan to elevate the economic status of America's poor to that of the middle class over a period of 2 decades would they all stand up and scream "NO! It's NOW or never"?

It is now or never, because the conservatives don't really believe in gradual change. They believe in no change at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

See, there you go Doc Strangelove.

Conservatives believe in gradual change, while liberals believe in radical change.