Poly is making me right wing

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Writing manifestos is soo dated. Of course you do know that most conservatives don't even believe in the whole concept of an 'ideology'.

It doesn't have to be an "ideology". A minor statement of coherent principles would be enough. The Libertarians manage it.

And conservatives have the gall complain about the postmodernism of the left.

[Krill]

Originally posted by Agathon


If I have a chance to make fun of the stupid English, yes. Bloody ineffectual chinless twits couldn't even stop the Americans from seceding. The Americans!!! The nation that was bested by North Vietnamese rice farmers.

Hey, we beat the french as did the NV, therefore Britain=NV thankyousoverymuch

[Krill]

Seriously: I think the policy of indulging the financial sector is going to bite Britain in the ass, perhaps sooner rather than later given recent events.

Maybe, inflation is rising here, but compared the rest of the world? NB: Northern rock was a Labour ****up IMO. But as they aren't communists I'd assume you'd think the same...

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Agathon
The political compass is interesting in that it all but confirms Altemeyer's thesis about authoritarians. Hardly anyone in our society inhabits the top left hand corner, so the more authoritarian one is, the overwhelming likelihood is that one will be toward the right. I bet that if the quiz had been taken in the Soviet Union, the exact opposite result would have been found.

Duh?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by BeBro
Left and right doesn't matter, just if people agree with me

I propose to make BeBro the Führer of poly, but only if I get to become Forumführer.

[Winston]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's too early in the season for me to be doing anything yet.

Spoken like a true leftist.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Krill

Seriously: I think the policy of indulging the financial sector is going to bite Britain in the ass, perhaps sooner rather than later given recent events.

Maybe, inflation is rising here, but compared the rest of the world? NB: Northern rock was a Labour ****up IMO. But as they aren't communists I'd assume you'd think the same...

I didn't mean that. I meant broader problems with financialization of economies generally.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Heraclitus





I propose to make BeBro the Führer of poly, but only if I get to become Forumführer.

We'd also need a lot of Unter- and Oberforumführers

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by BeBro


We'd also need a lot of Unter- and Oberforumführers

Jawohl mein Führer!


Is Etchy still around?


Also we can give VetLegion a subforum to moderate. But I'm afraid Serb won't like that.

[Agathon]

It's like my brother says: who'd want to be called "Team Leader" when you could be called "Obergruppenführer".

[Ben Kenobi]

One of the problems is that 'writing stuff down' fundamentally changes things from a conservative perspective.

I think we did this before.

1. Thomism. The package of natural rights derived from God. Fundamental limitation of articulated rights (ie, rights are not limited to those enumerated). Rights are not granted by the state, they are not earned, they just are. Rights aren't absolute, they are balanced by responsibility, ie the right might allow you to do something, but they can be abused.

2. Tradition. Tradition exists for a reason. Burden on social reformers to argue that their solution is not only better, but that they understand the unintended consequences of change. View of society as a spider web, one strand gone off weakens the structural strength of the entire strand.

3. Equality. All people are fundamentally equal in value even though they have different abilities. Abilities!=equality. Variations in society are natural, and the higher variance the better. Wealth distribution isn't positive as it removes the incentive to improve one state. Charity is granted and expected, but shouldn't be spoken of or pointed to.

4. Platonic forms. The world is less real then the ideal. All that we have in this world is an imitation of a better ideal that we can understand but not make. Human beings reflect this, in that they are imperfect reflections of the same perfection. Human beings have a fallen nature which cannot change. It can merely be mitigated or held in check through various forces.

5. Pragmatism. Political theories and social structures are only good if they work. Conservatives usually don't care about how things are done so long as it works. Arguments for tradition invariably revolve around the concept that it was developed that way because it worked better then the alternatives. Conservatives are willing to sacrifice a way that isn't working for one that can be shown to be better.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's like my brother says: who'd want to be called "Team Leader" when you could be called "Obergruppenführer".

True..


But since you are a commie I'm afraid we will need to send you to the RoN subforum camp where you will die of boredom.

[Ben Kenobi]

The differences with classical liberalism are quite numerous. Classical liberals believe in progress, Conservatives do not. Classical liberals believe that constitutions are a good thing, conservatives do not. Classical liberals believe that the constitution ought to be respected, conservatives believe that constitutions are inherently limited and must respect the overall rights. Classical liberals believe in human perfectibility, conservatives do not. Classical liberals agree with Rousseau "man is born free" Conservatives believe that man has a fallen nature which cannot be overcome.

There are similarities and overlap with libertarians, but conservatives see society as a necessary evil, and that restraint can be very helpful.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
One of the problems is that 'writing stuff down' fundamentally changes things from a conservative perspective.

I think we did this before.

1. Thomism. The package of natural rights derived from God. Fundamental limitation of articulated rights (ie, rights are not limited to those enumerated). Rights are not granted by the state, they are not earned, they just are. Rights aren't absolute, they are balanced by responsibility, ie the right might allow you to do something, but they can be abused.

Not a secular ideology, which conservatism claims to be. If you want a religious justification for a political ideology then that's fair enough, but you won't find that many takers.

2. Tradition. Tradition exists for a reason. Burden on social reformers to argue that their solution is not only better, but that they understand the unintended consequences of change. View of society as a spider web, one strand gone off weakens the structural strength of the entire strand.

And I've explained before that this just dissolves into some form of utilitarianism or consequentialism. It's an open question whether any particular tradition ought to be reformed or not, and that must be decided on a case by case basis. If conservatism is standing for tradition, then it's essentially a useless doctrine unless you want to completely eliminate reform, in which case it is useful but insane.

3. Equality. All people are fundamentally equal in value even though they have different abilities. Abilities!=equality. Variations in society are natural, and the higher variance the better. Wealth distribution isn't positive as it removes the incentive to improve one state. Charity is granted and expected, but shouldn't be spoken of or pointed to.

This is empty. It makes empirical claims which are demonstrably false.

4. Platonic forms. The world is less real then the ideal. All that we have in this world is an imitation of a better ideal that we can understand but not make. Human beings reflect this, in that they are imperfect reflections of the same perfection. Human beings have a fallen nature which cannot change. It can merely be mitigated or held in check through various forces.

I'm a Plato expert, and this is a misuse of his philosophy. Do you want me to point you to the passage beloved of cultural conservatives where he says that men and women should be required to exercise together in the nude, or perhaps the rest of his radical politics, like the emancipation of women. Conservatives choosing Plato seems weird, since he is most well-known for his radical politics. Aristotle would be a better choice, although I think even he would like to smack today's conservatives in the mouth.

5. Pragmatism. Political theories and social structures are only good if they work. Conservatives usually don't care about how things are done so long as it works. Arguments for tradition invariably revolve around the concept that it was developed that way because it worked better then the alternatives. Conservatives are willing to sacrifice a way that isn't working for one that can be shown to be better.

This just resolves into some form of consequentialism, which then opens up the debate to empirical verification, which conservatism tends to lose. If you want to take this view to its logical conclusion, it would be a complete denial of scientific progress. It's just a celebration of ignorance. Again, in the real world, reforms have to be decided on a case by case basis.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The differences with classical liberalism are quite numerous. Classical liberals believe in progress, Conservatives do not. Classical liberals believe that constitutions are a good thing, conservatives do not. Classical liberals believe that the constitution ought to be respected, conservatives believe that constitutions are inherently limited and must respect the overall rights. Classical liberals believe in human perfectibility, conservatives do not. Classical liberals agree with Rousseau "man is born free" Conservatives believe that man has a fallen nature which cannot be overcome.

There are similarities and overlap with libertarians, but conservatives see society as a necessary evil, and that restraint can be very helpful.

All this is true, but avoids the question, which is "Why?"

Any political position or theory or ideology or whatever you want to call it has to answer simple questions like "What should we do?" or "Is our society a good society?"

In order to do that it needs two things: (1) an axiology, or statement of fundamental value(s); and (2) some beliefs about the way the world is in order to apply those values.

Conservatism seems empty on count (1), or it just resolves into some form of welfarist consequentialism. On count (2) it is vulnerable to empirical arguments, mostly simple ones, that refute it.

The only conclusions one can draw are: (a) it isn't really a political position; (b) it is a pretend political position, but it is a dishonest cover for something else; or (c) it's not a political position, but an alliance of convenience among various interest groups. If it is (c), then there isn't any point talking about why one should be a conservative, since the real debate would be about why one should be a member of one of the interest groups rather than the others.

I don't doubt that there can be Thomist intellectuals or Classical Liberal Intellectuals, but I don't think there can be specifically conservative intellectuals.