[nucklepunche]

After some thinking I have decided that I am a Tory or traditionalist conservative.

I have struggled with this but after a while I have come to the conclusion that there is a left/right paradigm indeed. The left favors egalitarian values and collectivism, the right favors hierarchy and individualism. This is seen in the focus of right wing economic values versus left wing focuses. The twin approaches to crime make sense. The left seeks to understand crime and and seek out root causes whereas the right views it as an individual matter and punishes it accordingly. However I do not take this individualism to the extreme, nor do I think the answer lies in populism, or base my principles on religious voodooism like American "conservatives" do. So I am a Tory, though I speak of it rarely since Americans are incapable of understanding what that is.

First principles:

Humans basically are bad, brutish and self interested. We have what we have to work with. People will not be improved.

Human society tends toward natural inequality.

Property is the bedrock of society, but unrestrained private rapine is bad.

Conflict and tribalism are inevitable.

Humans usually look to strong leaders, democracy is a myth.

This leads to the following stances...

I am opposed to unrestrained democracy. I believe natural aristocracy is necessary for society. When I say natural aristocracy I mean an aristocracy of class, not necessarily of money. I view the "new money" of our society as fundamentally "classless" and their tastes are a product of the democratic disease. They are merely Babbits with money.

I believe in capitalism and private property, but human nature being what it is there needs to be some restraints on this. I am center-right in economics but next to the Tea Party I look like a socialist.

The nation state is a necessary reality. Dreams of a utopian future with no borders and a global government are idiocy.

People will always be unequal. Always and everywhere.

Monarchy is far greater than republics. But not like the British monarchy who have become "celebrities." I'd say Lichtenstein is a better model.

Democracy is an illusion the iron law of oligarchy holds. So "democracy" as we see it only leads to a crude, classless, oligarchy based on money and special interests whereas aristoracy or monarchy is an oligarchy of class.

Democracy always follows the impulses of the basest members of society and is governed by a moneyed special interest. It is mob rule combined with the most garish plutocracy.

[Ombrageux]

I'm sorry for your loss.

What were you before?

Two thoughts:
1) I hope your "Toryism" has no relationship with the modern Tory Party. They are Liberasts quite unworthy of the British reactionary tradition.
2) I prefer thinking about politics in terms of political practice (which states/policies/ideologies are successful) as against first principles (abstract a priori reasoning).

[Daktoria]

I've been noticing this trend among liberals a lot lately, so don't fear for being strange, nucklepunche.

A lot of liberals are fed up with egalitarianism and are embracing rugged individualism. It's even gotten to the point where they complain about conservatives who constantly advocate a fair rule of law. They think the rule of law is inherently troubled, and at some level, you have to say, "Tough, that's life."

They still support social safety nets, but not as much. Many liberals are becoming increasingly tolerant of the prison system being used for social rejects as opposed to social work. At the very best, they support throwing social rejects into loony bins so society doesn't have to deal with them.

They also agree that democracy is a facade, and that nothing can be done about it because everyone's competing for attention. Those who compete the best achieve social hierarchy. You can't reform the system because if you do, someone will exploit your vulnerability.

That said, they realize social hierarchs have to set a model example for others to look up to because they need to appear merciful. That way, their victims can't stake any damages against them.

They also agree with what you said regarding money because people purchase what it takes to be cool, not be themselves.

[nucklepunche]

What were you before?

Apart from a brief socialist phase at 14 I was a libertarian for many years. Then I sort of went through a phase when I began drifting from that and sort of looked at all different ideologies.

Two thoughts:
1) I hope your "Toryism" has no relationship with the modern Tory Party. They are Liberasts quite unworthy of the British reactionary tradition.

Not at all. I'm not British. I'm looking at the classical conservatism of Burke, Russell Kirk et al. The British Tories are just like the British version of US Republicans ever since Thatcher.

2) I prefer thinking about politics in terms of political practice (which states/policies/ideologies are successful) as against first principles (abstract a priori reasoning).

So you have no first principles?

They also agree that democracy is a facade, and that nothing can be done about it because everyone's competing for attention. Those who compete the best achieve social hierarchy. You can't reform the system because if you do, someone will exploit your vulnerability.

That said, they realize social hierarchs have to set a model example for others to look up to because they need to appear merciful. That way, their victims can't stake any damages against them.

They also agree with what you said regarding money because people purchase what it takes to be cool, not be themselves.

Dak, define your vision of conservatism.

[Daktoria]

Oh, I wasn't talking about myself there nucklepunche. I was talking about other turning liberals I'm familiar with in my life. They're mostly in their mid-20s, early 30s. There are a few elders as well who never caught up.

Anyway, my conservatism is revolves around Russell Kirk and Frank Meyer. You should look them up if you're interested.

[nucklepunche]

I know who they are. Russell Kirk is a famous author of this region. I read his fiction and nonfiction both. His fiction is particularly good. Ancestral Shadows is a collection of ghost stories. His stories pertaining to the western Michigan setting capture the mood of the region perfectly. Nonetheless Kirk seems to be a conservative of the classical sense. He never if rarely mentions economics. He doesn't seem grounded in libertarian economics the way others are.

[Potemkin]

Nonetheless Kirk seems to be a conservative of the classical sense. He never if rarely mentions economics. He doesn't seem grounded in libertarian economics the way others are.

I would go so far as to suggest that Russell Kirk's classical conservatism is incompatible with libertarianism. And vice versa, of course. Libertarianism, if consistently pursued, is destructive of traditional social values.

[Daktoria]

Potemkin's right on the button.

Kirk did call libertarians "chirping sectaries".

http://www.mmisi.org/ma/25_04/kirk.pdf

At the end of the essay, he even claims that socialists have better morals (though without support).

[Ombrageux]

I have always found arch-Conservative Michael Oakeshott's famous essay on the topic to be very persuasive and eloquent, as far as these things go.

[Soixante-Retard]

I've never fully understood big-C conservatism and I don't think I'll ever will. I don't think I have the right mindset - I'm not a paternalist, not averse to change (i.e. reactionary) and do not see social hierarchies or inequalities as necessarily inevitable nor defensible as virtuous. Though from what I have experienced, Conservatism is just as factious as Liberalism.

F. A. Hayek's essay "Why I am Not A Conservative" is essentially reading for Liberals who are accused of being "Conservative", viz. anti-Socialists.

Though thanks to everyone who has posted a link so far - I intend to read (and finish) them and hopefully understand Conservatism and its appeal more fully.

[Jackal]

Welcome to the club.

However, I feel like you will not be here very long.

[mikema63]

Jakal casts you back to libertarianism once more, few escape and we've been waiting for you in the shadows, watching.

[Soixante-Retard]

Russell Kirk; wow, just wow. Kirk's essay "Libertarians: the Chirping Sectaries" is appalling. And this man is considered a great intellect? What?! In his essay there was no argument whatsoever. Kirk talks about how numerous Conservatives have "refuted" Libertarian arguments but he fails to actually give or even mention these refutations - it's just ipse dixit. Christ! And instead of actually addressing any argument from a Libertarian, he just calls them "mad" and implies they are "lunatics" and belong in "mentally homes". And, again, this man is supposedly heralded for his intellect? What a joke. I would be embarrassed to be associated with him.

Did I mention that his essay is also one giant straw man of Libertarianism? Kirk asserts "Libertarians generally believe that human nature is good". Err no we don't. We, like Conservatives, understand men are not angels - that would be naïve. But we give persons more dignity and respect for their personal choices and of their autonomy than Conservatives do. Aaron Ross Powell explains it simply:

The anti-liberal, be he communitarian, conservative, or totalitarian, argues as follows:

I prefer X over Y. Other people prefer Y over X. The fact that some people are doing Y is (1) harmful to me because I don't like Y and (2) harmful to them because they'd be better off doing X instead of Y.

So that, according to the anti-liberal, necessitates using force to have people do X instead of Y. The liberal, or libertarian, denies this necessity for each man deserves his autonomy; the individual is sovereign (J. S. Mill).

A second point that Kirk asserts is "The libertarian takes the state for the great oppressor." No, that would necessarily be the anarchist position not the libertarian position. What the libertarian takes as the great oppressor is the initiation of force against peaceful persons (i.e. non-aggressors). The state can be, but not always, the embodiment of such action - but private individuals can be too. Thus Libertarians would rail as much against the State where it initiates force against peaceful persons as a private individuals who initiate force against peaceful persons. Thus a minarchist position is entirely consistent within libertarianism. Libertarianism is not necessarily anarchism.

As Jim M. Buchanan puts it:

To the individualist, utopia is anarchist, but as a realist he recognizes the necessity of an enforcing agent, a collectivity, a state. As a minimal procedural norm, any such entity must treat equally all who qualify as members, as persons, even when interpersonal differences are acknowledged.

Third, Kirk asserts "What binds society together? The libertarians reply that the cement of society ... is self-interest, closely joined to the nexus of cash payment." In this he is not too far off, but off he is. It is not the case, the Libertarian responds, that society is necessarily woven together through individuals pursuing what they think is in their interests - but that it is, in addition, a respect for the autonomy and life of each individual. It is essential, he continues, that each individual should be free to pursue their happiness provided he does not preclude others from doing the same, viz. a respect for the other individual's rights.

And when Kirk denounces libertarians for believing that the "world is chiefly a stage for the swaggering ego", he appears to have libertarianism confused with libertinism. But he is by far not the only critic of libertarianism to have confused the two.

I should think that any Conservative interested in considerate debate as a method for discovering what is the truth and what is not would ditch Kirk as a poster boy for Conservatism. Unless, of course, Conservatism is ipso facto reactionary in nature in which case Kirk would appear a suitable Conservative icon.



As for Michael Oakeshott essay, now here's an author and a style of writing that I can respect. He's on a different level compared to Kirk. I agree with most of the essay. It appears what Oakeshott describes as "Rationalist" in the context "[the Rationalist] is something also of an individualist, finding it difficult to believe that anyone who can think honestly and clearly will think differently from himself" is exactly what Hayek describes as "false individualism" in his essay Individualism: True and False. But Oakeshott is erroneously, I think, attributing this type of Rationalism to Hayek (for this is a person who Oakeshott is criticizes as having this type of Rationalism) - the type of rationalism that Hayek repudiated and disdained. So it actually appears that Oakeshott and Hayek enjoyed some similarities in their disdain for the Rationalism of Rousseau and Descartes though Oakeshott is erroneously attributing this to the man he supposedly criticizing - Hayek. It appears I'm not alone when I say can appreciate Oakeshott's essay from a liberal standpoint.

I'm very impressed with the civility and thought from Oakeshott and thoroughly unimpressed by the lack of civility and thought from Kirk. It appears to me that Oakeshott is more of the "thinking" conservative unlike the "reactionary" Kirk. If Kirk's other works are similar to that essay of his, then I won't waste my time on him. However, if Oakeshott's work is as good as his essay then I would very much like to read more of him. I may not agree with him - I'm too much of a liberal, for now - but it would be interesting to read some intelligent criticisms of liberalism/libertarianism.

[Daktoria]

S-R, you should reread the segment on Mill where Kirk talks about libertarians' obsession with eccentricity. When libertarians refute a transcendental moral order, they become obsessed with merely being different.

There's no problem with being different, but in order to preserve liberty, you need to have common principles which unite everyone. Otherwise, discourse itself becomes deconstructed, and people become unable to relate with each other. Kirk talks about how libertarians reduce things down to "simple solitary principles", but that yields intolerance over the long run because people become obsessed with their own interpretations of simple solitary principles, ignoring how those principles can be misinterpreted by others.

The classic example of this would be the non-aggression principle where people can argue that freedom of speech is aggressive due to the exercise of force inherent therein. If people are disturbed by others' vulgar exercise, they could claim self-defense in restraining the vulgar to shut up.

A conservative, in contrast, realizes that speech itself needs organization such that incompatibility does not yield conflict. Everyone can express themselves as long as they aren't stepping on each others' toes. A conservative would also recognize that people need to learn social customs so people don't bang drums waking their neighbors in the middle of the night.

These customs, however, would accommodate everyone in society no matter how eccentric. If someone has a problem, then that problem is embraced and dealt with, not shunned.

[Dr House]

After some thinking I have decided that I am a Tory or traditionalist conservative.

I have struggled with this but after a while I have come to the conclusion that there is a left/right paradigm indeed. The left favors egalitarian values and collectivism, the right favors hierarchy and individualism. This is seen in the focus of right wing economic values versus left wing focuses. The twin approaches to crime make sense. The left seeks to understand crime and and seek out root causes whereas the right views it as an individual matter and punishes it accordingly. However I do not take this individualism to the extreme, nor do I think the answer lies in populism, or base my principles on religious voodooism like American "conservatives" do. So I am a Tory, though I speak of it rarely since Americans are incapable of understanding what that is.

First principles:

Humans basically are bad, brutish and self interested. We have what we have to work with. People will not be improved.

Human society tends toward natural inequality.

Property is the bedrock of society, but unrestrained private rapine is bad.

Conflict and tribalism are inevitable.

Humans usually look to strong leaders, democracy is a myth.

This leads to the following stances...

I am opposed to unrestrained democracy. I believe natural aristocracy is necessary for society. When I say natural aristocracy I mean an aristocracy of class, not necessarily of money. I view the "new money" of our society as fundamentally "classless" and their tastes are a product of the democratic disease. They are merely Babbits with money.

I believe in capitalism and private property, but human nature being what it is there needs to be some restraints on this. I am center-right in economics but next to the Tea Party I look like a socialist.

The nation state is a necessary reality. Dreams of a utopian future with no borders and a global government are idiocy.

People will always be unequal. Always and everywhere.

Monarchy is far greater than republics. But not like the British monarchy who have become "celebrities." I'd say Lichtenstein is a better model.

Democracy is an illusion the iron law of oligarchy holds. So "democracy" as we see it only leads to a crude, classless, oligarchy based on money and special interests whereas aristoracy or monarchy is an oligarchy of class.

Democracy always follows the impulses of the basest members of society and is governed by a moneyed special interest. It is mob rule combined with the most garish plutocracy.

Fuck yeah Nucklepunche!

See guys? This is what happens, given enough time, when you actually think.

[Soixante-Retard]

S-R, you should reread the segment on Mill where Kirk talks about libertarians' obsession with eccentricity. When libertarians refute a transcendental moral order, they become obsessed with merely being different.

Libertarians are a) not eccentric for the sake of being different nor b) necessarily eccentric and c) don't have an obsession with eccentricity. Kirk, on the other hand, with his emphatic rejection of anything new (automobiles for example) would constitute being as eccentric for the sake of it. (Maybe he was projecting himself when he wrote that part of the essay). What libertarians demand is that we respect each individual's quirks and idiosyncrasies - for that is who he is - and reject the claim that from some authority does somebody say that not only that the individual should not have those eccentricities but that I have the authority to force him not to have them.

you need to have common principles which unites everyone.

Yes libertarians are not immoral libertines. One of the morals which we subscribe to is "love thy neighbor as thyself."


Here is an more comprehensive critique of Kirk from a person, linked by a person too lazy to write one.

Kirk is rubbish. Oakeshott, however, is a conservative I can have respect for - even though I don't agree with him.

[Daktoria]

S-R I read the whole thing, but your critic's refuge in natural rights seems to miss a very key element of Kirk's essay:

But surely, surely I must be misrepre-
senting the breed? Don’t I know self-
proclaimed libertarians who are kindly old
gentlemen, God-fearing, patriotic, chaste,
well endowed with the goods of fortune?
Yes, I do know such. They are the people
who through misapprehension put up. the
cash for the fantastics. Such gentlemen call
themselves “libertarians” merely because
they believe in personal freedom, and do
not understand to what extravagances they
lend their names by subsidizing doctrinaire
“libertarian” causes and publications. If a
person describes himself as “libertarian”
because he believes in an enduring moral
order, the Constitution of the United
States, free enterprise, and old American
ways of life-why, actually he is a conser-
vative with imperfect understanding of the
general terms of politics.

___________

Anyway, Kirk isn't merely criticizing libertarians for flirting with libertinism. What he's criticizing is libertarians have no bulwark for preventing libertinism in the minds of others. They merely proscribe liberty as a means to an end, and leave the end to be desired.

For thoughtful people, this is fine, but many people don't think, and libertarians insist on believing that people are willing to think for themselves. As Kirk said, libertarians believe that people are fundamentally good.

In reality, people are self-interested, and that includes persuading others to think for you. There is no more precious commodity than attention.

When libertarians ignore this, they allow themselves to become socially outcast. It's similar to the belief that people don't need religion to be moral. Yes, if you think about right and wrong, it is possible to not need religion, but people don't want to think about right and wrong. People want to think about how to get what they want. If someone else is willing to think about right and wrong, then you use that person, labeling thinkers as eccentric.

This is why the transcendental moral order is so important. Not only does it get everyone on the same page, but it also assimilates libertarians into society so they don't eccentrically think for others who are unappreciative.

[Soixante-Retard]

Dak, I think you and Kirk are making egregious generalizations and misrepresentations of libertarianism. What I see from your response is that because some people may not be able to think for themselves that necessitates imposing your idea of what they should do on them. The libertarian rejects this as infringement upon a person's liberty and identity. It is thinking that one knows best and that one should therefore be able to impose upon. How would you like to be treated as not an individual with your own ends, but as a slave to someone else's end?

A great quote from Hayek:

...the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

The liberal/libertarian is an egalitarian with regards to the law. We are anti-privilege. The conservative is not. We believe in treating everyone equally. The conservative doesn't.

and continuing:

Conservatives feel instinctively that it is new ideas more than anything else that cause change. But, from its point of view rightly, conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose them; and, by its distrust of theory and its lack of imagination concerning anything except that which experience has already proved, it deprives itself of the weapons needed in the struggle of ideas. Unlike liberalism, with its fundamental belief in the long-range power of ideas, conservatism is bound by the stock of ideas inherited at a given time. And since it does not really believe in the power of argument, its last resort is generally a claim to superior wisdom, based on some self-arrogated superior quality.

This would be sufficient to explain Kirk's ipse dixit attitude. Kirk's position rests on authority and authority alone. But who is to say that authority is sufficient enough to believe what is said. The liberal, however, demands more than authority, he demands to be persuaded by argument. He is thus open to be persuaded by new ideas. But that is not to say he will necessarily accept new ideas. The liberal, unlike the conservative, won't reject them out of hand for the sake of rejecting them and conserving something. Tradition is all well and good. But because something is traditional, the liberal contends, does not mean it is necessarily virtuous. The liberal is open to the "creative destruction" of ideas via a marketplace. The conservative yearns for a monopoly on what is true and virtuous.

[Daktoria]

Dak, I think you and Kirk are making egregious generalizations and misrepresentations of libertarianism. What I see from your response is that because some people may not be able to think for themselves that necessitates imposing your idea of what they should do on them.

No... they CAN think. They just CHOOSE not to.

The libertarian rejects this as infringement upon a person's liberty and identity. It is thinking that one knows best and that one should therefore be able to impose upon.

Yes, that's libertinism. You're letting people get away with not thinking.

How would you like to be treated as not an individual with your own ends,

What I like in particular doesn't matter. Everyone doesn't want to be treated the same way.

but as a slave to someone else's end?

Those who refuse to think for themselves crave to either enslave others or be enslaved themselves.

The liberal/libertarian is an egalitarian with regards to the law. We are anti-privilege. The conservative is not. We believe in treating everyone equally. The conservative doesn't.

I agree with Hayek.

What libertarians fail to realize is THEY are superior. By denying authority, they're exposing themselves to getting hurt.

(Ironically, as you mentioned before, Kirk refused to even drive cars. He was eccentric himself, and was trying to HELP libertarians learn how to avoid being eccentric.)

This would be sufficient to explain Kirk's ipse dixit attitude. Kirk's position rests on authority and authority alone. But who is to say that authority is sufficient enough to believe what is said. The liberal, however, demands more than authority, he demands to be persuaded by argument. He is thus open to be persuaded by new ideas. But that is not to say he will necessarily accept new ideas. The liberal, unlike the conservative, won't reject them out of hand for the sake of rejecting them and conserving something. Tradition is all well and good. But because something is traditional, the liberal contends, does not mean it is necessarily virtuous. The liberal is open to the "creative destruction" of ideas via a marketplace. The conservative yearns for a monopoly on what is true and virtuous.

YES, but what matters is people BELIEVE in tradition. You need to separate ideals from reality.

It is THAT BELIEF which persuades unthinking people to respect you.

[Soixante-Retard]

Yes, that's libertinism. You're letting people get away with not thinking.

No, that's not libertinism. Libertinism is repudiating personal responsibility. In that sense, it is antithetical to libertarianism. We may allow people not to think for themselves but they should bear the responsibility for not doing so. Libertarians demand that people be responsible and accountable for their actions or lack of actions. If individuals bear responsibility for their actions it encourages prudent decision making.

George Bernard Shaw understood the aversion to liberty - it is the aversion of responsibility:

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.

I encourage you to read, at zero-price, Hayek's chapter "Responsibility and Freedom" in The Constitution of Liberty.