[emmitt]

I'd be interested in learning more about paleoconservatism.

Paleoconservatives appear to be divided over economics: Some paleocons are basically free marketeers except for the fact that they favor protectionist measures to some extent. This seems to be the most dominant group.

But there's also a more distributist faction. This is the group I'm particularly fond of.
Are there any (newer) resources on this type of paleoconservatism? Are there any blogs, books or articles that I should be looking for (I am familiar with frontporchrepublic.com)?

Thanks in advance.

[trombonepolitician]

The Catholic economic theory known as "Distributism" appealed to me once. I consider it to be almost a grassroots agrarian Christian Socialism. If you're socially liberal though you may not like much of the social conservatism in the circles. At very best check out the Distributist Review Magazine: http://distributistreview.com/mag/

Read some things at the American Conservative: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/

And now for the flipside

Check out the Green Party platform: http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2012/ (just click any of the hot links and an intricate descriptions will pop up)

And some stuff with the democratic socialists of America
http://www.dsausa.org/

These last two mentions I would very much consider distributist at least to some extent.

[emmitt]

Thanks for the reply.
I didn't expect to get an answer. I know the Distributist Review Magazine and the American Conservative.

I don't care too much about typically leftist values though. I'm generally disappointed with the left's psychotic obsession with values that are mostly insignificant to me. I'm very much opposed to the very idea of egalitarianism and democracy (unless there'd be a limited franchise).
The main reason why I'm basically a localist has got to do with the positive societal consequences of such an economic system. (I prefer to use localism instead of distributism to describe my personal preferences since distributism sounds somewhat awkward to me.)

What made you become what you are now?

[trombonepolitician]

Thanks for the reply.
I don't care too much about typically leftist values though. I'm generally disappointed with the left's psychotic obsession with values that are mostly insignificant to me. I'm very much opposed to the very idea of egalitarianism and democracy (unless there'd be a limited franchise).
The main reason why I'm basically a localist has got to do with the positive societal consequences of such an economic system. (I prefer to use localism instead of distributism to describe my personal preferences since distributism sounds somewhat awkward to me.)

To me egalitarianism simply begins by individuals having mutual respect for one another's differences and abilities. What turns you off from democracy? I will admit, on a national level, I don't think direct democracy would work in the US. But I think we can increase voter participation by mailing ballots to every house in a locality.

With where I am now, I have become very sensitive to equality of opportunity, or lack thereof in the US. In the US current capitalist system, people often struggle to find work, yet need a lot of money to participate and "be successful." Many of us in the past have relied heavily on bosses to hire us (what David Ellerman calls "human rental"). I think that this should be curbed mainly by people self-employing themselves and/or involving themselves in cooperatives.

As far as the welfare state and social democracy in the US, I am unsure of the extent in which the US fed gov can provide those services. Yes many people are dependent now on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but there is a great spar in congress on how much to cut from these programs. I have read that, according to modern monetary theory, that any major cut in those programs would hurt many people that are dependent on them. That doesn't mean I don't think those programs can be a disincentive to engage with others or find work, and would eventually like to see the programs replaced with some sort of guaranteed basic minimum income, but this is what I have learned.

[emmitt]

It seems a bit contradictory to me to support egalitarianism if you want individuals to have mutual respect for one another. You'd have to treat them unequally to achieve egalitarianism in the first place which appears to be the main problem.

I'd also question the very foundation of egalitarianism: I don't really care about total utility within a society. I'd rather try to enhance the average utility among a smaller number of truly praiseworthy individuals instead of trying to help even the most unremarkable person just for the sake of egalitarianism.

Classical democracy is, if you think of it, just an extension of the principle of egalitarianism to another sphere of life. It is based on the idea of quantity before quality. One man, one vote. If the majority decides something, it ought to be done.

The main problems:
1) Crude majoritarianism leads to the marginalization of actually laudable people while stressing the importance of the average person (mob rule).
2) The Problem of the irrational voter/rational ignorance.
-> 3) It stresses stresses short-term gains over long term sustainability.
-> 4) Most people seem to vote on the basis of their own resentments and irrational hostility toward others.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote quite a bit about the evils and problems of democracy. It's always a lot of fun to read his books and articles.

Btw, you mentioned David Ellerman. I do like the idea of worker co-ops as long as capitalist structures would still be allowed.

There are basically four major ideas in localism:

In its most "pure" and ideal form, localism involves a confluence of four features: locally sourced resources or inputs into food and manufactured goods, production of goods by locally owned businesses, sales through locally owned organizations, and consumption by a population that shares a geographical locale with the producers and retailers.

It seems to me that even a localist-leaning economy would be much better than most alternatives I can think of. (I'm pretty sure that you'd like most features of it as well.)

Of course, that's only the goal of a better society which strives to fuse the maximization of average well-being with some kind of progress (in the natural sciences and the arts). I'm quite comfortable with some kind of form of localist-leaning corporatism in the meantime (e.g. Singapore).
(I'm not entirely comfortable with its gun and drug laws though...)

Having said this, paleoconservatives appear to be the people I'm most comfortable with. That's the main reason why I'm trying to find out more about them. Other ideologies annoy me for the most part.

[trombonepolitician]

I see what you're saying, and I'm not entirely far off. My ideology is pretty similar but I think there is a role of government to aid with health care and education (I'm not sure as to how though) as well as provide public roads. I guess that takes the US in the direction of social democracy. I do agree to an extent about democracy. People vote with their feet very often. I often think people are often more capable to think democratically when certain decisions affect them the most individually. Essentially that is democracy in firms.

[emmitt]

Singapore's pretty good when it comes to education and health care.
Local governments could create a similar system in the US.

We should get our own subforum since most competing ideologies are mostly concerned with aspects that are quite different.

[trombonepolitician]

Well I guess if you don't mind Catholicism, you can also check out Solidarity Hall. It's a think tank that just popped up in the last 6 months. I like many ideas, but again I'm culturally liberal (civil libertarian). I think you may like the Communitarian Network as well. I myself am learning a bit more about communitarianism. Paleoconservatism is commonly associated with right-communitarianism

[emmitt]

Thanks for the recommendation. I hadn't heard of Solidarity Hall before. It seems like something that could turn out to be fairly captivating.

Lately, I've been thinking about the connection between the political manifestation of communitarianism and neo-republicanism.
Unfortunately, most of the papers and books on neo-republicanism that I've found so far are a bit too leftist for my taste. I actually thought I might come across something more paleoconservative. But I guess that neo-republican thought is just the leftist alternative to distributism.

I don't know. Maybe I'll find something more useful.

[trombonepolitician]

I think I need a clear definition that separates communitarianism and republicanism

I am at least somewhat sure of my beliefs, but I am not sure of what the proper label is. I will make a post to "Other Ideologies" and see what others think

[emmitt]

Yeah, it's probably somewhat tricky to find real differences. It is pretty easy to convert from communitarianism to neo-republicanism without changing one's ideology too much.

But there might be one vital difference:

When traditional commonwealthmen and republicans hailed the ideal of freedom as non-domination, they only ever imagined that it was an ideal for an elite of propertied, mainstream males; they were all men, after all, and men of their times. But there is every reason why we should reappropriate their ideal and reintroduce it as a universal ideal for the members of a contemporary society. [...] I believe that the notion of freedom as non-domination fits with many of our agreed preconceptions, that it picks up important desiderata that are already inscribed in many of our institutions, and that it can serve to articulate a compelling account of what a decent state and a decent civil society should do for its members.

This shows that (neo)-republicanism postulates an axiomatic ideal which is supposed to improve society. It's more prescriptive than (philosophical) communitarianism which was inadvertently created by critiquing the foundations of liberalism. People like Michael Sandel were uncomfortable with the way (philosophical) liberals thought of the good life.

I guess both ideologies can lead to the same results. The way they came about just happens to differ slightly.
Neo-republicanism is basically identical with left-wing communitarianism in real life. I can't imagine how it could be modified to be compatible with the right-wing or even centrist version of communitarianism.

[trombonepolitician]

What would you say characterizes left and centre-communitarianism. I don't have alot of time to read books

[emmitt]

Well, David Miller would characterize them like this:

1) Centrist Communitarianism (liberal communitarianism): Centrist communitarians try to enhance an individual's autonomy. They're mainly interested in creating a pluralistic society.

2) Leftist Communitarianism: Leftist communitarians strive to create a more egalitarian and "self-determining" society.(Self-determination: the society shouldn't be subject to the authority of tradition.) Leftist communitarianism is supposed to be best expressed "through a doctrine of strong citizenship".

Source: "Communitarianism: left, right and centre" by DAVID MILLER

[trombonepolitician]

It seems then like i'd be a centrist communitarian. The political compass just puts me in the "libertarian left" because of some of my views on trade and wage disparity