[Sceptic]

The Americans got there before the French, and the British had a relatively limited parliament prior as well. The French overthrew their king and replaced it with the first French Republic, which lasted a whopping 12 years! It was known as the Reign of Terror.

Ok, yes I can agree with some conservative criticisms of the French Enlightenment period. The philosopher Edmund Burke had these reservations as well, I believe, before the French revolution contrasting it with the American independence from British monarchy. I would just point out that this was an essentially liberal revolution, at least in a classical sense and I could not tell before I knew more about your ideology if you were using ‘liberal’ in a derogatory sense in the same manner as, say, a fascist. This was partly to do with your extensive realpolitik. Furthermore, I’d also note that although France took a long time to recover from the scars of revolution, the values of the enlightenment era – fraternity, liberty and equality – seem to have underpinned all or most Western democracies for many centuries. I would include the US despite its strong undercurrents of its own particular branch of American conservatism.

They responded to containment policies of their neighbors by declaring war on Austria, and taking territory by military force. Napolean Bonaparte began his rise during the War of the Second Coalition, where he led an expedition to Egypt. Admiral Horatio Lord Nelson defeated the French Navy at the Battle of the Nile. The First Republic was replaced in 1804 by the First French Empire, where they were ruled thusly by the 19th Century version of Hitler--Napolean Bonaparte. Not exactly an exercise in liberal ideology either. Do the Napoleanic Wars ring a bell? Napolean was defeated, but eluded his captors on Elba. He was finally defeated at the battle of Waterloo, by Lord Wellington in 1815. During the Napoleonic Wars, Napolean ended up selling Louisiana to the Americans, doubling the size of the United States in the process. The subsequent Bourbon restoration lasted a whopping 16 years, ending in 1830. The July Revolution in 1830 saw the Duke of Orleans overthrow Charles X, which led to his 18 year long July Monarchy. The 1848 Revolution was the more lasting event in Europe. That led to the French Second Republic. Of course, that led to the election of Louis Napolean... not exactly looking like enlightenment--kind of like Bush, Clinton, Bush, almost Clinton, trying Clinton of today... Within three years, Louis Napolean suspended the assembly and declared the Second French Empire. Universal suffrage to elect a potentate only, forbidding free speech, installing Emperor Maximillian in Mexico in 1863, colonizing Cochinchina and Annam (i.e., Vietnam). Then Louis Napolean (Napolean III) invades Prussia and gets beat at the Battle of Sedan, leading to the establishment of the Third Republic, which continued with colonial expansion leading to two world wars. It was replaced by the fascist Vichy Government in 1940. The Fourth Republic lasted only 12 years, as their were 20 governments in 10 years. Italy is still like that today. The collapse of the French Overseas Empire brought the Fourth Republic to its knees, culminating in the Algiers Crisis of 1958. In what some consider a coup d'etat, De Gaulle took power extra-constitutionally and established the Fifth Republic. ... hardly seems "enlightened" or to have "worked" as you've put it. Then again, what you are ultimate expressing is a triumph of aesthetics and sentiment over history and fact.

Prohibitions on anal sex for example. Sex outside of wedlock. So on...

Ok, these are examples of some of the traditions that are not advocated by conservatives but I have never been clear what is fully meant by the term ‘tradition’ or what conservatives believe are the sociocultural or historic factors that are supposed to be that define the term ‘tradition’. It never seems clear because of how loosely conservatives tend to use that term. The welfare state is a ‘tradition’ because it has been in existence since Otto von Bismarck in the late 19th Century, a conservative who introduced it to subdue a socialist working class revolution. What about the right for women to vote? That is a ‘tradition’ also and has been around for a long time [check year]. So what qualifies a tradition? Does it have to reflect the hierarchies of society, like the patriarchal oppression of women prevented them from obtaining the right to vote? Or in the same way capitalism is a socially conservative tradition because it reflects the interests of an elite class in society? What about feudalism, if ‘tradition’ is defined in a way as to align allegiance to hierarchy and divine authority from above, then it certainly seems that serfdom can be referred to as such an example. Sex outside of wedlock also seems to righteously qualify as a ‘tradition’ because it reflects the interests of the elite Judeo-Christian church.

I can't speak for France to any significant degree. However, Muslims are hardly part of the fraternity in France. In the U.S., our liberals play identity politics to such a degree that fraternity is a joke. Liberty? They routinely try to ban things like large soda pop cups, smoking cigarettes, owning firearms and the like. But I'm talking more about their tendency to try to optimize society to an ever changing ideal of utopia. Liberty does not underpin bans on smoking, for example.

Ok, but my question was whether you are referring to left or right wing liberalism. Terms like ‘fraternity, liberty and equality’ can create much confusion and they have so much ideological baggage attached to them but for certain, you will never find a right wing, classical liberal using that slogan. It is obvious for that reason then that when I am referring to liberty here that I am at least partially referring to the negative freedoms the term encompasses. ‘One man’s freedom ends where another’s begin’ rings very true and I’d stress JS Mill’s harm principle here. The negative social repercussions, externalities you will of seemingly ‘voluntary’ behaviour can, in fact, cause psychological or physical harm to another person who has not consented to that behaviour. If you want to smoke cigarettes in your own home that is your own prerogative but in public, it is a threat to over people’s health and if you are a parent you shouldn’t be smoking around your children either (I think that this should be considered abusive parenting under the law). Owning firearms? Well, obviously there must be some form of licensing here: it is not a restriction of civil liberty to make sure that gang members or convicts can own a firearm, just like you do not have a right to murder someone and you lose your right to freedom when you go to jail for doing so. I would take this argument to a further extreme and make the point that, actually why should you be given even the ability through any sort of arms to harm another being? Surely that is a suppression of my liberty, to know all my neighbours could be psychopaths wanting to kill me with their firearms?

I once had an interesting argument about proscriptions against anal sex, arguing for a health and safety basis in ancient times. He posited that monogamy wasn't the natural order of things, and cited a paper in support of his opinion. He wanted to equate a study including hummingbirds, where the conclusion for hummingbirds supported the notion of non-monogamy. I read the paper and found something different with humans. Human reproductive fitness increases when women are forced to be monogamous and men are allowed to be polygamous--i.e., a scientific basis for the so-called "double standard." If you look to an aesthetic of justice with equality for men and women, that hardly seems fair. Yet, if you argue on a scientific basis, it's easily explained. That's when liberals begin denying science.

Well, I don’t know about arguing on a scientific basis but you can certainly make rational arguments against it. First of all the added competition for women is not going to be in most mens’ rational self-interest (and yes, unfortunately many women are perfectly willing to whore themselves out to alpha male cavemen with wealth, status and multiple romantic interests). Secondly, polygamy is not socially stable and very bad for child rearing.

Keynesian politics only works in a nationalist context. It stopped working for the U.S. when trade deficits became persistently large. For example, the latest stimulus did a great deal to stimulate Chinese and Japanese consumer electronics and automakers. Shovel ready jobs did NOT materialize, and even Obama admits this is the case.

I will agree that as an economic policy, it needs to be refined and point out that economic thought has progressed from traditional demand management and Keynesian thought to New Keynesianism, etc. I don’t think one can deny the benefits of the growth of the Liberal Welfare State, however.

Britain was a disaster when Thatcher took over. The UK was devaluing the pound to keep things going, and labor strikes brought economic growth to a standstill. The dole was full, much like today in the U.S. where long-term disability is now a euphemism for the older unemployed. Thatcher restored the UK to economic growth, something that wasn't a priority for labor.

Well, let’s see Thatcher presided over record numbers of unemployment, – 3.6 million – introduced financial deregulation that was responsible for the bank runs of 2008, saw high inflation rates and if you are going to complain about the pound devaluing, you should look into Black Wednesday. Also we are in the shits economically now with a shortage of council housing because Thatcher introduced Right to Buy – and coinciding levels of homelessness with those diminishing figures of new council homes being built, as well as the young homeless people which we never had before Maggie because she made it harder for young people who left home (many with problems at home) to get council benefits and council housing – and rising prices of fuel, because Thatcher shut down 150 coal mines in labour districts throughout England and Wales and now we have to import expensive coal from abroad! Also if you’re going to complain about the dole perhaps you should look into the figures of unemployed/ job seeker’s allowance (‘JSA’) benefits – very low, probably because there aren’t as many loopholes as we like to make out.

Congress runs the budget. That's why they drummed Newt Gingrich out of Washington--because he cut spending. Notice how he was trashed by liberals like Mitt Romney in the last presidential primaries? The fact is that the budget would never have been balanced without deficit hawks in the Republican party.

Cap-and-trade, non-stop global warming propaganda, etc. I had to take a class in school called "The Race to Save the Planet." I was shaking my head through it. That struck me as manic delusion, and yet they teach that stuff with a straight face.

No, what I meant was, how do you reckon that fear manifests itself as conservative ideology whereas the person who is burdened with uncertainty becomes a liberal?

[blackjack21]

The philosopher Edmund Burke had these reservations as well, I believe, before the French revolution contrasting it with the American independence from British monarchy. I would just point out that this was an essentially liberal revolution, at least in a classical sense and I could not tell before I knew more about your ideology if you were using ‘liberal’ in a derogatory sense in the same manner as, say, a fascist.

The American Revolution wasn't just independence from the British Monarchy and a denial of the Divine Right of Kings, it also banned titles of nobility explicitly. So it was a liberal revolution against the traditional feudalism too, and it preceded the French Revolution. This was true even in the Articles of Confederation.

No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

Ok, these are examples of some of the traditions that are not advocated by conservatives but I have never been clear what is fully meant by the term ‘tradition’ or what conservatives believe are the sociocultural or historic factors that are supposed to be that define the term ‘tradition’.

From the context of modern society, I think starting with the nuclear family isn't such a bad place. Here, the political left has embraced both libertinism and non-traditional family structures as the moral equivalent of the traditional family. However, the scientific evidence does not support liberal assertions that children from non-traditional families are more or less as well off as children who live with a biological father and mother. Since family is the foundational unit of human society, it's an ideal starting point for examining the differences between liberals and conservatives.

The welfare state is a ‘tradition’ because it has been in existence since Otto von Bismarck in the late 19th Century, a conservative who introduced it to subdue a socialist working class revolution.

But the welfare state isn't the natural order of things, and is in a state of decay as it reaches the point where it will collapse later in the 21st Century. By contrast, the nuclear family has been part of society since time immemorial. It's not just a function of politically recognized institutions. The nuclear family precedes politics. It's related closely to biology.

What about the right for women to vote?

What about it? It probably wasn't the brightest idea, for sure.

So what qualifies a tradition?

Tradition comes from the latin tradere, which means to transmit. So it would likely be best understood as customs that are passed on from generation to generation. Sure, the Super Bowl party could be construed to be a tradition, but that's somewhat superfluous.

Does it have to reflect the hierarchies of society, like the patriarchal oppression of women prevented them from obtaining the right to vote?

That's a bit of Flintstoning, I'd say. Queen Elizabeth I didn't have the right to vote either, did she? Most societies have been patriarchal, as men provided defense and women assumed a domestic role. That has more to do with gender than it does with hierarchy. As far as women rulers, the precede even Cleopatra. It's just liberals who think that everything that isn't set up according to their ideals must somehow be oppression.

Or in the same way capitalism is a socially conservative tradition because it reflects the interests of an elite class in society?

Capitalism led to the decline and fall of the British aristocracy. Conservative traditionalists like the hereditary feudal lords were not capitalists at all. They were passing land and title down from generation to generation. It had nothing to do with mass production, economies of scale and the like. In fact, in its latest bust cycle, it has been socialism that has bailed out billionaires. Capitalist factions like the Tea Party were very much content to let billionaires swing in the breeze. Yet, the government bailed them out. The GM bailout was not about the shareholders, it was about the bond holders. God forbid Henry Ford's great grandchildren have to work for a living.

Sex outside of wedlock also seems to righteously qualify as a ‘tradition’ because it reflects the interests of the elite Judeo-Christian church.

That's quite a bizarre assertion if ever there was one. Do explain.

Ok, but my question was whether you are referring to left or right wing liberalism. Terms like ‘fraternity, liberty and equality’ can create much confusion and they have so much ideological baggage attached to them but for certain, you will never find a right wing, classical liberal using that slogan. It is obvious for that reason then that when I am referring to liberty here that I am at least partially referring to the negative freedoms the term encompasses.

A right wing classical liberal seems like a contradiction in terms, unless you are referring to post revolutionary America, where conservatism means conserving the Republic.

If you want to smoke cigarettes in your own home that is your own prerogative but in public, it is a threat to over people’s health and if you are a parent you shouldn't be smoking around your children either (I think that this should be considered abusive parenting under the law).

All those native American child abusers aside, most of second-hand smoke argument is pure bogus. Civil courts rely on preponderance of the evidence. Such nonsense doesn't require a scientific proof.

Owning firearms? Well, obviously there must be some form of licensing here: it is not a restriction of civil liberty to make sure that gang members or convicts can own a firearm, just like you do not have a right to murder someone and you lose your right to freedom when you go to jail for doing so. I would take this argument to a further extreme and make the point that, actually why should you be given even the ability through any sort of arms to harm another being? Surely that is a suppression of my liberty, to know all my neighbours could be psychopaths wanting to kill me with their firearms?

To overthrow tyrannical governments. Do we want to suppress the liberty of tyrants. Yes, of course. We want to kill tyrants. We secured our liberty through exchange of live fire. It was not handed to us. Licensing suggests that gun ownership is not a right. It predates the constitution. It is a right.

First of all the added competition for women is not going to be in most mens’ rational self-interest (and yes, unfortunately many women are perfectly willing to whore themselves out to alpha male cavemen with wealth, status and multiple romantic interests). Secondly, polygamy is not socially stable and very bad for child rearing.

We're speaking in scientific terms, though. Not political terms. If women are forced to be monogamous, and the men they are with polygamous, that doesn't change the fact that the women are largely monogamous. It means that a small number of women are prostitutes. It doesn't necessarily imply polygamous marriage, but perhaps lots of sons of guns to fill the Royal Navy, whereas traditional families are recognized and the children from those families do considerably better.

I will agree that as an economic policy, it needs to be refined and point out that economic thought has progressed from traditional demand management and Keynesian thought to New Keynesianism, etc. I don’t think one can deny the benefits of the growth of the Liberal Welfare State, however.

Sure you can debate it. In the United States, we have to import a working class to do the work that the working class, now on welfare, used to do. I live in a society where the middle class speaks English and the working class speaks Spanish, and isn't supposed to be in the country anyway. That may differ considerably from Britain. In the US, it has had many negative externalities. It has almost completely destroyed the black nuclear family. So black IQs, black crime rates, black economic development all suffers considerably under the modern Welfare State. That's increasingly the case with whites now too. So we have a society that fractures along class lines by virtue of ones dependence on or independence from the Welfare State.

Well, let’s see Thatcher presided over record numbers of unemployment, – 3.6 million – introduced financial deregulation that was responsible for the bank runs of 2008,

She left power in the early 1990s. Blaming her for something nearly 20 years later is absurd. What happened is that liberals decided that poor people should be given mortgages they could not afford to repay by creating an unsupportable presumption that their incomes would increase. That did not materialize, as we all know...

and if you are going to complain about the pound devaluing, you should look into Black Wednesday.

That was George Soros and a bunch of hedge funds, and it has turned out to be a Godsend for Britain as they haven't been completely strangled by the Euro.

and rising prices of fuel, because Thatcher shut down 150 coal mines in labour districts throughout England and Wales and now we have to import expensive coal from abroad!

Rising prices of fuel have more to do with the rise of China than anything Thatcher did. Coal mines? Sure she broke the miners strike, but that was much needed.

No, what I meant was, how do you reckon that fear manifests itself as conservative ideology whereas the person who is burdened with uncertainty becomes a liberal?

It comes from a paper I read. I wouldn't put too much into those studies just yet. Liberals have responded about as irrationally as one could expect from something like the Sandy Hook shootings--i.e., there is no effort to improve mental health, only to ban firearms. That's clearly a fear-based reaction. So I don't see it has being particularly liberal or conservative. The paper I cited on systems of morality is a bit more interesting though.

[Sceptic]

You will have to excuse me for somewhat neglecting the economic side, as this post took me a LONG time to type out. In any case, I would like to further address the debate about Thatcher and also the growth - and economic impact - of the welfare state in my next post, with more factual information and so forth. Cheers

TRADITIONS:

Tradition comes from the latin tradere, which means to transmit. So it would likely be best understood as customs that are passed on from generation to generation. Sure, the Super Bowl party could be construed to be a tradition, but that's somewhat superfluous.

Ok, so what exactly constitutes a 'non-superfluous' tradition. Longevity of the tradition? Socioeconomic impact?

From the context of modern society, I think starting with the nuclear family isn't such a bad place. Here, the political left has embraced both libertinism and non-traditional family structures as the moral equivalent of the traditional family.

Here you bring up traditional family structures and the ‘libertinism’ of the political left but you later proceed to purport polygyny and what’s more is that the political left have routinely defended the historical model of the extended family, something that was broken by the growth of the market economy and Liberal-Capitalism.

Rei Murasame posted a brilliant article about this by Alan C. Clarson in another thread. I have cut a lot out and put the main points into bold:

Indeed, the breakthrough of the liberal-capitalist order represented a vast, creative, and beneficial revolution […] Inherent in this new order, however, was a great danger: the tendency of economic and social freedom to descend into anarchy. The values implicit in the liberal-capitalist ethos - acquisitiveness, egocentricity, intellectual autonomy, and private responsibility - demolished inherited kinship and community ties, thereby making a new world possible.

Yet this liberation and glorification of the individual threatened to shred social life altogether, leaving only egoistic nihilism in its wake. The natural, unplanned genius of the new order lay in the cultural forces which kept this destructive consequence of liberal-capitalism in check: The first of these was the [nuclear] family [...]

In utilitarian terms the modern family, proved eminently adaptable to and supportive of the liberal-capitalist order. Its structure focused on immediate relations between husband, wife, and their children, leaving the conjugal family relatively unbound to the ties of kin and community. Proving highly mobile as a result, families were able to follow the market signals that would maximize both their incomes and general productive efficiency, while [/b]still performing the critical social functions of reproduction and the nurturing of children[/b].

[…] Adam Smith, David Hume, and other eighteenth century philosophers of freedom understood, man was by nature indolent, lazy, wasteful, and improvident […] these theorists believed that it was only the force of circumstances that could make human beings behave economically.” To an important degree, it was the [nuclear] family which provided the needed positive incentives.

For as the new order cut persons off from the economic protections provided by kin and village, the modern family made each male vividly aware of his responsibilities to provide for and protect his mate as she performed her instinctive maternal tasks […] The new order built on the poorly understood psychological insight that there is no stronger nor more stable economic impulse than the drive to provide for one's family.

[...]

Among the Western peoples experiencing the shock of the liberal-capitalist revolution, the moral code indispensable to the sustenance of a free society was naturally provided by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Biblical injunctions against illegitimacy, perversion, adultery, abortion, promiscuity, and divorce remained a vital part of Western law and custom throughout the nineteenth century; not as an expression of religious intolerance, but as a critical foundation of all freedom.

[...]

After living for one-hundred-fifty years off “the accumulated moral capital” of traditional religion and moral philosophy, the defenders of capitalism found themselves increasingly unable to articulate a social vision that in some humanly satisfying way bonded order and morality to liberty.

In addition to this, David Lazarus writes from a somewhat different perspective,

The recent right-wing "family-values" chorus that began in the Reagan era is only the latest performance of an old reactionary song.

For centuries, liberals and radicals have been portrayed by the right as being not merely wrong, but morally corrupt, degenerate elements seeking to introduce chaos into the God-given order maintained by the ruling elites. In doing so, however, the right was simply projecting its own behavior onto that of its enemies; in modern times, the element that has been most destructive to the family has been capitalism itself.

While some radicals have advocated changes in the family unit, it was capital that carried out the abolition of the family as it had been known up to the Industrial Revolution. The early industrialists demolished the ancient extended family by forcing children, women and men into industrial servitude in factories, mines and mills, where they were treated worse than the machinery they served.

Workers were subjected to an iron control never seen during feudal times, when the rhythms of nature were still predominant and about every third day was a church holiday on which all were exempt from labor [less time together with the family during the industrial revolution]. In the new capitalist order, each member of the family was viewed as a mere tool to be used until worn out or broken, then discarded and replaced.

[…] English visionary poet William Blake wrote of the "dark Satanic mills" of his land that blasted the innocence of children and ate away the face of people's humanity.

The same process eventually took place in America […]

Slowly and painfully, against brutal and bloody opposition from capital, labor achieved some degree of organization and freedom. Yet the basic status of the worker as a wage slave, dependent on capital and exploited by it, remained.

The family represented a rival to the "totalism" of the capitalist state, in which nothing could be allowed to compete with the "commodi-fication" of society and culture, where everything and everyone became an article of commerce.

Under capitalism, compulsory schooling became increasingly a means of undermining family (and other) loyalties, gaining the "hearts and minds" of the younger generation to the service of capital.

We now see the trend to "privatizing" public schooling, featuring direct involvement by corporations in the education process. A new unity between capital and the state is being forged, which demands that all parochial factors – family, local and regional cultures, other forms of economic, political and cultural activity-be more and more subordinated to the drive for unlimited profits [...]

The increasing economic stress on families cause them to become dysfunctional or break up at an alarming rate […]

Like everything else under capitalism, the family is valued only to the extent that it supports and reinforces the profit system. Any relationship, loyalty or value which is at odds with this system must and will be demolished.

The Dan Quayle version of the family is essentially a myth, since- as most of us know-most women have always had to work outside the home (as well as inside) to make ends meet. Welfare, drugs, media images and the rest are scapegoats presented by the right wing to distract us from the fact that, not these, but capitalism itself is the primary cause of family breakdown and the destruction of positive social values.

In essence, it is not a surprise that the defence of the socioeconomic institutions of Liberal-Capitalism has evolved from the 19th Century classical liberal view of individual autonomy and natural rights into the contemporary social conservative backlash against the criticism that the breakdown of the family unit has caused.

By contrast, the nuclear family has been part of society since time immemorial. It's not just a function of politically recognized institutions. The nuclear family precedes politics. It's related closely to biology.

So, with regards to the above, these statements are plainly false.

However, the scientific evidence does not support liberal assertions that children from non-traditional families are more or less as well off as children who live with a biological father and mother.

I don’t think this is an assertion made by the left, rather, a child is nonetheless better off with a loving family (and this includes gay adoption), than in a care home, so what would you prefer? And what would you do to ensure a biological nuclear family model? Would you force couples to stay together to raise their kids? If the father happens to be an abusive alcoholic, what then? Is he a better parent by virtue of the fact he is the biological father? Would you legally abolish divorce and outlaw pre-marital sex?

The extended family model by contrast was equipped to deal with the failings in the break-down of the nuclear family because it provided additional familial support from siblings, more distant family relations and the broader community.

Most societies have been patriarchal, as men provided defense and women assumed a domestic role.

Yare merely referring to the division of labour which in itself is not sufficient evidence of patriarchy. For instance if in a society, most women work as CEOs, lawyers, bankers and politicians but men do manual labour, work in the army, attain jobs as generals and so forth, this is anything but a patriarchy. If anything it is a matriarchy in which women assume a gender role which performs solely intellectually based white collar labour.

That's a bit of Flintstoning, I'd say. Queen Elizabeth I didn't have the right to vote either, did she? Most societies have been patriarchal, as men provided defense and women assumed a domestic role. That has more to do with gender than it does with hierarchy. As far as women rulers, the precede even Cleopatra. It's just liberals who think that everything that isn't set up according to their ideals must somehow be oppression.

Just because the State had a female figurehead at any arbitrary point in time did not make the structural institutions of broader society egalitarian, or non-patriarchal. Furthermore, a patriarchy, is indeed a form of gender based hierarchy. It seems that coupled together with statements like this…

What about it [right for women to vote]? It probably wasn't the brightest idea, for sure.

…it appears that conservatives like you do indeed purport to defend 'traditions' that essentially maintain the hierarchical status quo for its own sake rather than any particular rationale. You do not refer to century-long traditions that maintain egalitarianism or reflect values from the French Enlightenment as traditions because they do not fit in with your conservative dogma.

We're speaking in scientific terms, though.

That’s why I stated that you can still make rational arguments against polygyny (no woman and very few men would actually want this). It goes to show that rational arguments extend beyond social Darwinism. Nonetheless, I would like to hear from you in more detail what exactly are the social Darwinist benefits of polygyny?

Not political terms. If women are forced to be monogamous, and the men they are with polygamous, that doesn't change the fact that the women are largely monogamous. It means that a small number of women are prostitutes.

Basically, you’re going to narrow down the selection pool of available women for the average male and inevitably subordinate women to a submissive gender role.

It doesn't necessarily imply polygamous marriage, but perhaps lots of sons of guns to fill the Royal Navy, whereas traditional families are recognized and the children from those families do considerably better.

Compare death rates by firearms in US as it is now compared to a militaristic culture of testosterone filled, chauvinistic young men most of whom have to settle for prostitutes and without full-time dads. The irony of all this, of course is that you are actually arguing against the social conservative institution of monogamous marriage in favour of an even more oppressive and heavily patriarchal polygyny.

Capitalism led to the decline and fall of the British aristocracy.

At one point, yes. And now it defends a new elite group of financiers and corporate executives.

That's quite a bizarre assertion if ever there was one. Do explain.

I'm not sure what I meant either; it doesn't seem to have been worded correctly.

A right wing classical liberal seems like a contradiction in terms

Only by the older definition of the term, where the anti-monarchists sat on the left side of the French parliament, unless, of course you are stating that it is a pleonastic term, in which case I would simply have to disagree. A liberal is ‘right wing’ in the sense they are economically right, i.e. purporting the virtues of the free market. But also, it is not a pleonastic term, because you get economically left liberals dating back to the French enlightenment.

But the welfare state isn't the natural order of things, and is in a state of decay as it reaches the point where it will collapse later in the 21st Century.

How so?

US GDP:



US spending:



POLICY

All those native American child abusers aside, most of second-hand smoke argument is pure bogus.

It's not bogus. According to the United States Surgeon General (click here for more information on background and authority), ‘[c]igarette smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical compounds’ and that ‘[s]econdhand smoke contains many of the same chemicals that are present in the smoke inhaled by smokers’. Furthermore, ‘[t]he National Toxicology Program estimates that at least 250 chemicals in secondhand smoke are known to be toxic or carcinogenic’ and that ‘[s]econdhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Toxicology Program, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and an occupational carcinogen by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.’

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/r ... heet1.html

Some of the chemicals found in second hand smoke include, ‘hydrogen cyanide (used in chemical weapons), carbon monoxide (found in car exhaust), butane (used in lighter fluid), ammonia (used in household cleaners), and toluene (found in paint thinners)’, as well as the toxic chemicals, ‘arsenic (used in pesticides), lead (formerly found in paint), chromium (used to make steel), and cadmium (used to make batteries).’ The chemical classes these cancer-causing chemicals (of which there are 50) fall into include: ‘[p]olynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (such as Benzo[a]pyrene)’; ‘N-Nitrosamines (such as tobacco-specific nitrosamines)’; ‘Aromatic amines (such as 4-aminobiphenyl)’; ‘Aldehydes (such as formaldehyde)’; ‘Miscellaneous organic chemicals (such as benzene and vinyl chloride)’ and ‘Inorganic compounds (such as those containing metals like arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, nickel and radioactive polonium-210).’

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/r ... heet9.html

Furthermore, second hand smoke is toxic for children. ‘Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.’ ‘Mothers who are exposed to secondhand smoke while pregnant are more likely to have lower birth weight babies, which makes babies weaker and increases the risk for many health problems.’ ‘Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than other babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.’ Furthermore, children who are exposed to secondhand are more likely to develop ‘acute lower respiratory infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia’, those with asthma are more likely to ‘experience more frequent and severe attacks’, they are more likely to develop ‘respiratory symptoms, including cough, phlegm, wheeze, and breathlessness,’ and they ‘are at increased risk for ear infections and are more likely to need an operation to insert ear tubes for drainage’.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/r ... heet2.html

To overthrow tyrannical governments. Do we want to suppress the liberty of tyrants. Yes, of course. We want to kill tyrants. We secured our liberty through exchange of live fire. It was not handed to us. Licensing suggests that gun ownership is not a right. It predates the constitution. It is a right.

In no modern Western democracy is the threat of government tyranny an issue any longer. Your statements are more relevant to the American Revolution. If it were not the case, democracy would be under threat in European communities with authoritarian gun legislation.

In any case, let’s compare figures for homicide by firearm in US compared to EU (by the way, I can’t understand why firearms advocates don’t see this as valid: I am comparing developed countries for deaths by firearm). United States of America has had 2.97 deaths by firearm per 100,000 civilians in the past year there were [/i]88.8 firearms for every 100 people[/i].

France, however has 0.06 deaths per 100,000 civilians,and 31.2 firearms for every 100 people. England and Wales also have 6.2 firearms for every 100 people, and 0.07 deaths per 100,000 population. Belgium has 17.2 firearms for every 100 people and 0.68 deaths per 100,000 civilians. Netherlands has 3.9 for every 100 people and 0.33 deaths per 100,000 civilians. Denmark has 12 firearms for every 100 people and 0.27 deaths per 100,000 civilians. Sweden has 31.6 firearms for every 100 people and 0.41 per 100,000 civilians.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... icides-map

Sure you can debate it. In the United States, we have to import a working class to do the work that the working class, now on welfare, used to do. I live in a society where the middle class speaks English and the working class speaks Spanish, and isn't supposed to be in the country anyway. That may differ considerably from Britain. In the US, it has had many negative externalities. It has almost completely destroyed the black nuclear family. So black IQs, black crime rates, black economic development all suffers considerably under the modern Welfare State. That's increasingly the case with whites now too. So we have a society that fractures along class lines by virtue of ones dependence on or independence from the Welfare State.

Actually the right wing raises similar concerns in UK. I don’t think you can attribute the breakdown of the working class nuclear family and blue collar labour migration solely to the welfare state. For one thing, the majority of welfare spending in the UK is on State Pension, then Housing Benefits, and then Disability Living Allowance (I hear the US has an even harsher system). More detail/sources on this here: JSA (Job Seekers Allowance) accounts for a mere 3%, and the government will only support you if you are unemployed for a few months. I agree with conservatives that child benefit needs to be means-tested and not much else. For another thing, I would highlight the benefits of importing blue collar labour that a country’s own national workforce rejects.

[blackjack21]

Ok, so what exactly constitutes a 'non-superfluous' tradition. Longevity of the tradition? Socioeconomic impact?

To me, it would be something that does have a natural or socioeconomic impact. So a traditional marriage, a harvest festival, etc. would make sense. A Super Bowl party would not. However, that is just one person's opinion.

Here you bring up traditional family structures and the ‘libertinism’ of the political left but you later proceed to purport polygyny and what’s more is that the political left have routinely defended the historical model of the extended family, something that was broken by the growth of the market economy and Liberal-Capitalism.

I'm not necessarily a fan of polygyny. I'm a fan of intellectual consistency. Arguments on "gay rights," "gay marriage" and so forth are patently abusrd in my book. That's a very long way from saying that I think you should treat homosexuals badly. I don't believe in that sort of thing at all. However, as a result of debates like these, I'm rather less of a small 'l' liberal now too in that I can no longer defend with any degree of seriousness statements like "All men are created equal...". It makes me feel like a cast member somewhere between "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Planet of the Apes."

I don't see market economies and liberal capitalism as the primary driving force behind the destruction of the extended family, unless you are including Keynesianism. The destruction of the extended family was dramatically accelerated by the Welfare State and the so-called Sexual Revolution in my opinion. The political left has been the champion of things like no-fault divorce, and so forth. The following article does make a strong case, but it is riddled with anti-Capitalism bias and presented in a scholarly fashion. That tends to make people accept the argument uncritically.

Rei Murasame posted a brilliant article about this by Alan C. Clarson in another thread. I have cut a lot out and put the main points into bold:

It's interesting. We're at risk of disagreeing based on taxonomy on the one hand and a failure to understand certain traditions on the other. You will get no argument from me that early Industrialism--as distinguished from capitalism--was inherently brutal. However, you are conflating the Industrial Revolution and its physical brutality with market economics, which are also brutally efficient. The industrialists and their "dark satanic mills" were indeed rather nihilistic, but that has changed considerably with the labor movement, OSHA laws, etc. The nuclear family of one male, one female, and children dates back at least to Octavian Caesar. Rome at that point was certainly imperial, but not capitalist. So the driving forces you describe in tearing up the extended family also occurred in the past under the Roman Empire. On the contrary, the extended family as you are describing it--kin and community--was due to the fact that people under serfdom were owned by the land itself, and the land was run by knights, barons, and the like. Property was passed down from parents to children. So the elders had a significant upper hand with their children. The inheritance tax killed a lot of that off--so much for that one being only for the rich. Voters fall for that stuff all the time though.

In essence, it is not a surprise that the defence of the socioeconomic institutions of Liberal-Capitalism has evolved from the 19th Century classical liberal view of individual autonomy and natural rights into the contemporary social conservative backlash against the criticism that the breakdown of the family unit has caused.

True enough. However, again you are ignoring history. Octavian Caesar faced a very similar problem with his own daughter having sex on the floor of the Roman Senate. We're not far from that sort of libertinism now. The society at large is rather hedonistic, which again I will point out has been episodic without capitalism. Greece and Rome are examples.

So, with regards to the above, these statements are plainly false.

Here we agree to disagree. As I've stated, the modern form of marriage dates back at least to Octavian Caesar. He died when Jesus was still just a pup. The marriage system up until the 1940s or so was based on Roman tradition and adopted by Christianity. Human monogamy is also tracked by anthropologists. By time immemorial, I'm speaking in terms of human civilization, not the monogamy that resulted from less conspecific violence and a reduction in sexual dimorphism in the fossil record. That's arguably the primary form of procreation for the last 20,000 years or so. So I don't think I'm splitting hairs here.

I don’t think this is an assertion made by the left, rather, a child is nonetheless better off with a loving family (and this includes gay adoption), than in a care home, so what would you prefer?

Actually it doesn't include "gay adoption" if you believe the statistics. Wellbeing is invariably best with a biological father and a biological mother. Children in divorced households do worse, as do children with step parents. Children in adoptive homes do worse than children of divorce or step parents. Children of homosexuals tend to do worse then the foregoing. I'm not sure what a "care home" involves. However, foster children--though definitely riskier than all other biological parent combinations--do apparently fare better than children of homosexuals. However, we still don't have a lot of data on homosexuals since the decriminalization of homosexuality is fairly recent.

Would you force couples to stay together to raise their kids?

Sure. Why not? The social problems from divorce are generally worse than the problems from an unhappy marriage.

If the father happens to be an abusive alcoholic, what then? Is he a better parent by virtue of the fact he is the biological father?

Yes. The failings of the modern medical system and the ridiculousness of socialism do not mean that a person so afflicted should have his parental rights stripped. The modern political system is absurd. We openly debate ridiculous notions like "right to health care" and "right to homosexual marriage" when it is so patently obvious that no such rights exist. We have more or less the same primary care physician system we had back in the 1940s, where a typical patient gets an average of 19 minutes with their doctor. That's not exactly brilliant. So I see very little reason why one set of idiots as self-styled professionals ought to reign over other sets of idiots in this manner. I'm of the opinion that if you strip a parent of their rights, you must liberate them of their duties too. The rights and duties go hand in hand. If you try to strip them, you get lots of depression, anxiety, violence, murder-suicide and the like. Liberal "rationale" ignores the result of liberal policy while embracing the aesthetic value of absurd liberal beliefs.

Would you legally abolish divorce and outlaw pre-marital sex?

I would outlaw no-fault divorce. I don't think I would incarcerate people for voluntary extra-marital sex. I'd probably proscribe fines for it, except for prostitution. I'd probably legalize and regulate prostitution. I'd probably even encourage women to see a prostitute. God knows it would do them more good than psychotherapy.

The extended family model by contrast was equipped to deal with the failings in the break-down of the nuclear family because it provided additional familial support from siblings, more distant family relations and the broader community.

For the most part, not politically since the "liberation" of women. A woman was chattel, so if she left her husband, she more or less had to go to a father or brother. Liberating women from chattel status wasn't a conservative notion by a long shot.

Yare merely referring to the division of labour which in itself is not sufficient evidence of patriarchy. For instance if in a society, most women work as CEOs, lawyers, bankers and politicians but men do manual labour, work in the army, attain jobs as generals and so forth, this is anything but a patriarchy. If anything it is a matriarchy in which women assume a gender role which performs solely intellectually based white collar labour.

Yes, but we don't live in such a world. We live in a world where patriarchy is breaking down, and matriarchy is not too far from anarchy. If Vladimir Lenin could dance in his grave, I'm sure he'd be tap dancing well enough to astonish even Arthur Duncan.

Just because the State had a female figurehead at any arbitrary point in time did not make the structural institutions of broader society egalitarian, or non-patriarchal. Furthermore, a patriarchy, is indeed a form of gender based hierarchy. It seems that coupled together with statements like this…

So what? We should have gender-based differences. Whether it should be hierarchical is another question, but clearly men and women are different. We are not equal. The purpose of egalitarianism was to take the Sun King of his throne, not to render opposition to monarchy into the absurdity it has become.

…it appears that conservatives like you do indeed purport to defend 'traditions' that essentially maintain the hierarchical status quo for its own sake rather than any particular rationale.

Conservatives like me are just undoing the liberal brainwash. Just because a rationale isn't liberal doesn't mean it's not a rationale. Absence of egalitarianism doesn't automatically imply a hierarchy, as in feudalism.

You do not refer to century-long traditions that maintain egalitarianism or reflect values from the French Enlightenment as traditions because they do not fit in with your conservative dogma.

I don't refer to the so-called "French Enlightenment," precisely because it was anything but an englightenment. The excesses of the monarchy was replaced by the excesses of Napolean, a restoration of the monarchy, a rise of Louis Napolean and the like. France has only been politically stable since the Fifth Republic and the collapse of its overseas empire. That stability may come unwound with the ill-advised Euro project. We shall see.

That’s why I stated that you can still make rational arguments against polygyny (no woman and very few men would actually want this).

You can make rational arguments against homosexuality too. I'm not arguing that you should treat people badly, per se. I'm saying that if you open Pandora's box, open it. Don't make absurd arguments that homosexual marriage is a basic right, and polygyny is not. Further, please tell your liberal friends to stop it with the wholesale burning of history. Sodomy was punishable by death in 1789 Massachussetts and was reduced to 20 years around 1805 or so. The notion that the Commonwealth Constitution in any way embraced homosexual marriage does violence to common sense. Some women are okay with polygyny. Not the typical American, for sure. I'm simply saying if you want to argue for homosexual marriage as a plea for tolerance, you need to be consistent if we're to live in a liberal system of government.

It goes to show that rational arguments extend beyond social Darwinism.

I don't think I said otherwise. I think Social Darwinism goes a long way to explaining institutions though.

Nonetheless, I would like to hear from you in more detail what exactly are the social Darwinist benefits of polygyny?

No clue. Off-hand, I'd suggest a reproductive fitness improvement for the fittest male, not necessarily the fittest female though. Although I don't have enough information to defend those statements.

Basically, you’re going to narrow down the selection pool of available women for the average male and inevitably subordinate women to a submissive gender role.

Nature puts women in a submissive gender role. Liberal ideology is at war with sexual dimorphism, which is part of what makes liberalism absurd. I think harnessing those forces means that you license prostitution like you license taxi cabs. I'm not saying all women should be prostitutes; constrain it like with taxi licenses. Outlaw extra-marital sex, except with licensed prostitutes. Subject it to heavy fines. You encourage married men to visit prostitutes, use safe methods, condoms, purell your cock, etc. Why not? Perhaps you impose a sales tax for unmarried men and women who visit prostitutes.

The irony of all this, of course is that you are actually arguing against the social conservative institution of monogamous marriage in favour of an even more oppressive and heavily patriarchal polygyny.

But I'm not. I'm arguing for intellectual consistency. I don't want to live in a society that says that homosexual marriage is the rightful equivalent of heterosexual marriage, but there is no right to polygyny. It makes no sense. If you want such a revolution, at least try to make sense. Bifurcate the family code into a parental code and a domestic partnership code with adjustments to the probate code, public health and safety code, and other codes as needed. Arguing that such notions are a matter of basic rights is beyond absurd. It's insanity. It makes feudalism seem very appealing by contrast.

At one point, yes. And now it defends a new elite group of financiers and corporate executives.

Who should be a lot more afraid then they are... Inheritence taxes and graduated income taxes don't put food into the mouths of the unemployed. Nor do lectures from the liberals' favorite bizarro billionaire, Warren Buffet, off trying to make his next billion at 70 something years old while the nation goes bankrupt from retirees on Social Security and Medicare.

A liberal is ‘right wing’ in the sense they are economically right, i.e. purporting the virtues of the free market.

I'm not sure I understand. In juxtaposition to feudalism or mercantilism, that would be patently left wing. Are you saying this because the modern left prefers socialism today, whereas conservatives prefer free markets?

How so?

The injustice of the Social Security System for starters. It was sold as a moral issue, when there were 159 workers for every retiree. We're not even talking Medicare. The system will implode. Real income growth based on elastic money supply isn't as impressive as you make it out to be--and dumping Clinton-era numbers in the Obama-era is a bit disingenuous.

It's not bogus.

The fear mongering is absurd.

According to the United States Surgeon General ...

Obviously, my statements about being uninspired by the medical system and political office holders generally in general didn't get through.

[c]igarette smoke contains more than 4,000 chemical compounds’

Ooooh Ahhhh. It's those nasty chemicals again.

Love the "involuntary" language. Thanks W... I'm involuntarily exposed to mind numbing government propaganda, too. The danger from chemicals is in matters of degree. If the country spent half as much time doing primary research as it spends on propaganda, cures for cancers would have been found a long time ago. There are lots of the same chemicals in a campfire--the very mastery of which is a major distinction between humans and all other animals. We can add propaganda to the list too, since no other animals appear to generate massive amounts of propaganda either.

A smoke-free environment is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.

This is just such a bunch of BS. I don't smoke, but it just bugs me to no end when they flat out make up a bunch of crap. This is why we shouldn't have egalitarianism. These types of people should have masters or guardians. They should not be allowed to vote or hold public office. So the liberals are now embracing George Bush's so-called "war on science," huh?

Some of the chemicals found in second hand smoke include, ‘hydrogen cyanide (used in chemical weapons), carbon monoxide (found in car exhaust), butane (used in lighter fluid), ammonia (used in household cleaners), and toluene (found in paint thinners)’, as well as the toxic chemicals, ‘arsenic (used in pesticides), lead (formerly found in paint), chromium (used to make steel), and cadmium (used to make batteries).’ The chemical classes these cancer-causing chemicals (of which there are 50) fall into include: ‘[p]olynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (such as Benzo[a]pyrene)’; ‘N-Nitrosamines (such as tobacco-specific nitrosamines)’; ‘Aromatic amines (such as 4-aminobiphenyl)’; ‘Aldehydes (such as formaldehyde)’; ‘Miscellaneous organic chemicals (such as benzene and vinyl chloride)’ and ‘Inorganic compounds (such as those containing metals like arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, nickel and radioactive polonium-210).’

Oh boy... "(used in chemical weapons)"... it's also one of the precursors to life itself. Carbon monoxide? It's produced in animal metabolism in low quantities. Butane? "used in lighter fluid". It's in shaving creme too. So what? Ammonia? "used in household cleaners". Yep. The Romans used to save their piss to get ammonia out of their piss so they could clean their clothes. Arsenic? You find that in leafy green vegetables, which the government says is good for you. If you get arsenic from spinach, that's a-okay. If you get it from a leafy green vegetable like tobacco? Well, then it's extreeeeeeeeeemmmmly dangerous. Of course, the concentration of arsenic in tobacco isn't altogether different from spinach or broccoli. Chromium? It's also an essential mineral and sold as a dietary supplement. Cadmium? Whew... I was getting worried that it was all BS. Cadmium is not good at all.

This type of propaganda works really well for people who know nothing about chemistry. Chemicals are also the leading cause of drowning. The most common cause of drowning is chemical immersion in dihydrogen monoxide, which can also cause burns, frostbite, acid rain, and global warming too. The EPA has classified CO2 as a pollutant. Maybe in their infinite fucking wisdom they'll add the #1 greenhouse gas, H2O to the list of dangerous pollutants. See what I mean? I'm tired of being ruled by morons. It's Planet of the Apes around here.

Furthermore, second hand smoke is toxic for children. ‘Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.’

SIDS is primarily genetic, and so is nicotine addiction.

‘Mothers who are exposed to secondhand smoke while pregnant are more likely to have lower birth weight babies, which makes babies weaker and increases the risk for many health problems.’

Abortion is a health problem for the unborn too, dontcha know?

In no modern Western democracy is the threat of government tyranny an issue any longer.

You're kidding, right?

If it were not the case, democracy would be under threat in European communities with authoritarian gun legislation.

Europe is left wing authoritarian these days, and the government doesn't have to use much force because apparently all Europeans have exactly the same political beliefs, unless of course they are radical extremists outside of the mainstream of European society.

In any case, let’s compare figures for homicide by firearm in US compared to EU (by the way, I can’t understand why firearms advocates don’t see this as valid: I am comparing developed countries for deaths by firearm). United States of America has had 2.97 deaths by firearm per 100,000 civilians in the past year there were [/i]88.8 firearms for every 100 people[/i].

France, however has 0.06 deaths per 100,000 civilians,and 31.2 firearms for every 100 people. England and Wales also have 6.2 firearms for every 100 people, and 0.07 deaths per 100,000 population. Belgium has 17.2 firearms for every 100 people and 0.68 deaths per 100,000 civilians. Netherlands has 3.9 for every 100 people and 0.33 deaths per 100,000 civilians. Denmark has 12 firearms for every 100 people and 0.27 deaths per 100,000 civilians. Sweden has 31.6 firearms for every 100 people and 0.41 per 100,000 civilians.

It's primarily minorities in urban environments. Whites in America have similar homicide rates to Europeans. So instead of saying it's primarily blacks and Hispanics shooting at each other, let's take the racism out of it. Urban minorities vote predominantly for the Democratic party. So let's just characterize this phenomenon as urban liberals shooting other urban liberals.

For another thing, I would highlight the benefits of importing blue collar labour that a country’s own national workforce rejects.

Rejects, because they get welfare. Just like sometimes farmers are paid not to grow, workers are paid not to work.

[Rich]

Rei Murasame posted a brilliant article about this by Alan C. Clarson in another thread. I have cut a lot out and put the main points into bold:

I've just started to read looks excellent, thanks to Rei and yourself for bringing it to my attention. This seems to develop an idea that I had come to myself, that Classical Liberalism rely's on traditional Conservative and reactionary collective ideology while denying responsibility for its oppressions. Anyway I shall have to study it and the rest of you and BlackJacks posts.

In addition to this, David Lazarus writes from a somewhat different perspective,

The usual worthless racist nationalist leftie verbiage. There has been a huge increase in prosperity for the worlds poor in the last forty years, most notably recently in China and India, but also in numerous other places. The last forty years have been utterly fantastic for the worlds working class. in fact its easily been the best time ever for the world's labouring classes since the emergence of class society at least six thousand years ago.

[Sceptic]

Racism? What? By the way Lazarus is not critiquing welfare capitalism but the laissez-faire variety of the industrial revolution so pointing out increases in world prosperity during the 20th Century isn't antagonistic to his article. The strength of the Chinese, Indian and other rising Asian economies is largely down to their nationalist corporatist framework.

As for the Clarson article, I'm glad you like it. I shall also use this post to point out to BlackJack that, as Rich has correctly identified, Clarson is not being antagonistic to classical liberalism. In fact, he is identifying the strength of the nuclear family model unit in order to sustain the private mode of production by replacing the extended family model which was broken down by the need for mobile labour brought about by an extended family model. I am criticising socially conservative classical liberals like Clarson for their defence of the inferior nuclear family unit as a strategic means of preventing social backlash against the breakdown of the extended family unit. I'm also demonstrating that it is the leftist social democrats who are true conservatives, seeking to restore archaic traditions like the extended family and simultaneously defending practices like the Welfare State which now have become irreversibly ingrained into our society, having a profound socioeconomic impact. Arguing that the welfare state broke down the extended family model does your argument no favours.

[Rich]

Racism? What? By the way Lazarus is not critiquing welfare capitalism but the laissez-faire variety of the industrial revolution so pointing out increases in world prosperity during the 20th Century isn't antagonistic to his article. The strength of the Chinese, Indian and other rising Asian economies is largely down to their nationalist corporatist framework.

A lot of what Lazarus observes is a product of globalisation. Globalisation has made both the West and the developing countries richer. It has however destroyed the relatively strong position that Western unskilled and semi skilled workers enjoyed in the 50s, 60s and early seventies. In Britain you could tell the Foreman to go fuck himself at 9am and have another job by 10. A large part of the supposed march of Neo liberalism is a myth. Not that there aren't huge problems, there are, but it is not government polices that have broken the family wage for the working class and what are sometimes described as the lower middle class. Again I'm not saying there haven't been bad policy choices, there have, just that they are not the main driver of economic change.

Its my view that unions make us poorer and overall make the working class poorer. They push up wages, hold down profits and hence increase unemployment. Even worse they hold back productivity rises with restrictive practices. I'm not a Libertarian not by a long mile. In fact I favour redistribution I just think it should be done by government transfers rather artificial and misguided attempts to manipulate the market. Because unions tend to be stronger when the economic power of the individual worker in the market place is stronger, the illusion is given that it is unions that have increased working class wages.