[glamourcitys]

The amusing part about Poly's conservatives is that they can't even provide a succinct and coherent account of the ideology that they profess to hold. Writing manifestos is soo dated. Of course you do know that most conservatives don't even believe in the whole concept of an 'ideology'.

[tretcheenia]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Writing manifestos is soo dated. Of course you do know that most conservatives don't even believe in the whole concept of an 'ideology'. It doesn't have to be an "ideology". A minor statement of coherent principles would be enough. The Libertarians manage it.

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

[mobbemeatiedy]

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

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

[Gromiaaborn]

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


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

[pMJWFoAWD]

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

Maybe, inflation is rising here, but compared the rest of the world? NB: Northern rock was a Labour ****up IMO. But as they aren't communists I'd assume you'd think the same... I didn't mean that. I meant broader problems with financialization of economies generally.

[toyboy]

Originally posted by BeBro


We'd also need a lot of Unter- and Oberforumführers Jawohl mein Führer!


Is Etchy still around?


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

[AK47rulz]

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

I think we did this before.

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

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

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

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

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

[BegeMoT]

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

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

[justashonglefan]

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

There are similarities and overlap with libertarians, but conservatives see society as a necessary evil, and that restraint can be very helpful. All this is true, but avoids the question, which is "Why?"

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

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

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

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

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

[jgztw2es]

Not a secular ideology, which conservatism claims to be. If you want a religious justification for a political ideology then that's fair enough, but you won't find that many takers. Most secular conservatives are either classical liberals or libertarians. I'd argue that the current 'conservative alliance' draws all three. Conservatives in history tend to be religious and pretty much all draw upon Thomism as a base for natural rights.

I don't think this critique has much merit. Not all folks who are religious are conservatives, but I think vice versa is true.

And I've explained before that this just dissolves into some form of utilitarianism or consequentialism. How so? The argument is that a tradition was not arbitrary, and that it was set up that way for a reason. I don't see how that leads to utilitarianism at all. The argument isn't that society needs to be reformed. Conservatives argue that society will always need to be reformed in some way shape or form, but also argue that utopia is impossible.

It's an open question whether any particular tradition ought to be reformed or not The consequence of the principle that society is fallen and imperfect is that it will always need improvement. The biggest question is what, and how ought it be reformed? Conservatives see tradition as something timeless, in that if it is right it will always be true. The way they can reconcile both of these is to say that reforms allow us to uncover truths about ourselves that were unknown before. This is the main contribution of science.

If conservatism is standing for tradition, then it's essentially a useless doctrine unless you want to completely eliminate reform, in which case it is useful but insane. All a conservative says is that tradition is not arbitrary, and that there are solid reasons why things are done in a particular way. Changes thus have to jump both hurdles, will it improve things if it works, and secondly, what are the unintended consequences of the change?

This is empty. It makes empirical claims which are demonstrably false. How so? You have to do better then that.

I'm a Plato expert, and this is a misuse of his philosophy. Do you want me to point you to the passage beloved of cultural conservatives where he says that men and women should be required to exercise together in the nude, or perhaps the rest of his radical politics, like the emancipation of women. Conservatives choosing Plato seems weird, since he is most well-known for his radical politics. Aristotle would be a better choice, although I think even he would like to smack today's conservatives in the mouth. Then call it neoplatonism. I've not met a conservative out there who rejects the idea that this world is less 'real' then the ideas we have in our heads, and that much of society is striving to recreate those ideals in the best form we can.

Why would conservatives oppose the emancipation of women? They've been at the forefront of every major social change. It naturally follows from the principle that all people are equal that they ought to have equal rights, it's also a major portion of Thomism too.

This just resolves into some form of consequentialism, which then opens up the debate to empirical verification, which conservatism tends to lose. If you want to take this view to its logical conclusion, it would be a complete denial of scientific progress. It's just a celebration of ignorance. Again, in the real world, reforms have to be decided on a case by case basis. Which is a decidedly conservative notion Agathon. That's what I have been trying to tell you from the very start.

[diutuartina]

Any political position or theory or ideology or whatever you want to call it has to answer simple questions like "What should we do?" or "Is our society a good society?" 1. This is why conservatives don't put out a manifesto. They argue that there really is no 'need' or pressing overarching goal. The 'revolution' isn't necessary or desired.

If I were to come up with an idea of what society ought to do or come out ahead and do, the question always comes back to several points.

1. Classical Liberals believe that we should increase freedom, and that society is better off when we initiate political reforms that increase the freedoms of society. Conservatives don't really have this drive. Their goals aren't to 'maximize happiness' so to speak as Mill would want, they don't care about these things.

2. Conservatives see politics as a necessary evil to mitigate the harm done by others. They seek to preserve the way of life of the past, and to make improvements of things that are bad on a case by case basis.

In order to do that it needs two things: (1) an axiology, or statement of fundamental value(s); and (2) some beliefs about the way the world is in order to apply those values. I've given you all three, which you have basically pissed on. I'm sorry Agathon, you need to stop talking and start listening.

You would know about the answer to the society question if you had actually read my long post. I already said that conservatives see society as flawed and fundamentally evil.

[EasyLOAD]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

1. This is why conservatives don't put out a manifesto. They argue that there really is no 'need' or pressing overarching goal. The 'revolution' isn't necessary or desired. Having a coherent position doesn't commit you to a revolution. You could use it to justify the status quo, but you still need a position.

1. Classical Liberals believe that we should increase freedom, and that society is better off when we initiate political reforms that increase the freedoms of society. Conservatives don't really have this drive. Their goals aren't to 'maximize happiness' so to speak as Mill would want, they don't care about these things. What do they care about?

2. Conservatives see politics as a necessary evil to mitigate the harm done by others. They seek to preserve the way of life of the past, and to make improvements of things that are bad on a case by case basis. What kind of harm? Harm to welfare? To individual rights? If it's welfare, then axiologically they are just consequentialists. If it is individual rights, then they are axiologically classical liberals or Thomists or whatever.

What makes the way of life of the past a way worth preserving?

I've given you all three, which you have basically pissed on. I'm sorry Agathon, you need to stop talking and start listening. You can do better, Ben. You gave me a collection of theories. As Plato would say, I don't want to know that there are lots of conservative theories, I want to know what makes them conservative.

[VemyhemiHef]

Originally posted by Agathon


I didn't mean that. I meant broader problems with financialization of economies generally. Fiar point. I can;t really comment, I've only really been listening to politics since when labour came to power, so I can only learn from biased sources about the Tories which makes the whole thing a complete waste of time.

[Varbaiskkic]

BTW Ben, what's your view on the conservative war against women who wear paisley scarves and their concomitant support for Islamic terrorism? Their opinion on Islam? It varies. There are some who say their social values are the same as ours, but the problem is that there are fundamental differences such as polygamy, differences in the concept of women, differences in how society wants to be ordered. The biggest difference is the use of violence to acheive political aims.

It's like if you take Islam and liberals together and squashed them you get Conservatives.

[oemcheapdownload]

You mean the Christian Socialist Martin Luther King?

You do realize there are plenty of Christian leftists, right? Obama being a good example of a current one, of course. I would say no. You can't be a sincere socialist and a Christian at the same time. Socialism is a materialist philosophy. I've never heard him referred to as a Christian socialist before.

You can be a leftist and a Christian though. There are plenty.

[tattcasetle]

Early Christianity was very socialist. Prior to Marx, most socialism was Christian in nature.

JM