- 22 Jul 2012 23:15
#14012711
After some thinking I have decided that I am a Tory or traditionalist conservative.
I have struggled with this but after a while I have come to the conclusion that there is a left/right paradigm indeed. The left favors egalitarian values and collectivism, the right favors hierarchy and individualism. This is seen in the focus of right wing economic values versus left wing focuses. The twin approaches to crime make sense. The left seeks to understand crime and and seek out root causes whereas the right views it as an individual matter and punishes it accordingly. However I do not take this individualism to the extreme, nor do I think the answer lies in populism, or base my principles on religious voodooism like American "conservatives" do. So I am a Tory, though I speak of it rarely since Americans are incapable of understanding what that is.
First principles:
Humans basically are bad, brutish and self interested. We have what we have to work with. People will not be improved.
Human society tends toward natural inequality.
Property is the bedrock of society, but unrestrained private rapine is bad.
Conflict and tribalism are inevitable.
Humans usually look to strong leaders, democracy is a myth.
This leads to the following stances...
I am opposed to unrestrained democracy. I believe natural aristocracy is necessary for society. When I say natural aristocracy I mean an aristocracy of class, not necessarily of money. I view the "new money" of our society as fundamentally "classless" and their tastes are a product of the democratic disease. They are merely Babbits with money.
I believe in capitalism and private property, but human nature being what it is there needs to be some restraints on this. I am center-right in economics but next to the Tea Party I look like a socialist.
The nation state is a necessary reality. Dreams of a utopian future with no borders and a global government are idiocy.
People will always be unequal. Always and everywhere.
Monarchy is far greater than republics. But not like the British monarchy who have become "celebrities." I'd say Lichtenstein is a better model.
Democracy is an illusion the iron law of oligarchy holds. So "democracy" as we see it only leads to a crude, classless, oligarchy based on money and special interests whereas aristoracy or monarchy is an oligarchy of class.
Democracy always follows the impulses of the basest members of society and is governed by a moneyed special interest. It is mob rule combined with the most garish plutocracy.
I have struggled with this but after a while I have come to the conclusion that there is a left/right paradigm indeed. The left favors egalitarian values and collectivism, the right favors hierarchy and individualism. This is seen in the focus of right wing economic values versus left wing focuses. The twin approaches to crime make sense. The left seeks to understand crime and and seek out root causes whereas the right views it as an individual matter and punishes it accordingly. However I do not take this individualism to the extreme, nor do I think the answer lies in populism, or base my principles on religious voodooism like American "conservatives" do. So I am a Tory, though I speak of it rarely since Americans are incapable of understanding what that is.
First principles:
Humans basically are bad, brutish and self interested. We have what we have to work with. People will not be improved.
Human society tends toward natural inequality.
Property is the bedrock of society, but unrestrained private rapine is bad.
Conflict and tribalism are inevitable.
Humans usually look to strong leaders, democracy is a myth.
This leads to the following stances...
I am opposed to unrestrained democracy. I believe natural aristocracy is necessary for society. When I say natural aristocracy I mean an aristocracy of class, not necessarily of money. I view the "new money" of our society as fundamentally "classless" and their tastes are a product of the democratic disease. They are merely Babbits with money.
I believe in capitalism and private property, but human nature being what it is there needs to be some restraints on this. I am center-right in economics but next to the Tea Party I look like a socialist.
The nation state is a necessary reality. Dreams of a utopian future with no borders and a global government are idiocy.
People will always be unequal. Always and everywhere.
Monarchy is far greater than republics. But not like the British monarchy who have become "celebrities." I'd say Lichtenstein is a better model.
Democracy is an illusion the iron law of oligarchy holds. So "democracy" as we see it only leads to a crude, classless, oligarchy based on money and special interests whereas aristoracy or monarchy is an oligarchy of class.
Democracy always follows the impulses of the basest members of society and is governed by a moneyed special interest. It is mob rule combined with the most garish plutocracy.