In the short time I've spent posting here, I've noticed that most right-wingers on TSR seem to have no identifiable political philosophy. Many of the most intelligent and perceptive right-wingers, perhaps the most intelligent and perceptive of all posters, are libertarians or classical liberals of some kind. Hayek, Friedman, and Rand seem to very popular among the TSR intelligentsia. I could be completely wrong, of course, but all the same I'm interested in what such people think whatever their preponderence among posters here.
Whilst I've no particular dislike of any of their ideas when not taken to the extreme, I do think that the ethos of many libertarians is the very antithesis of real conservatism. They seem no less inclined to construct grand utopian visions and universal programmes of reform on an a priori basis divorced from practical considerations, and to place no less trust in our ability to solve problems through rational thought, then the socialists and anarchists. Indeed, many are in fact more thus inclined than moderate social democrats and Keynesians.
I'm interested to know what these posters, or indeed any posters, think about Burke's arguments concerning tradition and prejudice. Arguably he wasn't a real political philosopher, but then that's in a sense the whole point. For those not familiar, in short he argued that our ability to reason is to weak and fallible to be trusted with great questions like how best to organise society or how to design a perfect set of constitutional arrangements; instead by applying reason only to small matters and accepting the traditions and prejudices of our culture without much questioning, we're able to gradually build up institutions that reflect the judgement of vast numbers of people and generations and thus come to embody more wisdom and understanding than anyone could hope to acquire in a single lifetime. Burkean conservatives therefore oppose any political or social reforms that are not consistent with the principles and the intention of what they seek to change, except in the very rare cases when institutions can be proven to be defective, and reject an excessively rationalistic approach to politics. Impartially weighing up the pros and cons of an argument doesn't do justice to the judgement, probably far greater than our own, of past generations; only the judicious application of prejudice can ensure we don't overstep our ability and make presumptuous decisions about things we don't truly understand.
So, er, discuss!
Last edited by JacobW; 23-03-2012 at 22:15.
Last edited by Kibalchich; 22-03-2012 at 22:43.
You think thatcher was a monetarist? And her practaces were in any way like what Partri (moreso than Milton) Friedman created?
She was a neo-con (waring), social conservative (socially backward and religious), neo-liberal (crony capitalist)
Friedman severely disliked reagan and thatcher and wrote them a series of letters telling them to change ... actually.
Last edited by prog2djent; 22-03-2012 at 23:08.