Turn on thread page Beta

Why is free market capitalism, and liberal economics.... watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Of course not. It seems traditionalists are perfectly willing to apply the concept to people who are not traditionalists, however (if Don_Scott is representative).
    Perhaps I should be clear here.

    I think the term "authoritarianism" applies better to the social engineers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Of course not. It seems traditionalists are perfectly willing to apply the concept to people who are not traditionalists, however (if Don_Scott is representative).
    Oh lawd. Language and context ey.

    What is authoritarianism in your opinion?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Perhaps I should be clear here.

    I think the term "authoritarianism" applies better to the social engineers.
    Given the fact that in previous threads you've demonstrated that you don't know what social engineering is (for example, I'm sure no socially conservative measures measures, limits on workers' rights, charitable status for private schools, bans on the consumption of certain substances, not to mention the legal enshrinement of private property itself, are in fact "social engineering" :rolleyes: ) I think you'd do well to avoid accusing others of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Given the fact that in previous threads you've demonstrated that you don't know what social engineering is (for example, I'm sure no socially conservative measures measures, limits on workers' rights, charitable status for private schools, bans on the consumption of certain substances, not to mention the legal enshrinement of private property itself, are in fact "social engineering" :rolleyes: ) I think you'd do well to avoid accusing others of it.
    :facepalm2:

    Social engineering requires an idealistic and radical view with which you try to fundamentally lead society.

    Conservatives are completely opposed to that. That is the complete opposite of conservatism.

    Be an stupid anarchist somewhere else, please.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Given the fact that in previous threads you've demonstrated that you don't know what social engineering is (for example, I'm sure no socially conservative measures measures, limits on workers' rights, charitable status for private schools, bans on the consumption of certain substances, not to mention the legal enshrinement of private property itself, are in fact "social engineering" :rolleyes: ) I think you'd do well to avoid accusing others of it.
    Wait, so anything which influences anything is social engineering? There goes another perfectly good word down the drain then...
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    :facepalm2:

    Social engineering requires an idealistic and radical view with which you try to fundamentally lead society.

    Conservatives are completely opposed to that. That is the complete opposite of conservatism.

    Be an stupid anarchist somewhere else, please.
    As opposed to Conservativism, which believes that the ideal society is either in the past or the present, and uses the force of law to keep it that way.

    You're as much a social engineer as anyone, you have a vision of society that you want to impose.

    (Original post by Drunkhamster)
    Wait, so anything which influences anything is social engineering? There goes another perfectly good word down the drain then...
    No, but it's fairly evident that Conservatives have a vision of how society ought to be, and they use legislation to enforce that ideal.

    I don't see how this isn't social engineering
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Given the fact that in previous threads you've demonstrated that you don't know what social engineering is (for example, I'm sure no socially conservative measures measures, limits on workers' rights, charitable status for private schools, bans on the consumption of certain substances, not to mention the legal enshrinement of private property itself, are in fact "social engineering" :rolleyes: ) I think you'd do well to avoid accusing others of it.
    We could go wild with this. Rain is social engineering, trees are social engineering.

    But I foget, Social engineering is about intent.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    We could go wild with this. Rain is social engineering, trees are social engineering.

    But I foget, Social engineering is about intent.
    I've already said social engineering involves the use of legislation to impose a particular vision of society.

    Which means neither trees nor rain qualify
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Wait, so anything which influences anything is social engineering? There goes another perfectly good word down the drain then...
    So you don't think private property is social engineering? Even though they're using government power to create a new class of privileged people by means of land deeds or IP laws backed up by the coercive power of the state?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    I've already said social engineering involves the use of legislation to impose a particular vision of society.

    Which means neither trees nor rain qualify
    Isn't that the point of all law and government?

    Social engineering doesn't mean that anyway. I love it when people create self serving definitions for things.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    Isn't that the point of all law and government?

    Social engineering doesn't mean that anyway. I love it when people create self serving definitions for things.
    Okay, what's your definition of social engineering then?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    No, but it's fairly evident that Conservatives have a vision of how society ought to be, and they use legislation to enforce that ideal.

    I don't see how this isn't social engineering
    For me, there's a difference between setting up a framework in which a spontaneous order is allowed to evolve and treating society as though it were one big machine which could be 'scientifically' controlled at will - social engineering is intimately bound up with the hyper-rationalistic, technocratic ideologies that are more prevalent on the left than the right (though not exclusively so).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    So you don't think private property is social engineering? Even though they're using government power to create a new class of privileged people by means of land deeds or IP laws backed up by the coercive power of the state?
    Well, for one thing, private property doesn't necessarily require government power. But no, although it's obviously true that some of these things have an impact on other things, this is not in itself enough to make them social engineering IMO. Read Seeing Like A State - now most of the stuff in there is what I'd call social engineering.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    As opposed to Conservativism, which believes that the ideal society is either in the past or the present, and uses the force of law to keep it that way.

    You're as much a social engineer as anyone, you have a vision of society that you want to impose.



    No, but it's fairly evident that Conservatives have a vision of how society ought to be, and they use legislation to enforce that ideal.

    I don't see how this isn't social engineering
    Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

    Russell Kirk considered conservatism "the negation of ideology".

    Conservatism don't believe that either the past or the present is the "ideal society". They reject the idea of an "ideal society".

    And social engineering is all about intent. Conservatives are therefore completely opposed to social engineering as they do not indeed to create or preserve "an ideal society".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Okay, what's your definition of social engineering then?
    Social manipulation toward an end, particulary utopian ones.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    For me, there's a difference between setting up a framework in which a spontaneous order is allowed to evolve and treating society as though it were one big machine which could be 'scientifically' controlled at will - social engineering is intimately bound up with the hyper-rationalistic, technocratic ideologies that are more prevalent on the left than the right (though not exclusively so).
    Thing is, most conservatives don't believe in "spontaneous order" they favour measures like limits on movement (immigration controls), limits on the freedom of the citizen amongst other things. Not to mention the right of private property, which becomes a right to deprive others of resources, backed up by state power.

    I'm applying thiese criticisms more to cultural conservatives than libertarians (who aren't conservatives, but my example of private property as a form of social engineering would apply to them also) who definately have a vision of the kind of society that they want and who try to preserve certain elements at all costs against social change.

    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    Social manipulation toward an end, particulary utopian ones.
    I'd argue this applied to Conservatism, since they engage in manipulation of society towards an end, it's just that this "end" tends to be focused on an ideal society perceived in the past (hence the constant Tory whining about the "breakdown of society" and their emphasis on traditional institutions).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    For me, there's a difference between setting up a framework in which a spontaneous order is allowed to evolve and treating society as though it were one big machine which could be 'scientifically' controlled at will - social engineering is intimately bound up with the hyper-rationalistic, technocratic ideologies that are more prevalent on the left than the right (though not exclusively so).
    Thank you.

    A more eloquent man than me has described social engineering to a tee.

    As you can see, according to this definition Conservatives are completely opposed to social engineering by definition.

    Though, DrunkHamster, would you agree that Ayn Rand Objectivism could be considered an example of free market, individualist "social engineering" as it places lots of emphasis on reason.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    I don't really care about internal left wing divisions and pedantry over definitions that vary from person to person. It's obvious from the context what I mean.
    Yes, but referring to paradigmatic non-socialists (eg. progressive liberals) as 'socialists' makes you look like a moron.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Thing is, most conservatives don't believe in "spontaneous order" they favour measures like limits on movement (immigration controls), limits on the freedom of the citizen amongst other things. Not to mention the right of private property, which becomes a right to deprive others of resources, backed up by state power.

    I'm applying thiese criticisms more to cultural conservatives than libertarians (who aren't conservatives, but my example of private property as a form of social engineering would apply to them also) who definitely have a vision of the kind of society that they want and who try to preserve certain elements at all costs against social change.
    A lot of conservatives do support these things, and I certainly don't, but I still think it's wrong to say that they are guilty of social engineering. Unless, of course, you want to say that social engineering is what takes place whenever anybody has any vision of society that they attempt to implement in any possible way - and as I (perhaps snarkily) pointed out, this causes the term to lose all of its meaning. It refers, as far as I am acquainted with the phrase at least, to policies which stem from a particular attitude - an attitude which is, I'm afraid to say, primarily prevalent on the left (although it certainly played a role in fascist thinking, wherever you want to place that). It is the scientistic, technocratic, pro-central planning attitude which James Scott (who is, I believe, your kind of anarchist - read his Seeing Like A State, partly because it's great, partly because there is no better exploration of what 'social engineering' consist in, and partly because it's fun watching him come to basically Hayekian conclusions) calls 'high-modernism.'
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Though, DrunkHamster, would you agree that Ayn Rand Objectivism could be considered an example of free market, individualist "social engineering" as it places lots of emphasis on reason.
    Probably not, no. Randians, for all their sins, aren't in favour of the kind of central planning nor proponents of the kinds of blank slate views of human nature that I tend to associate with social engineering - the fact that they emphasise reason isn't, I think, enough.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.