~| The Case For Liberty Over Tradition |~

Watch
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
Our particular nation is known for having a most peculiar arrangement whereby liberty and tradition exist side by side. Such an arrangement is agreeable and engenders stability, for the time-being, but over time the two will doubtless clash.

Example: If the British people were given a straight choice between a free society and retaining the monarchy, at this moment in time, the masses would vote for the retention of the monarchy, which is AGAINST their interests, and yet, having been brought up to show deference to monarchy and tradition, it would seem there are few willing to oppose the status quo as of yet.

Indeed, centuries ago, it was brave men and women like Henry Hunt, Charles James Fox and Edmund Burke who stood up for liberty and ensured that steady progress was made towards the emancipation of the British people. Yet Burke in particular had a flaw. He wanted liberty and tradition to co-exist. Yet as we saw in the case of America, the colonists could not fool themselves into believing they were enjoying liberty whilst living under the yoke of the Mother Country across the ocean, being made to pay for a war they did not plan for at the outset, and, in rendering unto King and Country what was King and Country's, were not, as they were being made to believe, paying towards their defence, but for the maintenance of the imperial pretensions of a people with whom they shared blood but not ideals. And so it was then that these colonists, the descendants of men and women who fled from the Old World seeking freedom from an ignorant and narrow-minded continent, seeking to eke out a new life for themselves free from persecution and autocratic rule, rebelled against the establishment, and procured their freedom through revolution.

Britain must very soon undergo its own revolution of sorts. I do not speak of the English Civil War which was as religious and socio-economic as it was political, or the Glorious Revolution which was primarily a religious affair (and do not suppose that had King James been a Protestant he would still have been overthrown). I speak of a truly national revolution to end this farce of a "democracy" and institute provisions against mob rule, tyranny and downright popular stupidity. This will involve an end to monarchy, a written constitution and checks and balances on all branches of the state. If liberty and tradition are ever to clash, then liberty must win every time.
0
reply
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
Your post gave me the menopause.
1
reply
Melancholy
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
On a slightly more serious note, the criticism you make it made of Michael Oakeshott - that he only favours a certain type of conservatism. He would, no doubt, be a reactionary if he were born in Soviet Russia. The only reason he favoured English conservatism is because it safeguarded against reactionaries who would disrupt the peaceful liberty he enjoyed in the United Kingdom - the warmth of the familiar English customs which just so happened to cherish and respect a great deal of free choice.

However, you post still gives me the menopause. I don't foresee any great clash between tradition and freedom - I think that would be exaggerating the circumstances we find ourselves in.
0
reply
The Dictator
Badges: 2
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#4
(Original post by Melancholy)
On a slightly more serious note, the criticism you make it made of Michael Oakeshott - that he only favours a certain type of conservatism. He would, no doubt, be a reactionary if he were born in Soviet Russia. The only reason he favoured English conservatism is because it safeguarded against reactionaries who would disrupt the peaceful liberty he enjoyed in the United Kingdom - the warmth of the familiar English customs which just so happened to cherish and respect a great deal of free choice.

However, you post still gives me the menopause. I don't foresee any great clash between tradition and freedom - I think that would be exaggerating the circumstances we find ourselves in.
I didn't get a word you said aside from the last part.
0
reply
kbw
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
(Original post by The Dictator)
Indeed, centuries ago, it was brave men and women like Henry Hunt, Charles James Fox and Edmund Burke who stood up for liberty and ensured that steady progress was made towards the emancipation of the British people. Yet Burke in particular had a flaw. He wanted liberty and tradition to co-exist. Yet as we saw in the case of America, the colonists could not fool themselves into believing they were enjoying liberty whilst living under the yoke of the Mother Country across the ocean, being made to pay for a war they did not plan for at the outset, and, in rendering unto King and Country what was King and Country's, were not, as they were being made to believe, paying towards their defence, but for the maintenance of the imperial pretensions of a people with whom they shared blood but not ideals. And so it was then that these colonists, the descendants of men and women who fled from the Old World seeking freedom from an ignorant and narrow-minded continent, seeking to eke out a new life for themselves free from persecution and autocratic rule, rebelled against the establishment, and procured their freedom through revolution.
That's not what Burke, or the colonists, thought at all..

Burke didn't believe liberty and tradition simply "co-existed", but rather liberty developed from, and helped to support tradition.

As for the colonists, they actually did share not only blood, but ideals. They were fighting for their rights as free-born Englishmen, not Americans. The whole point of the revolution was to literally make a full turn of the wheel and restore the situation to how it had been (represetentation/tax wise etc) when they had left England. They were perfectly happy to believe you could have liberty with institutions like the ones there were in England at the time.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
Personally I don't think that such a conflict will arise. Your premise is I believe a little too broad and that's why you come to such a conclusion. Your using liberalism in the European sense I believe.

Essentially I think that you fail take into account separate kinds of liberalism. England at heart very much believes in individual liberty (this goes back centuries as we abolished the slave trade for example) and increasingly so again now that religion is collapsing. England however is not a radically progressive country such as the kind you find on the continent. While there is a social conscience Bourne out in the creation of functional health and welfare system, England is actually at heart quite socially conservative. Far from being pacifist or having the progressive communist tendencies on the continent, we believe strongly in morality and this is Bourne out in historical support for drug policy and general historical support for foreign intervention, we value institutions and the armed forces and finally we believe in very strong justice.

Basically the reason such a conflict won't occur is the same reason that we never fell to communism. We believe in individual liberty and social justice buts we lack radical progressivism.
0
reply
DErasmus
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
I think a greater threat to liberty is anti-tradition which we're seeing increasingly with multiculturalism and sympathy towards socialism. Oakeshott was reacting to rationalism in politics, he detested the Soviet system because of its bureaucracy and failure to deal with practical solutions.
0
reply
RF_PineMarten
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by The Dictator)
Example: If the British people were given a straight choice between a free society and retaining the monarchy, at this moment in time, the masses would vote for the retention of the monarchy, which is AGAINST their interests
Except the monarchy is not in any way against the interests of the British public, and having a monarchy does not have to conflict with a free society. We're a parliamentary monarchy, not an absolute monarchy.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What is your favourite revision method?

Taking notes manually (60)
22.14%
Note taking apps (6)
2.21%
Flashcards (51)
18.82%
Revision guides (16)
5.9%
Past papers (128)
47.23%
Something else (let us know in the thread) (10)
3.69%

Watched Threads

View All