Is there an argument for Conservatism?

af_thefragile

It appears that liberalism is the way forward lately. Any person who applies reason, logic and common sense should be a liberal person. Its the way towards freedom and thus the way through which mankind achieves its goal of happiness.

For me there are aspects of liberalism that I agree with but there are also aspects I don't like. And similarly with conservatism, there are aspects of it that I like but also aspects of it that I dislike.

I am not entirely comfortable with the thought of where absolute freedom leads people and I believe most people don't even understand what freedom is.
On the other hand I respect traditionalism and I try and understand why people are wary of change. When you have a certain way of life which you have become accustomed to then there is a great tendency to keep things that way and resist change. It also ties in with giving people a greater sense of identity and belonging.

So I guess the question boils down to what is more important. Is it individual freedom or is it social integrity. The way I see it liberalism pursues to attain individual freedom while conservatism tries to maintain social integrity. A society would probably function best when you have a balance between liberal and conservative values. If one is more than the other then society will be imbalanced. Societies that are overly liberal and overly conservative both have their unique set of problems. Liberalism out of order can result in totalitarianism and deep conservatism can lead to close minded ignorance which leads to social injustice and an "us vs them" form of society that functions more like a cult.

Cody Pomeray

I would consider my self a liberal, but at the same time I can recognize two serious dangers in the liberal society:

1) the promotion of absolute liberty at the expense of the common good,
2) the dangers of moral relativism, especially meta-ethical moral relativism.

In relation to point (1), you'll find that unconstrained liberalism is actually what most people mean by conservatism.

wendell borton

"But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint."
- Edmund Burke

awec

This post has been deleted.

af_thefragile

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I would consider my self a liberal, but at the same time I can recognize two serious dangers in the liberal society:

1) the promotion of absolute liberty at the expense of the common good,
2) the dangers of moral relativism, especially meta-ethical moral relativism.

In relation to point (1), you'll find that unconstrained liberalism is actually what most people mean by conservatism.

Moral relativism is another aspect of liberalism that I'm not quite sure of. As I mentioned in the first post, I believe most people don't even understand what freedom actually means. Freedom and social responsibility go together. Moral relativism can result in different degrees of social responsibility that people associate to their freedom. Thus freedom for one person could mean completely different to what it means to another person. Moral relativism being the variable leading to this difference in understanding.

Karl Stein

Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.

John Stuart Mill

Incidentally,

During his time as an MP Mill advocated easing the burdens on Ireland. In 1866, Mill became the first person in the history of Parliament to call for women to be given the right to vote, vigorously defending this position in subsequent debate. Mill became a strong advocate of such social reforms as labour unions and farm cooperatives. In Considerations on Representative Government, Mill called for various reforms of Parliament and voting, especially proportional representation, the Single Transferable Vote, and the extension of suffrage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

biko

af_thefragile wrote: »

Any person who applies reason, logic and common sense should be a liberal person.

Sounds fun, suppose I'll have to become a liberal now.

Israeli Superiority

af_thefragile wrote: »

Liberalism out of order can result in totalitarianism and deep conservatism can lead to close minded ignorance which leads to social injustice and an "us vs them" form of society that functions more like a cult.

It has in not-so-Great Britain, courtesy of lefties who suffer from white guilt. The EDL will sort those boyos out.

af_thefragile

Israeli Superiority wrote: »

It has in not-so-Great Britain, courtesy of lefties who suffer from white guilt. The EDL will sort those boyos out.

I don't think its because of white guilt.

Freedom exists in a constant strain with social responsibility and because secular morality tends to be relative, if freedom exists with a low degree of social responsibility then the government will need external force and laws to maintain social cohesion. As society becomes more and more free, the state will require more and more laws and regulations to maintain societal order. The extreme form of this is the totalitarian state where government laws and regulations end up dictating every aspect of society.

rossie1977

af_thefragile wrote: »

Liberalism out of order can result in totalitarianism

not even sure thats possible, conservatism and socialism out of order can result in totalitarianism and we see it in societies today such as north korea, yemen, saudi arabia but liberalism???

Cody Pomeray

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.

You're failing to take account of the fact that 'liberalism' has evolved substantially since the Victorian era, when that comment was made.

If JS Mill were standing for election in the UK, he would probably stand for the individual freedoms and the weak state espoused by the Conservative Party in the UK.

I would actually say a lot of people who don't think enough about the individual and society have 'liberalism' as a default setting. I'd say there are just as many stupid liberals as stupid conservatives tbh.

af_thefragile

rossie1977 wrote: »

not even sure thats possible, conservatism and socialism out of order can result in totalitarianism and we see it in societies today such as north korea, yemen, saudi arabia but liberalism???

Its a different form of totalitarianism. More Huxlien than Orwellian although it could be Orwellian as well.

As I mentioned as societies become more free, governments require more laws and regulations to maintain order. Thus you end up hitting against walls of endless bureaucracy if you want anything done.

Socialism and libertarianism lie on a different axis from liberalism and conservatism. Both liberal and conservative societies can be socialistic.
North Korea is a form of a conservative socialist society while most EU countries are more liberal socialist societies.
Then you can have liberal libertarian societies and conservative libertarian societies although libertarian societies are few and far between.

Liberalism and Conservatism have to do with social structure while Socialism and Libertarianism have to do with governance structure.

hatrickpatrick

af_thefragile wrote: »

As I mentioned as societies become more free, governments require more laws and regulations to maintain order. Thus you end up hitting against walls of endless bureaucracy if you want anything done.

Define "order", and is it necessarily a desirable thing?
To answer the OP, I believe in complete individual freedom, or to put it more simply, if no one is harmed by an action without their consent, then that action is nobody's business except the person undertaking it. I personally don't believe there's such a thing as morally wrong beyond not hurting someone else, IE not infringing their rights. To simplify further: Anything which is currently a "victimless crime" should be struck from the statute books.

That's just my opinion though. It would appear that the idea of a world without a social structure is too terrifying for some people, and while I absolutely don't agree with that myself I respect people's right to their own opinions on it.

af_thefragile

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Define "order", and is it necessarily a desirable thing?
To answer the OP, I believe in complete individual freedom, or to put it more simply, if no one is harmed by an action without their consent, then that action is nobody's business except the person undertaking it. I personally don't believe there's such a thing as morally wrong beyond not hurting someone else, IE not infringing their rights. To simplify further: Anything which is currently a "victimless crime" should be struck from the statute books.

That's just my opinion though. It would appear that the idea of a world without a social structure is too terrifying for some people, and while I absolutely don't agree with that myself I respect people's right to their own opinions on it.

Order is rules by which people maintain structure in a society. Liberal societies use government laws and regulations while conservative societies often use religion or other traditional beliefs to maintain this.

Order may be considered important because without order societies often tend to disintegrate into social anarchy. If there is enough resources for everyone to live by in a totally bohemian way then order may not be important for society. But unfortunately most of the world cannot afford such a lifestyle. When resources are scarce, they need to be distributed wisely and without social order, there will simply be chaos and bloodshed as people squabble for the little resources available.

In a perfect society with balanced resources and social opportunity, freedom won't conflict with social responsibility. When a society gets strained of resources, then moral relativity can quickly reduce the value of social responsibility in a society. Humans ultimately are selfish beings. We first and foremost want to ensure our survival and betterment. It is surprising how far humans can rationalise their actions once the question of survival and later greed takes over. Its why people commit crimes.

To want a perfect society where every human is completely free, you need enough space and resources for everyone. That means you need a smaller population and then you need a robot/machinery workforce doing all the tasks we humans would believe would cripple our freedom while at the same time maintain and process our demands and needs. This is how slavery was justified in the past fortunately today we have managed to create machines to replace their jobs. Then the society needs to be insured against natural disasters.

Utopias are ultimately impossible to attain and whenever someone has tried to attain it for society, the consequences were pretty bad.

colossus-x

To the OP I really wish ppl would stop looking at issues in this right/center/left mentality. It really is so boring. Nothing in life could be that simple.

colossus-x

Actually I would add one thing to contradict myself. Conservatism more that not equates to religious ideals . Really not good.

Overheal

"Conservative" and "Liberal" are far too vague terms to pigeonhole the breadth of philosophical and political thought. "Liberal" to one, might mean the freedom to marry whomever you like, where to someone else to be liberal might be to allow the private sector to operate without miles of red tape. A religious-conservative, and an eco-conservative, are also two extremely different things. Put enough negative connotation on the word "Liberal" or "Conservative" though, and you'll eventually find your world perspective is going to have some issues.

token101

Most people who claim to be liberal are anything but.

af_thefragile

I suppose we're talking more about social structures here.
In general one would say Netherlands is very liberal while Saudi Arabia is very conservative.

Cody Pomeray

Overheal wrote: »

"Conservative" and "Liberal" are far too vague terms to pigeonhole the breadth of philosophical and political thought.

Well, I'm not sure anyone was trying to pigeonhole the entire breadth of philosophical thought just now. However, it is reasonable to suggest that liberal and conservative are two completely different descriptors that have little to do with one another.

If anything, the debate should be between conservative vs progressive, and libertarian vs authoritarian.

After all, conservatives and liberals are like apples and oranges. They are not directly comparable, and it is possible to endorse both.

Perhaps to be clear, people should define what they mean when discussing "liberalism" and "conservatism". Or maybe we should stick to the conservative/ progressive narrative.

Suryavarman

af_thefragile wrote: »

Order is rules by which people maintain structure in a society. Liberal societies use government laws and regulations while conservative societies often use religion or other traditional beliefs to maintain this.

Order may be considered important because without order societies often tend to disintegrate into social anarchy. If there is enough resources for everyone to live by in a totally bohemian way then order may not be important for society. But unfortunately most of the world cannot afford such a lifestyle. When resources are scarce, they need to be distributed wisely and without social order, there will simply be chaos and bloodshed as people squabble for the little resources available.

In a perfect society with balanced resources and social opportunity, freedom won't conflict with social responsibility. When a society gets strained of resources, then moral relativity can quickly reduce the value of social responsibility in a society. Humans ultimately are selfish beings. We first and foremost want to ensure our survival and betterment. It is surprising how far humans can rationalise their actions once the question of survival and later greed takes over. Its why people commit crimes.

To want a perfect society where every human is completely free, you need enough space and resources for everyone. That means you need a smaller population and then you need a robot/machinery workforce doing all the tasks we humans would believe would cripple our freedom while at the same time maintain and process our demands and needs. This is how slavery was justified in the past fortunately today we have managed to create machines to replace their jobs. Then the society needs to be insured against natural disasters.

Utopias are ultimately impossible to attain and whenever someone has tried to attain it for society, the consequences were pretty bad.

How does a belief in freedom equate to a belief in utopianism?

I don't see anything in hattrickpatrick's post that suggest that he believes that.

It is perfectly consistent for someone to desire a completely free society without believing that it will lead to a perfect society. In fact one could consistently desire a free society and believe that some problems will worsen under such a system.

P_1

To me conservativism means wishing to have control over actors and actions and liberalism means wishing to allow actors and actions to happen without no controlling force. Both very abstract concepts that cannot realistically happen when applied to society.

Cody Pomeray

P_1 wrote: »

To me conservativism means wishing to have control over actors and actions and liberalism means wishing to allow actors and actions to happen without no controlling force. Both very abstract concepts that cannot realistically happen when applied to society.

True - because the problem with this definition (a definition I'd agree with btw) is that the "Conservative Party" would be the liberal party and the "Liberal Democrats" should be the more conservative party. This is why people need to clarify their interpretation.

P_1

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

True - because the problem with this definition (a definition I'd agree with btw) is that the "Conservative Party" would be the liberal party and the "Liberal Democrats" should be the more conservative party. This is why people need to clarify their interpretation.

It also depends what you apply the definitions to. When you apply it to economic issues then your interpretation would stand up but the opposite would be true when you apply it to social issues.

PopePalpatine

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I would consider my self a liberal, but at the same time I can recognize two serious dangers in the liberal society:

1) the promotion of absolute liberty at the expense of the common good,
2) the dangers of moral relativism, especially meta-ethical moral relativism.

In relation to point (1), you'll find that unconstrained liberalism is actually what most people mean by conservatism.

(1) is more like libertarianism.

Perhaps the Political Compass might be an indicator of where you lie on the social/economic political spectrum. For example, a typical libertarian would favour a small government and a wide range of civil liberties. The "social justice" wing of the Catholic Church may favour a big government in cases of social welfare, but would oppose civil liberties such as gay marriage, reproductive rights/abortion & contraception and divorce.

dr.bollocko

Moved from After hours.

Crushed Dry Ice

The governments policy should simply be to put in place measures to maximise long term happiness.

Black Swan

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Moved from After hours.

MOD REMINDER:
Now that it's moved from AH, please read the Politics charter before posting. Thanks.

KyussBishop

It's always portrayed as individual freedom, vs the state, but it's more about unregulated interaction between people, vs regulated.

By default, it's desirable to let people interact with each other uninterfered with by the state (and 'interact' can include one persons actions, indirectly affecting another person, e.g. by air/water pollution), because by-default state involvement has the potential to be harmful (through corruption, bureaucracy, among other things).

Sometimes this interaction between people causes harm to others though (whether that be direct or indirect), and if it's a big enough problem (more harmful than getting the state involved), this is where the state can come in for the good of society overall.

You also have situations where people will be harmed by the state not acting, and where private industry/society will not spontaneously resolve this problem by itself, thus again the state can step in for the good of society.


This is a pretty simple and pragmatic way of framing things, which focuses on harm caused to people (including by the state), and which is pretty easy to use for judging political/economic ideologies, and picking out the best parts for constructing a political system.

It becomes entirely about balancing between different policies, to minimize harm and potential harm to people (where state involvement itself is considered potentially harmful).


You will find, that most right-wing thinking and conservatism, comes down to promoting the 'freedom' to harm other people, for the sake of personal benefit (thus rendering the word 'freedom' contradictory and meaningless, since this requires infringing others freedoms, yet using semantics and pseudo-intellectual waffle to deny doing that), and using an entire industry of think-tanks to create the narrative/rhetoric and false-data/studies, to deny and spread FUD about the harm caused.

Overheal

Recall that the history of politics is a really important thing. Liberalism, Progression, is not always the best thing. Similarly, Conservatism is not always the best thing. Thats why your policy shifts always end up being more gradual swings in the moderate center. I mean, when you look at the American slave trade for instance, it was right to get rid of it, but if it is something you did overnight, the economy would have collapsed overnight as well. As for the Cold War I'm not learned enough to argue, but it appears as though a more 'progressive' economic view was ideologically and functionally defeated by a conservative one.

Also this kind of explains why more liberals and progressives tend to be younger and you get more conservatives as people age: you have all your dreams and aspirations growing up, but then as you mature you see "these are the knock-on effects if we implement XYZ". It's not so much "Is this right thing to do" so much as it is "is this the right thing to do right now?"

Cody Pomeray

^^ I think the 'learned Conservatism' of old age has more to do with resource-hoarding than it has to with some form of insightful pragmatism, to be honest.

The resource poor (the youth) tend to be appropriators, the resource rich (the elderly) tend to want to fend off the appropriator.

P_1

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

^^ I think the 'learned Conservatism' of old age has more to do with resource-hoarding than it has to with some form of insightful pragmatism, to be honest.

The resource poor (the youth) tend to be appropriators, the resource rich (the elderly) tend to want to fend off the appropriator.

I'd have to agree with that. Generally whenever a change happens to any policy the resource rich would lose something to the appropriator. More often than not the resource rich tend to be older which would make ti logical for them to be more conservative.

bus_driver

P_1 wrote: »

I'd have to agree with that. Generally whenever a change happens to any policy the resource rich would lose something to the appropriator. More often than not the resource rich tend to be older which would make ti logical for them to be more conservative.

in Ireland, were constantly told the elderly have nothing and are borderline starving

RichardAnd

Any of the "isms" are just words created by political scientists to put a name to the assortment of ways through which human beings f**k each other over while trashing the planet for every other living thing.

DEFTLEFTHAND

They used to say that members of the Liberal Party became Tories when they reached a certain age. I suppose as you age you become stuck in your ways and are less enthusiastic about new ideas.

Overheal

I suppose as you age you become stuck in your ways and are less enthusiastic about new ideas.

I think its more a case of pragmatism and realism setting in.

rick santorums gimp

af_thefragile wrote: »

Utopias are ultimately impossible to attain and whenever someone has tried to attain it for society, the consequences were pretty bad.

One could argue that a Conservative version of Utopia has already been achieved, or at least is in place to an extent -

Globalized unregulated markets, international tax shelters, widespread debt-fueled consumerism sustaining corporate profits, a healthy level of unemployment in the West keeping wages down, friendly dictatorsips in the Middle East keeping the oil flowing and in China keeping the cheap labour flowing. Ever-increasing privatization of everything from infrastructure to health to education.
That's what Conservative 'freedom' means I suppose.

RichardAnd

rick santorums gimp wrote: »

One could argue that a Conservative version of Utopia has already been achieved, or at least is in place to an extent -

Globalized unregulated markets, international tax shelters, widespread debt-fueled consumerism sustaining corporate profits, a healthy level of unemployment in the West keeping wages down, friendly dictatorsips in the Middle East keeping the oil flowing and in China keeping the cheap labour flowing. Ever-increasing privatization of everything from infrastructure to health to education.
That's what Conservative 'freedom' means I suppose.

I could make an argument that everything you've describes would be a Liberal heaven. There is a temptation to associate Conservatism with right wing philosophies but this isn't entirely true. Certainly there are people like that but to rebuke the old stereotype, but consider that the idea of social welfare is not at all something that would appeal to a Liberal.

A Conservative, on the other hand, would (if humans neatly fit into such theoretical containers) have no issue with social welfare as it would be a action of a powerful, overseeing mechanism of unity. In other words, it's taking away personal responsibility, something Liberals (and Sith lords :P ) are very, very fond of.

In fact, I've met plenty of people who claim a Liberal stance yet display all of the ruthless and self serving motivations that, generally, are assigned to aged Conservatives.

The lesson here, left and right have little to so with liberalism and conservatism. Further more, the entire system of labeling can be thrown away and replaced with a far less complicated truth that the only political, economic or social stance one individual will take will be the only through which they stand to gain something. In other words, "I'm happy once I get my slice of the pie."

rick santorums gimp

RichardAnd wrote: »

I could make an argument that everything you've describes would be a Liberal heaven.

Would be interested to hear that.

There is a temptation to associate Conservatism with right wing philosophies but this isn't entirely true.

True, and we all have different ideas about what defines Conservatism - whether social or economic. And yes it's all too easy to pigeonhole. (In saying that, it's also fun and sometimes informative.:P)

Conservatism in some parts and for me mostly means stuff like the above list. Plus things like trying to control/ban reproductive choice, sexual orientation, recreational drug use, stem cell research etc.
The only possible Liberal aspect is that they'd like to liberate seniors from receiving social security and liberate kids from getting a free education..