Written By: - Date published: 3:30 pm, January 27th, 2009 - 99 comments
Categories: articles, labour, national -
Tags: articles, labour, national
Conservatism is all about maintaining the status quo. It assumes that the status quo is essentially ok, while change is best avoided. The idea comes from philosophers like Edmund Burke who figured the reason conventions and structures get to endure in the first place is because they work. Of course if you’re in the middle to upper strata of society and reasonably comfortable, then maintaining the status quo is more desirable than it is for those getting a raw deal. The Conservative position is comparatively easy to translate into political action because it concerns maintaining or removing influences to keep life as it is, or was. There isn’t a lot of philosophical disunity because the simple overarching rules are more individual liberty and less state influence: if in doubt, do less or nothing and ensure the status quo. Of course conservatives do changes things, but they usually cloak their actions in the rhetorical meme of ‘restoring things to how they were’. Overall Conservatism appeals to those who need or prefer simple answers to complex problems.
The weakness of a conservative position (apart from the obvious moral problem of disregard for those at the bottom of the heap), is that it doesn’t deal with change very well. Sometimes change comes from without, such as the effects of the Global Economic Crisis, and sometimes from within, when disaffected groups start do insist on change but either way trying to conserve the past isn’t often a very useful guide for how best to adapt. When the world insists on changing in novel ways Conservatives tend to be at a bit of a loss. The other obvious objection is clearly the past, or the status quo, hasn’t always been worth conserving: slavery, dowries and capital punishment spring to mind but there are countless injustices that have been abolished as societies have progressed towards civility.
Progressivism on the other hand takes the view that regardless of how things are now they can always be better, and that civilised societies have a duty to improve the lot of all their citizens, not least of which the weakest members. Progressivism is much more problematic as a guide for political decision making because it involves modifying existing structures, or making altogether new ones, to achieve a better state of affairs. It also provokes disagreements not only about how to achieve progress, but also more fundamentally, about what constitutes progress in the first place. This familiarity with change, ambiguity and complexity however gives an advantage to progressives when adaptation is the only option.
So Progressivism requires a lot more thought on behalf of its adherents, a lot more effort if you believe its harder to make something new than it is to keep things as they are, and often leaves progressives at odds with each other about what to achieve and how to achieve it. Fortunately on the whole it also seems to attract smarter, more compassionate people.
And then of course there’s Neo-Liberals, who pretend to be conservative while really seeking radical change, but that’s another story…
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
The political spectrum extends from big government to small government. That is the only distinction that really counts. Big government always brings the threat of totalitarianism. Its why I will always advocate for small government.
Its that simple. Small government or big government.? Where do you stand? Ask yourself that question, answer yourself honestly (hard I know for the left) and you’ll know what you want politically.
burt I feel for you.
Yes, you’ve interpreted the post in the most simplistic possible way because you’re a simple person.
Which is like a colourblind man looking at a rainbow and saying ” Of course I see it – it’s black, white and grey and it’s boring.”
You’ve superimposed your preconception that everything must be a party line onto your understanding of everything in the thread.
And no burt, I haven’t been trying to wind you up. That’s paranoia. Get off the pipe.
Redbaiter:
Its that simple. Small government or big government.? Where do you stand?
Medium government.
“Medium government.”
Fine except that “medium” governments have a habit of becoming big governments. Just look at any western democracy today, and compare with twenty, fourty or sixty years ago, for an example.
Redbaiter
January 28, 2009 at 11:39 am
“Medium government.’
Fine except that “medium’ governments have a habit of becoming big governments. Just look at any western democracy today, and compare with twenty, fourty or sixty years ago, for an example.
Thats what people are voting for though?
Small government or big government.?
Tired old false dichotomy. What people really want (as Mr Obama put it) is government that works. Size is simply a question of ‘how big a tool is needed to do the job’?
Small govt is just fine in a small society with small needs. It’s a bit like computer OS’s, they start out small and compact, but demand always drives them to become larger and more complex. (As one product manager once told me, “I never get customers phoning me and demanding that I stop adding features”.)
Now it’s perfectly true that Windows has become a bit of a bloated beast, so much so that the lastest incarnation Vista, has been pretty much rejected by the market and Microsoft have been compelled to rethink what they are doing with Windows 7… but there is no demand to throw it out and replace it all with DOS. (And for the purposes of the analogy I’m deliberately ignoring other OS’s like Linux.) What will happen is that with time, the redundant and inefficient bits will get pruned out, while at the same time new ideas and more powerful features will be added in. Some of these will be bits of ideological idiocy like DRM, and others will hardly ever get used or turn out to have unintended consequences (such as security holes)… but with time it will get patched up, and future service packs and releases all keep the monster creaking forwards in a direction that more or less keeps most of us happy.
Is Windows perfect? No. Is it the best we can do? Of course not, but what will NOT happen is that it will ever get smaller and less powerful. As long as the underlying computer hardware continues to get bigger, faster, better linked and cheaper… the demand for more powerful and larger OS’s will remain.
Now if you want to advocate the political equivalent of running everything on DOS with your small primitive govt concept… go hard young man…. but please don’t be so dissapointed if the rest of us think your retro-hobby quaint and rather cute… but hardly useful.
“The rest of us”
You people are so nauseatingly unable to think outside the frame of collectivism. Your imagined majority, even if real, would be no guarantee of your correctness.
The point is, you do not test your theories with an opt out choice. Why not include within any taxation collection system, the opportunity for those who do not want to participate in collectivist social schemes, a simple yes or no tick box?
You wouldn’t do it because you know as well as I damn well know, that nobody would tick yes. Your whole system is an exercise in compulsion and the kind of perversion of democracy that the founders of the US Republic were attempting to avoid when they authored the Constitution.
How much more complex would any collective system be if it had to overcome economic fundamentals of free-riders and non-exclusionary goods? You are so nauseatingly simplistic in your anaylsis yet you wonder why you aren’t taken seriously.
No problem. All wishing to partake of the socialist delusion would be given plastic ID cards for whatever facet they wanted to be part of. No card, no theiving socialism. It works for driving licences.
Sure. Not carrying a card will automatically cut you off from street lighting, power, roads, footpaths, the courts, police protection, the tangible and intangibles of our diplomatic, trade and defence systems, health, education, welfare, sports, public advocacy, arts and anything else that taxes pay for. Just like magic eh, it really is that easy.
It works for driving licences does it? So no one has ever used a motor vehicle in New Zealand, without the requisite licence? No one has ever driven a car without registering their vehicle or paying RUC? Or did you just miss the problem, and my point?
No it wouldn’t. You see. You are the real dimbulb. I’d say that most people would tick the boxes associated with protection from criminals and international security. Not that such fundamental government services should even be included. The rest of your dimbulb blather is not worth responding to. Do away with driving licences should we?? Idiot.
If ever I needed convincing that left wing politics attracts the stupid all I need to do is read a Matthew Pillock post.
How many people ticked the Libertrianz box?
RB: Capital idea! Stand for parliament on this sort of ticket, I’m sure your idea will immediately garner the level of support it so richly deserves.
L
PB, stop stealing my ideas. Again.
L
Redbaiter, you really would do more to advance your ideas if you didn’t go around abusing people. From the looks of this thread, it doesn’t look like you’re baiting any reds successfully at all. They seem to be baiting you. And succeeding.
Tim: Well, it’s not like he makes it difficult.
Perhaps instead of adding a certain prefix instead of `Red’, he should just swap the final `r’ for a `d’?
On second thoughts, doing both could work.
L
Pascal’s bookie
How many people ticked the Libertrianz box?
1176 people this time, and last time redbaiter stood he got 57 votes.
Mind you with the ammount of tax fraud amongst ACT and Liberterianz supporters, it’s unlikely they woudl notice any difference if they were to opt out of paying tax.
Redbaiter, what do you think would be a good way of getting every one to vote better next time?
I assume the primary methods to choose between would be either compulsary re-education camps for those who dont vote correctly, or just wholesale disqalification from voting for those who voted wrongly in the past. Maybe a combination of those methods would be the best option do you have any other suggestions?
1176 people this time, and last time redbaiter stood he got 57 votes.
Oh dear. I guess there must be an awful lot of false consciousness about.
Lew: Sorry. Fools have similar notions I suppose, or however that saying goes.
PB: Great minds think alike, dumb ones reckon the same. Clearly, we’s the VLWC.
Mighty quiet around here now, innit?
L
So, Redbaiter, your form of ‘small government’ is all the socialism YOU want, excluding the socialism anyone else wants. Well spoken, tovarishch, I’ve never seen someone blend collectivism with individualism so effortlessly and cynically.
Not that you have the intellectual honesty to follow an argument logically when it doesn’t suit you, but my point is that in not ticking boxes to certain ‘socialist experiments’ you are excluded from paying the taxes that fund them, but in reality could not be excluded from taking advantage of those services provided – the point being that unlicenced drivers still do drive, and people use roads in cars that are not registered.
It’s a fairly simple analogy that still you still managed to miss, and prove so with the spectacularly irrelevant comment:”Do away with driving licences should we?? Idiot.“
Haha, fair enough
The plus to conservatism is that sometimes when we change things we get it wrong and make things worse. This is the issue with being open to change. However, usually progressives have a somewhat scientific attitude about these experiments, and just know that they want to improve on the current situation. It’s people who are driven by other ideologies that don’t let go of a particular solution.
The left wing isn’t wholly progressive or wholly leftist, so there will be parts of it that support things that can be improved upon even when there’s the power to change them. Such is politics.
In reality an extreme version of either ideology is transparently wrong- what we have are leanings towards wanting to improve society by trying new things, and wanting to improve society by returning to old solutions.
For over 10 years Redbaiter/Sovereign Individual has been in denial about market failure, which is in any good first year economics textbook.
10 years of wasted rhetoric simply because of ignorance of a fundamental economic concept. Highly amusing.
“Redbaiter, you really would do more to advance your ideas if you didn’t go around abusing people.”
Who the fuck do you think you’re lecturing you pompous twat? You can tell me how to treat these braindead leftist fuckwits when you have some provable record of success in the methods of persuasion you claim should be used.
You haven’t any such record of course, for on your watch, NZ has fallen deeper and deeper and deeper into the leftist chasm while nice little fellahs like you have sat around with your fingers up your arse, fawning over communism disguised as democratic socialism.
If you think you’ve got a working remedy to the suffocating totalitarian social conditon that exists in New Zealand, then show me the evidence. I say that whatever method you have been using has been an abject failure. Never before has my country been held so fast in the grip of these dangerous bastards, and you should be shamefully silent about that rather than lecturing others on what you percieve as their faults.
The left have oppressed and stifled political dissent in NZ for too long, and it is people like you Mr. Ellis who have allowed them to do this. The only thing that will ever have any real effect on their thinking is the anger of their victims. Wake up.
“So, Redbaiter, your form of ‘small government’ is all the socialism YOU want, excluding the socialism anyone else wants”
Providing a legal framework based on property rights and individual liberty and limiting the size and power of government through a Constitution is not socialism.
Socialism is alll about perverting a non republic style democracy and then using government to promote socialism at the expense of all of these things. That is the difference between what you and your equally tyrannical and ignorant lackies support, and what Redbaiter supports, and its why what you cheer for is so utterly dangerous and evil. (as history has shown)
More moderation? What now for chrissakes???
More moderation? What now for chrissakes???
I dunno, maybe because you come across as a batshit insane raving drooling semi-literate crack addict with nothing interesting to say.
[lprent: Yeah we all know that you know how to avoid the auto-moderation. No need to skite - there isn't any need to bait the animals...]
Actually, it’s probably just the choice of language. The mods normally give an explicit warning before auto-moderating, but there’s sometimes no helping peoples’ immoderate language.
But damn, ain’t it cute when he gets riled like this?
L
“I dunno, maybe because you come across as a batshit insane raving drooling semi-literate crack addict with nothing interesting to say.”
Naaah, can’t be that, or 99.9% of what you collectivists write wouldn’t get through.
The first few comments and the banning reactions sum up the differences between conservatives and socialists/progressives (or whatever the current label is): ‘agree with us b/c we’re morally superior – or pay the consequences.’ You warn a bloke for polite, reasoned disagreement? Unbelievable.