A Conservative view of Government.

[Theodarzna]

This is intended to be a general discussion about the future of Conservatism, and Conservative views on Government.

The contemporary State/Government model in all modern Western Mass Democracies does not leave people alone, and is neither indifferent to their values nor afraid to exercise power for the sake of overriding and changing them. It is manifestly not a broker among competing interests; the opposition between government policy and popular attitudes on such issues as immigration and affirmative action is evidence enough of that. It is in fact an imposing system of power, backed by a huge public sector, by lower and middle class recipients of public assistance, and by media, journalistic, and expert defenders, whose importance is enhanced by the regime’s power.

The regime now common to all Western societies follows a well-defined pattern marked by entitlement programs, sexual and expressive freedoms, and the disappearance of self-government. Politics is inspired by the view that government exists to promote individual gratification, and with that justification administrators dominate the whole of life. Technocrats run everything, appealing to expertise, equity, and the need to battle prejudice by sensitizing and re-educating citizens. Social welfare programs divert resources to government and reduce the need for institutions other than the state bureaucracy and various contractual arrangements. ‘Inclusiveness’ abolishes all connection between the workings of society and any specific cultural heritage, so that only rational formal institutions that the state can easily control remain important. The drive to eliminate prejudice establishes a comprehensive system of control over social life and destroys the attitudes and habits ’ sex roles, religious ties and standards, ethnic and cultural loyalties ’ on which independent and especially non-market institutions rely for functioning and strength. The personal has been transformed into the political. Conservatism, if it is to be a viable political alternative to Progressivism, must absolutely reject this ideal of Government as a means of distributing material pleasure.

Conservatism, in my estimation, is Anti-Technocracy to its absolute core. This Conservatism is different than that of George W. Bush or most establishment GOP politicians whom in my opinion are merely pretenders. The reason for this is purely philosophical. Experts are not rejected because they are unfit, or because their ideology is unsound but because they role is unjust and tyrannical.

If one accepts a purely atheistic view of life, that there is no God or Afterlife nor is their reincarnation, than one is left with only one life. Should one's life be micromanaged, dictated and circumscribed by the dictates, wishes, and fanciful dreams of committees of experts? This is materially different than hiring a doctor as the individual chooses to hire a doctor. The use of State power should not be present in these arrangements. This constitutes a rejection of the Governments claim to control, civilize or maintain society.

A second point is that Conservatives should acknowledge and work against “anarcho-tyranny". Which may sound strange, but it is a describable concept. We do not live by rule of law, because no one can possibly go a day without breaking one or another of the goofy laws that have been imposed on us over the years. No one even knows all the laws that apply to almost anything we do now. We live in a time of selective enforcement of law. These laws either come from administrative fiat or are part of the litany of State, Federal and Local laws that are beyond any reasonable persons ability to actually acknowledge or memorize. This leaves us in a state in which all citizens are criminals when it becomes convenient to be rid of them. We have law, but if the laws were enforced than all would be in jail or punished, so laws are enforced in ways subject to the bias of the enforcer. We need less laws. What we have now is law without order: a constant busybodying about behavior that does not at all derive from a shared moral consensus. In my view, only by devolving power back toward law-abiding citizens can sanity be restored.

In short, Conservatism aught to actually act on the project of shrinking government, but also re-envisioning the actual purpose of government. If progressives aim to give people material goods and pleasures, conservatism will have to articulate an alternative purpose for the State that is not that. Finally there will have to be curtailing of shear plethora of law, or weakening of central power back to local levels. This vision will have to be a rejection of the kind of powerful state figures like Bill Kristols/ect and George W. Bush's administration sought as it effectively cedes the argument about the purpose of government. The failings of the Neo-Conservatives was that they agreed with the notion that Government aught provide material pleasures. They just disagreed with Progressives about WHO it should be provisioning those pleasures with.

So? Other ideas? Counter ideas? Insults?

[Stelio Kontos]

So? Other ideas? Counter ideas? Insults?

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

[Endus]

Conservatism, in my estimation, is Anti-Technocracy to its absolute core. This Conservatism is different than that of George W. Bush or most establishment GOP politicians whom in my opinion are merely pretenders. The reason for this is purely philosophical. Experts are not rejected because they are unfit, or because their ideology is unsound but because they role is unjust and tyrannical.

It seems odd to pick up the label of "conservative" and then immediately try to no-true-Scotsman other conservatives. If you find their views so reprehensible, maybe recognize that your views aren't "conservative"? It's not like you have to pick one of two labels, here.

A second point is that Conservatives should acknowledge and work against “anarcho-tyranny". Which may sound strange, but it is a describable concept. We do not live by rule of law, because no one can possibly go a day without breaking one or another of the goofy laws that have been imposed on us over the years. No one even knows all the laws that apply to almost anything we do now. We live in a time of selective enforcement of law. These laws either come from administrative fiat or are part of the litany of State, Federal and Local laws that are beyond any reasonable persons ability to actually acknowledge or memorize. This leaves us in a state in which all citizens are criminals when it becomes convenient to be rid of them. We have law, but if the laws were enforced than all would be in jail or punished, so laws are enforced in ways subject to the bias of the enforcer. We need less laws. What we have now is law without order: a constant busybodying about behavior that does not at all derive from a shared moral consensus. In my view, only by devolving power back toward law-abiding citizens can sanity be restored.

This seems more like projection of a personal issue than an ideological stance. It's easily possible to not break laws on a daily basis. You just choose not to. You don't need to "memorize" them, because most of them won't even apply to you. For instance, if you don't work in urban planning in a city, nobody would expect you to be familiar with development setbacks, but if you're about to build a building, not realizing that such exist is just willful ignorance on your part, not a defensible position.

In short, Conservatism aught to actually act on the project of shrinking government, but also re-envisioning the actual purpose of government.

"Smaller government" as a talking point is functionally useless. Nobody wants government to do things it doesn't need to do. If you can point to a specific policy or program you feel is ineffective or inefficient, we can discuss it on its own merits (or lack thereof), but just trying to reduce the "size" of government, absent any such positions on specific policies, isn't a tenable political point to hold. It just doesn't mean anything, and you have no path to achieving it. You may as well be saying you're going to "end violence" or "get everyone a job". It SOUNDS nice, but you have no idea how you could achieve it, and if you did, you'd be better off talking about that, in detail.

[Stelio Kontos]

If anyone has his finger on the pulse of conservatism and conservative values, it's Endus.

[Theodarzna]

It seems odd to pick up the label of "conservative" and then immediately try to no-true-Scotsman other conservatives. If you find their views so reprehensible, maybe recognize that your views aren't "conservative"? It's not like you have to pick one of two labels, here.

My view is that logically one couldn't enact a critical pillar of a Conservative vision of Government without being Anti-Technocracy as one would be unable to justify curtailing State power or devolving power back to a local or even individual level without rejecting the idea that some citizens have a unique and special place in making law and government.

This seems more like projection of a personal issue than an ideological stance. It's easily possible to not break laws on a daily basis. You just choose not to. You don't need to "memorize" them, because most of them won't even apply to you. For instance, if you don't work in urban planning in a city, nobody would expect you to be familiar with development setbacks, but if you're about to build a building, not realizing that such exist is just willful ignorance on your part, not a defensible position.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

Even if one is unaware of a law, one is still obligated to obey a law. The shear volume of federal, state and even local regulations, statutes, administrative regulations is staggering. There is a book actually about this topic called Three Felonies a Day, And it is a noted fact of life that there are more regulations and laws than any individual or even trained team of lawyers can keep you out of breaking at least some of them.

"Smaller government" as a talking point is functionally useless. Nobody wants government to do things it doesn't need to do. If you can point to a specific policy or program you feel is ineffective or inefficient, we can discuss it on its own merits (or lack thereof), but just trying to reduce the "size" of government, absent any such positions on specific policies, isn't a tenable political point to hold. It just doesn't mean anything, and you have no path to achieving it. You may as well be saying you're going to "end violence" or "get everyone a job". It SOUNDS nice, but you have no idea how you could achieve it, and if you did, you'd be better off talking about that, in detail.

Smaller government is the only philosophically important part of Conservatism. Otherwise it is just Progressives who disagree on whom the material pleasures of the States resources should be distributed to.

I am disagreeing with the States role in any of it. Not the efficiency or effectiveness of Government programs.

[Underverse]

You really hate technocracy, huh. Every time you make one of these posts it convinces me more that you see technocracy as a near-insurmountable logical threat that forces you to grasp at straws in order to reaffirm your inherited ideology.

Anyway...

Technocrats run everything, appealing to expertise, equity, and the need to battle prejudice by sensitizing and re-educating citizens.

I don't see this as factually correct, especially given the current administration in the US. There are some politicians who do some of the things you listed, but it's not quite endemic to western government.

Should one's life be micromanaged, dictated and circumscribed by the dictates, wishes, and fanciful dreams of committees of experts?

This is a rephrasing of another question that involves participation in markets. Many have bemoaned the demands of the standard work and reward system. Get educated, work until you retire, die - is that how one's life should be dictated? You might say that there's a difference here, in that one has a choice to participate in the market and follow that path. But one also has a choice to participate in government-defined societies - we'll call them social markets (as opposed to economic markets).

Secondly, if 'micromanaging' results in me not being shot while I'm out shopping, then I'm all for it. Control of certain behaviors is necessary for a ordered society, and it's also desirable for the vast majority of people who don't want to live in the state of nature.

The use of State power should not be present in these arrangements. This constitutes a rejection of the Governments claim to control, civilize or maintain society.

Then what is government's role?

I'm going to end my response here because I'm too tired to continue.

[Drakain]

This is so generalized and vague it's hard to know what your actually saying.

[Theodarzna]

You really hate technocracy, huh. Every time you make one of these posts it convinces me more that you see technocracy as a near-insurmountable logical threat that forces you to grasp at straws in order to reaffirm your inherited ideology.

Hate is strong, but I do see it as antithetical to values I cherish. It is a threat to it, and in my view a threat to many ways of life. But ultimately it comes down to a philosophical opposition to having ones single and only life managed and circumscribed by another. It's less about the expertise of the expert, but the experts right to have power.

I don't see this as factually correct, especially given the current administration in the US. There are some politicians who do some of the things you listed, but it's not quite endemic to western government.

The current US president is less concerned with it, it is stronger in Europe and Canada than here, but it exists in the US at various levels of government and has for some time. For example the equal pay laws.

This is a rephrasing of another question that involves participation in markets. Many have bemoaned the demands of the standard work and reward system. Get educated, work until you retire, die - is that how one's life should be dictated? You might say that there's a difference here, in that one has a choice to participate in the market and follow that path. But one also has a choice to participate in government-defined societies - we'll call them social markets (as opposed to economic markets).

Secondly, if 'micromanaging' results in me not being shot while I'm out shopping, then I'm all for it. Control of certain behaviors is necessary for a ordered society, and it's also desirable for the vast majority of people who don't want to live in the state of nature.

Having a police force or some form of enforcing of just and adequate law, than that is not really a "micromanagement." Even in a medieval society there was protections against being stabbed. You can be shot now going to get groceries by the way.

Government regulation of society to some extent is at its core responsible for both. After all it takes a powerful central state to craft the Markets rules, to draft the contract law and create the rules of capitalism and contracts. These rules may defy all local custom and tradition or even overthrow traditions of land ownership and property that may have been in place since time out of mind. One doesn't really have much choice in participating in Capitalism any more than they do in a curated and managed social market. I think both are a problem in a philosophical and logical sense.

[Glorious Leader]

I'm gonna assume and I didnt read all of it but I think read enough to safely say that the only use of state power is to enforce private property. Ironically the grossest intervention in the market and the most extreme use of state force. It literally requires a police state to enforce.

[Glorious Leader]

Erm... A police state is not any state that has a police force. You can most definitely enforce property rights without being a police state.

Not really. If you reduce all other functions of government and only leave protection of private property as it's existing function you will have to have a police state. The government will no longer intervene in the depredations of private capital and of course people will fucking riot.

[Theodarzna]

I'm gonna assume and I didnt read all of it but I think read enough to safely say that the only use of state power is to enforce private property. Ironically the grossest intervention in the market and the most extreme use of state force. It literally requires a police state to enforce.

This would be a bit simplified, but I'd actually go even further. I would disagree with the governments ability to necessarily interfere with local custom and law. Even if those local customs might make the business of Capitalism difficult.

Capitalism itself requires a powerful state and socializing force which changed our distant ancestors away from customs and law that had existed since time immemorial. An example might be the ancient rights of ship builders to keep the left over wood from their work to build their houses. Or tailors to keep leftover fabric. Much was made illegal under say the emphasis "Bloody Code," and other such State interventions that were used to socialize and condition the masses for a Capitalist way of life.

[Glorious Leader]

Then how is that a state that protects private property?

That's all they would do. In order to do it they would have to brutalize people.

[May90]

"Future of conservatism" is kind of an oxymoron. If you want your ideology to survive in the future, it shouldn't be stuck in the past, lest it will necessarily be defeated by a more effective ideology adapting to the societal, economical and technological evolution.

[Endus]

My view is that logically one couldn't enact a critical pillar of a Conservative vision of Government without being Anti-Technocracy as one would be unable to justify curtailing State power or devolving power back to a local or even individual level without rejecting the idea that some citizens have a unique and special place in making law and government.

See, this is what I mean. What you're advocating is some variant of anarcho-libertarianism, not conservativism. You just don't want to use a more specific label, and instead try and argue that conservative views aren't REALLY conservative because they're not YOUR views, and you want to claim the label, which isn't how words work.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

Even if one is unaware of a law, one is still obligated to obey a law. The shear volume of federal, state and even local regulations, statutes, administrative regulations is staggering. There is a book actually about this topic called Three Felonies a Day, And it is a noted fact of life that there are more regulations and laws than any individual or even trained team of lawyers can keep you out of breaking at least some of them.

Speaking as someone who works in policy-related fields, and has helped write policy, it doesn't even matter. The vast majority of laws aren't something the average person could break, and the moment you're stepping into an area where you could, it would behoove you to educate yourself as to the legal background. Refusing to do so is willful ignorance.

You don't have to know ALL the laws. Not even lawyers have all the law memorized. You just need to know what laws are relevant to you and your actions. And that is entirely achievable to pretty much anyone who gives half a shit.

Smaller government is the only philosophically important part of Conservatism. Otherwise it is just Progressives who disagree on whom the material pleasures of the States resources should be distributed to.

"Smaller government" isn't a political point to begin with. Literally everyone, of all ideological stripes, agrees that government should be no bigger than it needs to be. That's all your argument is. Unless you can point to specifics, it isn't a political point at all, it's just empty rhetoric that means nothing.

[Auxora]

Topics like this are subjective and all, but this OP dissertation is particularly way off base. It's so far off that it's tough to even find where to start.

But just for example, not all laws are equal in severity if broken. But we entrust in our system of government that laws are enacted for a reason, and removed if unnecessary. Jumping to the conclusion that "everyone breaks laws" so we should get rid of many of them isn't sensible. That's saying someone driving 31 mph in a 30 mph zone is technically breaking the law, so let's get rid of speed limits? Or worse yet, because some people don't wear seat belts let's make shoplifting legal.

My view of conservatism would be minimal taxes and government spending. As far as reducing regulations that don't add value to society or are obsolete, although that is often lumped into what people think of conservatism, that's something that imo should just be part of normal function of government all the time regardless of political view.

The OP's stance is a whole lot closer to libertarian than conservatism.

[Glorious Leader]

This would be a bit simplified, but I'd actually go even further. I would disagree with the governments ability to necessarily interfere with local custom and law. Even if those local customs might make the business of Capitalism difficult.

Capitalism itself requires a powerful state and socializing force which changed our distant ancestors away from customs and law that had existed since time immemorial. An example might be the ancient rights of ship builders to keep the left over wood from their work to build their houses. Or tailors to keep leftover fabric. Much was made illegal under say the emphasis "Bloody Code," and other such State interventions that were used to socialize and condition the masses for a Capitalist way of life.

It's complex. As society advances technologically and as the population increase more organization is required to maintain just a basic standard of living. I'm not really in favor of romanticism because it's absurd and not very realistic but I don't know what the answer is. Think about this one alot actually. It's not clear theirs an answer that can resolve the need for more organization as society grows in complexity and size but also maintain some basic human values.

- - - Updated - - -

What? You just said, "The government will no longer intervene in depredation of private capital."

The depredations of private capital is not the same as private capital. What I mean to say is that the inherent tendencies in capitalism that begin to harm the society are basically blunted out through government interference. This is what happened with FDR and the depression. The people we're ready to riot. Government stepped in to prevent it and save capitalism.

[Theodarzna]

It's complex. As society advances technologically and as the population increase more organization is required to maintain just a basic standard of living. I'm not really in favor of romanticism because it's absurd and not very realistic but I don't know what the answer is. Think about this one alot actually. It's not clear theirs an answer that can resolve the need for more organization as society grows in complexity and size but also maintain some basic human values.

I support local autonomy. Should a state body or even an individual be in the business of behavior reform of people? I mean this in general, not necessarily in the specifics of crimes, but in thought and behavior reform in the sense of socializing people to act a certain way?

[Felya]

Pretty sure it's something like this:

https://youtu.be/aJuaZKBABO0

[Captain N]

If I wanted to know about an actual Conservative view on Government I'd talk to @Skroe. At least he has a fundamental understanding of the topic.

[Theodarzna]

If I wanted to know about an actual Conservative view on Government I'd talk to @Skroe. At least he has a fundamental understanding of the topic.

Where I'd disagree with Skroe would be that Skroe lacks the courage of the convictions in Conservatism as an actual project.

The problem with the GOP is that it lacks the will to carry out a Conservative agenda, but instead focuses on selective changes to the powerful State in order to enrich their friends, OR simple to change who benefits from the material rewards of the State. Their talk of "Smaller Government," is cheap and meaningless.