Conservative Principal #6 - Don't Bother Trying to Make Things Better

1. 86

   My Esotericposted 7 years ago

   Russell Kirk's Conservative Principal #6, Imperfectability, says, in bullet form:
   
   Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.
   
   1. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults
   
   2. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created.
   
   3. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any Utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster.
   
   4. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk.
   
   5. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order.
   
   6. If the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose
   
   7. The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.
   
   This principal fits hand-in-glove with Principal #5, discussed in another forum, which posits that "for the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality."

   replyreport
   1. 78

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. "
      
      How does that fit with the title assigned to the thread?  Did you skip over that one?
      
      But overall, it is correct.  Utopia is a dream, and an unattainable one this millenium.  That liberals (and dictators) will tell us differently does not make it true - the best we can do is to "improve this tolerable (dis)order".

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         +1

         replyreport
   2. 63

      Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not sure the desire for future betterment is a partisan issue. Perhaps its implicit if not directly acknowledged as wilderness points out. No wonder it seems absurd to you. Any sane person should want this right? Where we seem to mostly disagree are specific points and attitudes toward the world. We live in different planes of perspective.
      
      Someone trying to communicate the benefits of state supremacy to me is like trying to describe color to someone who is color blind. Our temperaments are fundamentally different but our values should overlap more often than not. We're Americans at the end of the day.
      
      This has been some good information that you have provided but I would never have sought that out and committed it to memory like some religious fundamentalist. Maybe I don't fit into that box. Maybe no one does.
      
      I think we can co-exist. It's totally possible lol

      replyreport
      1. 86

         My Esotericposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         I read a lot and for some god-awful reason even think about such stuff in that twilight period between sleep and wakefulness. I don't know why, I just do.
         
         I suspect you are partly right about the partisanship, both minimal state liberals and true conservatives are in general agreement that very little effort should be tried to improve things; save for religious and civic groups doing their own thing, but certainly not the government.
         
         What differentiates the active state liberal (and I suppose the socialist) is that they believe there is a moral need to attempt to right these wrongs.  Kirk's (and Sumner's) view is just the opposite.  Isn't that the reason the battle to end slavery was so divisive? That a Civil War had to be fought over it?

         replyreport
         1. 63

            Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Change happens at the level of the individual. States only become as a pathological as its citizens. The harder we work at correcting ourselves, the more we will be doing our neighbors of mutual hardship a favor.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               My Esotericposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               And that, dear sir, is the unsolvable crux of the issue. Active state liberals believe just the opposite. Since 1) the problem is too large and pernicious for individuals or local organizations to be effective; they can only help a little and 2) since government (state and federal), which, after all, is the people writ large in America, is the only organization capable of putting a dent in the problem.
               
               An active state liberal moral code cares about fellow human beings to the extent they feel compelled to help people. A minimal state liberal is, in effect, a social Darwinist.
               
               While a minimal state liberal thinks slavery is bad, they see no reason to fix it.
               
               Conservatives, on the other hand, may or may not feel compelled to help certain people live a slightly better life, they actually oppose changing the dynamics that lead to human misery. Hence, the conservative's opposition to changing the institution of slavery, for example.

               replyreport
               1. 63

                  Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  "Hence, the conservative's opposition to changing the institution of slavery, for example"
                  
                  Are you talking about anything in this century or what? Because I don't know what you're talking about.
                  
                  Kirks Principles are starting to grow on me though. Look what you've done haha

                  replyreport
   3. 59

      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I have to agree that we,as humans, possess certain characteristics which may be deemed as faults by those attempting to create rank and file social order. The ability to be free of the constraints necessary in forging an indoctrinated social order, which touts inclusion, but excludes any ideas which deviate from the accepted norm, is laughable to this personality type. Because, inclusion becomes an illusion created to make those who don't fit the desired norm appear to be those not inclusive, when the opposite is true.
      
      Your term 'utopian domination' is telling. One must dominate another so that one's idea of utopia can be imposed on another. Thus ensuring the belief of living in utopia would not be universal. Of course some would grow restless and dream of breaking the bonds and building a utopia, since they would not currently be residing in one.
      
      A tolerably ordered and free society is our best hope for a reasonable expectation of allowing the pursuit of happiness. Open dialogue and debate, free elections where the largest percentage of the population is allowed to participate, allows society to gravitate toward the most agreed upon environment to allow the most within to live in the best environment to strive for happiness.
      
      Suffering will always be among us. Primarily because a free society allows us to attain a level of happiness which allows us to look again, to find another pocket of discontent. Allowing us to bring it to light, discuss it, ponder the solution and move toward it. Bringing us another step closer to universal freedom to pursue happiness. Those who want quick solutions ignore the possible ramifications which could easily erode gains already made. Appeasing the desires of the few must not take precedent over the sensibilities of the many. Doing so is a much more likely recipe for disaster than taking the time needed for orderly evolution.
      
      Avoidance of change for change's sake should be our goal.
      
      The term idealogue is used almost universally. One's idealogue is to another a visionary. Those who use the term in earnest show a mind closed to the ability to figuratively walk in the shoes of another in an attempt to find the value of the opposing view.

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         This

         replyreport
2. 63

   Jessie L Watsonposted 7 years ago

   http://abstractpolitics.com/2010/05/per … -contexts/
   
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 86

      My Esotericposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Very interesting.  So far I haven't figured out how to locate the details of their research, but i'll keep trying.  I live for that kind of research.

      replyreport