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."
"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".
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
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?
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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Joe Biden has on several occasions has shared his view that he feels President Trump is a racist. It would appear Biden is making this accusation a big part of his campaign strategy. In my view, he has opened a door that will only lead to revealing some very ugly skeletons in his own closet. ...
by lilmami10984 12 years ago
Does your mate have to know EVERYTHING about your past or are some things better kept a secret?
by HubPages 12 years ago
How to deal with things better
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
Commonly, those people who call themselves conservative hold socialism and communism as being the end-state of liberalism. I would argue that there is nothing "liberal" about socialism and communism. Think about it, the fundamental engine behind both is the need for the...
by Scott Belford 6 months ago
If the leaked Supreme Court Decision on Roe v Wade becomes reality, then it won't be a Woman's Right to Choose and control her own body that goes by the way-side in Conservative States - it is any previous ruling that is based on the Right to Privacy which will vanish as well.That is what these...
by James Smith 9 years ago
Modern conservatives claim that their ideology rests on these principles: individual liberty, small government, fiscal conservatism, a strong national defence and the rule of law. I'd just like to focus on the small government part, seeing as that may as well not be in there considering the...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|