Perhaps the biggest difference between conservatives (with a small "c") and socialists is that conservatives do not pursue a cause. They do not seek to impose anything on anyone, preferring to just leave people alone and trust them to live as they see best with a fall-back of penalties for causing harm to others. In contrast, socialists must of necessity take a fight to the people. They do not trust us to live responsibly because they have a vision of the perfect world and are compelled to mould us, by force if necessary, to comply with their vision.
One problem with the socialist approach is that the vision can never be complete. There are always new situations for which no blueprint exists and new opportunities to extend the existing plan into areas previously immune from interference. Most tellingly, when the stubborn little people refuse to comply with the vision it is necessary for new ways to be found to enforce compliance. In the more brutal regimes that means physical assaults and even state murder, in a relatively civilised country like the UK it takes a different form.
What should not be presumed is that socialist politicians bully and coerce for the sake of being unpleasant. Of course there will always be some who do, but they do not reflect the real theme of their cause. The real theme is that life for everyone can be improved with careful guidance by the machinery of the State. Once you believe that, especially if you believe it passionately, no bullying or coercion are involved there is only the perceived need to take whatever steps are necessary to open the eyes of the little people to the benefits of the ideal society.
To a socialist there is only one acceptable way for people to live, which is according to his current view of the ideal State. When he changes his mind about something the new ideal becomes mandatory. Dissent, debate and variance are inconsistent with the attainment of the ideal State, so means must be found to ensure compliance. The single most important factor is the need for the little people to believe that the path set by the State machine is correct. If they are persuaded that this is so, they will follow that path without rebellion. But how do you persuade them? Conventionally three methods are used.
First comes genuine persuasion using words. That will attract a certain number to the cause.
Secondly come rewards for those who toe the line. No adverse consequences follow from not being on board, but those who have adopted the cause get benefits; these days that includes jobs sitting on Quangos and career advancement by showing dedication to the pet project of the day whether it be "climate change" or "diversity". Some will sign-up because they want to receive those benefits.
The third method is both inevitable and sinister. It is punishments for those who dissent. The punishments need not be particularly painful because they are more about setting the atmosphere than about causing people pain. After all, the first purpose of the exercise is to persuade people to board the train to utopia, only secondarily is the punishment intended to coerce. The atmosphere they need to set is one of agreement that the State knows best. Without the people agreeing that the State knows best, socialism can only be maintained by violent repression.
It is inevitable that the line between persuasion and coercion is easily blurred when your mind it fixed on the result rather than the method of achieving it. "We must persuade people that we are right" rests on the presumption that "we are right". When you hold that attitude no one can be surprised that you will use every avenue you can, including unlimited amounts of taxpayers' money and the criminal law, to assert your correctness and, necessarily, the incorrectness of those who do not agree with you.
And that is where "causes" become so useful for socialists. Causes are all about enforcing a particular pet interest by force of law. If you believe passionately that something, anything, must be done the most effective way to satisfy your urge is to get the law behind you. So socialist governments love to adopt causes because they add to the weight of the State. The longer the list of "thou shalt nots" the more power the State has over the little people. In order to make this a palatable approach it is important to concentrate on causes that already have a degree of assent so that the dissenters are maginalised not only by their chosen activity becoming illegal but also by being a numerical minority. The State strengthens the message that it has the best judgment by putting into law the suppression of activities that a majority either actively disapprove of or, at least, do not like to engage in.
What is more, the State benefits from a double-whammy. The majority, unaffected by the new prohibition, sees the law as reflecting their way of life and the minority turn from being a minority acting within the law to a minority acting against the law. If they do indeed act against the law they might face prosecution. If all they do is argue for the prohibition to be removed they are faced with a fight against the majority. And the authority of the State is strengthened by the knowledge that the majority accepts the position it has taken, even though the majority might have been wholly unaffected by the minority activity when it took place.
In a country of 60 million people there are countless causes to be added to the statute books. Every time one is added a new minority faces the choice of complying with the law or risking prosecution. "Live and let live" does nothing to aid the socialist cause whereas banning one previously lawful activity after another emphasises the authority of the State. It is a slow, creeping process and the nature of the British is to obey the law. But what about those whose previously lawful activity is now a crime?
Their dissent might fade away because they believe that complying with the law is more important than their personal interest. Not everyone will fade away even if they do comply with the new law, they might still argue for repeal. Not everyone will comply with the new law. Not everyone who disapproved of or was indifferent to the newly banned activity will believe it should be prohibited. Every ban breeds dissent, some passive and some active.
More importantly every new ban is, almost by definition, more petty than the last. Outlawing murder and theft is not difficult. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would argue against those prohibitions. The more marginal the harm done by a newly-banned activity the more likely it is that people will respond by asking why it was necessary for the law to step in at all. Sadly for the socialist, the correctness of the State in all things never has been and never will be accepted by human beings. They can pander to any number of single issue fanatics by passing prohibitionist legislation but still there will be dissent.
The more petty the ban, the greater the risk of it being defied in deed as well as in word. The State machine has only one course open to it once it has imposed a prohibition, namely to enforce the prohibition. In principle it could undo the ban, but that would be to admit that the State was in error, something that is anathema to the socialist brain. The only course it can follow is to impose greater and greater force against those who continue to dissent. But there is a problem because the more petty the ban the less the majority is likely to look on it with favour. "It doesn't affect me or people I know so I don't care" is overtaken by "I don't do it but my uncle and brother do, and they are decent people". Then questions are asked about the justification for earlier prohibitions. The socialist State has only one answer "we are right, it is for your own good, you must comply". That position is unsustainable in the long term. Sometimes the very long term. Eventually Ceausescu's Christmas Day arrives.
One problem with the socialist approach is that the vision can never be complete. There are always new situations for which no blueprint exists and new opportunities to extend the existing plan into areas previously immune from interference. Most tellingly, when the stubborn little people refuse to comply with the vision it is necessary for new ways to be found to enforce compliance. In the more brutal regimes that means physical assaults and even state murder, in a relatively civilised country like the UK it takes a different form.
What should not be presumed is that socialist politicians bully and coerce for the sake of being unpleasant. Of course there will always be some who do, but they do not reflect the real theme of their cause. The real theme is that life for everyone can be improved with careful guidance by the machinery of the State. Once you believe that, especially if you believe it passionately, no bullying or coercion are involved there is only the perceived need to take whatever steps are necessary to open the eyes of the little people to the benefits of the ideal society.
To a socialist there is only one acceptable way for people to live, which is according to his current view of the ideal State. When he changes his mind about something the new ideal becomes mandatory. Dissent, debate and variance are inconsistent with the attainment of the ideal State, so means must be found to ensure compliance. The single most important factor is the need for the little people to believe that the path set by the State machine is correct. If they are persuaded that this is so, they will follow that path without rebellion. But how do you persuade them? Conventionally three methods are used.
First comes genuine persuasion using words. That will attract a certain number to the cause.
Secondly come rewards for those who toe the line. No adverse consequences follow from not being on board, but those who have adopted the cause get benefits; these days that includes jobs sitting on Quangos and career advancement by showing dedication to the pet project of the day whether it be "climate change" or "diversity". Some will sign-up because they want to receive those benefits.
The third method is both inevitable and sinister. It is punishments for those who dissent. The punishments need not be particularly painful because they are more about setting the atmosphere than about causing people pain. After all, the first purpose of the exercise is to persuade people to board the train to utopia, only secondarily is the punishment intended to coerce. The atmosphere they need to set is one of agreement that the State knows best. Without the people agreeing that the State knows best, socialism can only be maintained by violent repression.
It is inevitable that the line between persuasion and coercion is easily blurred when your mind it fixed on the result rather than the method of achieving it. "We must persuade people that we are right" rests on the presumption that "we are right". When you hold that attitude no one can be surprised that you will use every avenue you can, including unlimited amounts of taxpayers' money and the criminal law, to assert your correctness and, necessarily, the incorrectness of those who do not agree with you.
And that is where "causes" become so useful for socialists. Causes are all about enforcing a particular pet interest by force of law. If you believe passionately that something, anything, must be done the most effective way to satisfy your urge is to get the law behind you. So socialist governments love to adopt causes because they add to the weight of the State. The longer the list of "thou shalt nots" the more power the State has over the little people. In order to make this a palatable approach it is important to concentrate on causes that already have a degree of assent so that the dissenters are maginalised not only by their chosen activity becoming illegal but also by being a numerical minority. The State strengthens the message that it has the best judgment by putting into law the suppression of activities that a majority either actively disapprove of or, at least, do not like to engage in.
What is more, the State benefits from a double-whammy. The majority, unaffected by the new prohibition, sees the law as reflecting their way of life and the minority turn from being a minority acting within the law to a minority acting against the law. If they do indeed act against the law they might face prosecution. If all they do is argue for the prohibition to be removed they are faced with a fight against the majority. And the authority of the State is strengthened by the knowledge that the majority accepts the position it has taken, even though the majority might have been wholly unaffected by the minority activity when it took place.
In a country of 60 million people there are countless causes to be added to the statute books. Every time one is added a new minority faces the choice of complying with the law or risking prosecution. "Live and let live" does nothing to aid the socialist cause whereas banning one previously lawful activity after another emphasises the authority of the State. It is a slow, creeping process and the nature of the British is to obey the law. But what about those whose previously lawful activity is now a crime?
Their dissent might fade away because they believe that complying with the law is more important than their personal interest. Not everyone will fade away even if they do comply with the new law, they might still argue for repeal. Not everyone will comply with the new law. Not everyone who disapproved of or was indifferent to the newly banned activity will believe it should be prohibited. Every ban breeds dissent, some passive and some active.
More importantly every new ban is, almost by definition, more petty than the last. Outlawing murder and theft is not difficult. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would argue against those prohibitions. The more marginal the harm done by a newly-banned activity the more likely it is that people will respond by asking why it was necessary for the law to step in at all. Sadly for the socialist, the correctness of the State in all things never has been and never will be accepted by human beings. They can pander to any number of single issue fanatics by passing prohibitionist legislation but still there will be dissent.
The more petty the ban, the greater the risk of it being defied in deed as well as in word. The State machine has only one course open to it once it has imposed a prohibition, namely to enforce the prohibition. In principle it could undo the ban, but that would be to admit that the State was in error, something that is anathema to the socialist brain. The only course it can follow is to impose greater and greater force against those who continue to dissent. But there is a problem because the more petty the ban the less the majority is likely to look on it with favour. "It doesn't affect me or people I know so I don't care" is overtaken by "I don't do it but my uncle and brother do, and they are decent people". Then questions are asked about the justification for earlier prohibitions. The socialist State has only one answer "we are right, it is for your own good, you must comply". That position is unsustainable in the long term. Sometimes the very long term. Eventually Ceausescu's Christmas Day arrives.
Posts
10 comments:
Fat Bigot - I have just discovered your blog and I am in awe of the writing you are doing. This piece today is magnificent and makes sense to me on all levels. You are trying to understand rather than condemn in the first instance. And you have hit the nail on the head. Socialists talk of diversity but of course they act, unconsciously perhaps to eliminate it.
I also try to understand on my blog - much newer than yours. Do look at it and my piece today for example.
Can you have this printed onto a rubber stamp (or tampon as is the French translation, they also have a town called Condom) and use it to impress it upon the back of the hands of voters as a crib note as they enter voting stations at the next election?
Conservatives don't pursue causes because a conservative is by definition someone who is opposed to change, (they argue for more of the same) isn't it logical that it's people who seek change that have causes?
Libertarians, like socialists, are a group who would like to see society changed, in their case changed to a form that would have society imposing far less on individual liberties than it does now, conservatives, in comparison are satisfied with the present level of state imposition.
So I guess in your eyes Libertarians can also be condemned for having causes.
Society has changed over the years, and todays conservative would be seen as some sort of bizarre radical if dumped into the Britain of the 1910's, so if you're claiming some sort of an objectively moral high ground with your arguments, I think it's an illusion only conservatives will see (with the specific policies todays conservatives espouse not even being the same as those of past or future conservatives).
The balance of your post amounts to nothing more than the expression of the conviction that you're right, and therefore those who disagree with you are wrong.
Best Wishes,
Andrew W
Thank you Mr Optimist and Mr Antisthenes.
Your finest collection of non sequiturs yet, Mr Andrew. Well done.
It's nice to know that my absence did nothing to improve either your manners or your ability to construct a sustainable argument, I expected nothing else.
My apologies regarding my manners. I don't see my comment as being non sequiturs, to me my points follow logically. Perhaps you could be more specific in your criticism.
Andrew W
I am still trying to work out whether you are a trouble making troll Mr Andrew, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt so here goes.
"a conservative is by definition someone who is opposed to change"
No. A conservative, as I understand the term, is someone who is concerned with preserving that which has proved to be beneficial, in favour of abolishing that which is detrimental and keen to introduce anything that will be more beneficial. Obviously, what is considered beneficial and detrimental differs from person to person, but it is patently not correct to say that a conservative wants to set the current day in stone.
"Libertarians, like socialists, are a group who would like to see society changed ... So I guess in your eyes Libertarians can also be condemned for having causes."
I would hope it is obvious that I was addressing single-issue causes. Every political philosophy involves a cause, namely the desired result of implementing the philosophy. By that token conservatives have a cause. You can have socialist government, conservative government, libertarian government and many other types, but you cannot have smoking-ban government or gay rights government because they are single-interest issues rather than political philosophies.
"conservatives ... are satisfied with the present level of state imposition"
I have addressed this already, it is a wholly untenable argument, I deal with it again in the next point.
"Society has changed over the years, and todays conservative would be seen as some sort of bizarre radical if dumped into the Britain of the 1910's"
You treat "conservatives" as a group with a fixed view of how the world should be. That is absurd. When was the view fixed and what were the standards these mythical conservatives wished to have fixed for eternity? It is not and has never been the position. Of course conservatives now differ from conservatives a hundred years ago. Conservatism is not an ideology with a fixed view of how the world should be, it is pragmatic not ideological.
"the specific policies todays conservatives espouse not even being the same as those of past or future conservatives"
Of course they aren't the same, that's the whole point. Things change through millions of people engaging in countless billions of personal and economic transactions. They always have and they always will. Political response to change can either be pragmatic - adopting the changes that have been beneficial and seeking to overturn those that have been detrimental - or it can be dictated by a predetermined rule book.
"The balance of your post amounts to nothing more than the expression of the conviction that you're right, and therefore those who disagree with you are wrong."
Has anything more fatuous than that sentence ever been written? Of course I write what I consider to be right and that necessarily means that I say those who disagree with me are wrong. If you think I am an idiot you must feel free to fuck off and read other things. I would be grateful if you didn't come here and abuse me with insults like that.
I very much wanted to respond to Andrew W's comment but knew just calling him rude names would do more to help his cause than yours. I know my limitations and could in no way respond in the admirable way that you did to his absurdities. Well done.
There once was a barrister fat,
Who opined "I don't know where we're at!"
So he set out to write,
All that he thought was right.
Then he stopped. But now, he's back at bat!
Welcome back, dear Fat Bigot.
"Obviously, what is considered beneficial and detrimental differs from person to person"
So we could ask everyone in Britain "are you in favour of preserving that which has proved to be beneficial, in favour of abolishing that which is detrimental and keen to introduce anything that will be more beneficial?" And they'd all answer; Yes!
So your definition of conservative becomes meaningless.
How about we agree on this web definition of conservative: "The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order."
And can we agree that someone interested in maintain the existing or traditional order is not going to be someone who espouses "causes" (as you appear to define them; you stated "conservatives do not pursue a cause")?
"Every political philosophy involves a cause, namely the desired result of implementing the philosophy.By that token conservatives have a cause."
But of course, if we included causes that promote the traditional order, eg conservative efforts to defeat carbon emissions legislation, in that context we do have an example of a conservative single issue cause.
"You treat "conservatives" as a group with a fixed view of how the world should be."
No Mr FB, the point I'm making is exactly the opposite, that todays conservatives are not the same as last centuries conservatives, conservative politics is different from other politics in that it's defined by the current form of society, whereas libertarian and socialist politics can be defined in objective (fixed) terms, respectively, almost no state control and virtually total state control. Over the last 100 years the British conservative has drifted from right to left across the political spectrum with the changing society.
Mr FB, I frequent your blog because you are a damn good writer and you have an excellent brain, your posts are (to me) the most interesting I've found on the web. You and I would agree on 75% of politics and 95% of economic issues (putting aside AGW), sometimes I play devils advocate, but mostly I'm just trying to challenge you in areas that I have a different philosophical perspective though agree politically.
In this post (as I read it) you're critical of socialists for having causes, I don't see that criticism as (apologies again) logical, you appear to be critical of them for the political methods they use to promote their causes, well it's politics, that's what politicians do.
The term "troll" is often used as an ad hominem to attack people who question the arguments of a blogger, whether I'm a troll or not is for you to decide using your own definition of the word.
Kind regards,
Andrew W
Post a Comment