The Reactionary Mind

[4588686]

[url="http://www.booktv.org/Watch/12851/After+Words+Corey+Robin+quotThe+Reactionary+Mind+Conservatism+from+Edmund+Burke+to+Sarah+Palinquot+hosted+by+SE++++Cupp.aspx"]http://www.booktv.org/Watch/12851/After+Words+Corey+Robin+quotThe+Reactionary+Mind+Conservatism+from+Edmund+Burke+to+Sarah+Palinquot+hosted+by+SE++++Cupp.aspx[/url]






It's not a smear and even advocates Heyek being included in the cannon of major political theorists.

[Not The Philosopher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psosLpDALuA

[4588686]

[quote name='Not The Philosopher' timestamp='1348569897' post='2486427']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psosLpDALuA[/media]
[/quote]


[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2F99edA2Eg&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2F99edA2Eg&feature=related[/url]

[Winchester]

[img]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/27378696.jpg[/img]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1348666009' post='2486882']
[img]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/27378696.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

[img]http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/25578234.jpg[/img]

[Socrates]

Don't waste your time or money on a cheap leftist knock-off.

Read the real classic instead:
[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895261715/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d1_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=12HWW1TEZQG9AQDW6F15&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846"][i]The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot,[/i] by Russell Kirk[/url]

[Era Might]

A natural aristocracy? What a silly, self-serving idea. Mind as well keep the real aristocracy.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1348699646' post='2487073']
Don't waste your time or money on a cheap leftist knock-off.

Read the real classic instead:
[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895261715/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d1_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=12HWW1TEZQG9AQDW6F15&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846"][i]The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot,[/i] by Russell Kirk[/url]
[/quote]

You'd have done well at [i]Pravda[/i].

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1348706900' post='2487116']
A natural aristocracy? What a silly, self-serving idea. Mind as well keep the real aristocracy.
[/quote]
Maybe you should actually read the book, rather than make an ignorant remark based on an Amazon review.

John Adams' observations regarding a "natural aristocracy" are in fact neither silly nor self-serving, but common-sense wisdom. His point was that naturally in any society some people, for good or ill, wield greater influence over others due to greater intelligence, ability, charisma, or wealth, and that this "natural aristocracy" in America has nothing to do with inherited title as in old Europe. It's not a prescriptive statement, but descriptive. It's simply an observation that, by nature, all men are not equal in their ability and influence over others; this in itself isn't inherently good or evil, but simply the way things are.

Adams believed in the equality of all men before the law, but rejected the radical egalitarian idea that all men can be forced to be equal in ability, influence, or material wealth, and thus was opposed to such things as forced redistribution of wealth.

Kirk quotes Adams: "That all men are born to equal rights is clear. Every being has a right to his own, as moral, as sacred, as any other has. This is indubitable as a moral governance in the universe. But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is as gross a fraud, as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people, as was ever practiced . . ."

The truth is that it is impossible to force equality in wealth or outcome, and that attempts to do so, as by the socialists, invariably result in greater tyranny.

Era, I think you'd actually enjoy reading Russell Kirk, who was one of the greatest political/social philosophers of the 20th century, and an intellectual founder of the modern conservative movement. You may not agree with him on everything, but I think you'd enjoy him. He's a deep thinker, rather than a cheap political polemicist.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1348786477' post='2487415']Era, I think you'd actually enjoy reading Russell Kirk, who was one of the greatest political/social philosophers of the 20th century, and an intellectual founder of the modern conservative movement. You may not agree with him on everything, but I think you'd enjoy him. He's a deep thinker, rather than a cheap political polemicist.
[/quote]
I would definitely enjoy it. I probably won't agree with much of it, but I will definitely read it.

As far as "natural aristocracy" I will just say, in defense of my comment, that it is true that nobody is the same, neither in natural gifts nor in achievements. But an aristocracy, of whatever sort, will always be based on uneven power relations where being in the aristocracy is proof that you belong there...that is, it is inevitably self-serving because having power becomes its own proof that you deserve to have power. The mark of true superiority is the reluctance to have power, not the claim to some "natural aristocracy." The greatest mark of "superiority" is the renunciation of property, not its aggregation.

I was watching someone on C-SPAN a few months ago and he basically said that murder is wrong because it violates someone else's property. And I thought, what a sad way to look at a human being, as his own property.

In practical matters, yes, society has to manage all kinds of things like power relations, unequal circumstances, etc. I don't believe in a fantasy land where these things will just disappear. But so long as we recognize that we're trying to move closer to our ideals, then I can't buy into the idea that society is here primarily to secure property through a "natural aristocracy." That's why I am essentially liberal and find conservatism a distasteful approach to the world. Not because I don't believe in the importance of inherited achievements (ideas, cultures, etc.) but because conservatism will always essentially be about protecting those who benefit from the status quo and don't want to give up their power and comfort. What has history shown but the repeated victories of liberal movements over conservative resistance? (And here I'm not speaking of "liberal" and "conservative" in the contemporary American sense, but in the broader sense).

I believe in leadership, but not on the basis of some supposed "natural aristocracy." Christ summed it up best when he said "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:25-28) Christ went so far as to wash the feet of the Apostles. Imagine our "natural aristocracy" ever washing anyone's feet. Gandhi was that rare political figure whose leadership was not based on uneven power relations but on humility.

I could also point to George Washington's example. His reluctance to assume power, and his willingness to abandon it after two terms, set the example that the United States needed for its project to work. The problem with a "natural aristocracy" is that it can never give up power, because aristocrats believe the world can't run without them. That is what I mean when I say it is self-serving. Politicians are our "natural aristocracy" and look at the lengths they go to to stay in power.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Era Might

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1348786477' post='2487415']
Maybe you should actually read the book, rather than make an ignorant remark based on an Amazon review.

John Adams' observations regarding a "natural aristocracy" are in fact neither silly nor self-serving, but common-sense wisdom. His point was that naturally in any society some people, for good or ill, wield greater influence over others due to greater intelligence, ability, charisma, or wealth, and that this "natural aristocracy" in America has nothing to do with inherited title as in old Europe. It's not a prescriptive statement, but descriptive. It's simply an observation that, by nature, all men are not equal in their ability and influence over others; this in itself isn't inherently good or evil, but simply the way things are.[/QUOTE]

And adams was correct when he wrote that. America is actually currently less dynamic in terms of social mobility that Europe.

[QUOTE]Adams believed in the equality of all men before the law, but rejected the radical egalitarian idea that all men can be forced to be equal in ability, influence, or material wealth, and thus was opposed to such things as forced redistribution of wealth.

Kirk quotes Adams: "That all men are born to equal rights is clear. Every being has a right to his own, as moral, as sacred, as any other has. This is indubitable as a moral governance in the universe. But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society, to equal property and advantages through life, is as gross a fraud, as glaring an imposition on the credulity of the people, as was ever practiced . . ."[/QUOTE]

I see where you got your propensity for arguing against strawmen. Since that thesis is the exact opposite of the primary moral argument utilized by most (and perhaps all major) socialists and liberals in their attacks on capitalism and other aristocratizing social structures and institutions.

[QUOTE]The truth is that it is impossible to force equality in wealth or outcome, and that attempts to do so, as by the socialists, invariably result in greater tyranny.[/QUOTE]

Very contestable.

[QUOTE]Era, I think you'd actually enjoy reading Russell Kirk, who was one of the greatest political/social philosophers of the 20th century, and an intellectual founder of the modern conservative movement. You may not agree with him on everything, but I think you'd enjoy him. He's a deep thinker, rather than a cheap political polemicist.
[/quote]

The author of the book I cited is not a cheap political polemicist either. He admitted that there is a problem of unfamiliarity with conservative thinkers in academia and stated that the most innovative and interesting political ideas of the 20th century were produced by conservatives. You would know this if you bothered to risk exposing yourself to an idea that doesn't fit into your rigid dogmatism.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Hasan