(no subject)

[chess]

I've been finding out lately that a disturbing number of you are conservatives/Tory supporters of some stripe or another. Being somewhat of a flaming red socialist myself, I'm interested in how you guys justify the belief that the rich ought to get richer and the poor ought to fend for themselves that seems to be the Tory standpoint to me...

Comments

[lockymclean.livejournal.com]

I don't think you can reduce the essence of Conservatism to "the rich should get richer and the poor should get poorer", or "everyone should be left to fend for themselves". That would be as incorrect as saying that the essence of Socialism is "the rich should be punished for being successful and the poor should be rewarded for being unambitious".

The Conservative Party is as broad a church as the Protestant movement, and there are hardliners and moderates, people with tough outlooks on life and people who have a genuine social concern. My general outlook on the role of government in society is firstly to maintain a social order which reflects the values of the Kingdom of God and those values which people agree are certain peremptory social norms, secondly to provide a safe environment for everyone in which to live, thirdly to provide people with the resources they need to achieve realistic goals in life, whilst acknowledging that for some people those goals will be a lot lower or higher than for others and not trying to maintain the false idea that everyone is equally capable of achieving the same goals, and finally to provide a minimum standard of living for everyone, regardless of their motivation or capability to succeed, because that is the minimum duty of love which we owe to each other, as Jesus exemplified in the parable of the good Samaritan. I believe that people in government should love their neighbours as themselves. All that probably sounds a lot like New Labour, because New Labour ideals occupy the centre ground of politics. The difference is that I actually mean what I say, so I could never vote for this government.

[chess]

I think we have values the other way around, then. I think that the first duty of government is to provide a minimum standard of living for everyone (which includes 'a safe environment'), then resources for realisitic goals, and I'm not sure they have any place at all in 'maintaining a social order' or 'peremptory social norms' except in as far as that is required for the 'safe environment' clause.

Governmental Priorities

[passage.livejournal.com]

Could you justify your values for the function of government? (Your following post doesn't justify, only expound.)

For my part I think that government should be a body that governs, in particular in moderating the interations of humans with one another.

A body that did that, but did nothing to provide the 'minimum standard of living' you seem so keen on would be a government, a group which didn't but did provide that 'minimum standard' would just be a large soup kitchen.

(I am incidently very pleased that our government, and indeed most if not all western governments, do seek to provide for those of their citizens in need, but that's a bonus, not what makes then governments.)

Hypothetical question while we're at it. You have a choice of two ruling groups, one provides food and shelter for the very poor, but randomly imprisons the innocent and releases the guilty according to a justice system based on the judge flipping a coin. The other has strong standards of justice and a sound legal system, but thinks providing for the poor is the responsibility of their families and friends, and so makes no provision for them, which would you put in power?

(Not that I'm putting forward either as particularly good governments, but their failings I think expose the issue).

Priorities

[lockymclean.livejournal.com]

It's late at night and I have to be up again in 5 hours, so I'm not going to wade into the evidently long arguments taking place here, and will just reply to your point.

Although I agree that it's important for people to have safety as a basic living quality, it seems to me that what we define as "safety" and why it is important is a social norm in itself. This brings me to conclude that it is necessary first to establish and maintain the most important social norms (right to life and safety of person, right to protection of property, etc.) before you can enforce them.

Various norms which you consider will have varying levels of importance attached to them: respect for God, respect for family, respect for each other, health and safety regulations, etc. So it's not so clear cut as to say that basic safety is more important than a social order, because the two will intertwine according to the level of orderliness of that society, as it progresses from chaos to anarchy through to stable government.

The difference between "centrist" and "extremist" politics seems to me to be the fundamental nature of hierarchical government (whether it exists or not, and what powers it has), and the difference between "left" and "right" in the centre is the fine-tuning of such a universally accepted hierarchical government.

Slightly more concise definition

[(Anonymous)]

I'd look at it from a broader angle - references to Jesus, for example, are rather specific to Western democracies. The 'purpose' of government can be said to be to continue to govern, in the same way that the 'purpose' of people is to make more people. This is an evolutionary point of view based on the fact that unsustainable governments will die off.

The point I'm trying to make here is that saying "the purpose of government" is rather ludicrous. It's like talking about the purpose of a billiard ball. From your point of view, the purpose of the ball may be to go into an appropriate pocket, but the ball is probably perfectly happy where it is. The purpose of government then is *whatever government does*.

What do we want government to do? That's a better query, and the contrast with the original question explains the difference in people's answers to that question. Someone who's religious will probably want the government to support faith schools and religious establishments. Someone who's atheist or very tolerant (or paranoid about government powers) will probably want the government to behave as if religion didn't exist as a moral force, preferring to treat religions merely as a specialist type of organisation.

Probably the only conclusive way to decide what the purpose of government should be, then, is to poll everyone and take an average. Which, fortuitously, is approximately what we do :)

Re: Slightly more concise definition

[lockymclean.livejournal.com]

The purpose of government then is *whatever government does*.

This is a circular definition, and somewhat postmodernist, which is dangerous when you come to classify certain policies as good/bad government. On that basis, you couldn't criticise the German Nazi Party of the 1930s and 40s for anything they did because the purpose of government was whatever they did, and they had a mandate (albeit a dubious one) from the population to carry out those atrocities. By analogy, it's saying that it's fine for the purpose of a cue ball to be placed in a sock and be used as an offensive weapon, if someone chooses to use it that way.

What I am trying to get at is that government should be purposive rather than reactive, and should be able to hold itself and be held to certain absolute principles of good government. The population may disagree on what those principles should be because our judgment is only human, but once they are vaguely ascertained it should be a question of constructing policies and evaluating them against the principles of good government, with allowance for naturally different life perspectives.

If you have reactive government, then you could say that it is fine for the purpose of government to be receiving bribes or abusing power for personal gain because "that's what government does". The democratic control argument begins to break down when the parties and the media misrepresent the facts, dumb down politics into a popularity contest, and try to label certain voting trends as "uncool" or "trendy".

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.