Comments on Elizaphanian
If you are willing would you say so more on your hatred of the welfare state - what do you include under this term - and what would you have in its place?
Also, although I see how your non-selfish ideals could be included under some expression of conservatism, as far as I can see the primary business of English political conservatism has always been about the accumulation of power and money for the elite (although some of them may kid themselves that they are doing it for the good of the peasants). I am not saying this is not true of other "isms" but as a working man living in Newcastle from a selfish point of view perhaps a different "ism" would be more beneficial for me and my parishioners.
Personally I am in favour of class war and I embrace, with complete honesty, the politics of envy the old crow used to get so upset about.
However, when the revolution comes I will do my best to keep you from the firing squad - I don't forget my friends, even those who are tory scum.
Sure, I'll give you a longer answer - maybe even tomorrow - but the brief summary is: welfare is good, state is bad. It's all about control - the greater the degree of centralisation of power, the worse the situation becomes. I believe in the distribution of power, in every sense.
Perhaps, at the end of the day, I just don't like being told what to do 
My question then, is if you see any resemblance between your views and ideals (you may put them under whichever heading you like) and those that seem to be a motivation of most "conservative" parties in the world?
I mean, most "conservatives" would have heart-attacks when someone would liken conservatism with anarcho-socialism, not to mention anything greenish.
I haven't been looking closely, but much US/UK "Conservatism" doesn't really qualify as what I'm talking about. I look more towards philosophers like Roger Scruton, or journalists like Peter Hitchens (tho' I should emphasise I have major disagreements with Hitchens, a) about the green perspective (he's very anti) and b) about the whole question of punishment - I'm against capital punishment etc.)
There'll be another post about this today....
Two links to demonstrate what I'm talking about: Roger Scruton here, and Peter Hitchens here.
Thomas Sowell has also been an influence, especially this book.
Thank you - an excellent first principles answer.
It seems to me (as your comments imply) that one can be conservative in this way while not voting for the Conservatives - indeed very often they would not be right vote on this basis (and I'm not asking you to go into your voting history - let's respect the Ballot Act, 1874 I think).
I had taken your post to mean (in the context of the election) that you would have voted for this Republican party. I should have recalled your post that you wanted Bush to get a drubbing (an argument for textual interpretation).
As to MadPriest's comment:
1. The division in the C18 was between the Whigs (to simplify greatly but hopefully not thereby distort) who were headed up by the super rich elite and morphed into the Liberals and the Tories who generally represented the local rich. It might be argued that the Tories were trying to preserve their position in a world that had less room for it but they were also preserving local power bases (and hence localism). There was at this time a trend change in identification going on from local identity which the Squire had to fight for (a sort of pork barrell politics) to class based and national identity. Some people argue that the US was spared socialism because it did not inherit the feudal based local squirearchy and with it the concepts of noblesse oblige. Often the Tories have fought against national power elites of various sorts. (Sam - there is no sign that people's allegiance is moving away from the nation state, if anything the collapse of communism has increased national identity; also the rejection of regional assemblies in England).
2. The problem with non-intervention is that it allows the rich to get richer. One of the first arguments for state intervention is that it is needed to correct market failure in allowing those with established power / wealth to undermine those trying to get it. This was the basis for early US state action in Anti-Trust legislation. It still happens all the time - think of the major airlines and Freddie Laker.
3. Beyond that? I think the welfare state raises this moral problem. At present we spend billions on giving anyone currently in the UK a fairly high standard of living (by world and historical standards). We allow others to starve, suffer and die in their millions. Why? (and the argument continues to apply however much we tax the rich - at any tax level the question will remain - why, in moral terms, do we spend more at home than abroad? Our target for foregin aid is 0.7% of GDP shared between billions. Why oh why?).
Sam - you might want to look into the changes to the US welfare state in the 90s. I thought they would lead to disaster (and perhaps they will in the long run or in a recession). They have tried to give a life time entitlement to welfare for the healthy. There is evidence that people now see welfare as a sort of bank account and - after a few years on welfare - get nervous and get a job so as not to run down their "savings". Personally I find the evident poverty in the US harder and harder to take each time I go (which is a good practical answer to my point above). However the changes are worth looking at (at least when combined with a proper minimum wage which people have tried to impose here for 400 years).
Sorry for the long post but thanks for the interesting answer.
Yes, I'm with davidov #2. The enemy of the common good is not the state per se. Authority is not the worst kind of evil. It restrains wickedness, though it can also multiply other kinds. Indeed, believing in sinfulness need not commit you to minimal government (check out Hobbes, not that I'm anywhere near advocating that - I suspect I'm actually not too far from your position on most things). I guess I'm saying that the state is not the only potential abuser of power, and can often act as a counterbalance to other potential or actual abusers. And the advantage of the state is that at least in principle it is not acting in any prviate interest, but for the common good. Of course, principle and actuality may significantly differ, but there is a standard to which some measure of accountability may be called (and I'm not reallly talking about elections).
Excellent.
In America - the places where the state is the strongest (urban areas), it has liberated women from men, men from responsibility, children from "oppressive" families, people from community, individuals from congregation.
In short the welfare state has given us individual freedom at the expense of traditon, meaning, responsibility, history, and purpose.
Freedom is a sham - progress is an illusion.
Commenting by HaloScan
