3 ms·

“There is no liberalism – or progressivism, etc. There is only conservatism.”

4 points by cs702 4y ago

082349872349872 4y ago
Necessary, maybe, but as to its sufficiency, consider: "[t]he law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread". Edit: never mind — I see now how the latter part addresses this potential objection. Well put!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
JoeyBananas 4y ago
Sounds like someone just discovered Nietzsche.
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  or Rawls' "veil of ignorance" or the old standby: one may slice the pie, but then the other gets to choose their piece.
jfengel 4y ago
The more commonly-cited quote from this comment: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. The opening quote kinda shifts the usual reading: if you're flipping the script to protect your group and not protect others (even if they're rich, privileged, etc), you're not progressive. You're just differently conservative. I'm not entirely sure I agree with Wilhoit that this means that there is no such thing as progressivism. Anti-conservatism exists. It can't always keep its bottom line straight to ensure that the currently-privileged groups retain equal rights, but that's not really at risk now or any time soon. Privileged groups have done a fine job of looking out for their own interests. If it needs to be said, I'll go ahead and say it: no, we really don't want to eat the rich. If anybody really believes that, I'll waggle my finger at them and tell them not to do that. Happy? His ultimate conclusion is too facile: "The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone." It's easily said, but once you get into the nitty-gritty it's less clear in the details. You get conflicts of rights, e.g. my right to choose my employees vs your right not to be discriminated against based on something irrelevant to the job. It's not always possible to protect everything everyone wants. Anti-conservatism should fight against entrenching these further, and working against that. Wilhoit can't have it both ways, that nobody is doing it and that the ones who are doing it are really just conservatives.

4 points by cs702 4y ago

Necessary, maybe, but as to its sufficiency, consider: "[t]he law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal loaves of bread". Edit: never mind — I see now how the latter part addresses this potential objection. Well put!

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

JoeyBananas 4y ago

Sounds like someone just discovered Nietzsche.

082349872349872 4y ago
or Rawls' "veil of ignorance" or the old standby: one may slice the pie, but then the other gets to choose their piece.

jfengel 4y ago

The more commonly-cited quote from this comment: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. The opening quote kinda shifts the usual reading: if you're flipping the script to protect your group and not protect others (even if they're rich, privileged, etc), you're not progressive. You're just differently conservative. I'm not entirely sure I agree with Wilhoit that this means that there is no such thing as progressivism. Anti-conservatism exists. It can't always keep its bottom line straight to ensure that the currently-privileged groups retain equal rights, but that's not really at risk now or any time soon. Privileged groups have done a fine job of looking out for their own interests. If it needs to be said, I'll go ahead and say it: no, we really don't want to eat the rich. If anybody really believes that, I'll waggle my finger at them and tell them not to do that. Happy? His ultimate conclusion is too facile: "The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone." It's easily said, but once you get into the nitty-gritty it's less clear in the details. You get conflicts of rights, e.g. my right to choose my employees vs your right not to be discriminated against based on something irrelevant to the job. It's not always possible to protect everything everyone wants. Anti-conservatism should fight against entrenching these further, and working against that. Wilhoit can't have it both ways, that nobody is doing it and that the ones who are doing it are really just conservatives.