Only_Humean wrote: Uccisore wrote:
Only_Humean wrote:I think you can and should go further - conservatism requires environmentalism. Moderation in change, and cautious policy where change is detected and likely to be harmful/costly.
Yes that's basically true. In order for the traditional ways to make sense, the world has to be about like it was, including the ecology. With the caveat that the exploitation of resources is a primary motivator for preserving those resources in the first place.
That's not really environmentalism, though. That would hold that the yellow-bellied sapsucker population in the local forest isn't to be preserved because it can be exploited, but because a) it fills a niche in a delicately-balanced ecosystem and we don't know what knock-on effects its disappearance would have, and/or b) it can't be easily replaced once it's gone. Both are conservative reasons.
Well, you're slipping into a bit of a liberally-minded ideology there. You have to balance the conflicting values- one, that nature should be tampered with and exploited as little as possible, and two, that human beings thrive by tampering with and exploiting nature as much as possible. You have to acknowledge both- that nature ought to be preserved, because of all the risks to not doing so- among them, the potential loss of resources to exploit.
Yeah, if they are truly anti-environmental, then yes that is certainly true. An example that comes to mind is cap-and-trade. The great failing of Marxism is that economies aren't zero-sum games. Wealth is actually created, not merely passed around.
Marx didn't say any different... have you read "Capital"? You may well disagree with his economic prescriptions (I know I do), but his descriptions
are not as wide of the mark as you seem to think.[/quote]
Marx endorses capitalism as a wealth-creator insofar as it's a necessary step after Feudalism to build infrastructure and technology. But any present day Marxist that's actually trying to DO something treats economics as a zero-sum game. I mean, I don't disagree with you, I've read some that say that the US as it exists is pretty much all Marx was after, so people pushing for Higher Communism are missing the point entirely.
I think it would behove those conservatives to understand Marx better.
Marx is dead. What people are doing in his name is the issue.
The implication of your phrasing is that capitalism is somehow the fair or natural way of controlling the means of production.
Actually, the implication is that State-control of the means of production is a mistake, and a reference to 'fairness' is just one of the BS justifications of doing so. There's a reason why capitalism is called the free
But insofar as they disagree in principle
with state intervention in industry, they're not really conservative (or environmental).
The evangelicals are in no small part so because they want to bring Christ's kingdom to Earth. They want (worldly) law and policy to be influenced by (not to say dependent upon) scripture. Society guided by natural law. I don't think they do so out of a gritty pragmatism.
It IS pragmatic, though- they want society guided by Scripture because they think that's the best way to guide society. Compare to the Communist ideal where the end goal is a 'post justice' society where legal concerns are moot because human nature has been completely reshaped, or a libertarian view in which people will all just do the right thing if you let them. It seems to me that any imagined society where the rule of law is so important isn't utopian by definition...
Was Hobbes a utopian?