Conservative Home's debate blogs

Advertising

  • DVD rental
  • Conservative Books
My Photo

Conservative blogs

Blog powered by Typepad

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker

« Liam Fox gets on with his job | Main | IDS says Tories must elect a eurosceptic leader »

Comments

Editor

I 75% agree with what Bruce has just posted. Most of our policies are compassionate but foolishly - almost masochistically - we do not describe themselves as such.

My 25% of disagreeement (or, more accurately, my concern at what what is missing in Bruce's brief post) is that our exercise can't just be cosmetic and there are some substantial things we need to change. Our foreign policy can't just revolve around Gibraltar - we must also focus on Sudan and Congo, for example. Our domestic policies can't just give the already able a leg-up. We must also focus on the hardest poverty cases - the severely disabled and the very damaged members of society who will probably never be able to attain independence. In other words - we should help people to help themselves but those who can't help themselves deserve a special kind of care.

Paul Marks

So Bruce thinks we should try and con people by using the term "social justice" without really meaning it. Errrr if you are intending to trick people it might be a good idea NOT TO WRITE IT DOWN IN A PUBLIC PLACE.

"Editor" thinks that we should have more welfare spending at home and overseas.

So Bruce wants us to be conmen but is not very good at the con game himself (actually that is a good thing about Bruce - being a good con man would be worse).

And "editor" wants us to be New Labour Mark Two - or the Liberal Democracts.

But why should we not really "trump" these people? Let us propose the nationalization of the means of production, distribution and exchange. After all then a lot of people in the Labour party who were unhappy with Mr Blair would come over to us.

Seriously if "editor" wants to help people who need "special care" this is a good thing. But he should do it himself (perhaps he does already) not argue for an even bigger government when the one we have is heading for deep financial difficulty.

Bruce

Paul, you put words into my mouth that, if you had asked me about, I would have specifically repudiated. A true intellectual (as opposed to a mere polemicist) asks first.
To elaborate on my original post:
First, I believe the phrase "social justice", in the political realm, has no inherent meaning. It's just a collection of nice sounding words--like most political slogans.
Second, I recognize that the political Left in Britain has assigned a meaning to it, a meaning that equates "social justice" with the Labor Party's cause du jour.
Third, I think everybody (including Conservatives) has the right to ignore the Left's definition, or to take the core concepts underlying that definition and apply those core concepts to their own policies.
Fourth, as my previous post explains, I think most Conservatives believe that Conservative policies are the essence of compassion, fairness and justice--the core concepts of what the Left sees as "social justice".
It is thus not a "con job" for Conservatives to proclaim such policies the essence of "social justice". It is, I think, also good politics to do so.
And I am not afraid about putting these views in a "public place". The Left is going to accuse the Conservatives of conning the public, killing Cock Robin, aping Adolph Hitler and all the rest of that rubbish with or without my posting.

Paul Marks

Bruce I never said you believed in more government spending or that you believed in "social justice" ( alhough, of course, one can believe in more spending without believing in this doctrine).

Perhaps I got it wrong when I thought you wanted to con people - O.K. I apologise for that.

But then I am at a loss.

I am sorry but "social justice" is a doctrine, it is not just a couple of words that mean whatever you want them to mean.

"Social justice" is the doctrine of our enemies and has been for about two hundred years.

To try and "capture it" is like saying we can capture the word "socialism" on the grounds that it came from "being social" amd did not mean collectivism till the early 19th century.

"Social justice" is the doctrine that property does not belong to individual human beings simply because of the rules of contract, gift and inheritance. Goods are a collective product to be "distributed". And this "distribution" may be "just" or "unjust" - this "social justice" being determined NOT by the "rules of the game" but by the outcome of the game.

"And there is, of course, no place in civil association for so called ""distributive"" justice; that is, the distribution of desirable goods. Such a ""distibution"" of substantive benefits or advantages requires a rule of distribution and a distributor in possession of what is to be distributed; but lex [as you know, Latin for "law"] cannot be a rule of distribution of this sort, and civil rulers have nothing to distribute".

M.J. Oakeshott, (footnote to page 153), "On Human Conduct", Clarendon Press, 1975.

I should not have to keep writing long posts on this subject. A Conservative should know the basics already - and Conservatives used to know them. Most party members may not have been avid readers of Conservative philosophers - but they knew that "social justice" was what the bad guys believed in.

Do I have to remind you that at least 150 million people were murdered in the 20th century by the supporters of Social Justice?

You can have your government health, education and welfare (this need not have anything to do with the doctrine of Social Justice - one might support such government, health, education and welfare out of a great desire to help the poor), but PLEASE using this term "social justice".

Paul Marks

The last bit should read - but PLEASE stop using this term social justice.

My crapness in dealing with the keyboard strikes again - and doubtless I have made many other mistakes.

However, the basic point stands. In my life I have seen many things (most of them unpleasant), but I did not think I would live to see Conservatives using the term "Social Justice" with approval. Such a development negates the function of a Conservative - which is to fight against such doctrines as "Social Justice".

Bruce

Paul, I agree with everything negative you say about "social justice" as the socialist left has defined it. I too would fight against "social justice" as the left has defined it. And we all long for the day the majority of the British public share our view on how horrid this "social justice" doctrine is.

Dale Amon

"Binge-drinking and the rise in STIs/STDs are both manifestations of individual liberty. They have a direct impact on the rest of society, and on the taxpayer's pocket."

You pretty much entirely missed the point of my Russell Means quote: "Individual Liberty. Individual Responsibility." I'm not castigating you for that as I find quite interesting the way in which you misunderstood it.

"Individual Responsibility" means you take responsibility for your actions. What happens to you is not "someone elses fault". It is not the taxpayers duty to bail you out. If you binge drink , eventually you will lose your job, become homeless and die in the gutter. End of problem. In addition you do not get a liberal pass as a victim. You died in the gutter by *your own choice* and will be used as an negative example of how a decent human being lives their life.

I most certainly am not for the state paying for the results of peoples follies. Next thing you know, someone will start trying to regulate behavior to save money. Why, they might even try to ban smoking... oh, wait. They did that one already. Sorry. It's hamburgers now, "Save a fat slob from a heart attack" to decrease the cost on the public purse...


Dale Amon

PS: I am reminded of something a wise college room mate of mine said many years ago: "You get more of anything you pay for."

Question: ...

European market for investment in commercial real estate has witnessed a slight recovery...

The comments to this entry are closed.

About Conservative Home

Subscribe

  • Conservative Home's
    free eMailing List
    Enter your name and email address below:
    Name:
    Email:
    Subscribe    
    Unsubscribe