it makes more sense all together:

During the Age Of Enlightenment Western philosophers began re-examining traditional ideological assumptions based on the idea of rationality and science. Utilitarianism, the concept that ethical dilemmas should be solved by maximizing human contentment, became popular. Immanuel Kant was one early critic who complained that the hypothetical moral systems of utilitarians can not be relied on because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on subjective considerations. Kant developed an interesting pragmatic compromise, but it introduced other problems and has not eclipsed utilitarianism. During the French Revolution the dangers of popular utilitarianism became apparent, and critics such as Edmund Burk developed the political concept of Conservatism. In an intellectual context the revolt is one of cautious pragmatism and experimentation (the key element of Deng Xiaoping Theory), but in an ideological context the revolt becomes attachment to traditionalism in the Conservative, and attachment to humanitarianism in the Liberal.

Modern critics of utilitarianism include Friedrich Hayek who argued that theory places too much emphasis on deductive logic and overlooks psychological factors. Hayek argued that the distributed opinions of the marketplace are the closest we can come to objective knowledge. Taking this principle to an absurd extreme, Austrian School economists, such as Murray Rothbard, insisted on complete laissez-faire, because the objective maximization of utility which might drive interventionist governmental policy is impossible. In the same way he made individual liberties sacrosanct, because the objectivity required by a government to justifiably curtail them is impossible.

Hayek did not passionately support democracy, which he believed required a strict leash to contain the tendency of the masses to subjugate the few (Hayek famously said of Pinochet: "Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism"), but he did call into question the idea of an excessively interventionist state on pragmatic grounds. The objection to utilitarianism, taken in an irrational context, is associated with ideological attachment to individualism and personal liberty.

Nevertheless, Hayek would not have seriously questioned the worth of the statistical measures which Chinese policy maker’s target. So the argument between economists concerning the degree of intervention appropriate revolves around empirical not ideological arguments.

Hansson, I am not a big fan of bringing morals into political debate. They are pretty subjective things and what answer can I give if you think being watched is morraly wrong?

All I can say is that for me the lessons of Conservatism is pragmetism. Do the crime lowering benifits of CCTV outwiegh the negatives of being watched? Since we don't live in a police state the answer is obvious. If we did live in a police state (I didn't like) I might agree.

I been thinking about this liberal falicy...

I can get at it two ways...

During the Age Of Enlightenment Western philosophers began re-examining traditional ideological assumptions based on the idea of rationality and science. Utilitarianism, the concept that ethical dilemmas should be solved by maximizing human contentment, became popular. Immanuel Kant was one early critic who complained that the hypothetical moral systems of utilitarians can not be relied on because the imperatives on which they are based rely too heavily on subjective considerations. Kant developed an interesting pragmatic compromise, but it introduced other problems and has not eclipsed utilitarianism. During the French Revolution the dangers of popular utilitarianism became apparent, and critics such as Edmund Burk developed the political concept of Conservatism. In an intellectual context the revolt is one of cautious pragmatism and experimentation, but in an ideological context the revolt becomes attachment to traditionalism in the Conservative, and attachment to humanitarianism in the Liberal.

alternatively:

Hayek did not passionately support democracy, which he believed required a strict leash to contain the tendency of the masses to subjugate the few (Hayek famously said of Pinochet: "Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism"), but he did call into question the idea of an excessively interventionist state on pragmatic grounds. The objection to utilitarianism, taken in an irrational context, is associated with ideological attachment to individualism and personal liberty.


I think its a mix of these two mistakes. But it is a real shame for the conservative party because by abandoning pragmatism they throw away all good.

But surely there is a moral issue, William? After all, why should we be watched/poked/espied upon? If the only agency that can intervene to stop this is Government, surely this is a cross-philosophy good?

John Sugden, Sorry I am off or mixing topics somewhat.

I see this Tory obsession with CCTV and libety as a real wrong turn which comes out of some kind of politically correct and idealistic nonsense. It's like wet conservatives are searching for something that distinguises them from Blairism, and they have hit on this liberal nonsense. CCTV is popular becuase it works and it is spreading around the world. Pragmetism is the proper essence of Conservatism.

You say the 'strong ledership stuff' died in the 1930s. I am 100% sure that is totally wrong. The rise of state capitalism and China have put the strong leadership stuff right back in fashion. People are sensing that, and what turns people off the 'new conservative party' is precisely the feeling that they are shallow weaklings.

I like the way Philip Blond has been way ahead of his time in questioning the materialism and failures of lassier faire. I am also a secret idealist with a wish to build a more equitable society. But the liberal dimension is totally off target and makes the message indistinguishable with wet Blairish policies.

The correct way to distinguish between wets like Blair and the good policy we see in China is by the sort of hardline pragmetism Thatcher would have admired.

I wish I could communicate this message but I doubt it will work. It is a lonely place to be today and yet I am absolutely convinced it is vital that others join me.

Oh, and William: that 'strong leader' stuff died its death in the 1930s.

Politicians enable. Strong leadership must come from the bottom up (which is exactly why China will reform or fail).

http://policestate.co.uk/articles/57

Civil liberties are very popular in the Tory party today, but are they still the right focus? Our libertarian economic models are being overturned by the credit crisis. Perhaps it is time to re-examine attachment to liberty.

First it has to said that the association with civil liberties and Conservatism is not deeply rooted in history, it is a somewhat modernist development. Sure Thatcher championed liberty, but over and above that she was a pragmatist and an idealist. Had Thatcher needed to, as Churchill did, one feels she might have suspended certain freedoms to accomplish her task.

A famous example of a Conservative who pragmatically suspended freedoms is Pinochet. When we read about the earth quake today, and the advanced state of Chilean Economy, it is worth remember than the country was once deeply poor and broken. Recall how Milton Friedman famously described the "Miracle of Chile" in which a failing country was transformed into the richest per capita Latin American state. Pinochet has been accused of human rights abuses and personal enrichment, but his authoritarian economic policy making clearly did not violate Hayek's neo-liberal philosophy, which traditionally inspires Conservatives. Indeed Hayek famously said of Pinochet: "Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism."

Secondly, one of the clear lessons of the credit crisis is that our old fashioned attachment to libertarianism looks ill-advised. Only by constraining economic freedoms can we achieve prosperity. The notion that, left to its own devices, the market will produce the optimal outcome has been discredited. How would Thatcher have responded to this new information? I believe that the thread that would have taken hold of her is pragmatism. In Cameron today, by contrast, we sense an idealistic attachment to freedom which is utterly removed from old fashioned pragmatism.

Thirdly, we are witnessing in financial markets an increasing realization that modern democracy is not working. There are many recent articles I could point to, but a nice one in the Financial Times today concerns the Greek crisis, which is perfect case in point. The article runs:

------------

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b786e40-2700-11df-8c08-00144feabdc0.html
A long-forgotten story might serve as a role model for Greece. It is that of Newfoundland and the most dramatic debt restructuring of the past 100 years. Newfoundland effectively became independent in 1855 as a self-governing colony of the British empire, acquiring dominion status in 1907. It borrowed heavily during 1914-18 to finance its role in the first world war and continued to run fiscal deficits during the 1920s.
In 1933, Canada’s banks threatened to suspend lending to Newfoundland because of concern about its creditworthiness. Newfoundland turned to London for help, and the government dispatched a royal commission to study the problem. After three months of inquiry and gathering extensive testimony, it proposed a radical solution. It wanted Newfoundland’s parliament to vote itself out of existence and turn over all powers of government to a commission of six civil servants, three from the capital, St John’s, and three from London.
Facing the humiliating prospect of default, Newfoundland’s parliament obliged and dissolved its country’s democratic government. Some Labour MPs in London suggested that default was preferable, but democracy had become unfashionable in the early 1930s, so everyone accepted Newfoundland reverting to its former colonial status. Newfoundland remained under the rule of the commission until it voted to become Canada’s 10th province in 1949.
The European Union could follow this example by asking the Greek government to suspend its parliament and turn over the powers of government to a commission of six bureaucrats, three from Athens and three from Brussels. The commission would guarantee Greece’s debt and rule the country until it regained solvency. There would probably be more protests against the loss of democracy in Greece than in Newfoundland, but it could set the stage for the radical economic restructuring that Greece needs. Greece could return to democracy in 2015 with the highest growth rate in Europe.
------------

Is suspending parliament and turning policy over to technocrats the sort of policy David Cameron and the modern conservatives might embrace? NO. Yet it is the type of policy we might associate with Thatcher.

The freedom centric philosophy of the modern Tory party has to be rethought. It is utterly out of step with a country looking for classic leadership, not political inclusiveness. It is why people like me have not voted Tory since the Thatcher’s days, and why Cameron languishes in the polls today. It is why the financial markets are beginning to punish democracy and embrace China.

Thanks David, will read tomorrow.

Asheem

Excellent, Asheem. I've dropped you a message on this.

David