PARCA/Nosey: Difference between revisions
m
→Wed-Head-xxxiii
(→Drafting Area: WHd33) |
|||
Line 141:
As I said last week (in my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xiii>), hatred is a bright, fierce emotion and I try not to indulge in it myself, not least because - to repeat - I missed the meeting where we decided stoicism was no longer to be numbered among the virtues. But 'pet hates' are arguably a different breed entirely - no pun intended.
The late
As well as being inconsiderate, promise-breaking is inefficient, too, by the way, because people shape their plans around their commitments and arrangements. My plans, say, might well be optimal given that were adhere to our arrangement, but if you let me down then, had I known, I would have organised my time differently.▼
COULD segue into TMacL via AMacD & DrKW. If not:-▼
Another increasingly widespread form of selfishness is self-indulgence. Virtue-signalling is a good example of its being widespread but, admittedly, its fairly innocuous: there are much more malign forms. My Wed-Head of 29th September last year (at <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxvi-pt2>) republished the late economist Friedrich August von Hayek's essay 'Why I Am Not A Conservative' which was included by way of afterword in later editions of Hayek's 'The Constitution Of Liberty' (see my <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxvi-pt1>). I'm not sure I'd put my name to an essay with that title, not even if it was clarified (ie for a British readership) with a change to 'Why I Am Not A (Small-C) Conservative', say. But I'd readily put my name to a very, very similar if rather less catchily-titled essay, Why It's Highly Misleading To Label Me A (Small-C) Conservative'. The gist of Hayek's argument, with which I agree and which applies to me, too, is that he is actually a (Popperian?) progressive whose faith lies exclusively in methods and approaches that work with the grain of human nature rather than against it. Our common criticism of naive egalitarianism (ie most egalitarianism) is that it is self-defeating. Hayek is seen as a figure of the right or centre-right, but the best known exponent of that view is the late centre-left philosopher John Rawls, whose 1971 book 'A Theory of [Distributive] Justice' is still standardly cited half a century later - as, indeed, is the lste Robert Nozick's reply to Rawls, his 1974 book 'Anarchy, State, and Utopia'. These two books, which represent the (social) 'contractarian' and 'libertarian' traditions in US political philosophy, have their roots in Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke (via J. S. Mill) respectively.▼
▲As well as being inconsiderate, promise-breaking is inefficient, too, by the way, because people shape their plans around their
▲Another increasingly widespread form of selfishness is self-indulgence. Virtue-signalling is a good example of its being widespread but, admittedly, its fairly innocuous: there are much more malign forms. My Wed-Head of 29th September last year (at <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-xxvi-pt2>) republished the late economist Friedrich
My kind of progressivism advocates a really thorough-going localism built on sound societal incentive structures. Most of my political views are, I think, fairly moderate: I'm broadly socially-liberal, fiscally conservative, centre-to-centre-right, Blairite**-to-One-Nation-Conservative (ish). You get the picture. (Incidentally, I don't blush to be called right-wing but, once again, I think it misleads.) Indeed, I am somewhat fond of saying that the only thing seriously radical about my politics is my localism. The word 'radical' connotes leftism, but doesn't necessarily imply it; for example, Margaret Thatcher's longest-serving finance minister's chancellorial memoir is subtitled 'Memoirs of a Tory Radical'. And my localism is definitely radical - perhaps even extreme!
| |||