Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (122475)	12/29/2003 3:33:26 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

'Edmund Burke, the patron saint of conservatism' - wooo, the man is rolling in his grave hearing that ... Burke was a whig, in his day it was the tories who were considered conservative, in trying to retain [actually 're-gain' to large extent in the 1765-80 period] power for the monarchy, while the whigs worked toward more sway for parliament, as well as wider franchise which came along shortly in the Reform laws Burke was accused of being conflicted though, between his very genuine love for liberty and the high value he put on order - he saw the danger in pulling down established rule of law before building a functional structure to replace it ... he was very much in favour of evolution not revolution, and predicted the excesses of the french-style revolution well ahead of their taking place ....... an example of how he could appear to remain 'conservative' would be on slavery, which he abhorred in quite visceral manner, yet he opposed the colonial office abolishing it in the thirteen colonies against the wishes of colonists, because that would lead directly to revolution, total breakdown of rule of law .... and of course he was right, this was well recognised and never implemented until long after the rebellion [largely due to tory support being augmented by reaction to the rebellion] There is a speech or essay of his, in reply to a more radical liberal, Priestly or Price or somebody, in which he explains this pretty thoroughly, and it stands to reason still, i think ..... but by the terms he would have used, he was a liberal, a whig like Smith of Kirkcaldy, Paine, Jefferson, any of them, far more than a 'conservative' .... those terms have changed meaning now, all those things including 'right' and 'left' have no more utility to us imho, they've all become like so many aphorisms of Nietzsche, where you're left wondering just what the hell the man meant by that, if perhaps it's lost something in translation That piece is pretty on-topic imho, as any understanding we can gain of de facto world government will be useful to us ..... don't have time to expand on it though, got to go .... to summarise my central point - it is a mistake to descend into primeval urge to warmaking, when before us lies a great opportunity to establish customs and traditions of a parliamentary approach to world rule ..... the Rest of Us will never be satisfied otherwise, we want the franchise, we demand representation [!sufragio efectivo! no reelección! - eh], we will never submit to neocontrol rule 'Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.' ... Pitt the Elder, from Hansard 1770 'The resources of civilisation against its enemies are not yet exhausted.' ... William Ewart Gladstone, in a speech at Leeds, 1881