once again I started to read up on someone.. heyek the economist.. only to find out that he was influenced by Edmund Burke.
so.. best get a clear picture of burke coz his ideas are still alive and well and probably kicking your butt.
he is remembered as the philosophical founder of modern conservatism. it should be seen in clear distinction to classical conservatism.
born 1729 in Dublin from a so called ‘old english’ family. (the old English were the descendants of the Norman invaders of Ireland by henry 2 of England. (a story for another day)
he became the leading figure of the whig party in England after dropping out of law and travelling in Europe in the 1750s.
he published some satire and some work on aesthetics. associating with the leading intellectuals in London of the time. leading him to involvement in politics and election to the birtish parliament in 1765 house of commons.
it was a time when the main debate was over the limits of the constitution and limits to the executive authority of the king. he advocated a party political system and representative democracy..... in opposition to the ‘torys’ who were the kings friends-- or any specific interest group. parliament needed principles not arbitrary /tyrannical rule.
he became instrumental in the passing of the repeal of certain laws act 1772 (free trade with Ireland). he supported various unpopular issues such as catholic emancipation. and banning the use of the pillory. (seriously. in 1780 ....they used to do it to convicts in sydney as well. i think its been stopped.) he appeared liberal by the standard of the time at least. or at least made every effort to do so.
his work ‘reflections on the revolution in france’ was his most influential work. and taken as a manifesto of ‘liberal’ conservative thought.
the French revolution he called a ‘tyrannical democracy’ .. he simply didn’t believe in the rights of man..
revolution is basically a destructive affront to the natural order that has evolved over time.
the ‘glorious revolution ‘ of 1688 english restoration of parliament on the other hand was the restoration of the ancient rights of englishmen... though it got rid of the king, it left the traditional institutions of government intact.
people cannot overthrow morality which is from god
he supported the American revolutionaries slogan no representation .. no taxation.. as a traditional English right .. not as a revolution against the natural order… such was the nature of his liberal conservatism….( i get the feeling it wasnt so much a support of revolution as a jab at george 3rd.)
it seems he was defending a system that allowed him to live in luxury and defend the system with impunity.. which is defending the indefensible in my book.
he believe firmly in the privitization of property and the class system. a property based hierarchy.. the basis of social structure that has grown up over time and is basically not understandable. it should be just accepted.
the social contract of rousseau is a sham.... .there is no individual contracting with society.. they are there not to reason why but to serve the system which its something that gentlemen don’t question
adam smith commented that his economics were aligned with his own.
he was ciriticised by reactionaries in the whig and torys for his opposition to british imperialism in Ireland (scorched earth) and India (the dope trade.)
he deeply influenced figures such as Disraeli and Gladstone. Churchill as well.
marx saw in him a synchophant in the pay of the English oligarchy. a vulgar bourgeois. while they were different times and he faced a reactionary murderous establshmehnt .. it is difficult not to agree with marx on this score at least.
he sparked a lively debate among people like Thomas paine and mary Wollstonecraft. such was the level of the debate at the time.
tf.
Posts
