"It is to maintain a vigilant resistance to the entropic forces that erode our social and ecological inheritance."
That is consistent with John Howard's philosophy that without an executive capable of infringing liberties (rights) then the ultimate outcome is disorder.
A Bill of Rights would not materially increase the freedoms of Australian citizens. It will not make us more united, indeed I believe it would lessen our ability to manage and to resolve conflict in a free society.
It would also take us further away from the type of civic culture we need to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.
It is government which gives social order and its primary role is warding off chaos and disorder. To counter this under Howardian conservatism the executive cannot have any restraints on it.
I find that repugnant of course. Increasing individual liberty gives greater scope for self-organisation and hence greater order. Which is why liberalism and conservatism are the two political strains fighting it out now.
'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.
It's true that Scruton is not a natural supporter of a Bill of Rights, and that we would differ on that point. But he's not a natural supporter of a strong executive either - indeed, going back to Burke the approach is to tie down the executive with a thousand small laws, checks, inquiries and general principles of decency, rather than a single document. Or rather any single document will be reinterpreted over time anyway, and become part of a body of law.
Give me utilitiy or give me something slightly better!
If you were to listen to Howard or Abbott for that matter they never talk of the executive, but the legislative which represents popular and democratic will. It is disingenuous in a parliamentary system however, as the executive and legislative are one and the same - especially in the manner with Australian parties practice absolute party discipline.
'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.
Understood, but just as you say Howard's words should be put in the context of his actions in practice, Scruton's words should be taken in the context of the rest of the book and the figures he explicitly harks back to. Burke, his hero, spent most of his career on and off the backbenches, tied up the Viceroy of India in a corruption investigation for a decade, and opposed the King's policy in America ... he's all about preservation and delay.
Rather we should recognise the wisdom of Lord Salisbury's terse summary of his philosophy and accept that "delay is life". Conservatism is the politics of delay, the purpose of which is to maintain in being, for as long as possible, the life and health of the social organism.
Now delay in the inaction sense is not really need in environmental policy at the moment, what we need is to preserve the life of e.g. the Murray Darling river system.
Give me utilitiy or give me something slightly better!
Cam, do you have rules on the length of comments? I was blocked from posting this all at once ...
But again, it doesn't mean Scruton supports an executive that is a law unto itself. He even writes in support of republican government in its broad sense.
Where citizens are appointed to administer the State, the result is republican government. [It] is not to be contrasted with monarchy [..] but with absolute rule, dictatorship, one-party rule and a host of other possibilities that fall short of participatory administration.
Scruton is also English and the English parliament has a much richer tradition of broad spectrums of opposition within parties. The intense Executive - Legislative equivalence is a particularly Australian problem. The brief period of whip dominance Bush enjoyed has already passed.
Give me utilitiy or give me something slightly better!
Don't think there is a rule on length of posts but I haven't looked at the code base in a while. You are probably being punished for doing something unusual - actually posting comments ;)
The Bill or Rights aspect of Howard's philosophy is a bit of an indirection, it did point out that his view of disorder came from citizenry acting in their liberty. It is government that provides order, and it is government's most important role, sufficiently so that it needs to break what we assume are natural rights, or governmental exclusions, to maintain that order.
It may be that Scruton is on a liberal side of conservatism; as opposed to executive rule style of conservatism, which Howard was, but still the limits on government in order to preserve order seems to encompass maximal government when necessary from modern conservatives. This is where it comes directly into tension with liberalism.
It seems by the entropy comment that he sees citizens expressing their liberty as entropic; naturally causing disorder and government's role becomes fending off the disorder stemming from liberty. So we are back to Howard's view.
'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.
I had issues posting yesterday as well. I ended up copying the text and starting the whole comment process anew after going through a few previews. Also took awhile to actually write the comment.
Comments