Ideology, Theory, Praxis-Options for the Right, their benefits, demerits, and comparative value.

[Deleted member 88]

I used to be very much more pro market, but over time I’ve developed the attitude that capitalism must serve the people and the nation. It must not be opposed to or indifferent to them.

This means a variety of things.

-For example price gouging and exploitation should be strictly prohibited, CEOs and other such Corporate big whigs must be shown to be loyal to the nation, disloyalty would bring a high and severe price. A CEO who sells out his people for profit deserves a harsher sentence than a soldier who deserts or hands information to the enemy.
-tight regulation of banks and finance houses. The state would have majority ownership, and would seek input from the people as to what the investments these institutions make are best served for.
-strict environmental laws-within reason. Protection of natural habitats and species matters to me. Areas declared off limits to suburbanization or development would remain so forever. Also the state would take say-farmer’s land in trust. A farmer dies and his kids don’t want to keep the farm going? The farm automatically reverts to state control if the farmer has no one who wishes to maintain it. Even as a scenic property. Too many farm areas are turned into suburban sprawl due to this.
-Businesses including large corporations are required to reinvest in local communities, up to and including 15% of revenue-say a local factory, 15% of its gross revenue must be reinvested in the town where its factory is.
-The pharmaceutical industry would be tightly regulated. And there would be harsh sentences for the sort of behavior we see now, such as selling drugs over the counter in rural communities which leads to addiction and deaths by their tens of thousands.

So on economic considerations, I have become somewhat more Statist I guess? In the sense that I do not believe in unfettered capitalism or growth and believe that the creative power of capitalism and money must be to serve the people, and not the other way around.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

You are making a lot of sense. That is actually what I meant by "questioning authority is not bad to an extent". But what happened was that old authority was demolished, and new authorities introduced - and now those are as unquestionable as ones before, and anyone questioning them is declared a heretic.

And, now you make even more sense, I just had a slight misunderstanding as to the exact nature of what you meant. Thank you.

It seems we are much more in agreement than I thought, but that is to be expected. This is due to the fact we both understand tradition as important for both its intrinsic and extrinsic qualities

And you describe the exact scenario, meet the new boss same as the old boss..and worse. And the problem is that this new orthodoxy which I know you know is that it is based on less of a solid footing, than that of the old which comes out past experience, what has worked before, and what we have learned and the insights of eminent thinkers and not so eminent thinkers. These new authorities, if I am thinking of the same one are based on "science" (there is nothing wrong with using actual science alongside other arts to help guide you, but you should never believe your political or such theories are scientific nor should we rest the political arts on science itself- the politics have their own science already and it is fine as it is), pure ideology, new and less sensible faiths (SJWs, Communism, et al), what is convenient, the advantage of the stronger, nothing at all, and so on. If we are thinking of the same authorities, then I'd probably agree with you on why them being unquestionable is bad.

You know as a man of no religion, I am starting to think the zealots of old would treat me more kindly than the zealots of today.

 

[Aldarion]

And, now you make even more sense, I just had a slight misunderstanding as to the exact nature of what you meant. Thank you.

It seems we are much more in agreement than I thought, but that is to be expected. This is due to the fact we both understand tradition as important for both its intrinsic and extrinsic qualities

And you describe the exact scenario, meet the new boss same as the old boss..and worse. And the problem is that this new orthodoxy which I know you know is that it is based on less of a solid footing, than that of the old which comes out past experience, what has worked before, and what we have learned and the insights of eminent thinkers and not so eminent thinkers. These new authorities, if I am thinking of the same one are based on "science" (there is nothing wrong with using actual science alongside other arts to help guide you, but you should never believe your political or such theories are scientific nor should we rest the political arts on science itself- the politics have their own science already and it is fine as it is), pure ideology, new and less sensible faiths (SJWs, Communism, et al), what is convenient, the advantage of the stronger, nothing at all, and so on. If we are thinking of the same authorities, then I'd probably agree with you on why them being unquestionable is bad.

You know as a man of no religion, I am starting to think the zealots of old would treat me more kindly than the zealots of today.

Thing is, people need faith, if not necessarily religion as such (but faith often develops into religion). So when metaphysical religion is removed, they construct worldly religion (Communism, Progressivism / SJWism etc.).

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

Thing is, people need faith, if not necessarily religion as such (but faith often develops into religion). So when metaphysical religion is removed, they construct worldly religion (Communism, Progressivism / SJWism etc.).

That does make sense, though I am not sure that it is people as an absolute. But people as a generality. I am not a person to need faith, it seems optional to me. But maybe I am not apprehending the full spectrum that the word faith entails, the diversity of different kinds that might not be readily apparent to me.

It does occur to me that you probably think I do have faith in something, and probably something concrete. So out of curiosity, if this is the case, what do you think I would have faith in?

 

[Aldarion]

That does make sense, though I am not sure that it is people as an absolute. But people as a generality. I am not a person to need faith, it seems optional to me. But maybe I am not apprehending the full spectrum that the word faith entails, the diversity of different kinds that might not be readily apparent to me.

It does occur to me that you probably think I do have faith in something, and probably something concrete. So out of curiosity, if this is the case, what do you think I would have faith in?

People in general do need faith. I cannot speak for you specifically, but every atheist I have met and gotten to know so far had faith into something - inherent goodness of human nature, future, advancement of society, society itself, supranational organizations, human rights, human intellect... personally I find those just as questionable as faith in a diety. And since God is metaphysical, faith in God can go much deeper and survive far more challenges than any of the listed - even if to an atheist such would seem a delusion.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

People in general do need faith. I cannot speak for you specifically, but every atheist I have met and gotten to know so far had faith into something - inherent goodness of human nature, future, advancement of society, society itself, supranational organizations, human rights, human intellect... personally I find those just as questionable as faith in a diety. And since God is metaphysical, faith in God can go much deeper and survive far more challenges than any of the listed - even if to an atheist such would seem a delusion.

I'll have to think about that, because your words ring true and I should interrogate myself as to what I truly find important. And such things are more durable, which is why the irreligious need to adopt more durable systems themselves. I have been wondering if I should adopt stoicism for instance.

 

[Aldarion]

I'll have to think about that, because your words ring true and I should interrogate myself as to what I truly find important. And such things are more durable, which is why the irreligious need to adopt more durable systems themselves. I have been wondering if I should adopt stoicism for instance.

You might look at some eastern belief systems, maybe? A lot are spiritual, but don't have dieties as such. For introduction, might help:

Atheism has been part of many Asian traditions for millennia

It might appear to many that atheism is a modern idea. However, in parts of Asia, particularly in India, atheism has been part of beliefs for thousands of years.

theconversation.com

But, as you said, first step would be looking inwards, to yourself.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

You might look at some eastern belief systems, maybe? A lot are spiritual, but don't have dieties as such. For introduction, might help:

Atheism has been part of many Asian traditions for millennia

It might appear to many that atheism is a modern idea. However, in parts of Asia, particularly in India, atheism has been part of beliefs for thousands of years.

theconversation.com

But, as you said, first step would be looking inwards, to yourself.

Indeed. Though I am more into my ancestral Anglo-Saxon traditions and Graeco-Roman ones, it would behoove me to look there first. Plenty of good philosophies among both cultures to live one's life by.

 

[Deleted member 88]

A philosophy needs to be more than merely a set of life guides. A religion more than a set of rituals and easily mouthed words. It must be something one is committed too.

It is clear we need a practice that is more than one surrendered rampart after another, one that can actually not merely stem history's tides or delay it, but grab a hold of the wheel and make history our own.

 

[Cherico]

I think that the fundamental problem of modern life is that you have too many people with completely different philospical goals and completely different values all forced to get along.

And these values are often diametrically opposed.

I think there is a long term solution and its to scatter off into space. It would be human beings creating city states in astroids, creating isolated communities and constantly splitting up to found new communities when the old one isn't working for them. This would allow traditionalists of every stripe to have their own little communities, let radicals have their communities and every one have their way in their own communities.

Growing trillions of empires, countries and city states.

Freed from the curse of unity I think we could find happiness or at least contentment.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Freed from the curse of unity I think we could find happiness or at least contentment.

Unity is actually an excellent remedy to some of our current woes, or at least the implementation of a unified identity. Making "good little Romans" of Britain's migrant population, for example, would fix a lot of problems.

 

[Winston Bush]

I'm hoping it generates productive discussion, which is why I made the thread.

Asking for productive discussion on the internet is like asking for a cat to eat a vegetable. Possible but very unlikely. But to put my own politics i’m a generic conservative.