• Replies 26 replies
  • Subscribers 39 subscribers
  • Views 1135 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Brilliant John Gray interview in the New Statesman.

HighToryPsychic

This is a brilliant interview and discussion with John Gray making many excellent points. Which I would like to discuss with people. If anyone can make it through the whole 80 minute interview. 

I am a High Tory, supporter of the Aristocratic High state being restored. So I support the overthrow of the Liberal managerial state and restoring Parliament, the common law, the Royal Navy so on. 

What I find really interesting is that Mr Gray makes all the right points I would make as a High Tory about the current Liberal consensus with live under and the need for Parliamentary accountability to be restored. I also agree with him the Thomas Hobbs was a form of Liberal. 

Its also because I want more Liberal minded members on here to question there Liberalism from a left-wing perspective. I can question it from a right-wing perspective, but I don't know how to do that from the left-wing side. Any discussion on these important topics within society and the depth of learning, knowledge, experience of Mr Gray is a good starting point for this. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvDXwjeMB_k  

Thanks. 

Parents

  • I imagine the vision is a return to Britain c.1900, i.e before WW1. A pre-industrial revolution scenario would be hard to envisage.

    The problem is always to balance competing requirements:

    1. How to reward work and effort, so that things get done
    2. How to avoid excessive self interest, corruption and fraud
    3. How to ensure owners and workers are fairly rewarded to prevent exploitation 
    4. How to pay for the necessary functions of the state (law and order, defence, etc.)
    5. What functions the state should have control over
    6. How to help the unfortunate and needy without undermining 1 and 3
    7. How much freedom the individual should have and what obligations they have
    8. How to ensure a cohesive stable system exists, that is self-correcting

    It is not obvious what the correct answer is.

    Most argue for a system that benefits them, rather than that benefits the majority. There is no system that benefits everyone, unless everyone is equally poor.

    A system that does not benefit the majority is unstable.

    The current system is sub-optimal, but what to do is a problem. There are no easy fixes.

Reply

  • I imagine the vision is a return to Britain c.1900, i.e before WW1. A pre-industrial revolution scenario would be hard to envisage.

    The problem is always to balance competing requirements:

    1. How to reward work and effort, so that things get done
    2. How to avoid excessive self interest, corruption and fraud
    3. How to ensure owners and workers are fairly rewarded to prevent exploitation 
    4. How to pay for the necessary functions of the state (law and order, defence, etc.)
    5. What functions the state should have control over
    6. How to help the unfortunate and needy without undermining 1 and 3
    7. How much freedom the individual should have and what obligations they have
    8. How to ensure a cohesive stable system exists, that is self-correcting

    It is not obvious what the correct answer is.

    Most argue for a system that benefits them, rather than that benefits the majority. There is no system that benefits everyone, unless everyone is equally poor.

    A system that does not benefit the majority is unstable.

    The current system is sub-optimal, but what to do is a problem. There are no easy fixes.

Children
  • in reply to Stuart333

    What you do is your build the corruption into the system, so everybody knows it and can adjust for it. Like the Aristocracy was wholly corrupt, but it was the system so it was accounted for. Amazingly the system we have now is meant to be anti-corruption, but it is way more corrupt than the Aristocratic High state was, which is actually lauded for its lack of corruption in the early 1900's.  

    I argue for a system which means I can't vote, which means I have no power. I argue for the restoration of the Aristocracy, there rights, power and wealth which was stolen from them by the Liberal state. I also believe in the ruling class theory of history which states that whatever the ruling class wants it gets. I don't think building a system for the majority functions at all. But I agree there is no correct answer, just trade off's between different systems.