Do you care about BCB?

[Diamond Dog]

It will be a sad day when I judge the success of my family unit by how much wealth I will pass onto them.

Who said anything about judging success by wealth? If you love your family, then that's what is surely essential. But in more pragmatic terms, wealth is an enabler that gives the next generation a "good start in life". I think that's a natural instinct of any parent. We all want the best for our children.

I would much prefer my children to be balanced and considerate, articulate and successful - based on merit, not privilege or inherited wealth.

This is the difference in our stances though Toby - I want my children to feel loved and believe that will enable them to do well for themselves, whereas your position assumes that the inheritance of wealth is a pre-requisite of having been a good parent.

[Belle Lettre]

I hardly think any of our estates would be over the inheritance tax threshold

[The Modernist]

Wanting the best for your children is hardly a Conservative principle Toby. I'd say that's pretty universal.

I didn't say it was explicitly conservative. It's a natural instinct. But to protect what you think is good is.

And some people believe that the best way of doing that is by having building a cohesive and socially responsible society.

[KeithPratt]

I would much prefer my children to be balanced and considerate, articulate and successful - based on merit, not privilege or inherited wealth.

This is the difference in our stances though Toby - I want my children to feel loved and believe that will enable them to do well for themselves, whereas your position assumes that the inheritance of wealth is a pre-requisite of having been a good parent.

You have made that assumption - nowhere in my post have I said that creating wealth makes people good parents. Being a good parent is a whole different subject and one that is utterly subjective.

I have merely laid out the foundational principles of conservative thought in modern day society.

[KeithPratt]

Wanting the best for your children is hardly a Conservative principle Toby. I'd say that's pretty universal.

I didn't say it was explicitly conservative. It's a natural instinct. But to protect what you think is good is.

And some people believe that the best way of doing that is by having building a cohesive and socially responsible society.

Of course. And Conservatism ultimately believes that responsibility lies with the individual and the family unit.

[Fonz]

Leaving your kids some money, and loving your kids are not mutually exclusive positions.

I want to provide a bit of security for my family/descendants when I'm gone. That doesn't mean I don't want them to be balanced, thoughtful, and caring.
It is one of the many motivations behind why I work hard now. I came from a relatively humble background, where my parents worried about money, and where my extended family are probably below the national average household income.
I work hard, and want to distribute my 'wealth' how I see fit when I cark it, and before, rather than trust the State.

[The Modernist]

In reply to Toby: I would say your belief in the family is rather utopian! You're using it in such a catch all way. It's like some abstract euphemism for 'good'.

[Goat Boy]

Part of the natural appeal of conservatism is the mitigating of risk. If you have a family and you’re doing alright then naturally you might not be so keen on the kind of changes the left sees as desirable because this introduces risk, the unknown. It's natural to do what is "best" for your family. There are various examples around the world as well where the left have gained power and where it’s gone horrible wrong and as a consequence damn near everybody has suffered, including the poor of course who always suffer first and most. Some people naturally favour a more pragmatic approach to society whereby changes are small and incremental and thereby reduce risk. Reform.

Now if you’re at the other end of the economic scale (or you’re so well off that any risk is negligible anyway) and your family is struggling then of course you might be more prepared to support left wing policies believing that there is the possibility this will improve your family’s life and the potential prosperity of your grandchildren etc. It can’t get no worse, can it? You see this with Trump and Brexit of course. Working class people throwing the dice and voting for “change” and introducing the unknown and risk in the belief that it “can’t get no worse”.

[The Modernist]

Leaving your kids some money, and loving your kids are not mutually exclusive positions.

I want to provide a bit of security for my family/descendants when I'm gone. That doesn't mean I don't want them to be balanced, thoughtful, and caring.
It is one of the many motivations behind why I work hard now. I came from a relatively humble background, where my parents worried about money, and where my extended family are probably below the national average household income.
I work hard, and want to distribute my 'wealth' how I see fit when I cark it, and before, rather than trust the State.

And that's fine. I don't think the left are against that are they?

[KeithPratt]

In reply to Toby: I would say your belief in the family is rather utopian! You're using it in such a catch all way. It's like some abstract euphemism for 'good'.

Well, we all experience family from the moment we're born. So it's what we know. Obviously what constitutes "family" and the experience is unique to everyone. We all have different experiences of what it means. But creating a family is the bedrock of society. In general (and yes, obviously there are always exceptions) you will find that people are happier when they are in, or have created a family unit of some sort.

My own experience is that since I've had a family, I'm a lot more settled, clear in what I want and happier in life.

[The Modernist]

[quote="Goat Boy"]Part of the natural appeal of conservatism is the mitigating of risk. If you have a family and you’re doing alright then naturally you might not be so keen on the kind of changes the left sees as desirable because this introduces risk, the unknown. It's natural to do what is "best" for your family. There are various examples around the world as well where the left have gained power and where it’s gone horrible wrong and as a consequence damn near everybody has suffered, including the poor of course who always suffer first and most. Some people naturally favour a more pragmatic approach to society whereby changes are small and incremental and thereby reduce risk. Reform.

[quote]

Of course it can be factually argued that things have gone "horribly wrong" under the kind of neo-liberal Capitalism we've had for the last thirty years.

[Goat Boy]

And some conservatives do favour reform of that system and recognise this need. But one also has to accept the possibility that other systems may also be worse.

[The Modernist]

In reply to Toby: I would say your belief in the family is rather utopian! You're using it in such a catch all way. It's like some abstract euphemism for 'good'.

Well, we all experience family from the moment we're born. So it's what we know. Obviously what constitutes "family" and the experience is unique to everyone. We all have different experiences of what it means. But creating a family is the bedrock of society. In general (and yes, obviously there are always exceptions) you will find that people are happier when they are in, or have created a family unit of some sort.

My own experience is that since I've had a family, I'm a lot more settled, clear in what I want and happier in life.

Yes I get all that. What I don't get is why the family should somehow be the domain of Conservatives. You're acting as if they somehow invented it!

[KeithPratt]

Of course it can be factually argued that things have gone "horribly wrong" under the kind of neo-liberal Capitalism we've had for the last thirty years.

Have you got any evidence for that? The most glaring exception is that the number of people living in absolute poverty has dropped to less than 9% compared to 35% in 1990.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview

[KeithPratt]

In reply to Toby: I would say your belief in the family is rather utopian! You're using it in such a catch all way. It's like some abstract euphemism for 'good'.

Well, we all experience family from the moment we're born. So it's what we know. Obviously what constitutes "family" and the experience is unique to everyone. We all have different experiences of what it means. But creating a family is the bedrock of society. In general (and yes, obviously there are always exceptions) you will find that people are happier when they are in, or have created a family unit of some sort.

My own experience is that since I've had a family, I'm a lot more settled, clear in what I want and happier in life.

Yes I get all that. What I don't get is why the family should somehow be the domain of Conservatives. You're acting as if they somehow invented it!

Well it is the domain of the Conservatives because the left believe in "Cradle to Grave" policies where the State becomes the family.

[The Modernist]

And some conservatives do favour reform of that system and recognise this need. But one also has to accept the possibility that other systems may also be worse.

They've been keeping pretty quiet about it Dougie!
The kind of free market global Capitalism is not the only way and there is ample evidence that it is not a very good system, given it is creating only creating (huge) wealth for a small minority. I can understand you're fed up with some of the orthodoxies of the left, but please don't buy into the lies of the right. You're going into a dead end there. Sincerely.

[The Modernist]

Of course it can be factually argued that things have gone "horribly wrong" under the kind of neo-liberal Capitalism we've had for the last thirty years.

Have you got any evidence for that? The most glaring exception is that the number of people living in absolute poverty has dropped to less than 9% compared to 35% in 1990.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview

Well when a body like the WEF say it, then it's pretty significant.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurengensler/2017/01/11/world-economic-forum-income-inequality-capitalism/#db55a295dd38

I'm going to have to leave this one now though, I'll come back to it this evening.

[Goat Boy]

You're sounding like Yoda here!

Is Conservatism more powerful master G?
No! Easier. More seductive!

I'm playing devils advocate a bit here.

[The Modernist]

Well it is the domain of the Conservatives because the left believe in "Cradle to Grave" policies where the State becomes the family.

A gross and distorted simplification of course. But I do really need to go!

Paging DD, Griff and Copehead to take over.

[KeithPratt]

I don't think anyone in their right mind would suggest that the current existing economic order is perfect.

But it "works" in a way that benefits at least a large number of people, certainly as is evinced by the growing middle-class of countries like Brazil, India and the like. Look at the way in which a number of African countries are experiencing around 7 to 8% growth at the moment, outpacing European countries.

The fact is that the socialist experiments of the 20th century and their corresponding economic systems have not yielded much in the way of a real alternative. If such a system could be shown to be a viable alternative, then people would champion it I'm sure.

The reality is that true financial equality could only ever be achieved if everyone was poor.