Conservative Thinkers: State Flashcards
Burke on the nature of political change (1)
Highly critical of radical change, through revolution, as it places untried talent in power, when only experience (empiricism) teaches the complex difficulties of rational reform. His preference of organic, to rather revolutionary change, is solidified by his 1780 ‘Speech on Economical Reform’, where he quoted that “the very people who are most eager for it are among the first to grow distrusted at what they have done.”
Oakeshott on the nature of political change
In accordance with Burke that change must occur gradually, rather than hastily. Conceptualising the state as a ship that can be used to ensure social harmony, he argued that we should merely seek to keep the ship of state afloat and be suspicious of would-be-pilots claiming to guide us towards a final port of destination.
Burke on the nature of political change (2)
In his ‘Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)’ Burke expressed his opposition to the French Revolution as it was tending towards anarchy rather than reformation, reflecting Burke’s value of established tradition and structure rather than the shattering of state, culture and religion which was taking place in France.
Oakeshott on the degree of state intervention in the economy
Free markets are volatile and unpredictable, and may require pragmatic moderation by the state. This is possibly rooted in his view of human nature as being “noisy, foolish and flawed”, hence justifying his inclination for government intervention in the economy.
Hobbes on the degree of state intervention in the economy
Argued that constructive and enduring economic activity is impossible without a state guaranteeing order and security. This is also rooted in his cynical view of human nature as being needy and vulnerable and so therefore likely to commit destructive acts. Therefore, the state is the necessary arbitrator.
Rand on the degree of state intervention in the economy
Free-market capitalism is an expression of ‘objectivist’ individualism and should not be hindered by the state. This is because humans naturally seek autonomy and ‘space’ and are guided by rational self-interest, so therefore do not require government moderation.
Hobbes on the type of state based on human nature
Humans are motivated to design political institutions that will allow them to exit the state of nature and create conditions for peace. Underpinning human nature was a cold rationality and ‘self-interest’; this would eventually lead hitherto warring individuals to forge a contract with an all-powerful sovereign who would provide the sort of order and security absent in the state of nature.
Nozick on the type of state based on human nature
Humans are driven by a quest for ‘self-ownership’, allowing them to realise their full potential, therefore the state should instead be minimal. Hence, Nozick argues that its monarchist purpose should be merely to renew and reallocate contracts to private firms providing public services.
Oakeshott on the type of state based on human nature
Humanity is at its best when free from grand designs and when focused on the routines of everyday life. The state exists to ‘prevent the bad rather than create the good’, restating that the best things in life normally emerge from routine and apolitical activity. Hence, the state should be guided by tradition and practical concerns (pragmatism, not dogmatism).
