Prince Charles has been at the Philosopher-Juice, again


David Davis

I chanced upon this in the Times. Also, I find that Nick@CountingCats has done a good fisk of the silly old loon. Here’s a bit more detail about what the bugger said…

It’s a great pity really, for the poor British, who have striven mightily over the centuries to achieve something resembling the outer shell of a pre-capitalist-barbarian warlord-polity, but with “added freedom” and some goodish bolt-ons… This sort of social structure I guess gives comfort to some, if not most, people whose main past-time is trying to just get by while avoiding thinking too deeply about much.

But one of the goodish bolt-ons is that this model also delivers a modicum of personal liberty to the vast mass of the subjects – sadly often against their will. They will live to regret this lacuna in their perception of reality.

Now, however, although the British have at last painstakingly evolved, within this structure, the grand tradition of being able to get rid of their “king” and hire another one from somewhere else if they don’t like the first one, and so although they have now got a more-or-less-harmless strain of hereditary “Heads Of State”, the supposedly-chief male heir now proceeds to go batchy on Global Wireless Tele Vision – and he does it often as well, which is worse.

It’s all rather sad. If the concept of republicanism wasn’t so innately un-conservative and redolent of philosophical rootlessness, I might be more in favour of it for the British. I’ll have to reflect a bit.

About these ads

6 responses to “Prince Charles has been at the Philosopher-Juice, again

  1. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the three words most likely to turn monarchies into republics are Charles, the and third.

  2. As a committed Christian, I regard Prince Charles as one of the greatest living arguments in favour of the disestablishment of the Church of England.

    In this regard, at least, I congratulate HRH on his continuing efforts to surpass my expectations of him.

  3. What’s a ‘fisk’?

    Tony

  4. What is wrong with being “unconservative”? Libertarianism is radicalism, not conservatism.

    Do conservatives believe in free markets? No, they don’t. Do conservatives believe in free individuals? No, they don’t. Do conservatives want to sweep away power, and hierarchy, and class? No, they don’t.

    Was Britain ever a libertarian nation? No, it wasn’t. Did Britain ever declare its subjects to have inalienable rights, which no monarch or parliament could thereupon intrude? No, it didn’t.

    The Conservatives, and conservatives, have got to go, just as much as their nominal opponents, the “socialists” have got to go, for they are really just different bolts of the same cloth. A libertarian cannot be a conservative, any more than he can be a socialist. Liberty is inherently “unconservative”.

  5. Hi, excellent post! I enjoy reading it.
    Thanks for sharing. Keep it coming!

  6. Stuart King

    Ian, conservatism is neither essentially libertarian or unlibertarian, it is merely a preference for stability via continuity. A sense of not fixing things that aren’t broken.

    The majority of any population are rarely going to be radicals for any length of time. Their default position is conservative. Sean Gabb’s assertion that “…the real defence of liberty is its placing within a web of associations that makes its abolition
    unthinkable…” seems a convincing one. Most people like antique institutions (the Queen is very popular). If libertarian connotations can be restored to these old institutions then freedom is much easier to defend.

    Presumably once a libertarian settlement has been established we would want people to be conservative, to the extent that they don’t desire radical change in an unlibertarian direction.