I got this list from Professor
Jordan
Peterson a Canadian
professor of Psychology who has made a name for himself by standing against the
far left Progressive policies and activists on Canadian universities and in
government.
1. The fundamental assumptions of western
civilization are valid.
These assumptions include the ideas that the individual has intrinsic
value, that individuals have rights that precedes the law, and that individual
freedom and liberty is the best way to unleash the best and fullest potential
of each person.
From these assumptions we get some of our more noticeable rights, such as
the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.
The proof that these assumptions are valid is in the actions of people
throughout the world. What counties do people risk their lives to come to? Why
don’t we see an exodus of socialists to socialist countries but rather an
exodus of people from socialist countries to capitalist ones?
The focus on the individual is a deep and precious idea that is worth
defending. If we lose that we must put the group first (tribalism) and if the
group is what matters then you, the individual, do not matter very much.
2. Peaceful social being is preferable to isolation
and war. In consequence, it justly and rightly demands some sacrifice of
individual impulse and idiosyncrasy.
This might seem to contradict the importance of the individual but in
reality the two are different sides of the same coin. Ask yourself the
question, would you willingly give up part of what makes you an individual in
order to benefit from being part of a peaceful social order?
This is the social contract. We choose how much we are willing to give up
so that we can exist peacefully with each other in the hope that the benefit we
gain by giving up a part of our individuality and liberty outweighs the cost in
doing so.
For example we are willing to give up part of our wealth in taxes so that
the state can maintain a military that provides for the security of each
individual in society. This is an acceptable constraint to ultimate liberty
that secures the maximum amount of freedom for the individual.
This also does not mean you must always follow the rules all the time.
Only that you should follow the rules, even if you do not understand them
completely, unless you have a very good reason in breaking them. For example
without breaking the taboo of touching a corpse medicine would not have
advanced as far as it has.
The thinker Adam Ferguson articulated it best when he said “Liberty or
Freedom is not, as the origin of the name may seem to imply, an exemption from
all restraints, but rather the most effectual applications of every just
restraint to all members of a free society whether they be magistrates or
subjects.”
3. Hierarchies of competence are desirable and
should be promoted.
Those on the far left desire and fight for equity. Meaning they seek the
destruction of all forms of hierarchies. They want to force everyone to be
equal. It sounds good if only for the fact that it was not so murderous.
If you eliminate hierarches and make everyone equal (which the only
possible way of doing so is through violent oppression in Gulag work camps or through
starvation) than what do people have to strive for? If you cannot move up than
why move at all?
What they fail to realize is that everyone benefits from multiple
hierarchies of competence. Ask yourself, would you rather have a plumber who
got the job based on the color of their skin or what type of genitals they have
or some sort of historical oppression, or would you rather have the most
qualified and competent plumber?
It is in these hierarchies where the most competent people rise to the
top, not because they were given that position, but because they earned it. We
want those people in those position so that we can extract the most use out of
them for the benefit of all.
This message is not being related to young people. They are not being
encouraged and told that they have potential to be the best at something. They
are not being told to go out into the world and make something of themselves.
Take personal responsibility, discipline yourself, see if you can learn to tell
the truth and concentrate on something for a year or two and you can take the
world by storm. It is possible to make yourself successful.
4. Boarders are reasonable. Likewise, limits
on immigration are reasonable. Furthermore, it should not be assumed that
citizens of societies that have not evolved functional individual-rights
predicated polities will hold values in keeping with such polities.
Boarders in this instance does not simply mean lines between states.
Instead it means the boundaries between categories. For example the law is the
boundary between acceptable and unacceptable actions and behaviors.
Of course you do not want to have too many boarders, this will limit the
flow of information and resources as well as constrict freedom. But too few
boarders is chaos.
When it comes to immigration, limits are reasonable. When immigrants come
to a new country they bring new customs, traditions, and ideas. Too much of
this will destabilize the existing order as well as place a burden on those at
the bottom.
You also want to be sure that you are letting people into the country
that will be a benefit to not only the society but to the immigrant as well.
Not everyone will be a benefit, those who come from a society that lacks
individual rights might not see the value in maintaining those rights. Instead
they would seek to change the system to something that is more agreeable to
their temperament.
For example someone who comes from a society where woman are not allowed
to vote, might seek to repress the vote of women, either through the law or by
exercising social pressure on the women around them. I am not saying deny
people entry depending on where they come from, but that it is something worth
considering.
5. People should be paid so that they are able
and willing to perform socially useful and desirable duties.
People get into higher positions because of competence not power. Most
people get to where they are because they have earned their position, not
because society handed it to them. You want people who earned those position
there because they provide a use to society.
The best method for making sure that the most able and willing will
occupy those positions is to create a system that produces equality of
opportunity not equality of outcome.
6. Citizens have the inalienable right to
benefit from the results of their own honest labor.
This should be obvious, but it needs to be said. If you let people
benefit from the results of their own labor, than they will work to produce
something that you need.
It also means do not try and tax people so much that they fail to see the
point of working. Yes some taxes are required to provide for social services,
but too much becomes a burden. People work hard for what they earn, taking more
and more to fund one program or another only de-incentivizes people from
working while creating a growing underclass of people who depend solely on the
government.
7. It is more noble to teach young people
about responsibilities then about rights.
The conversation has been centered on rights. We tell young people that they
have a right to this and that. No one is talking to them about the
responsibilities that come with those rights.
Instead of telling young people what rights they have and should have, we
should be telling them that they are capable of taking responsibility for their
own lives. Getting the government to give you things is not the only way to get
what you want. In fact it is probably the worst method for doing so.
Do something useful that will benefit you, your family and your community.
It is through the willing adoption of responsibility where you will find
meaning in life. That meaning will benefit you far more than any right.
It will also benefit those around you. You will be a comfort in times of
crisis and pain and you will be able to help people when the tragedy of life
renders them useless. Believe it or not young people are desperate for this
message.
8. It is better to do what everyone has always
done, unless you have some extraordinarily valid reason to do otherwise.
The traditions in society did not simply fall from the sky, nor where
they placed there by some malevolent force or group bent on suppressing you.
They developed over a long period of time because they had value to them.
These traditions should be respected as they have produced the current
world we live in and all benefits and advantages we possess. Messing with them
is dangerous and should only be done if you have a seriously good reason for
doing so.
We do not know everything and do not always know how the changes we make
will play out in the world, not only in society but across time.
9. Radical change should be viewed with
suspicion, particularly in a time of radical change.
We are in a time of radical change (internet, globalization). Things are
changing so rapidly that it is hard for people to keep up. Even in my life time
we have gone from slow dial up internet on the computer to having high speed
internet access in our pockets. We do not fully understand how the changes of
the world have and will impact society.
It is perfectly reasonable to say slow down a minute and let’s try to
address some of these changes and the impacts they are having. It is also
reasonable to say the change may be good intentioned and seem to come from a
place of compassion, but do we truly know what the end result will be.
Gradual change over time reduces the risk of destabilizing a system and
increase the possibility that it will produce a positive outcome.
10. The government local and distant should
leave people to their own devises as much as possible.
This is a call for humility. I would rather have individuals making their
own stupid mistakes and getting things wrong for themselves in the hope that a
few people will get things right, than having one person impose their view of
what is right on everyone and risk getting it catastrophically wrong for
everyone at the same time.
Don’t think that what you are doing is right, or that it will come out as
you predict. You cannot know everything or how it will affect everyone,
understand that you have limitations.
11. Intact heterosexual two-parent families
constitute the necessary bedrock for a stable polity.
One of the bedrocks of society is the traditional family. I hate that I
have to say it but I will say it; I am not saying that I oppose gay marriage or
that gay/lesbian couples cannot be good parents, I am not saying that. Instead
what I am saying is that maybe children need a role model of each sex.
Regardless of your opinion on the matter it is pretty clear that two
parent families are more successful. It should seem obvious that having two
loving parents in the home is better than one. Again this is not a dig a single
parents, but rather a recognition of the difficulty of raising a family.
The point of marriage is too tough it out for better or for worse, not
for your happiness but for the chance to tie the rope of your life together
with someone else’s life. Happiness is fleeting and if marriage is only about
happiness, it too will become fleeting. Rather marriage is about two people
weaving their lives together so that they can become stronger as a union than
they ever could be as an individual.
You will often hear claims made that marriage is just an oppressive
institution developed to keep women in bondage. There is some truth to that
claim and a few examples can be found to prove it, but it is only one side. It
fails to take into account the benefits gained from the union of marriage. It
is two people who share in the suffering and success of life.
Other types are families are fine, and if that is what you seek, more
power to you. We also need to keep in mind that the structure of the
traditional family has worked well for the entire existence of humanity and it
is not just a social construct and that we mess with it at our own peril.
12. We should judge our political system in
comparison to other actual political systems and not to hypothetical utopias.
We should compare our systems to other active systems in the world. If we
are near the top than maybe we should not mess with the system too much. It
means that we got something right and it is working.
It might not be perfect, nothing is, but have some gratitude for the
benefits that system produces. A few examples would be that we have enough food
that obesity is more of a problem than starvation. That you can peacefully
interact with your neighbors and even interact in a way that is mutually
beneficial to both parties. That you can ask a police man for help and they
will actually help you.
This is not the case in a lot of the world. Police will only help you if
you bribe them, and sometimes not even then. Other countries are run by thugs
who are perfectly fine with having your door kicked open and murdering you in
the middle of the night.
We have a lot to be thankful for in our country and it would benefit to
show a little gratitude for that, instead of trying to compare what we have to whatever
form of utopian heaven that you can dream up and would love to impose on people
without their cooperation and without their will. That was already tried in the
Soviet Union and Nazi Germany with murderous results.
A Case for Conservatism
There is a viable case for conservatism that produces a benefit to
society. There is nothing wrong with being a conservative and expressing
conservative values. Do not let anyone silence you, but also do not silence
yourself for fear of being ridiculed or attacked.
You might not say everything right all the time, in fact you will
probably say a lot of things that are wrong, but if you say them honestly and
listen when people talk to you than you will get better at it. You will be able
to articulate your ideas clearer and with more confidence and with the
knowledge that your ideas have been tested.
You
have every right to be conservative and there is nothing wrong with you for
being conservative. It is time to get organized and push back against the hyper
educated resentful utopian dreamers out of the positions of power.
Since then I have been watching the activity of the
Carpenter Campaign, especially the activities of his campaign manager David
Bacon Gulliver and the hyper active brigade of supporters that surround him.
The problem is they missed a few things in their rush to
judgement. One Lockwood is an independent contractor working on the Wooldridge
campaign not a direct staffer.
Instead of recognizing that they are creating fractures
within the Republican Party Carpenter and his loyalist supporters doubled down
and deflected.
Here are what I believe to be a few members of the brigade: Lori Tiger Davis,
David Bacon Gulliver, Carol Leek, Helen Church, and Mary Wellman. Of course you
will find a few others who comment and post but they have been taken in by this
group think mentality more suited for Social Justice Warriors than free
thinking liberty loving individuals.
