Politics: Conservatism - The State

-Being dismissive of 'normative' politics, with its 'simplistic visions that overlook the complexity of reality', he also affirmed the merits of an empirical and pragmatic approach to both politics and life generally - what might be termed 'the art of the possible'.

-He argued that it was through experience, trial and error, rather than abstract philosophy, that wisdom was achieved.

-In a memorable aside, he remarked: 'In a kitchen, cook books are only useful after experience of preparing a meal'.

-He also asserted that, prior to the emergence of a state, there was no cooperation or voluntary arrangements between individuals and therefore none of the 'natural rights' later cited by liberals.

-His 'state of nature' was a place of scarce resources where individuals would be governed by ruthless self-interest.

-In his own words, life in this state of nature would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'.

-Such 'natural chaos' stemmed from the absence of any formal authority, which could enforce an unquestioned code of right and wrong.

-In its absence, he noted, mankind in the state of nature was left to form his own version of acceptable and unacceptable conduct.

-Yet, because each man's versions of right and wrong were likely to be different, this would lead only to uncertainty and war.

-Nevertheless, because he did not consider human nature wholly irrational (cold rationality), he believed that mankind would eventually realise that the state of nature was inimical to self-interest and thus agree to a 'contract'.

-Under this contract, individuals would render to a 'sovereign' (that is, a state) the right to make laws which by all were restrained and thus allow the sort of order and security absent in the state of nature.

-As an early Enlightenment thinker, he was thus heavily committed to 'government by consent' and the notion of a state being 'rationally' created by a 'contract' between the government and the governed.

-This would eventually lead to a 'society', where individuals could enjoy some security and progress.

-He insisted that the feasibility of individual rights is entirely dependent upon law and order - which only the state can provide.

-But for the state to accomplish its side of the bargain, he claimed it would have to be autocratic.

-If power were dispersed, then the conflicts within the state of nature would soon be replicated.

-In summary, he argued that the principal reason for the state was the creation of order and security; that without such a state there could be no civil society; and that for the state to be effective, it would have to be autocratic, intimidating and forbidding.

-In respect of human imperfection, in 'Reflections on the Revolution in France' (1790), he stressed mankind's fallibility and its tendency to fail more than succeed.

-He therefore denounced the idealistic society that the French Revolution represented, claiming it was based on a utopian - and thus unrealistic - view of human nature.

-He argued that while change was necessary to conserve, change should proceed on the basis of fact and experience - in other words, empiricism and tradition - rather than theory and idealism.

-He duly criticised the French Revolution for discarding what was known in favour of an entirely new society based on 'philosophical abstractions'.

-He claimed that both society and government were more akin to a plant than a machine.

-He thus argued that both had a mysterious dynamism that was beyond reason and planning.

-In the political and social context, he therefore insisted that change must be cautious and organic, and denounced the French Revolution for disregarding history and tradition.

-He was scathing about the French Revolution's stress on equality, asserting that within all 'organic' societies, a ruling class was inevitable and desirable.

-However, this class had a clear obligation to govern in the interests of all.

-For him, it was the French aristocracy's failure to do this that led to revolution.

-He condemned the new French Republic for its highly centralised structures, praising instead a society of 'little platoons': a multitude of small, diverse and largely autonomous communities, which would 'acknowledge, nurture and prune... the crooked timber of humanity'.

-He developed many of the themes first raised by neo-liberal philosopher Friedrich von Hayek in 'The Road to Serfdom' (1944).

-Like Hayek, he argued that the growth of government was the gravest contemporary threat to individual freedom.

-More specifically, he thought the growth of welfare states in Western Europe fostered a dependency culture.

-His hostility to the state went beyond that of neo-liberalism - unlike Hayek, he became closely identified with libertarianism, a creed which argues that the individual should be 'left alone' not just in the economic sphere (as neo-liberals and all New Right conservatives would argue) but in the social and cultural spheres as well (an idea many on the New Right would find at odds with their social conservatism).

-As a result, libertarianism is tolerant of a liberal, 'permissive society' and takes a relaxed view of issues like abortion, divorce and homosexuality.

-Despite the title of his most famous work, 'Anarchy, State and Utopia' (1974), he was not a 'true' anarchist in that he believed in a minarchist state - one that mainly involved outsourcing public services to private companies.

-This minarchist prescription owed much to his optimistic view of human nature, which seems very different to that of Hobbes and Burke.

-Indeed, some have suggested his philosophy has less in common with conservatism than with strands of anarchism.

-For example, his claim that 'tax, for the most part, is theft' indicates an upbeat view that individuals have self-ownership - that they are the sole authors of their talents and abilities and should be left alone to realise them, without the intervention of government.

-However, there are reasons why he is considered a conservative.

-First, although he believed that society predates the state, his view of human nature was not wholeheartedly positive.

-He argued that while dishonesty, theft and violence were not the main characteristics of humanity, the preservation of life, liberty and property 'could not be taken for granted' without some formal authority enforcing laws: a vital concession to the legacy of Hobbes.

-Second, the purpose of his limited state was not simply to facilitate raw individualism and free-market capitalism.

-For him, the minarchism he prescribed would allow a multitude of self-sufficient communities to emerge alongside the extension of individual freedom.

-In his minarchist society, each of these communities would be free to practice its particular moral codes and values, including values which might be seen as socialist or anti-Christian.

-This arguably represents an updated version of Burke's view that the best form of society is one comprising a variety of 'little platoons'.

-He also argued that the nation-state being strengthened was not paradoxical, as if the nation-state is burdened by nationalised industries and welfare states, it is then harder for it to focus on its 'true' function of order and security.

-Her defining work, the novel 'Atlas Shrugged' (1957), secured her status as one of America's most influential libertarians.

-Its theme was that talented individuals, rather than ambitious governments, lay at the heart of any successful society.

-The novel suggested that without the energy of such individuals, a society would quickly wither - no matter how much activity was expended by governments.

-Her 'objectivist' philosophy became strongly linked to the New Right's support for a more laissez-faire brand of capitalism and its renewal of negative liberty, thus providing a philosophical justification for 'rolling back the frontiers of the state' and projects such as tax cuts and privatisation.

-She was proud to call herself a libertarian, in that she defended not just free markets but also an individual's 'right to choose' in areas like homosexuality or abortion.

-But she firmly rejected any suggestion of anarchism, claiming that both free markets and cultural laissez-faire needed the parameters of a small state.

-In her later work, she strengthened her connection to conservatism by stating that liberty was impossible without order and security, which only a state could provide.

-Her conservative credentials were further strengthened by her support for the ultra-conservative Barry Goldwater in the 1964 US Presidential Election, during which she wrote: 'The small state is the strong state'.

-She argued that the nation-state being strengthened was not paradoxical, as if the nation-state is burdened by nationalised industries and welfare states, it is then harder for it to focus on its 'true' function of order and security.

-She observed, 'When the state becomes flabby, it also becomes feeble'.