Thread by @Delafina777

So generally my position is "no one's life was ever made better by reading the comments." But there's always an exception, and today it's this one: crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/lib…

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time."

I don't actually agree with the entire comment (it's both long AND pithy). But that quote, and the argument that there is only conservatism (defining of outgroups) and anti-conservatism, or resistance to conservatism was a hard viewpoint reset.

Not sure I actually agree with that framing, but it was one of those rare moments of "whoa, this is a non-shitty framing I haven't looked through before" and I love it just for that.

But man:

"For millennia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been."

"As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny."

And this is when we stop just labeling it conservatism and start labeling it fascism:

"All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence."

That the core difference between the two isn't their philosophy but merely the means used to advance their goal is something I've been having a hard time articulating but this framing makes it seem pretty straightforward.

"The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:

The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone."

That's a hell of a closer. Like man, I WISH I'd written it.

But at the same time, I think it's necessary but NOT sufficient--there's more to governance, I think, than just binding and protecting.

In terms of concisely defining what constitutes a just legal system, al regel achat, though, I'll take it.

So, also, fascinating side note: The comment is by someone using the username "Frank Wilhoit," which I googled to discover... a complete and utter badass who totally plausibly could have written this. news.drake.edu/2010/06/11/ret…

Cryptographer during WWII, three degrees from Harvard, beloved poli sci professor whose classrooms were standing-room only... but that's an obituary from 8 years before the comment.

Turns out, the Frank Wilhoit who made the comment that would TOTALLY PLAUSIBLY have come from the Harvard-educated poli sci professor is <checks notes> a different guy who's a composer. Not a super-common name, so that's a weird coincidence.