One thing Liberalism has worked against for an awfully long time is status by birth. That one should be born to a position, like Royalty or the Aristocracy. Instead Liberalism believes in people being self made. That you should occupy a position in society because you earned it, not because of an "accident of birth".
However, what exactly is an "accident of birth"?
The more I think about it the more bizarre the phrase becomes. Does it mean that anyone could have become the Prince of Wales for example? The phrase implies that there is an enormous waiting room where all those waiting to be born are waiting for instructions. And that it is entirely random, or in other words an accident, that you have the parents that you have. But of course it is not an accident at all.
Every child came about because one man and one women made them, and no other combination will work. The fact that a child has it's own father as it's father is not an accident, anymore then the fact that it's mother is it's mother is an accident. There can be no other outcome. In other words there is no such thing as an accident of birth.
Prince Charles is the Prince of Wales because he was born to his own parents. Maybe he has always wanted to be a Kalahari bushman, unfortunately for him, he didn't have the right parents for that. Instead his inheritance is something quite different, in fact it's not simply his inheritance, it's his birthright!
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?
Immigration and Forced Consent
This is 100% spot on.ReplyDelete
The idea that human souls are randomly allocated to different bodies is central to most modern leftist thought.
It is true that you couln't have been born someone else, making the "What if you were born a Japanese" thought experiment pointless. But it is also true that you didn't choose your parents.ReplyDelete
I think that is beside the point. The question is, SHOULD someone be granted a position in society, or over others, because of birth? That is, is there an entitlement to that position because you are son of, or daughter of, someone else.
I don't think such a system can work today. It would imply that someone has rights over my, purely by virtue of birth, which I simply can't accept. It also continues the implication that we are subjects that belong to, or have loyalty to, institutions or dynasties, which I think is dangerous and is part of the reason the West is undermining itself.
Large industrial societies can't be run on the whim of someone who is appointed to a position of power by lineage. If they were perhaps trained from birth to rule, then yes, but how do you train them? What if there are people who are better decision makes, but because of their birth, can't become aristrocrats? Talent is then wasted. Imagine if the USA adopted this, and the next leaders were Chelsea Clinton or Jeb Bush? Witness companies where someone sets its up successfully, its passed to the sons and then their sons, and they ruin it.
I do believe in an aristocracy, but aristocracy means rule by the best, and being descended from someone doesn't make you the best or most suitable.
This post have nothing to do with Aristocracy. I simply used Prince Charles as an example because everyone would know who I was talking about.
But I did answer your questions in a new post: