One implication of your argument (and thank you for the clarification of the real issues) is that leaving the ECHR and bringing its principles into UK law will be utterly pointless if the judicial activism you spotlight is also brought back. As I think is already the case to some extent within the UK. Seizing that nettle is the real challenge.
Well put together once again, David. Your analysis aligns well with my observations regarding the underlying metaphysic that gives rise to this sort of statist risk aversion. I mean to indicate our cultural notion that life the universe and everything is all a big accident in which suffering has no place or purpose. And so it becomes the moral obligation of such a society to minimise if not eliminate all forms of suffering.
Enjoying these critiques very much, as an antidote to the usually gloomy 'post-liberal' thinkers who freight their arguments with emotional appeals.
I'd like to find some writing on the 'will to power' that seems to drive so much of this and the political reasoning missionary zeal of those who lead the apparatus.
Alternatively, I've been considering the "will to incorporation"... that is, to locking in gains and closing them off, which is something that happens even on the cellular level (biologically speaking). Essentially, the reason for my coinage is that religion is not itself the problem any more than science is. The trouble lies in the desire to cordon off practices and put them in the hands of experts. This will to incorporation includes the notion that all of humanity ought to belong to one body. For religion it's the temple or temples (think divination in Classical Greece and Rome, but also obviously the body of Christ). For science it's the lab and the institutions that dispense science: CERN, MIT, Nobel, various health agencies, etc. The bottom line issue then is the institutionalisation and bureaucratisation of fields of practice.
One implication of your argument (and thank you for the clarification of the real issues) is that leaving the ECHR and bringing its principles into UK law will be utterly pointless if the judicial activism you spotlight is also brought back. As I think is already the case to some extent within the UK. Seizing that nettle is the real challenge.
Well put together once again, David. Your analysis aligns well with my observations regarding the underlying metaphysic that gives rise to this sort of statist risk aversion. I mean to indicate our cultural notion that life the universe and everything is all a big accident in which suffering has no place or purpose. And so it becomes the moral obligation of such a society to minimise if not eliminate all forms of suffering.
Enjoying these critiques very much, as an antidote to the usually gloomy 'post-liberal' thinkers who freight their arguments with emotional appeals.
I'd like to find some writing on the 'will to power' that seems to drive so much of this and the political reasoning missionary zeal of those who lead the apparatus.
Alternatively, I've been considering the "will to incorporation"... that is, to locking in gains and closing them off, which is something that happens even on the cellular level (biologically speaking). Essentially, the reason for my coinage is that religion is not itself the problem any more than science is. The trouble lies in the desire to cordon off practices and put them in the hands of experts. This will to incorporation includes the notion that all of humanity ought to belong to one body. For religion it's the temple or temples (think divination in Classical Greece and Rome, but also obviously the body of Christ). For science it's the lab and the institutions that dispense science: CERN, MIT, Nobel, various health agencies, etc. The bottom line issue then is the institutionalisation and bureaucratisation of fields of practice.