^ +1

There maybe the odd fellow here or there that believe that all our ills are due to a corrupt society but they are in the minority.

Ox brought up the name of Rousseau aptly, in that he did most definitely have a point of view which was akin to the statement from the original post. As to what bearing that has on this belief, perhaps The Cruelest could share what his thoughts are on that.

I am not inclined to say much on Rousseau given that my knowledge of him is rather thin. I have not read any of his books or essays. However the following quote is said to be emblematic:

...[N]othing is so gentle as man in his primitive state, when placed by nature at an equal distance from the stupidity of brutes and the fatal enlightenment of civil man.

It seems to be, that there is a romantic line of thought, which gives nature and what is spoken of as being natural a priority. Rousseau and others who may well have been ignorant of him, I am thinking here of Thoreau - who I have read, have had an influence on opinions to this day. That influence though is not confined to the left or the right, or to any single political party. So it seems to me.

In an essay on Rousseau the author states:

The perspective of many of today's environmentalists can be traced back to Rousseau who believed that the more men deviated from the state of nature, the worse off they would be. Espousing the belief that all degenerates in men's hands, Rousseau taught that men would be free, wise, and good in the state of nature and that instinct and emotion, when not distorted by the unnatural limitations of civilization, are nature's voices and instructions to the good life.

^ Are you thinking of this famous saying of Hobbes, where he speaks of man in the absence of what he called political community?:

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

The condition described, which must apply to a man who is wholly isolated from community and knowledge, is ghastly.

You cannot assume the political system is that black and white.

The role of the Conservatives or in any society has usually been to impede in the way of economic/political equality. Anything that is contrary to the norm, they will seek to delay it for as long as they possible can, then water it down and twist it, even adopt it as their role changes. In Britain, once the Welfare state formed, nitpicking at it because the Conservative job. Look at the lovely works of Austerity. Also the, Conservatives job is to manipulate any ideology in so far they can defend their paymasters. Look at how Margaret Thatcher, the Milk Snatcher adopted neo-liberalism, Gladstonian Liberal ideas as a Conservative ideology.
Much of the 'left' continues to fight for or defend for their economic gains made under welfare state during the past century. Its a debate that increasingly relies on name calling rather than debating.

This is a broad overview but there are recurring patterns that can be found in many countries. Correct me if I am wrong.

Where the great divide lies, is social changes. While its theoretically possible to be 'left' on economics and centrist or 'right' on social values, what you attach move importance to can change your political leanings. The debate over where anyone draws the line is pointless. In the age of internet where everyone has a voice and where much of the world CAN hold an opinion, expecting a uniform opinion is a pipe dream.

At best, we are seeing Mill's 'Harm Principle' in action at its peak. Can society tolerate all these changes that are directly not 'harming' anyone yet offend many sensibilities, religious views or socio-cultural norms. Can the change be interpreted as 'harming' the social fabric and by extension the person ? I'm inclined to argue 'leftists' think the answer is no while Conservatives argue yes.

Edited 11/26/2017 12:19:55

sane person passing through