I seem to be one of the tiny number of people on LW who are conservative but not a “neo-reactionary.” I’m socially conservative in the sense that I think the classical virtues are real virtues—I would like to live in a society that supports the classical virtues in its people.
I don’t fit into ordinary US-conservatism on most levels. I’m very anti-interventionist and I think the US has had a profoundly destructive role in the world since the cold war era began. I’m not against “big government” as long as it isn’t wasteful or overly complex. I’m also a transhumanist, but I don’t really think transhumanism is inherently anti-conservative.
For example, with regard to energy policy, I wouldn’t be opposed to the government establishing a large carbon tax. A large carbon tax would be “big government” in the sense that it would have a large economic effect relative to laissez-faire. But it would be simple and therefore would have little overhead. It would be easy for voters to understand, easy for economists to evaluate, and easy for companies to make decisions about without having to hire extra bureaucrats and lawyers to ensure compliance. Ensuring compliance with complex regulations is a deadweight loss.
I seem to be one of the tiny number of people on LW who are conservative but not a “neo-reactionary.” I’m socially conservative in the sense that I think the classical virtues are real virtues—I would like to live in a society that supports the classical virtues in its people.
I don’t fit into ordinary US-conservatism on most levels. I’m very anti-interventionist and I think the US has had a profoundly destructive role in the world since the cold war era began. I’m not against “big government” as long as it isn’t wasteful or overly complex. I’m also a transhumanist, but I don’t really think transhumanism is inherently anti-conservative.
Does that basically mean Singapore is okay, but the US isn’t? Otherwise what’s your idea of not overly complex big government?
For example, with regard to energy policy, I wouldn’t be opposed to the government establishing a large carbon tax. A large carbon tax would be “big government” in the sense that it would have a large economic effect relative to laissez-faire. But it would be simple and therefore would have little overhead. It would be easy for voters to understand, easy for economists to evaluate, and easy for companies to make decisions about without having to hire extra bureaucrats and lawyers to ensure compliance. Ensuring compliance with complex regulations is a deadweight loss.
I think you underrate the complexity of carbon taxes. Measuring emissions isn’t trivial. Various offsetting schemes can also get complex.
The complexity of emissions taxes is orders of magnitude lower compared to current US legislation.
What do you consider to be the classical virtues? How would a government support them?