This is a fundamental disagreement because each strand disagrees with each other
and fundamentally if they disagree on the nature of inequality as well as whether it
should be tackled, this entirely shapes their view of society and the state’s role in
different ways. It thus fragments the movement on a number of grounds, as a largely
disparate idea.
2. Disagree on the state’s role in handling property. Should the paternal role get
to handle property or not? Conservatives stress the importance of property for a
number of reasons: it acts as incentive to work, it facilitates traditionalism as
inheritance of property becomes norm, it also creates societal respect for social order
and a controlling state- because it is in their interests in order to preserve and benefit
from their property. HOWEVER they disagree on whether property is the state’s to
control, or whether it is individuals’ own.
TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVES: This strand believes that property had been
earned and passed down over generations and therefore did not belong simply to
whoever owned it at the time, and thus it needed to be conserved and protected by
professional management in the state. Moreover they believed that without state
protection of property, there would be mass conflict in society, fighting over property,
due to the brutish, selfish and competitive human nature of individuals. The state
therefore needed to be there to prevent conflict and also preserve tradition. This is
why Harold Macmillan said that privatisation was like ‘passing off the family’s silver’.
NEW RIGHT CONSERVATIVES: (neoliberal) Neoliberals believed that property had
been earned by individuals and therefore should be kept by individuals and without
the incentives of being to keep one’s wealth, human nature would drive them away
selfishly from what didn’t benefit them and the economic structure would falter. This
facilitates what Nozick labelled as the Nightwatchman state in which it would have no
role in handling property, that it was down to individuals to protect it and they
ultimately therefore supported privatisation. As seen with Thatcher’s policies through
the 1980s.
This is a fundamental disagreement because these views are opposing entirely, and
it makes the previous agreement void on agreeing that capitalism should exist when
they cannot agree on the basic terms of facilitating capitalism. It also sets up for
further disagreements on the extent to which the state should play a role- if they
cannot agree what this role is.
3. Who gets the right to be paternal, who should make up the state specifically.
(aristocratic v non-aristocratic) Who occupies the paternal role.
TRADITIONAL CONSERVATISM: Traditional conservatives will argue that the upper
classes and nobles would be best in controlling the state because they are more
logical, educated and were practically ‘born and trained’ to do so. This roots from
their idea that human nature created an inevitable and justifiable hierarchy, and those
at the top who were best suited to rule those below. This, despite the disparities in
demographics of any society. Burke believed power was heredity and came to those
who were ‘born to rule’. Authoritarianism/ natural aristocracy.
ONE NATION CONSERVATISM: One nation conservatives would argue that the
governing state must be representative of all and equally does not have to be
composed entirely of noblemen and autocrats, as this would encourage anarchy and
be undemocratic. Benjamin Disraeli declared that the state had to be inclusive and
not autocratic.
and fundamentally if they disagree on the nature of inequality as well as whether it
should be tackled, this entirely shapes their view of society and the state’s role in
different ways. It thus fragments the movement on a number of grounds, as a largely
disparate idea.
2. Disagree on the state’s role in handling property. Should the paternal role get
to handle property or not? Conservatives stress the importance of property for a
number of reasons: it acts as incentive to work, it facilitates traditionalism as
inheritance of property becomes norm, it also creates societal respect for social order
and a controlling state- because it is in their interests in order to preserve and benefit
from their property. HOWEVER they disagree on whether property is the state’s to
control, or whether it is individuals’ own.
TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVES: This strand believes that property had been
earned and passed down over generations and therefore did not belong simply to
whoever owned it at the time, and thus it needed to be conserved and protected by
professional management in the state. Moreover they believed that without state
protection of property, there would be mass conflict in society, fighting over property,
due to the brutish, selfish and competitive human nature of individuals. The state
therefore needed to be there to prevent conflict and also preserve tradition. This is
why Harold Macmillan said that privatisation was like ‘passing off the family’s silver’.
NEW RIGHT CONSERVATIVES: (neoliberal) Neoliberals believed that property had
been earned by individuals and therefore should be kept by individuals and without
the incentives of being to keep one’s wealth, human nature would drive them away
selfishly from what didn’t benefit them and the economic structure would falter. This
facilitates what Nozick labelled as the Nightwatchman state in which it would have no
role in handling property, that it was down to individuals to protect it and they
ultimately therefore supported privatisation. As seen with Thatcher’s policies through
the 1980s.
This is a fundamental disagreement because these views are opposing entirely, and
it makes the previous agreement void on agreeing that capitalism should exist when
they cannot agree on the basic terms of facilitating capitalism. It also sets up for
further disagreements on the extent to which the state should play a role- if they
cannot agree what this role is.
3. Who gets the right to be paternal, who should make up the state specifically.
(aristocratic v non-aristocratic) Who occupies the paternal role.
TRADITIONAL CONSERVATISM: Traditional conservatives will argue that the upper
classes and nobles would be best in controlling the state because they are more
logical, educated and were practically ‘born and trained’ to do so. This roots from
their idea that human nature created an inevitable and justifiable hierarchy, and those
at the top who were best suited to rule those below. This, despite the disparities in
demographics of any society. Burke believed power was heredity and came to those
who were ‘born to rule’. Authoritarianism/ natural aristocracy.
ONE NATION CONSERVATISM: One nation conservatives would argue that the
governing state must be representative of all and equally does not have to be
composed entirely of noblemen and autocrats, as this would encourage anarchy and
be undemocratic. Benjamin Disraeli declared that the state had to be inclusive and
not autocratic.
