For those of you just joining us, Your Humble Blogger is going through a list of aspects of Conservatism to see where I agree and where I do not. So far I'm up to
7. The consequent desirability of diffusing and balancing power-social, economic, cultural, and especially political.
Consequent to the fallibility and potential tyranny of majority rule, that is.
I'm not sure that I disagree with this at all, although I suspect I mean something quite different than Mr. Rossiter does. I do believe that it's a bad idea for too much economic, social, cultural or political power to get into the hands of a small group, so diffusing it and balancing it seems like a good thing. On the other hand, if, as seems to usually be the case, we diffuse and balance our public powers, but not the private powers of individual, then the powers get concentrated in the hands of a few.
An example of this, by the way, is the concentration of cultural power into the hands of a few broadcasting and publishing companies. If the government mandated it, it would be appalling; since the government is letting it happen, it is viewed as OK. I do see the difference, and I think a government mandate would be worse, but that doesn't mean that the deregulated marketplace way isn't also bad.
Thank you,
-Vardibidian.