Baroness Thatcher has died

I'm not going nowhere. Challenge me.

Well, you're taking Glenda Jackson, whose every utterance has been scripted by someone else, against Margaret Thatcher, the most significant twentieth century leader Britain has produced bar Churchill.

The key to understanding Thatcher is that she was a scientist so she didn't feed us any of the Emotional Quotient crap all politicians favour today. She was all about the numbers. She set out her manifesto in 1975, long before she became PM.

Quote :

A man’s right to work as he will; to spend what he earns; to own property; to have the State as servant and not as master; these are the British inheritance.

They are the essence of a free economy. And on that freedom all our other freedoms depend.

Has an entire political philosophy ever been expressed so simply before?

And as for the utilities being sold off, well, private enterprise built them in the first place.

The London Underground? Built by private enterprise.

The canals?

The railways?

The national grid?

All private enterprise.

British history is a very long list of private innovation and state theft. It's gone on for so long that now most people think the state built the utilities and that private enterprise stole them. It's the exact opposite.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Mentioned the spiritual bankruptcy of most of Thatcher's policies,

Spiritual bankruptcy? If you want a spiritual leader I do believe that's where the Queen comes in, yes?

Fascinating character assessments of Thatcher by people who knew her:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-i-knew#david-owen

The consensus seems to be that she had great determination, no interest in social issues, but a highly strategic view of Britain's place in the world and how that might be changed. Not necessarily a flattering portrait, but I daresay an accurate one.

Most assuredly Britain. Britain above all and everything. Fail that, send a gunboat.

James Baker's judgement of her is fascinatingly reductionist:

Quote :

The job of government, Margaret Thatcher well understood, is simply to preserve the security and freedom of all its people, so they can run their own ... lives.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Mentioned the spiritual bankruptcy of most of Thatcher's policies,

Spiritual bankruptcy? If you want a spiritual leader I do believe that's where the Queen comes in, yes?

Thatcher was an Anglican and formerly a Methodist, but I can't say either showed up much in her policies, or on the Sermon on the Mound.

This isn't about Emotional IQ or any of that contemporary workplace bollocks. Just age old Christian teaching.

The Mound speech is interesting:

Quote :

We must recognise that modern society is infinitely more complex than that of Biblical times and of course new occasions teach new duties. In our generation, the only way we can ensure that no-one is left without sustenence, help or opportunity, is to have laws to provide for health and education, pensions for the elderly, succour for the sick and disabled.

But intervention by the State must never become so great that it effectively removes personal responsibility. The same applies to taxation; for while you and I would work extremely hard whatever the circumstances, there are undoubtedly some who would not unless the incentive was there. And we need their efforts too.

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107246

I don't for a second doubt that she tried to reconcile her faith with classical liberalism - serving both Christ and Adam Smith - into one coherent ideology. I think don't think it was all that successful or internally consistent.

Could be. As I said earlier, I think Thatcher saw the larger picture, but wasn't particularly interested in the 'local difficulties' her actions caused along the way.

Which was unfortunate if you were part of that 'collateral damage'.

Largo's Shark wrote:

I don't for a second doubt that she tried to reconcile her faith with classical liberalism - serving both Christ and Adam Smith - into one coherent ideology. I think don't think it was all that successful or internally consistent.

I dont think its possible for them to be consistent, and I am certainly not looking for age old Christian values in my leaders nor would I want to. Christ teaches how to be the best, least troublesome, keep-your-head-down slave you can be -- certainly not easily reconciled with any philosophy based on unfettered personal liberty.

Quote :

Christ teaches how to be the best, least troublesome, keep-your-head-down slave you can be -- certainly not easily reconciled with any philosophy based on unfettered personal liberty.

Christ teaches us how we all bound to each other and that no man is an island. Only a objectivist "guns to the head" cynic would compare that to slavery.

The New Testament is a philosophy for how to survive as a conquered race without rocking the boat too much. You are taught the value of obedience, taught to value all others before yourself, taught to value those who injure you most of all. Don't resist, don't think, obey. For the servile, the weak, the poor, these all shall recieve the greatest bounty in heaven. If PMs should be following the morality of the Sermon on the Mount, Chamberlain is the greatest leader Britain ever had.

And if you're gonna have a naked lady as your pic, Sharky, can she at least have some meat on her bones?

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Christ teaches how to be the best, least troublesome, keep-your-head-down slave you can be -- certainly not easily reconciled with any philosophy based on unfettered personal liberty.

This seems to me to be a quite curious remark, considering that Jesus was the guy who beat people out of the temple with a whip and was later sentenced to death for being a rabble-rouser.

Harmsway wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Christ teaches how to be the best, least troublesome, keep-your-head-down slave you can be -- certainly not easily reconciled with any philosophy based on unfettered personal liberty.

This seems to me to be a quite curious remark, considering that Jesus was the guy who beat people out of the temple with a whip.

It's not a phenomenally consistent book. I was mostly addressing the ethics of the Sermon. But by and large it is curious that as a Messiah text for first century Jews, the New Testament is remarkably pro-Roman. The Messiah was supposed to drive out the Romans and restore the Kingdom of Israel and instead we have a text that does all it can to absolve the Romans of the crucifixion, explains how important it is to obey your masters and love your enemies, makes poverty and meekness high virtues, and largely only demonizes those Jews in positions of power. The Jews who aren't poor and suffering are the bad guys - remember that the Romans didnt want to kill Jesus, it was maneuvered by the High Priests and the mob, ie. Jews afraid of losing power and Jews who spoke their minds. "It's okay to be a conquered, beaten people, because suffering is the highest good and will bring you glory after death," is the message. If I were a Roman at the time I would be glad this Jesus guy came around to teach these values so the Jews would stop rebelling and take being subjects of Rome lying down like they should.

Of course, that's the idea. When starting a new religion, make sure it's designed to work within existing power structures. Render unto Caesar and all that. And designing it to disparage the currently most prevalent religion in the region isn't a bad idea either.

Your analysis of the New Testament is rather hard to track with, considering that the New Testament is a body of writings, each with its own unique circumstance of origin, and was not primarily a "Messiah text for first century Jews." The language of the majority of the New Testament was, after all, Greek.

And, for what it's worth, there's a fair amount of anti-Roman Empire stuff in the New Testament.

Harmsway wrote:

This seems to me to be a quite curious remark, considering that Jesus was the guy who beat people out of the temple with a whip and was later sentenced to death for being a rabble-rouser.

Actually, there's no evidence that he gave any of the traffickers in the temple a whoop-ass. There was mention of him fashioning a makeship whip but not actually hitting any of them. But a terror from God, it is evident, fell upon them.

Largo's Shark wrote:

I don't for a second doubt that she tried to reconcile her faith with classical liberalism - serving both Christ and Adam Smith - into one coherent ideology. I think don't think it was all that successful or internally consistent.

The problem is--and I think this is what Sykes is getting at, albeit from a very hostile POV--is that Christianity does not expressly offer a robust political ideology. The New Testament almost wholly presupposes minority status for the followers of Jesus. So getting from one to the other is pretty difficult.

I don't know much about Thatcher, admittedly, so I'm woefully ill-equipped to judge her as a person or judge her political policies. But if the "Sermon on the Mound"--which I just read for the first time--is any indication of how she formulated her beliefs and its relationship to politics, it seems to me that it stumbles in much the same way that American conservatism so often has. Neither the Old nor New Testaments are, strictly speaking, very individualistic.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Actually, there's no evidence that he gave any of the traffickers in the temple a whoop-ass.

The gospels tell us Jesus drove the money-changers out with a whip. Sure, there's no express mention of Jesus actually hitting anyone with it, but the implication is there. These are guys with great sums of money. They're not just gonna run away from their dough!

If he didn't hit anyone, which seems to me preposterously unlikely, he was still miming the behavior as if he was going to. He's threatening folks with the prospect of physical violence.

Harmsway wrote:

Your analysis of the New Testament is rather hard to track with, considering that the New Testament is a body of writings, each with its own unique circumstance of origin, and was not primarily a "Messiah text for first century Jews." The language of the majority of the New Testament was, after all, Greek.

Yes, because Greek was the language of literacy for 1st century Jews. It was the lingua franca of the area for those who were educated. The audience for the New Testament isn't Romans, and it's not Greeks either. It's written by people living in the province of Judea, for people living in the province of Judea. After all, it's not following up on Roman myth, is it? Jesus isn't another son of Zeus after all. He's not Apollonius of Tyana.

It's a text that utilizes the Jewish traditions of the coming of the Messiah, mixing it with other older messianic traditions like Osiris, and says "hey guys, guess what? He already came. While you weren't looking. No need to keep waiting. No need to keep revolting. Because your reward will not be on Earth, but in Heaven. How do you get to heaven? Well, I'm Saul *ahem* I mean, Paul, and allow me to tell you more..."

The canonical New Testament was completed between 40-80 AD, the vast majority of it written mostly likely by Paul.

But this is all way off topic -- my main point was that a Thatcher who followed the ethics of Christ would have freely given the Falkland Islands to Argentina and then followed up by offering them Scotland, too. We might have gotten a little mixed up harms, in that I was agreeing with Sharky Thatcher DIDN'T follow the Sermon ethics, but whereas Sharky saw that as a Bad Thing, I was saying it was a good thing, and then proceeded to launch into my critique, which then you proceeded to critque.

What I was getting at is that I generally don't consider "follows traditional Christian values" to be an important qualifier for a politcal leader (Sharky obviously thinks differently, but again I ask -- isn't the spiritual leader of Britain supposed to be the Queen anyway?). My other point was that generally Libertarian ethics and Christian ethics aren't compatible. I mean, Pride is a virtue in one and a sin in the other. There's nothing in the New Testament that praises individual liberty or thought, either. It's about obedience to God. Not quite to such an extant as القرآن but it's there.

Quote :

Sharky obviously thinks differently, but again I ask -- isn't the spiritual leader of Britain supposed to be the Queen anyway?

The Queen is virtually powerless. Besides, I'm a Republican. Democracy is a disaster.

Mrs Aural Sects wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

This seems to me to be a quite curious remark, considering that Jesus was the guy who beat people out of the temple with a whip and was later sentenced to death for being a rabble-rouser.

Actually, there's no evidence that he gave any of the traffickers in the temple a whoop-ass. There was mention of him fashioning a makeship whip but not actually hitting any of them. But a terror from God, it is evident, fell upon them.

If we want to get really asinine about it, we can say that actually there's no evidene that he did, y'know, anything at all.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

But this is all way off topic -- my main point was that a Thatcher who followed the ethics of Christ would have freely given the Falkland Islands to Argentina and then followed up by offering them Scotland, too

That is an absurd statement.

Aren't you the one who is always saying you make absured, OTT statements to drive your points home in a dramatic fashion?

I was basing that one on Matthew 5:39-47. Y'know, if someone takes your coat, give him your cloak as well? If someone strikes you, offer no resistance but in fact allow them to strike you again? Love your enemies? That whole bit.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

But this is all way off topic -- my main point was that a Thatcher who followed the ethics of Christ would have freely given the Falkland Islands to Argentina and then followed up by offering them Scotland, too

That is an absurd statement.

Aren't you the one who is always saying you make absured, OTT statements to drive your points home in a dramatic fashion?

That was Old Sharky™

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

It's written by people living in the province of Judea, for people living in the province of Judea.

The epistles--as well as the book of Acts--challenge this rather simplistic notion of the New Testament's audience and the makeup of the apostolic church.

But you're right, we are far off-topic. And I wholly agree with you that Libertarian ethics and Christian ethics are not particularly compatible.