1 thought on “Andrew Lilico: The Establishment and its values is what stands between civilisation and anarchy or oppression”

  1. Many of the problems with this article are in the first paragraph: In a simple society, many alternative ways of making a decision are possible but these seemingly reduce as societies grow. Oddly enough a member of the oligarchy (I think Lilico is a member of the Court, but he may be a Monk) asserts that the only feasible way to run the country is by maintaining the existing monopoly on power held by the Establishment. There may be many alternatives but, surprise surprise, the Establishment is not in any hurry to allocate resources to finding any.

    A small minority appointed to specialise in understanding all the key issues about the country and make the decsions sounds like a good working definition of oppression to me. Since the last time I looked the future was uncertain, and the specialists do not seem particularly gifted in this regard either, “your (oligarchic) guess is better than mine” seems a pretty flimsy basis on which to perpetuate an elite.

    Of course, by conquest, union, edict, coercive law and any other historical device, we find ourselves in a large, complex society, determined by previous oligarchies. Living in small, largely self determined communities (a working definition of anarchy?) is not an option that the Establishment would countenance. So, I would suggest “The Establishment and its oppressive values is what stands in the way of civilisation and anarchy.”

    Reply ↓

Leave a comment