In an earlier thread, /u/ToryPirate had made the observation that the readers of this subreddit are quite the diverse lot in terms of formal partisan politics.

This got me wondering: Readers of this subreddit, which political party do you usually vote for? Are you a member of a political party to try and sway party policies, or do you leave your vote up for grabs come election day? Or have you given up on politics entirely and just want to live in the woods?

Despite this subreddit focusing mainly on Commonwealth politics, I'm very interested to read any responses from our readers from non-Commonwealth countries!

I've started reading through my copy of "Freedom Wears a Crown" by John Farthing (1957, I have the 1985 edition). From what I gather, Farthing tried to lay the philosophical groundwork that the British commonwealth's governing system of King-in-Parliament is the best long-term compromise between the Capitalist and Marxist ways of governing. Unfortunately Farthing died before his work could be completed, but enough work was done for "Freedom Wears a Crown" to be published posthumously.

I quite like how Farthing opens the first chapter, with excerpts from the 4th draft of the British North America Act that named the new Dominion the "Kingdom of Canada". Following that is this letter from Sir John A. MacDonald to Lord Knutsford in 1889:

A great opportunity was lost in 1867, when the Dominion was formed out of the several provinces.... had United Canada been declared to be an auxiliary kingdom, as it was in the Canadian draft of the bill, I feel sure (almost) that the Australian colonies would, ere this, have been applying to be placed in the same ranks as "The Kingdom of Canada".

P.S.

On reading the above over, I see that it will convey the impression that the change of title from Kingdom to Dominion was caused by the Duke of Buckingham. This is not so. It was made at the instance of Lord Derby, then foreign minister, who feared the name would wound the sensibilities of the Yankees.

I'm quite curious if things had have gone Sir John's way, if Australia and New Zealand would have developed something of a Tory touch themselves. Also interesting to learn that MacDonald was interested in the other colonies consolidating themselves. I wish the Canadian public school system would have shown this side of Confederation more -- that our fathers of Confederation were Canadians who were also proud to be British at the exact same time. We were loyal to our Empire, and wanted a strong Empire.

I'm hoping I'll be able to finish the book in a reasonable amount of time and share any conclusions I may have. In the very least, I'm quite interested to see if this book will shed any ideas on furthering the goals of CANZUK. If anyone else has read the book, I'd love to hear your impressions of it!

I'm still working my way through the foreword of my copy of Lament for a Nation (no one can accuse me of being a quick reader). The author seems to argue that George Grant saw nationalism as a stepping stone for learning to love the good (love of self -> love of one's own -> love of the good).

I think its an interesting foil to both nationalists and globalists. It both supports nationalism existing but undercuts nationalists by underlining that they are not supposed to stop at just 'loving one's own'. By giving nationalism a justification for existing it answers the question posed by globalists regarding why one should be proud of one's own nation.

I thought it was a neat take and it will be interesting looking for this argument when I make it to the body of the text.

Should Canada limit how much of a Canadian media company is owned by a foreign entity?

This idea popped up in a recent political subreddit I frequent and I thought it interesting to consider through the lens of toryism. Sure, its definitely not a liberal policy (which incidentally means I doubt either the Liberals or Conservatives will support it) but is it a tory policy?

Tories have repeatedly resorted to protectionism for a variety of reasons. John A. Macdonald being the primary Canadian example. Likewise, the influence of American culture through media was enough of a concern that R.B. Bennett pursued the creation of a public broadcaster (and was also fond of tariffs - at least as a bargaining chip to get other countries to remove their tariffs).

You can argue it is consistent with toryism by looking at some of the different tenets of toryism:

Monarchism - A foreign company, especially one whose members grew up in a republic, can't be trusted to understand nor support the monarchy.

Localism - This is actually an area the general public is in agreement; foreign companies would interfere with local reporting. But more specifically the decisions would be made at a less localized level which toryism does not hold as ideal. Arguably even when Canadian media companies were more Canadian-owned local news still fell by the wayside.

Individual vs common good - The idea that capitalism needs to have some limits placed on it to support the common good is likewise not inconsistent with toryism.

I, of course, welcome debate on the points I've made.

Trying to find information on toryism can be painfully difficult on Youtube because of its association with various Anglosphere Conservative Parties. So I took a moment to try and cut through the muck and find some decent videos on toryism.

Phillip Blond - Red Tory: The future of progressive Conservatism?

https://youtu.be/sxMdwBL0EV4?si=Fe27F0WsVjMqpKU6

Wyatt Graham Episode 53: Ron Dart on High Toryism and Jordan Peterson

https://youtu.be/V6UQFxaFHyE?si=L_wsCGK_ivn7RRfh

Charles Crombie Off the Menu: Episode 301 - Toryism (second half of the video)

https://youtu.be/QdzROLHNq5I?si=OHBJddeeMOKFbhM0&t=3749

Ben Woodfinden on Red Toryism

https://youtu.be/VqvVOT3FNQI?si=oF8MOLo00XpQpKFh

• Throwing this in here because I love the definition of Red Toryism being that it takes the state seriously.

• There is probably a full version of this interview somewheres.

Brett Fawcett An Explanation of Anarcho-Monarchist Distributism

https://youtu.be/CRpOXbZGcdQ?si=Z76EcYPB1ozML5tY

• Not really on toryism per se but I do get glimpses of tory thought underlying some of the arguments.

The Canadian Future Party (CFP) is a splinter off of the Conservative Party. I'm curious whether the party might be a genuine expression of toryism or whether its just a more moderate form of the Conservative Party's economic liberalism. It matters as a liberal centrist party positioned between two other primarily liberal parties is going to have a hard time setting itself apart but if they have even a small tory spark they might produce an interesting alternative to the current offerings. I have added my own thoughts in bold below. Scores are more-or-less my gut reaction.

PERSONAL FREEDOMS

Governments should not be involved in the private lives of adult citizens, except to protect their rights when they are infringed. That's it. This is a pretty standard expression of liberalism in my view - government exists to protect individual rights.

​ Freedom isn’t a slogan, it’s a value we live out every day: when you can talk to who you want, how you want; travel freely and safely; believe in what you want, and have a private life that is not regulated by the state. The right of every citizen to enjoy life free from discrimination is the best path to a society based on the strength of each citizen's character and efforts to grow and prosper. Again its talking about rights as being independent of obligations and veers almost into libertarianism. However, the first sentence rejects abstraction which is a tory trait.

But freedom depends on another value: responsibility. Responsibility not to infringe on the rights and freedoms of others, and the obligation to uphold and protect them. Responsibility to act and speak up in the interests of our communities. Responsibility cannot be separated from freedom, and obligations cannot be separated from rights. We live within an ever-broader national and global network of people; defending Canada’s self-interest requires an engagement with the world, and so the individual and their society need to work together. This is actually closer to what I'd call a tory conception of society. Rights are balanced with the needs of the community. Of note is the statement about national self-interest requiring engagement with the world. This is very different from the American conception of national self-interest which often held isolationism as being in the national interest. I'm reminded of an old joke from The West Wing where a general remarks Republicans want to fund the military and keep it at home while Democrats don't want to fund the military but send it everywheres.

3/5

OPEN GOVERNMENT

A reformed electoral system with directly elected and proportionately-elected at-large MPs representing our provinces and territories. I'm not sure how to view electoral reform through the lens of toryism. Given its focus on local connections I don't think MMP would be the system most in line with toryism but I don't think this is an issue tory thinkers have much addressed.

Public engagement in policy development as a structured part of the legislative process. A lot depends on how this were implemented but the idea that governance should devolve to the most local unit capable of handling it would seem to be consistent with consulting more widely on policy.

Adopt transparency across government, with resources to ensure all public government materials are quickly available online. Tories acknowledge the flawed nature of people. As Osborne once put it “People will always have the knack of doing the wrong thing.” With this in mind it is sensible to rely on others in society to hold officials to account - an interdependence, if you will.

Public service should mean exceptional service. Public interactions with government offices should be positive and quickly delivered.

A national internet strategy to protect privacy and allow citizens control over their digital lives. This is where individual rights butt up against community interest. Similar laws have been used in the EU (Right to be forgotten) so individuals can hide past negative actions. I don't think this is consistent with toryism. If someone does something harmful it is in the community's interest to know, perhaps forever.

An independent office to combat misinformation and disinformation. **I think the tory conception of the good, the true, and the beautiful being inter-related concepts would naturally lead to the support of such an office.

A plan to address the use and misuse of artificial intelligence. Its a bit harder to place this one. Tories have a reputation of being hesitant to chance - with good reason - which would make treading carefully on A.I. completely on brand. But on the other hand this policy might be more concerned with IP infringement which is not overly related.

2/5

RESPONSIBLE SPENDING

Civil service and government reform. Government should focus efforts where evidence shows it can make a positive difference. Evidence-based governance is a bit of a meme these days but fundamentally toryism rejects action based on mere theory so an evidence-based stance is consistent in my view. This is after all why toryism has tended to be more flexible than other modes of thought - it doesn't reject evidence contrary to its ideals.

Where appropriate, let civil society and the private sector take the lead, with applicable government oversight. This is a bit vague to make a ruling on. Certainly, a stronger, revitalized civil society is a tory goal. It does also say private enterprise but notes the government will keep an eye on it. This may reflect a tory suspicion to private enterprise.

Our tax system has become too complex. A new party would deliver, in eighteen months, a simplified tax code that would close loopholes. Provinces and territories would be invited to participate.

​A new party would deliver a report on federal corporate subsidies - including the supply management system - and their impact measured against promised outcomes. If returns on investment cannot be measured, government money should not be spent.

​Government procurement to be overhauled based on private sector best practices. That means military procurement based on national security, not economic development.

​A strategy to ensure our national debt is controlled and then reduced.

4/5

STRONGER TOGETHER: AT HOME

Climate change is real. We need a transition plan including carbon capture, nuclear and renewable energy, the use of democratically sourced fossil fuels, especially Canadian energy, and an incentive-driven program to reduce carbon emissions.

Large emitters must pay, but those costs should not be imposed directly on citizens.

​Respect the Constitution and reduce federal interference in areas of provincial authority. The federal government should ensure laws are followed, and share data on areas where federal money is used. Fully consistent with toryism's view that localities should handle local issues (which is how the constitution set out to divide the powers of government).

​Working with the provinces and territories, negotiate and conclude agreements with First Nations on self-government and resource sharing.

​Create a national civil defence corps to increase resilience in the face of natural disasters, to offer young people an opportunity for service. I'm seeing a couple examples of institution building and preservation in this section. In this case we have a new institution of Canadian society being proposed.

​Reform the RCMP to serve as a domestic intelligence service; community policing should be left to the provinces and territories. And here we have an institution being preserved. There has been calls to do away with the RCMP entirely but instead this policy refocuses to a role its good at while handing policing to the local level which again is consistent with toryism.

​Canada needs millions of new housing units. We need millions of workers. Working with the provinces and territories, housing needs to be built and immigrants directed to the economic and geographic areas where they’re needed most. This is one example where the first section's focus on individual rights starts to look out of place with the rest of the document. Telling immigrants where they have to settle is more a communal good rather than an individual good. It also acknowledges that the free market is perhaps not able to handle this problem on its own.

​The Canada Health Act needs to focus on ensuring access to healthcare. Provinces and territories should decide how healthcare money is spent but must share data on that spending so the country can see what works and what doesn’t. Also, immigrants with health and other critical qualifications must be assessed for work within six months. **Fully consistent with toryism's view that localities should handle local issues. **

​Canada needs to lead in technological innovation and digital transformation, attracting young Canadians and new arrivals through significant government investment in pure science and research and development.

4/5

STRONGER TOGETHER: ABROAD ​ Canada needs a comprehensive foreign policy and defence review that defines our values as a country and the diplomatic and military tools required to make those values come alive.

​Canada should support an alliance of democracies for diplomacy and trade, restrict trade with countries that violate basic democratic norms, and encourage free movement between like- minded countries, starting with Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Note that this and the previous policy both seem to view foreign relations as more than just how to make the most money which is a viewpoint both the Trudeau and Harper governments fell into from time to time. This is also a very oblique reference to CANZUK.

Following the foreign policy and defence review, Canada must increase its military spending to at least the 2% of GDP level agreed to by our NATO partners.

2/5

I'll admit when I first read the interim policy document it seemed to me more an expression of liberalism rather than anything else. However, after going through it section by section I've warmed up to it a bit more.

In perhaps his best known work, "Conservatism, Liberalism, and Socialism in Canada: An Interpretation" (1966), the Canadian political scientist Gad Horowitz compared and contrasted the political ideologies that are present in Canada and the United States. In this paper Horowitz applies "Fragment Theory", which was developed by Louis Hartz to explain how various old world ideologies spread to the new world, and how various colonial/settler societies were impacted by these ideologies.

For the specific interest of this community, this paper by Horowitz is where he coined the term "Red Tory". The following are excerpts from that essay pertaining to Red Toryism:

If it is true that the Canadian Conservatives can be seen from some angles as right-wing liberals, it is also true that figures such as R.B. Bennett, Arthur Meighen, and George Drew cannot be understood simply as Canadian versions of William McKinley, Herbert Hoover, and Robert Taft. Canadian Conservatives have something British about them that American Republicans do not. It is not simply their emphasis on loyalty to the Crown and to the British connection, but a touch of the authentic tory aura -- traditionalism, elitism, the strong state, and so on. The Canadian Conservatives lack the American aura of rugged individualism. Theirs is not the characteristically American conservatism which conserves only liberal values

...

Canadian socialism is un-American in two distinct ways. It is un-American in the sense that it is a significant and legitimate political force in Canada, insignificant and alien in the United States. But Canadian socialism is also un-American in the sense that it does not speak the same language as American socialism. In Canada, socialism is British, non-Marxist, and worldly; in the United States it is German, Marxist, and other-worldly.

...

It is because socialists have a conception of society as more than an agglomeration of competing individuals -- a conception close to the tory view of society as an organic community -- that they find the liberal idea of equality (equality of opportunity) inadequate. Socialists disagree with liberals about the essential meaning of equality because socialists have a tory conception of society.

...

Another aberration which may be worthy of investigation is the Canadian phenomenon of the red tory. At the simplest level, he is a Conservative who prefers the CCF-NDP to the Liberals, or a socialist who prefers the Conservatives to the Liberals, without really knowing why. At a higher level, he is a conscious ideological Conservative with some "odd" socialist notions (W. L. Morton) or a conscious ideological socialist with some "odd" tory notions (Eugene Forsey). The very suggestion that such affinities might exist between Republicans and Socialists in the United States is ludicrous enough to make some kind of a point.

Red toryism is, of course, one of the results of the relationship between toryism and socialism which has already been elucidated. The tory and socialist minds have some crucial assumptions, orientations, and values in common, so that from certain angles they may appear not as enemies, but as two different expressions of the same basic ideological outlook. Thus, at the very highest level, the red tory is a philosopher who combines elements of socialism and toryism so thoroughly in a single integrated Weltanschauung that it is impossible to say that he is a proponent of either one as against the other. Such a red tory is George Grant, who has associations with both the Conservative party and the NDP, and who has recently published a book which defends Diefenbaker, laments the death of "true" British conservatism in Canada, attacks the Liberals as individualists and Americanizers, and defines socialism as a variant of conservatism (each "protects the public good against private freedom").

In his sequel, "The deep culture of Canadian politics" (2017), Horowtiz again uses fragment theory to discuss red toryism in the modern context:

In terms of fragment theory, applying the red tory label to every Conservative who advocates “progressive” policies would be mistaken, because the underlying more or less subliminal ideological themes might very well be exclusively or partly left-liberal. On the other hand, left-liberalism of the Canadian sort is already touched to some extent by its contact with the quasi-socialism of J.S. Mill and T.H. Green and its longstanding antagonistic symbiosis with Canadian socialism. Once again, some conceptual fuzziness must be validated. The first leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, John Bracken, former Progressive Premier of Manitoba, was ideologically speaking solidly left-liberal. Not a red tory, then, but a red liberal Tory.

The term red tory is often applied to the entirety of that wing of the present-day Conservative Party which was once the Progressive Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney. Even Peter MacKay is therefore sometimes dubbed a red tory. Conservatives who disapprove of the “tax and spend” policies of other Conservatives denigrate them with the term red tory, as in this letter to the editor of the National Post by Casey Johanesson of Calgary: “Jim Prentice…the Red Tory premier lying through his teeth, taxes are going up and cuts are minuscule….I haven’t voted for the Alberta P.C.s since they replaced Ralph Klein with red Ed Stelmach.”

An internet search discloses an interesting terminological innovation which will probably not survive as a meme. Steven Lee, a 27-year-old freelance blogger, describes himself as an “Orange Tory”: “Since becoming politically aware I have moved between two political parties, the New Democrats and the Conservatives … Red Tory is a reference to the colour red being associated with socialism but I decided an allusion to Canadian social democracy was more appropriate … My general philosophy … I believe in balanced budgets, fiscal discipline, and … a sturdy welfare state … while I believe that market solutions are often the best, I am highly suspicious of capitalism as a driving mentality and the consequences for the public good. I believe in the traditional structures of Canadian governance, such as the monarchy.”

This is actually an interesting statement, more intelligent than the pronouncements of many pundits, but notice how Mr. Lee’s “general philosophy” weaves somewhat to and fro between the levels of policy and ideology without any suspicion of a difference.

I can’t resist the temptation to contemplate the possibility of a Lemon Tory – very pretty…

The rest of the essay is worth a read, Horowitz also gets into better defining blue toryism and gets into the social democratic philosophy of the modern NDP.

With the launch of the Canadian Future Party imminent do to the new Canadian federal byelections I was wondering if us Canadian Tories can rally behind the Future Party to create a Tory wing of the party and help building the party itself, thus hopefully influencing policy. Not sure how viable this would be but it would be a good way to rebuild traditional Red Toryism in Canadian politics (assuming of course the CFP takes off).

I'd love to hear any thoughts on this? I may be totally off base but it just seems like a good way to rebuild Toryism.

One part of the Canadian political fabric that I've always been fascinated with is the acceptance of traditionalist conservative ideals within the mainstream social democratic movement. The following are excerpts from various sources I've found over the years that I found particularly interesting. If anyone else has any other stories, articles, anecdotes, or comments, please do share!

Roy Romanow (NDP Premier of Saskatchewan 1991-2001) in the foreword to "Eugene Forsey: Canada's Maverick Sage" by Helen Forsey (2012)

From a conservative background, Forsey became one of the founders of social democracy in Canada and a proponent of social reforms, joining the League for Social Reconstruction. This apparent tension also reflects his Newfoundland beginnings.

Many of the values and principles of that place concerning constitutions, government, and public policy reflected those that prevailed in England at the time. The ethos of England was still shaped by the competing views of Disraeli and Gladstone. The latter reflected classic liberalism, faith in the unseen hand of markets, and letting enterprise dictate public policy. Disraeli, on the other hand, urged an alliance between the landed aristocracy and the working class against the increasing power of the merchants and the new industrialists. He promoted the view that landed interests should use their power and privilege to protect the poor from exploitation by the market.

Conditions in Canada were very different from those in England, but Atlantic Tories still had a strong sense that it was the duty of the powerful to protect the poor from exploitation. Eugene Forsey was raised in this environment. The idea of acting for the benefit of the dispossessed has continued to prevail, extending its influences to much of Canada through his voice and the voices of Maritimers such as Robert Stanfield, Allan Blakeney, and Dalton Camp.

Clearly, Eugene Forsey was shaped by these currents of opinion, and continued to uphold them. He became a strong believer in British parliamentary government and its capacity to develop responses to human need and social deprivation. He rejected the idea that the economics of the market should be granted a free hand in determining public policy or limiting the scope of public government.

Allen Mills (who has a Ph.D. in Canadian socialism) describing the political philosophy of CCF'er & historian Kenneth McNaught in the introduction to the 2001 reprint of "A Prophet in Politics: A Biography of J.S. Woodsworth" by Kenneth McNaught pg. xiii (1959/2001)

McNaught saw [Woodsworth] mainly as the embodiment of British traditions present in Canada from the late eighteenth century on: precedent, custom, moderation, and parliamentarianism. McNaught always had a tory strain in his outlook, along with his vaunted socialism. Perhaps he was the proverbial red tory. In The Pelican History of Canada (Toronto, 1969), he reserved his highest praise for Sir John A. Macdonald and his strongest condemnation for the Liberals, especially W.L. Mackenzie King. Woodsworth was to him a sort of radical version of the great nineteenth-century Conservative prime minister. The hidden tory in McNaught suggests that Donald Creighton's influence helped shape his intellectual development as well.

Ed Broadbent (Leader of the federal NDP 1975-1989) from "The Red Tory Tradition" pg. 1 by Ron Dart (1999)

There is, for conservatives of tradition, the importance of continuity and community and nation, of a sense of values based on a shared common past. According to this view, other values, like those of the market economy, are seen to be subordinate to the primacy of the historical common good of all society. This view has been the kind of conservatism invoked by Disraeli in the 19th century when he made a critique of the ravages of industrialism. It was the conservatism of Sir John A. Macdonald who used government power to build a separate Canadian economy because he had a different vision of the future of this part of North America from what existed to the south of us. It is the conservatism that at one time supported the CBC and Air Canada. It was the conservatism of John Diefenbaker who brought in a national hospitalization program in this country because he knew if left to individual action in the market-place we would never have had such a plan.

David Lewis (Leader of the federal NDP 1971-1975) describing the early political philosophy of M.J. Coldwell (Leader of the federal CCF 1942-1960) in his political memoirs "The Good Fight" pg. 89 (1981)

It is interesting to trace Coldwell's political development. As a young student in England he was what we would call today a "red Tory", but, as he explained to me, he was increasingly impressed by the arguments of socialists with whom he often debated. His traditional conservatism melted when he left his middle-class surroundings and confronted the abject poverty in some parts of England. He was a practicing Anglican, deeply influenced by Christian ethics, and, like Woodsworth, he began to question the ethics of capitalism in terms of his religious beliefs. When he settled in western Canada, he was spellbound by the courage and disciplined labours of the homesteaders and their families, felling trees, lugging rocks, clearing land, and mortgaging everything to build their quarter sections into efficient and impressive farms. He shared their worries about the future of farmers so deeply in debt to the banks, mortgage companies, and implement manufacturers. His Canadian experience moved him further away from his earlier acceptance of capitalist morality. It was characteristic of him to develop his socialist position by thoughtful steps rather than by a sudden leap. Thus he joined the Progressives first but could not accept the way in which most of their MPs slid into the more comfortable pews of the Liberal Party. Instead, he associated himself with the farmers and the urban workers. The Great Depression completed his education, and the unprecedented drought which ravaged his province in the same period sharpened his convictions.

Ed Broadbent in his first House of Commons speech, Sep. 1968 ( republished in "The Jacobin", Jan. 2024)

Having indicated substantial agreement with the prime minister on the nature of the welfare state I want now to proceed to suggest why we New Democrats, unlike the prime minister and the Liberal Party, cannot accept it as being an adequate kind of society. Perhaps the major objection to the welfare state is that for all its advantages, it rests on a grossly inadequate understanding of democracy. In Canada today, children are taught in schools throughout the land that our country is democratic primarily because there is more than one political party and because citizens have both the right to criticize and the right to change their rulers every few years.

This view of democracy, Mr. Speaker, is a distinctly modern phenomenon, and is in marked contrast with the understanding of democracy of both the early Greeks and nineteenth-century Europeans. Prior to our century democracy was seen by its defenders and critics alike as a kind of society in which all adults played an active, participatory role not only in the formal institutions of government but also in all the institutions which crucially affected their daily lives. Similarly, a democratic society had been seen previously as one in which all its members had an equal opportunity to develop their capacities and talents; it was not seen as one in which citizens had an equal opportunity to earn more money or advance up the class ladder.

It is this old view of democracy that we must once again take up. We must use its standards and apply them to Canadian society. We must once again talk about equality. We must see justice and equality as going together.

Eugene Forsey in a letter to his good friend Arthur Meighan in 1951 from "Eugene Forsey: Canada's Maverick Sage" pg, 390 by Helen Forsey (2012)

My tragedy, if that's not too strong a word, is that I'm too radical to be a good Conservative and too conservative to be a good radical. I am also too academic to be a good trade unionist, and too good a trade unionist to be a good academic man; too partisan to be independent, and too independent to be a good party man.

From what I can gather toryism has always called for low levels of taxation and modern conservativism certainly does. This can lead some to believe there has been no underlying shift in ideology. I believe there has.

Modern conservative tax policy is primarily fiscal conservative (which has its roots in classical liberalism) and sees low taxes as a means to spur on economic development. Tories wanted low taxation for a different reason. They held that the elite had an obligation to help out the rest of society through their wealth and that they were better positioned to see what needs existed in their local areas than government. High taxes (even when used to fund social programs) both diminished the ability of the elite to fund social improvement and left it to the government to impose a one-size-fits-all solution to social ills.

Given the triumph of liberalism its not exactly clear to me how you would move away from low taxes as an economic argument to low taxes as a social argument as its not clear how to reestablish the old expectations on the elite.

Sorry if this post is a bit of a ramble, I'm trying to turn a rather vague feeling into a coherent post.

Recently, I was informed that the Pirate Party Fund is in pending dissolution. The Pirate Party of Canada itself was dissolved in 2017 and activity within former pirate circles has been moribund ever since. The fund is simply the last legal existence of the party. On an intellectual level I know the party died a while ago but I'm still sad to learn this new bit of info. It was, after all, the first political party I was heavily involved with (before or since).

I suppose I'm looking to discuss how this relates to toryism (or perhaps I just want to eulogize the party a bit). Since the toryism holds that individuals gain meaning from the groups they belong to, I suppose it would be reasonable that tories have more of an emotional attachment to institutions and traditions than others do. Most progressives, I find, are not overly concerned when a tradition dies out or a system is replaced whole-cloth. Why would they? That is what is supposed to happen in their view. The tory meanwhile holds that once something is gone its probably gone for good. Even reviving said institution or tradition is going to be in such a different context that its likely to be a new thing rather than the old thing.

Even if I wanted to take on the task of reviving the Pirate Party of Canada it wouldn't be the same party. I'd argue even if I got most of the old leadership back together it wouldn't be the same party; the people have changed, society has changed, and they have both changed without the party. I have a similar problem seeing the Byzantine Empire after its restoration by the Empire of Nicaea as being wholly the same entity.

But back to the Pirate Party. I would say say I took some meaning from the party (I at least took my username from it). It wasn't the most effective organization and was often lurching from crisis to crisis but everyone knew each other and ideas flowed freely. Compare this to larger parties where no one knows more than a small percentage of the membership and ideas are often contained. In a weird way for a party membership that was scattered across the country it functioned almost like a local organization - like a town square. The major parties have a coherent ideological foundation, the Pirate Party never did. Far left activists routinely rubbed shoulders with liberals, populists, and small-c conservatives. While this made articulating a coherent platform difficult, it did make for interesting discussions.

So in the next little while the last remnant of the Pirate Party of Canada will evaporate into air and I'll probably hold nostalgia for it for a long time.

Like any other political philosophy, adherents of Toryism often break down into different "types". This post aims to provide a quick reference to the differences in Tory thought. I welcome any and all corrections to any misunderstandings I may have on the topic, or for any factual errors I may have made.

High Tory -- This is the original form of Toryism which originally developed in 16th century England. Its adherents defend and stress the importance of traditional ancient institutions such as Monarchy and the State Church, and view the pre-industrial "high" culture of the landed aristocracy to be the pinnacle of civilization. In his book "The North American High Tory Tradition", Ron Dart uses the terms "Red Tory" and "High Tory" almost interchangeably at times.

Red Tory -- This kind of Toryism traditionally has been associated with the trade union and socialist movements. Eugene Forsey is probably the best example of this kind of Toryism, as he was a staunch monarchist, an avid supporter of the trade union movement, was a founding member of both the CCF and the NDP, wanted to preserve Canada's British institutions, and had an inherit disliking of the United Sates because they were on the wrong side of the American Revolution.

Pink Tory -- This kind of Toryism has many similarities with social liberalism: focusing on the promotion of the welfare state and civil rights, the rejection of laissez-faire economics, and for the promotion of the idea that slow incremental change in society is for the best. Robert Stanfield's political philosophy has been associated with Pink Toryism, especially in the 1968 election where he argued for a guaranteed annual income, for the decriminalization of homosexuality, made bilingualism the official Tory position on language & culture, and supported free trade with the United States. To the confusion of many, what an academic might call Pink Toryism is usually referred to today in the media as Red Toryism, due to the colour Red being associated with the social liberal Liberal Party of Canada.

Blue Tory -- This kind of Toryism is focused on liberalizing as much of the economy as possible, as well as focusing on what the government can do to preserve a traditional social order in society. Brian Mulroney is a great example of a Blue Tory, as under his premiership he negotiated free trade between Canada and the United States, attempted to re-criminalization abortion when the mother's life is not at risk, and sold off various unprofitable Crown Corporations.

Green Tory -- This kind of Toryism is most associated with the Green movement and other various environmentally focused organizations. Elizabeth May is perhaps the quintessential Green Tory, as she has dedicated her life to protecting and preserving the environment: from working on Brian Mulroney's Acid Rain legislation as a civil servant to later becoming the leader of the Green Party who was finally able to enter the House of Commons with a caucus of her own. It should be noted that May has stressed the importance of ancient traditions and institutions concerning Parliament, and has shown an interest in becoming an Anglican priest. And as the old saying goes, "Anglicanism is Toryism at prayer".

Given how modern political discourse in the Anglosphere is so often dominated by the "culture wars" these days, I thought it would be worth writing an essay about how Tories have dealt with issues of social justice in their own time. One area in which I have a little bit of knowledge in is how the Province of Nova Scotia systemically mistreated Black Nova Scotians over hundreds of years, and the various attempts to alleviate that mistreatment from those who found themselves in positions of power.

One topic that is central to this story is the institution of slavery in the region, and how that institution died out. The long and short of it: slavery wasn't a large institution in the region until the end of the American Revolution, when the population of the region doubled overnight with an influx of loyalist refugees. Thousands of free and enslaved blacks were included in the evacuation following the war; some were former American slaves given their freedom in exchange for their service to the Crown in the war, others as the property of white loyalists. Nova Scotia never had the southern style "slave society" where a small percentage of the population owned huge numbers of the slaves who worked in agriculture; slavery in colonial Nova Scotia (before and after the American Revolution) mostly mirrored the kind of slavery seen in the northern states. The wealthy would have "house" slaves that worked as full time servants, while those in the middle class would purchase slaves that were skilled in a trade such a carpentry or metalworking to grow their businesses with free labour.

One person that was central to the end of slavery in the province was the conservative loyalist lawyer Sampson Blowers. One notable case Blowers worked on prior to the war was in the Boston Massacre, where he assisted future US President John Adams in defending the soldiers who fired into the crowd. When Blowers arrived in Nova Scotia following the end of the war, he worked with Chief Justice Thomas Strange as Attorney General, where they would both end up "waging a judicial war on slavery". Strange left the province in 1796, after which Blowers became Chief Justice until 1833. As far as I understand it, the legal argument Strange and Blowers developed went something along the lines of "If a slave owner takes a person to court claiming said person as chattel property, the slave owner has to provide documents proving that the previous slave owner had the legal right to own said person as chattel property". Because that was nearly impossible to prove, nearly every runaway slave who appeared before the Supreme Court in Halifax was given their freedom. Local courts weren't as forgiving and would most often put a person back into bondage if a case went to trial there. Never mind in New Brunswick, where when a slave named Nancy tried a similar legal theory as promoted by the Chief Justice of Nova Scotia, the Chief Justice of New Brunswick George Ludlow ruled the opposite, stating "slavery was the common-law of the colonies". It should be unsurprising to note that Ludlow was a slave owner himself.

When pro-slavery MLAs in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly tried to recognize slavery by statute law in the late 1790s and early 1800s, arch-conservative Attorney General Richard Uniacke rallied the legislative majority on three different occasions to defeat said laws to make sure the judiciary could continue their work. In court, Uniacke would boldly claim that slavery didn't exist in the province because not a single law referenced the institution. Interestingly, Uniacke and Blowers hated each other with a burning passion on a personal level, with two separate duel challenges being issued and eventually dropped between the two. Granted, Uniacke did beat a friend/colleague of Blower's to death one time in a drunken fight. Fun times in 1790s Halifax.

Because of the combined abolitionist pressure in both the courts and the legislature, the institution of slavery largely died out in Nova Scotia in the early 1810s, 20 years before Imperial Emancipation. However, despite their relative early freedom in the British Empire, Black Nova Scotians were settled in areas where previous white settlements had failed due to poor quality infertile land. This excerpt from Harvey Whitfield's North to Bondage: Loyalist Slavery in the Maritimes explains the situation well.

During and after the War of 1812, thousands of black refugees were settled on the worst land in Nova Scotia... The local government attempted to ensure that most would not become self-sufficient farmers by assigning them ten-acre plots, regardless of family size or service to the British Crown. The government knew quite well that the settlements of black refugees in Hammons Plains and Preston were to destined to struggle mightily, as previous white settlers had given up on the sterile land. In 1815, one local official bluntly explained why he wanted blacks to settle in Preston: "[They will] serve to improve the Place in general, and afford assistance to us towards repairing the Roads, but likewise furnish us with Laborers of whom we stand in too much need to make tolerable progress on our own improvements." Twenty-six years later, though blaming black people for their use of fuel, the government admitted, "in this severe climate at least 100 acres would be required for each family in order to afford a proper supply of fuel"

To add insult to injury, not only did the Government of Nova Scotia grant Black Nova Scotians the worst land possible so they would have to sell their labour cheap for infrastructure projects, but they didn't even grant Black Nova Scotians proper title to that land. It was perfectly possible for a white settler to essentially squat on a black settler's homestead and take it over.

That problem of not granting proper titles to land grants has been affecting Black Nova Scotians to the present day, with a Black Nova Scotian man having to take the provincial government to court as recently as 2020 in order to get a proper land title to land his family has been living on for generations. The long and short of that story being that the government tried to fix the problem in 1963, but since the government never really updated the framework to get a land title, the courts found it is now over-burdensome, overly-bureaucratic, and expensive by modern standards.

The government that started to fix that land title problem was that of Progressive Conservative Premier Robert Stanfield. However, Stanfield wanted to go one step further and attempt to fix the economic injustice that had been inflicted on Black Nova Scotians for generations. According to his biographer Geoffrey Stevens, Stanfield always got his way in Cabinet meetings one way or another-- the lone exception being at a joint Cabinet meeting with the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities where Stanfield proposed the idea that Black Nova Scotians should also get preferential treatment for welfare and housing policies. As former Stanfield Cabinet Minister Dick Donahoe put it, "[Stanfield] was shot down in flames by a lot of people from the municipalities who said it would be discriminatory". Stanfield truly was ahead of his time, as many Tories of his tradition were.

I found it very interesting that nearly every time I read into the historical leaders of this province who actually gave damn about marginalized communities in terms of actually improving their standard of living, more often than not they were "true believers" of some form of the Tory tradition. Sampson Blowers was such a staunch Massachusetts loyalist in the lead up to the American Revolution that he felt compelled to travel to England for his safety, only to return to North America once the war eventually did break out. Richard Uniacke -- perhaps regretful for his participation in the Eddy Rebellion at Fort Cumberland -- would eventually promote the Anglican Church as an institution of unity against the "revolutionary atheistic republicanism" to the south. While Anglicans would never make up more than 25% of the population in Nova Scotia, to support the state church Uniacke wanted to ensure that only those who could publicly attest to the 39 Articles could get a higher education. This is the same man who not only fought for Black emancipation, but also Catholic emancipation in the province. Robert Stanfield was a very philosophical man, and perhaps the best the Tory tradition had to offer. I think the old tale of Stanfield comparing social assistance to a rainjacket is a great way of explaining his way of thinking: "It's like sending a man into a storm with half a raincoat, and when you're old or blind or disabled, half a raincoat is not enough; partial coverage is not enough".

So what was the point of this essay? I would hope that the next time you the reader see a demagogue verbally attack some marginalized community, try to remember the judicial activism of Sampson Blowers who bent the law because he knew slavery was wrong even though it was perfectly legal; or the legal hyperbole of Richard Uniacke who advocated for basic human dignity on the floor of the Assembly and in Court. We all have our prejudices, but those that made a lasting positive impact on society in the long term more often than not bit their tongue and argued for the common good of all society. Societies change over time, but hopefully for the better.

Sources:

North to Bondage: Loyalist Slavery in the Maritimes by Harvey Whitfield

Slavery and the Judges of Loyalist Nova Scotia by Barry Cahill

The Old Attorney General: A Biography of Richard John Uniacke by Brian Cuthbertson

Black Nova Scotia man ‘overjoyed’ as struggle for land title moves forward by Jillian Kestler-D'Amours for the Canadian Press

Stanfield by Geoffrey Stevens

Robert Stanfield supports guaranteed annual income in 1968, The CBC

Currently, in Canada the base unit of taxation is the individual while the UK and US (from what I've read and some sources differ) has the family as the base unit of taxation. An article from the Financial Post published last year notes that if Canada switched it would simplify the tax code and perhaps be fairer. These problems partially result from benefits being handed out on a per family basis, not an individual one. As a counterpoint the Saskatchewan Law Review came to the conclusion that individual taxation worked better with fewer problems.

There is a certain ideological appeal to me in seeing the family (I will be using 'household' in this post going forward) as the basic unit in society. I acknowledge the problems presented by the Saskatchewan Law Review but from reading it I get the sense that taxes are still being filed separately and, as a thought experiment, I wanted to dig a bit deeper to see if taxing households has some potential as a concept. Obligatory disclaimer that I am not an expert in taxation and I may be wildly wrong on some points.

The main point that both articles note as being in the favour of household taxation is when one spouse earns way more than the other. Under individual taxation a $30,000 to $0 split pays about $1000 more in taxes than one where each makes $15,000. This discrepancy gets worse the more the primary earner makes.

The articles do spend some time on defining what a family is in terms of being a taxation unit. Basically, two parents and any number of under-age dependents. In defining a 'household' I would define it as two parents, any number of underage dependents, up to four elderly dependents, and any number of additional resident earners (more on this last bit later). Each household would have one tax form. This should greatly speed up the processing of taxes as there would be fewer total forms.

Next I would define the level where taxes are owed. Taxes owed would be divided by the number of spouses, dependents and resident tax payers to come out with how much the family owes. Single parent households would be treated as if there were a second parent earning $0 for the purposes of taxation in order to account for the increased cost of being a single parent.

A main concern expressed with family/household taxation is it discourages one spouse (usually the wife) from seeking employment as their taxation level becomes dependent on forces outside their own actions (their partner's income). I think this effect comes from still keeping taxation on an individual basis even as the family is treated as the base economic unit. This in turn is a result, I think, from the government wanting there to be one person responsible if non-payment occurs. Which is a bit silly. If everything is pooled, responsibility to pay the income tax bill should be as well. This is why I argue there should be one bill.

Another concern expressed has to do with certain models that have the income of under-aged individuals counted as well. It is felt this would discourage teenagers from getting jobs. I think their income should be counted but I think under-age dependents should also subtract from the tax burden as well although they would never be held responsible for said taxes. So a husband and wife household would pay more in taxes than a single parent household even if the same amount was earned. Total taxable income divided among two people vs taxable income divided among three people (single-parent + non-existent parent + dependent).

Before I mentioned the idea of a 'resident tax-payer' in the household definition. This would be something like an adult child who is still living at home (or has been forced to move back). They could be added in to further divide the tax responsibility (I think this can be taken a few different directions and I'm still working on it).

So who wins and who loses under this idea?

• low income earner, single = likely no change

• high income earner, single = pays more

• single parent + child = pays less

• low income household (with children) = about the same

• high income household (no children) = pays more

• High income household (multiple dependents) = pays less

I'll admit this idea is still half-formed in my head as I just read about the idea yesterday but I think it could have potential in making taxation match economic realities while simplifying certain aspects of the tax code. As always I welcome your thoughts and discussion.

Readers of this subbreddit, what made you consider yourself a Tory-- or in the very least, what made you interested in learning about and discussing Toryism?

I'm very curious to learn why this ancient philosophy is still taking root in the minds of people in the modern age.

Recently, Canada extended its copyright terms to Life+75 years from Life+50 years. I'm curious what others think a 'tory' policy would look like regarding this.

Background

Modern copyright law began to take shape after the invention of the printing press not as an economic program but a censorship program where only 'right' ideas could be printed. The desire to have the benefits of copyright protection combined with growing support for free speech and a free press resulted in the monopoly aspect of copyright being retained even as the censorship aspect withered away. Originally, copyright terms were very short and often you had to register your copyrighted material to receive one. Neither aspect of copyright holds true today when copyrights are automatic upon creation and lengthy.

Patents developed during the Industrial Revolution as a means of encouraging innovation. But as noted in Against Intellectual Monopoly even in its early days patent law could result in a slowing of innovation as one man's patent blocks the the usefulness of another man's invention. Further, there is little evidence that patents (or copyright) encourage innovation and a growing body of evidence that it hinders innovation.

Toryism & IP Law

So how should a tory approach IP law? One argument I found persuasive in the above link was that people had gone about their business for thousands of years without IP law and did just fine. Even after IP laws were established it has been noted that often emerging industries thrive in a low-enforcement environment only for them to become more strict once major players establish themselves. Examples of this include Hollywood which was partially a result of film makers fleeing to California to avoid patent holders in the early movie industry (using physical distance in a way that isn't really possible today). And again, with the rise of computers you had many early innovations simply not patented either because it was unclear they could or because the companies were too busy competing. On the copyright side of things the author noted that the 9-11 Report (being a US government report it is public domain) had an official edition that was released by a private company. The company paid a lot for early access to what was an essentially free report and made a nice profit from it.

A second point to look at is the balance of the common good vs. the individual good. IP Law is implicitly about the individual good. In America, especially, lobbying for copyright extension doesn't come from community or civic groups but from the copyright holders themselves. You could argue that when copyright was first established as a censorship regime it was about the common good (making sure society was protected from harmful ideas) but its very much not anymore. And when IP terms were short, and definitions narrow, you could argue that individual good and common good were balanced. But now, if a book were published the day you were born you will never see it enter the public domain. This seems to me to be an excessive tipping in favour of individual good. This is especially true when you note that 90% of a copyrighted work's profits occur in the first 15 years after publishing.

IP law, while requiring government enforcement, is very hands off. The government recognizes IP but then gets out of the way with very little in the way of regulation. From a perspective of skepticism towards unfettered capitalism this is very uncomfortable. Are we just trusting the merchant class to behave in a responsible manner? If we are there is very little evidence that they are behaving responsibly. I'm sometimes reminded of the Bible's stance on gleaning (allowing the poor to harvest any leftover wheat from a field). To me this is an early expression of noblesse oblige. If you were to extend this metaphor to IP law in practice its like the landholders gladly shooting anyone who steps foot in their field no matter how little grain is left and no matter how little will the landholder has to collect it. It doesn't matter if its the poor or their own workers (I say this to note that studies have found that digital pirates also tend to be a media's largest legal purchasers as well).

Which brings me to localism (or subsidiarity). IP laws, while national, have increasingly been added to international treaties as a means of forcing one nation's laws on another. This is what happened in Canada where IP extension was an unavoidable cost of negotiating NAFTA II (I'm not using the proper name, you can't make me). This destroyed a Canadian-made consensus on where we wanted our copyright laws to be at. In short, it was a rank violation of local culture and autonomy. Even in a world where this isn't the case and we actually wanted to get rid of IP law we cannot. IP law is baked into the UN Charter and WIPO.

A final point concerns appreciation of (high) culture and classicism. Obviously, all classical works are outside of copyright but often authors look for ways to add them back in. Books with images, or translations, of classical works can be copywritten. Galleries will often have a rules regarding not taking photographs (even without flash) to limit who can appreciate the art. But more broadly, copyright law is a limitation on the spread and natural evolution of cultural works and their appreciation (even if so-called low or popular culture). While toryism upholds traditionalism, it doesn't uphold a static society as the aim. The recent explosion of Mickey Mouse reimaginings speaks to a demand that had been long repressed and which may now enrich our culture in unknown ways - much delayed.

I haven't touched on trademark law primarily because trademarks are about identity rather than content. Its the IP equivent to a name. As long as trademarks aren't being used as a substitute from copyright its fine.

Policy Thoughts

Thinking about the above points I think there are a few things that could be done (and a few things to avoid);

• Don't withdraw from current treaties/organizations that have troublesome IP provisions. That would be a level of disorder that is undesirable. By the same token, don't join ones that make it even worse.

• I think some inspiration can be taken from the rules concerning cover songs where a person can make their own version of a song without the rightsholder's permission provided they pay fees/royalties. Why not extend this to all IP? A person could pay a set (or calculated) fee to the owners to produce a copyrighted or patented work and a royalty on any profits from said work. A government agency would be responsible for determining the fee, collecting it (along with a usage charge), and making sure the rightsholders receive the money. This is especially interesting in the patent sphere as Canada has been trying to increase innovation for years and failing partly because its companies have less access to patents than their competitors.

• Canada's current piracy laws are probably in a good spot currently. Digital piracy is primarily a customer service problem where demand does not line up with services available. Part of the reason the early internet was full of piracy (and when I myself pirated most) was the lack of legal streaming and other options. However, the fracturing of the streaming market is seeing a rise in piracy as users balk at the idea of paying half dozen fees to see all the content they want to. One solution would be the government itself using the program described above to create a single massive streaming site. A digital streaming crown corporation.