Wilhoit’s Law and Privilegism

Wilhoit’s Law and Privilegism

 

  

Frank Wilhoit proposed this Law:

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

 

There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages.

 

Wilhoit’s Law is concise, precise, and exact. It predicts that conservatism is a misnomer, as it does not conserve, except to protect the in-group and bind the out-group. It also predicts that conservatives will be baffled by accusations of hypocrisy, as their destructiveness is consistent with their core proposition. It even predicts that they will use the misnomer ‘conservative’ to describe themselves.

But if ‘conservatism’ is a misnomer, then what should be its true name? I propose ‘Privilegism’. Note that ‘privilege’ = ‘private law’ = law bought and paid for.

Other names apply; elitism, tribalism, aristocracy. Privilegism has the virtue of stating where the privilege comes from: purchased law.

Wilhoit calls out the megapages of pseudophilosophical justification. These can be summarized simply; that the in-group is Superior, and hence deserves unbound protection, whereas the out-group is Inferior, hence deserves unprotecting bondage. But this leads to a logical objection, namely:

Why would the superior need protection? If they're superior, then they can protect themselves! Being outnumbered is irrelevant. And why bind the inferior? Their own inferiority binds them!

The logical answer is that the superior protect themselves by means of buying the law. Hence privilege, i.e. private law. But this leads to another problem:

Privilege destroys character.

Call that Kavanaugh’s Law. Being protected but unbound protects and unbinds the inferior traits of the superior. Conversely, unprotected bondage is inherently character-building. It forces the cultural evolution of the inferior to superiority. Therefore the circulation of aristocracies.