Is there a coherent right-wing philosophical framework?

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I'm trying to identify whether there exists a coherent right-wing philosophical framework in the strict sense. By that I mean a system with clearly stated principles that can be applied consistently to real-world cases involving conflict, not something that's just a set of preferences, traditions, or policy positions.
I'm aware that "right wing" can mean different things depending on who you ask, so feel free to clarify what you mean by it if needed, but I'm mainly interested in whether it can be expressed as a structured, internally consistent framework that yields determinate outcomes in such cases.

If you think such a framework exists, I'd appreciate it if you could outline it in terms of
- its core principles
- how those core principles resolve conflicts between individuals or groups
- whether those resolutions apply universally or, if context-dependent, what determines that dependence.
I'm particularly interested in frameworks that remain internally consistent when applied not just to typical scenarios, but also edge cases.

There's a good chance I'm currently simply not aware of the strongest versions of these ideas, so I'm interested in seeing what people consider the most coherent candidates.

 

[Rapesputin]

I haven't read Rand in years but I recall that's what she set out to develop

 

[analrapist]

I gave you a counterexample that contradicts that.

You gave nothing of the sort and I called you on it but keep jerking yourself off over something that will never exist, because it's a contradiction in terms, retard.

I haven't read Rand in years but I recall that's what she set out to develop

A lot of people have "tried" but it takes both the meta-ethics and the casuistry working in tandem and no one has ever made either in singular that is persuasive enough to validate the full pair.

OP is too retarded to even grasp this so all he does is flail retardedly, praying for a retard whisperer to turn his garbage idea into something coherent magically.

 

[Harvey Danger]

What you said jumps back and forth between two different claims.

You asked

whether there exists a coherent right-wing philosophical framework in the strict sense

The answer is "Yes, many, but a right-wing movement doesn't need one".

If you're asking for The One True Right Wing Framework, there can't be one, because there's hundreds of different wings and movements across the world. There's a dozen within the US alone. Multiply that by historical movements in previous time periods and you'd get thousands.

"protect the status quo" is a mere posture, not a framework.

Well, yes, because left/right is definitionally a posture, not a framework. The right is inherently for the more conservative, status quo, traditional solutions, and the left is for change, reform, and revolutionary positions. It's not a very useful label without the directional posture.

which at least gestures toward a framework. But then it's the same question: what determines the outcome when those two come into conflict?

If you ask the Buckley New Right, they would say the American tradition is liberty. It's not a conflict to uphold that tradition or even expand on it. The simultaneously existing social/institutional traditions were not in conflict, they represented an answer to the necessary question of "how far do you take liberty". The reformers of the 1960s trying to destroy those traditions were for radical change; that plus their desire for new institutions, is what defined them as leftists.

But that's just one framework's answer. Every other right-wing movement will have some answer too, whether through posture or ideology. You aren't going to get a universal framework out of the many movements out there. You can try building one, but then you're just creating n+1 movements.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to ask now.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

The question was not whether a right-wing movement "needs" a framework, it was whether there exists a coherent right-wing philosophical framework in the sense I laid out in the OP.
So if your answer is "yes", then the relevant step is to state one.
Retreating to "left/right is a posture, not a framework" doesn't really change that, I have already been permissive about the label in the OP.
The only actual candidate you seem to give is Buckleyite fusionism, and even there the key step is still missing.

they would say the American tradition is liberty. It's not a conflict to uphold that tradition or even expand on it.

That's just asserting that liberty and tradition are aligned in the relevant cases. It does not tell us what decides the issue when a liberty-claim cuts against an inherited social or institutional norm.
If the framework is "liberty plus traditionalism", then the question is still the same: when those point in different directions, which governs, and by what rule?