The concern about modern bureaucracy is not simply that its power is potentially limitless. The power of the authoritative institutions in any society is potentially unlimited in some sense, since there's nothing external to restrain them and it's always possible to extend existing practices, redefine the nature of situations and acts etc. in such a way as to justify anything, especially over time. The concern is that by their size, activity and pervasiveness modern state bureaucracies disrupt normal social functioning. If there's not much bureaucracy then the way things happen has to reflect habits, attitudes, understandings, arrangements etc. people develop in everyday life that establish themselves and get passed down. At least that's true if force and fraud are generally suppressed. If there's lots of bureaucracy then the way things happen reflects more the needs of the bureaucracy itself and the formal determinations of professionals in accordance with the standards that appeal to them. If things are done the non-bureaucratic way they're likely to reflect a lot more knowledge and experience and correspond much more to what people mostly want than if they're done the bureaucratic way. Also, the former way of doing things gives a broader range of people more of a role in making social life what it is, which is a good thing.
It seems, by the way, that if you're worried about the potentially unlimited power of social institutions then it makes sense to place the authority to make final determinations of matters of ultimate principle in the hands of a person or small body that doesn't control significant physical force, maintains mutual independence with regard to other centers of power, disciplines its functionaries and radically limits their involvement in the general affairs of the world (e.g., forbids them to marry), and bases its power on the claim — which can be rationally discussed — that all it's doing is applying principles it didn't invent but received from a higher authority and has no power to change. That kind of arrangement won't prevent all abuses, since that wouldn't be possible, but it does prevent totalitarianism since it means that no political authority can maintain itself as a self-contained moral world.
On good and bad developments of tradition: obviously tradition can't be a wholly self-contained standard. If it were then it couldn't tell us anything, since the state of a tradition is simply the beliefs, attitudes, habits, practices etc. of a society, whatever those things happen to be. The point of talking about "traditionalism" is that tradition is essential to knowledge and the realization of all personal and social goods, so it's essential that the beliefs, attitudes, habits, practices etc. of a society enable tradition to function properly. Among other things that requires stable functional small scale institutions and connections like family, neighborhood, etc. Hence, among other things, "family values."
Bureaucracy, tradition, Church
The concern about modern bureaucracy is not simply that its power is potentially limitless. The power of the authoritative institutions in any society is potentially unlimited in some sense, since there's nothing external to restrain them and it's always possible to extend existing practices, redefine the nature of situations and acts etc. in such a way as to justify anything, especially over time. The concern is that by their size, activity and pervasiveness modern state bureaucracies disrupt normal social functioning. If there's not much bureaucracy then the way things happen has to reflect habits, attitudes, understandings, arrangements etc. people develop in everyday life that establish themselves and get passed down. At least that's true if force and fraud are generally suppressed. If there's lots of bureaucracy then the way things happen reflects more the needs of the bureaucracy itself and the formal determinations of professionals in accordance with the standards that appeal to them. If things are done the non-bureaucratic way they're likely to reflect a lot more knowledge and experience and correspond much more to what people mostly want than if they're done the bureaucratic way. Also, the former way of doing things gives a broader range of people more of a role in making social life what it is, which is a good thing.
It seems, by the way, that if you're worried about the potentially unlimited power of social institutions then it makes sense to place the authority to make final determinations of matters of ultimate principle in the hands of a person or small body that doesn't control significant physical force, maintains mutual independence with regard to other centers of power, disciplines its functionaries and radically limits their involvement in the general affairs of the world (e.g., forbids them to marry), and bases its power on the claim — which can be rationally discussed — that all it's doing is applying principles it didn't invent but received from a higher authority and has no power to change. That kind of arrangement won't prevent all abuses, since that wouldn't be possible, but it does prevent totalitarianism since it means that no political authority can maintain itself as a self-contained moral world.
On good and bad developments of tradition: obviously tradition can't be a wholly self-contained standard. If it were then it couldn't tell us anything, since the state of a tradition is simply the beliefs, attitudes, habits, practices etc. of a society, whatever those things happen to be. The point of talking about "traditionalism" is that tradition is essential to knowledge and the realization of all personal and social goods, so it's essential that the beliefs, attitudes, habits, practices etc. of a society enable tradition to function properly. Among other things that requires stable functional small scale institutions and connections like family, neighborhood, etc. Hence, among other things, "family values."
Rem tene, verba sequentur.
Rem tene, verba sequentur.