Discussion about this post

User's avatar
John Quiggin's avatar

There's another generic defence of conservatism, which runs along the following lines. From a given starting point, there are many directions in which we can change things. On plausible ways of counting the great majority of these will be for the worse. And we don't have great foresight.

So, we should stick to changes that are either small enough that it doesn't matter much if they turn out badly, or else easily reversible if they go wrong.

I have a fair bit of sympathy with this view, which seems similar to expressed by Ro,

Expand full comment
Alex Potts's avatar

I think a better version of pure conservatism is Chesterton's fence: don't fiddle with the status quo until you have understood why the status quo exists. Now it may be that a particular existing institution, law or norm was brought about by a corrupt elite looking looking entrench their own privilege; or maybe it's a pointless vestige from a bygone age where it served a genuine purpose. But most of the time it exists for better reasons, than that, there are meaningful losses incurred when you tear it down, and it behoves you to think carefully about the trade-offs.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts