Those of use who adhere to what is known as conservative/ traditional moral values (more precisely Judeo-Christian values) we need a new word(s) for this. Firstly the implicit conotation given in the word conservative, in any context, is that we want to retain the status quo and we are thus all reactionaries. This obviously though not what we want- farmers can go out of business as well as the villiage store. What we really want however is that society has varies institutions- eg. church and family- and common, immutable, moral values (principles), beyond non-aggression, which can form the bedrock for a dynamic society; thus satisfying the human wants of familiarity and the continual striving for improvment. We stand between the cultural leftists who want all things to be open to change and the reactionary conservatives who want everything to remain the same.
I propose then we need a new word. The best i can come up with at present is foundational dynamism which doesn't role off the tongue.
Any ideas?
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Conservatism is about nobility. Try that word.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Classical Conservatism, if that isn't already taken?
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict: Classical Conservatism, if that isn't already taken?
But it still has the word conservative in it and calling it classical makes it even more kind of reactionary.
I mis-read your original post; quite right that I was off the mark.What about dynamist*? Although, this was already used by Virgina Postrel to describe "a forward-looking and change-seeking philosophy which generally favors unregulated organization through "spontaneous order"., in contrast with "stasis": "a philosophy favoring top-down control and regulation and a desire to maintain the present state of affairs." I don't think that's entirley what you propose though...*[from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Postrel]Perhaps natural dynamist or natural dynamism?
Nitroadict:I mis-read your original post; quite right that I was off the mark.What about dynamist*? Although, this was already used by Virgina Postrel to describe "a forward-looking and change-seeking philosophy which generally favors unregulated organization through "spontaneous order"., in contrast with "stasis": "a philosophy favoring top-down control and regulation and a desire to maintain the present state of affairs." I don't think that's entirley what you propose though...*[from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Postrel]Perhaps natural dynamist or natural dynamism?
Natural Dynamism is winning at the moment. It has the immutable aspects along with the forward looking aspects.
Nitroadict: I mis-read your original post; quite right that I was off the mark.What about dynamist*? Although, this was already used by Virgina Postrel to describe "a forward-looking and change-seeking philosophy which generally favors unregulated organization through "spontaneous order"., in contrast with "stasis": "a philosophy favoring top-down control and regulation and a desire to maintain the present state of affairs." I don't think that's entirley what you propose though...*[from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Postrel]Perhaps natural dynamist or natural dynamism?
It would seem to me that this idea is more in line with the "cultural left" or "progressive" view of history, since a dynamic outlook would have to deal with the modification and even the eventual phasing out of traditions.
Brainpolice:It would seem to me that this idea is more in line with the "cultural left" or "progressive" view of history, since a dynamic outlook would have to deal with the modification and even the eventual phasing out of traditions.
The latter is true but the immutable principles the change is based on is retained by the word natural IMO.
Btw are you disagreeing with my OP about what the cultural conservative agenda, as held by libertarians, actually is? Since your response seems to imply that nothing can really change with a culturally conservative outlook.
Physiocrat: Brainpolice: It would seem to me that this idea is more in line with the "cultural left" or "progressive" view of history, since a dynamic outlook would have to deal with the modification and even the eventual phasing out of traditions. The latter is true but the immutable principles the change is based on is retained by the word natural IMO. Btw are you disagreeing with my OP about what the cultural conservative agenda, as held by libertarians, actually is? Since your response seems to imply that nothing can really change with a culturally conservative outlook.
Brainpolice: It would seem to me that this idea is more in line with the "cultural left" or "progressive" view of history, since a dynamic outlook would have to deal with the modification and even the eventual phasing out of traditions.
I guess it depends on what you really mean by cultural conservative. It could mean stasis but the other posts seem to indicate that this isn't exactly what you're advocating. It could mean a regression back to past traditions, but I have a problem with that because I don't see that as possible in my understanding of how society works. I do think that some of the things that "cultural conservative" libertarians may wish to grasp onto (or return to) might eventually be phased out in a free society. But I'm thinking long-term. I tend to hold something of a social evolutionist view. Since, no offense intended, I see things such as a high regaurd for the family and church to be archiac notions rooted in an earlier evolutionary necessity, that they are remnants tied over from an earlier period, I think that as society evolves these things will start to become more obsolete.
Brainpolice: I guess it depends on what you really mean by cultural conservative. It could mean stasis but the other posts seem to indicate that this isn't exactly what you're advocating. It could mean a regression back to past traditions, but I have a problem with that because I don't see that as possible in my understanding of how society works. I do think that some of the things that "cultural conservative" libertarians may wish to grasp onto (or return to) might eventually be phased out in a free society. But I'm thinking long-term. I tend to hold something of a social evolutionist view. Since, no offense intended, I see things such as a high regaurd for the family and church to be archiac notions rooted in an earlier evolutionary necessity, that they are remnants tied over from an earlier period, I think that as society evolves these things will start to become more obsolete.
It would take me a while to elucidate my vision for society- it would make a good future article so I'll add it to the things to do list- although my main, immutable, principles would be Judeo-Christian morality, the church, family, country (in the sense of a definable group of free associating people in a geographical area with whom we share a common identity), elitism (inegalitarianism) and respect for natural authorities. Everything else is open to change.
How about "structuralist"? As a sociological term it's quite compatible with libertarianism, and it would be so much fun combining it with other hyphenated terms.
I'm now a free market anarcho-structuralist. Heh heh heh.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I think structuralism has already been taken: [see: http://www.answers.com/topic/structuralism ]"In general terms, the doctrine that the structure of a system or organization is more important than the individual behaviour of its members. Structural inquiry has deep roots in Western thought and can be traced back to the work of Plato and Aristotle. Modern structuralism as a diverse movement-***-epistemology began with the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913). In social and political theory, structuralism refers to the attempt to apply methods influenced by structural linguistics to social and political phenomena. Its distinctive methodological claim is that the individual units of any system have meaning only in terms of their relations to each other. Saussure, who did not use the term ‘structure’, preferring ‘system’, saw language as a system of signs to be analysed synchronically, that is, studied as a self-sufficient system at one point in time (rather than in historical development). The French social anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss introduced Saussure's epistemology to social science, arguing that analysts should develop models to reveal the underlying structural mechanisms which order the surface phenomena of social life. Lévi-Strauss uncovered the ‘unconscious psychical structures’ which, he thought, underlay all human institutions. Within political science and international studies, structuralism has had an important influence. This is particularly evident in structuralist Marxism and in critical realist philosophies of social science which often claim that Marx's theory of exploitation is an example of an underlying causal mechanism at work in society."I'm not sure so about the parts concerning linguistics, but "...structure of a system or organization is more important than the individual behaviour of its members" seems to have a pro-establishment flavor, which I'd imagine wouldn't be good if you didn't desire stasis.