It has occured to me that none exists!!!
Liberalism tends to be grounded in certain philosophies, for example, the relativist, the idealist, the empiriclist, which leads to more pragmatic philosophies, the libertarian, the pacifist, whereas it seems that conservatism only begins at best in this respect, and even there I find it to be more dubius... the greater disposition towards war and vigilantism being one of them.
On the other hand, one element of conservatism in that absense of such a philosophy is a more pragmatic approach in each situation. For example, given a potential war that is in nation A's interest, the conservative in nation A may decide to support it on the ground that it benefits him and nation A. The cetacean liberal may not, because she has a relativist, pacifist ideology that means she may consider nation B, seeing things in a wider context.
In that respect, there are merits to both, for example, a pragmatic approach, such as pro-capitalism and libertarianism (traditionally bastions of conservatism (right wing economics that is), though lib. is a liberal concept ). In that sense, I would adopt the conservative approach in dealing with ones own society and interests, whereas when dealing with others, liberalism, as the context gets bigger. A limit to that (almost utilitarian) conservatism is obviously required to keep one subjective from imposing on another, like a war or a breach of liberty. Mill Limit!!!
Discuss, dont troll (at least when I'm not around).
Liberalism tends to be grounded in certain philosophies, for example, the relativist, the idealist, the empiriclist, which leads to more pragmatic philosophies, the libertarian, the pacifist, whereas it seems that conservatism only begins at best in this respect, and even there I find it to be more dubius... the greater disposition towards war and vigilantism being one of them.
On the other hand, one element of conservatism in that absense of such a philosophy is a more pragmatic approach in each situation. For example, given a potential war that is in nation A's interest, the conservative in nation A may decide to support it on the ground that it benefits him and nation A. The cetacean liberal may not, because she has a relativist, pacifist ideology that means she may consider nation B, seeing things in a wider context.
In that respect, there are merits to both, for example, a pragmatic approach, such as pro-capitalism and libertarianism (traditionally bastions of conservatism (right wing economics that is), though lib. is a liberal concept ). In that sense, I would adopt the conservative approach in dealing with ones own society and interests, whereas when dealing with others, liberalism, as the context gets bigger. A limit to that (almost utilitarian) conservatism is obviously required to keep one subjective from imposing on another, like a war or a breach of liberty. Mill Limit!!!
Discuss, dont troll (at least when I'm not around).
Comment