[Dubayoo]

There is a form of philosophical conservatism that I think has merit, though it bears little relation to what passes for conservatism today, at least in the US. It is based in a kind of skepticism of the Enlightenment view of reason and its ability to bring about the perfection of humanity. Essentially, the philosophical conservative argues that because no one is fully rational, and because attempts to change society often have unforeseen consequences, we ought to tread carefully when attempting to change the existing order. Many conservatives will talk about the "democracy of the dead." By this, they are referring to the collective wisdom of those who came before us, and their ability to create lasting structures that persist to this day. As such, the philosophical conservative argues against utopian projects that would reorganize society from the top down, disrupting traditional institutions and forms of authority simply because the intellectuals who dream up such utopias fail to see their usefulness. My main objection to this form of conservatism is that their "democracy of the dead" is really more of an aristocracy, preserving those institutions and forms of authority that have traditionally served the ruling class. Yet I do see wisdom in trying to meet society where it's at, and not be overzealous in overturning traditional institutions in the name of some new utopian order. Of course, in today's environment, it's the right wing that are the utopians, overturning long-standing social safety nets and legal and political institutions in the name of some idealistic capitalist project that threatens our very means of survival. Thus, there is little left of the past that we have left to cling to for stability, and it is now an all-out war for society's future.

I'm not really familiar with these right-wing utopians you speak of since conservatives seem to be traditional aristocrats like you describe. The whole point is the conservation of the status quo where we learn from experience about how things are done, and make a mess of any alternate way in order to default right back to where we started. Their appeal to capitalism is that those who were powerful in the past deserve the right to continue holding onto power. They interpret the rule of law in a way that maintains the estates of yore. Language is situationally deconstructed to maintain these estates and those deconstructed interpretations are maintained through the guise of precedent.

This is combined with legal relationships in communities between judges, lawyers, and police via traditional lifestyles that bias the economy towards their familial relationships. Those who seek to practice alternate lifestyles that are still productive are discriminated against for not going along with the flow. They're accused of being utopian for expecting to be treated with respect despite existing in a condition of weakness.

[Dubayoo]

At last, some sense after Dubayoo's adolescent musings!

Mate, if anyone's adolescent, it's academics who go to university for 4 years and graduate in thinking they can change the world. They think they know everything about the working class, but in reality, they don't know a thing. All they know is how to make a mess. They don't know how to come up with an alternate productive lifestyle.

[Nonsense]

The past has been succesfully reframed. No one remembers that Teddy Roosevelt proposed this in 1912:


“Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
Registration of lobbyists
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
Limited the ability of judges to order injunctions to limit labour strikes.
A minimum wage law for women
An eight-hour workday
A federal securities commission
Farm relief
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
An inheritance tax”

It's ironic that this is 'Socialist' policy within the 'old' Labour Party in the U.K more or less.

Theresa MAY 'lost' this recent general election, because she proposed STEALING money from the elderly people unable to defend their own interest, by state confiscation of residential property value & subjecting the care system to 'Means Testing'.

Theresa MAY is a vile, vindictive, despicable typical 'TORY', who doesn't give a monkeys about the effects of their policies on those at the bottom of the pile, or the sick & disabled.
The political 'worm' is slowly turning in the U.K, very soon(hopefully)the 'capitalist' economic cart will no longer be pulling the fat cats around by the proletariat, capitalism will be made to serve the people, not the reverse.