"Change for its own sake" is of course something quite stupid, isn't it ? I mean, the only situation where it could be sensible is when the situation is totally hopeless. I mean: do you regularly open up your computer just to randomly unsolder some components and put them somewhere else on the motherboard, just for the sake of changing ?Smurf said:Not so, conservatism is defined as an ideology that is in opposition to change and categorized by the rejection of "change for it's own sake".
Yes, so that's not applicable to me. I don't have nostalgia for a certain past. I don't find the world now just fine. But I only guess there are "better" worlds, only I KNOW that there are a lot of worse worlds. So just some random change for the sake of it would probably just get us to something worse.Conservatives are never in opposition to 'all change' as they all favor a certain status quo from a place in the past, some even go so far as to utopize a past 'golden age' (in this respect anarcho-primitivists can be likened to conservatism).
I'd say that all those NOT subscribing to such a view are fools (unless the situation is totally hopeless). So I think this cannot be called conservatism ; because it would mean that progressists are foolsI think that your politico-economic views are quite aptly categorized by conservatism. You don't want change unless you know that it is good change.