The philosopher Hayek did not want to be conservative. He was for freedom. It is perhaps KD also bu

The economist Dan Nordling comment on this tax policy, public expenditure, social philosophy, current domestic politics, economics, social psychology and moral philosophy. - Content Specification
The philosopher Hayek did not want to be conservative. He was for freedom. It is perhaps KD also but the group FFFF still want more conservatism and freedom. In today's SvD 28/1 is a major article in the news entitled "Requirements for more conservatism". It is about the Christian Democrat group FFFF (freedom, family, diligence, enterprise) who want to go right and make the KD more conservatively. It is a successful attempt to set the agenda with the help of the media. But what is conservatism? Even liberal conservative philosophers have selected distance toward conservatism. In a notorious afterword ginza musik to work The Constitution of Liberty (The Constitution of Liberty, 1959) explains Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992, Economy Prize 1974) under the title "Why I am not a conservative" how he perceives conservatism and why he as a conservative political philosopher and opponents of constructivist ideas still can not see themselves as conservative. He finds that liberals and change averse often end up on the same side by socialist thrusts. This was apparently naturally when socialism accounted for much clearer restrictions on their freedom today. Hayek points out that "true conservatism is a legitimate ... and certainly ginza musik widespread attitude towards drastic changes". This is what is now called structural conservatism. Hayek's critique of conservatism lies mainly in the abstract and theoretical level. He does not see the need for a "brake" as the primary. The main question is not how fast or how far we should move us "but where to go." The liberal differs much more from the kollektivistiske radical than conservative. Disappointed socialists have easy to be conservative, he believes. But some merit has yet conservative thinkers ginza musik such as Coleridge, Bonald, De Maistre, ginza musik Justus Möser and Donoso Cortes, whom he regards as reactionary. They all showed an understanding of spontaneous institutions "language, law, morality and generally accepted practices that anticipated modern scientific methods". However, lacks the conservative courage to welcome the same spontaneous changes which gives man new gear. Here's a distrust of the new as such. Conservatism suffers from two weaknesses, says Hayek. One is the weakness of authority and the other the lack of understanding of the economic forces. They distrust the theories and general principles and do not understand the foundation of freedom policy. Order emerges as a result of "sustained attention from the authorities." They need to do what the circumstances require and not be bound by strict ginza musik rules. Someone social theory has conservatism been unable to produce. The view of the authorities' absolute authority is difficult to reconcile with the preservation ginza musik of freedom, says Hayek writes: ginza musik "In general, one can say that the conservative does not mind coercion or arbitrary powers as long as they are used for what he regards as the right purposes ". He adds that "as socialist, he considers himself entitled to impose on others their own values." The typical conservative have very strong moral convictions. But he has no political principles ginza musik which make it possible to work with people whose moral values differ from his own. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different values, which makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of violence, says Hayek. On Hayek's time was also a conservative critique of democracy conceptual foundation that was regarded as evil. He opposes this and says that "the greatest evil is an absolute state power". No one is authorized to exercise unlimited power. Democracy's powers would be even more intolerable in the hands of a small elite, according to Hayek. He does not understand ginza musik why one should not "be able to learn to limit the scope of a majority rule". Finally, the Hayek personally feel the most negative of conservatism is the propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because ginza musik you dislike the consequences of this knowledge seems to get - its obscurantism. He exemplifies the theory of evolution. However, he stresses that both liberals and conservatives share "a distrust ginza musik of reason." We do not know all the answers. But liberal is another way basically a skeptic and therefore ginza musik tolerant of what others seek happiness in their own way. So it is a conservatism of rather dogmatic kind Hayek disagree. And still he points not many concrete expression of how the overly conservative society would look like. Much of what Hayek represents coincide in my opinion with the moderate ginza musik conservatives of modern types also argue ideologically overall