| no, Chesterton's fence is just good strategy. radicalism is when people disregard that. the difference is where one looks for these fences, where one notices them, how much time one spends on understanding their reason for being, and how one responds after gaining that understanding. populism is loudly proclaiming that there are easy ways to get rid od the fence, and making "everyone" happy. chauvinist nationalism is blaming outsiders for the need for the fence, keeping it up, and claiming that our fence is the best, of course. fascism is palingenetic ultranationalism, claiming that our ancestors had the best fences, and we are destined for similar greatness, and the way to that greatness is whatever fences our great leader comes up with, because our great leader understands ancestral fences the best. ... now, what is conservativism? it's very similar to these, it's basically the claim that we need to respect the fences first and foremost and not understanding them. and the claim/belief that fences cannot be really removed anyway, so one should try to live and respect them, and eventually through this process one will also gain the understanding for their reason of being. liberalism is to allow people to put up their own fences, and get rid of the old big ancestral ones. neoliberalism is to set up markets where people can buy/sell ask/bid for fence rights. contemporary rationalism is to set up prediction markets, recruit superforecasters to participate, and then put the fences where they maximize the global fairness & happiness prediction market. |