How is it that traditionalists conclude that capitalism is the best economic means to prosperity? Their philosophical foundation is hollow in that regard. They just seemed to agree apon it arbitrarily.
For us we have the foundational framework of praxeology, NAP, and a clearer definition of property. This ties all of our beleifs into a network of ideas and concepts. Each related to the next.
Conservatives however seemed to have agreed to capitalism arbitrarily. As a result, I guess, some of their other beliefs seem to be in conflict with capitalism.
Well they pride themselves on not being an ideology so it is impossible to pinn them down to a T. But from what I gather to them the prosperity of the US is down to certain inherent Anglo-Saxon features from which what we would call capitalism stems more or less naturaly. So the road to prosperity is interpreted more in terms of Westernization (embracing your inner Anglo-Saxon) than it is explained by capitalism. It is a fairly amusing narrative to hear it told. Apparently honoring contracts is an inherently Anglo-Saxon thing and that the shaking of hands was as good as a written contract was crucial to the US economic success story. In short they arrive to it via mysticism.
There is no contradiction. They are conservative, as one of my favorite songs puts it they “believe in yesterday”. The United States was once far more free market, they are pro (more) free market. Just as with many liberals they do not inherintly support any single economic school, they merley support the general argument for more free markets as they understand the general economic arguments but none of the real specifics.
Because it would seem under that premise that conservatives around the globe would espouse various economic models. Perhaps they do? It seems like there would be more socialist conservatives.
Also do they ever question their premise? Do they just assume something is correct simply because it ‘was’ in employed practically at one point in time or another?
Oh, they do, a conservative in China is a hardcore communist. But in most european contries they are more free market because of the old style classical liberalism which has morphed into some odd leviathan.
There are two types of conservative, those who do just assume that their parents or the past was better, and those who join through principles.
Also as for slavery they are selective in their conservatism.
I think conservatism as a philosophy is hesitant to accept change. This may or may not be a bad thing in my opinion, depending on the context. I think the reason conservatives are not quick to embrace change is because they do not want society thrown into chaos by any new radical transformations of existing institutions. I think the conservative is much more cautious about change in order to ensure relative societal stability. That’s how I’ve always seen it anyway. I don’t think conservatives are opposed to change per se, but they are cautious in how that change is implemented. Not sure if that helps or if it was explained well, but there are my 2 cents.
Capitalism is a radical idea and we have never essentially had it so I do see your point in questioning whether conservatism can actually propound capitalist theory since it isn’t really a tradition.
Capitalism has made a lot of people (and their families) very rich in this country and so I think conservatives want to maintain the system that helped make them. Although, my family got rich through industry and trade but has steadily become more and more liberal. But it’s a Jewish family and that seems to be the trend. Which is odd.
While the Industrial Revolution was a ‘productive’ era, we still had the state. You know that could actually be a good point. Conservatives want something like the Industrial revolution, productivity yet nightwatchman state.
Indeed, the founding fathers supported capitalism, and so must they. They’re not interested in justifying their positions, rather, they’ll appeal to Reagan as some kind of divine authority. This is why they’re utterly incapable of defending capitalism when challenged by the “liberals” and “progressives.” And it’s also why the liberal’s ignore libertarians, and focus on Hannity/Limbaugh.