miércoles, 21 de diciembre de 2005
¿Por qué no soy conservador?
LIBERAL
¿Hay una palabra más bonita? liberal viene de libertad y hace alusión a las personas que aman y estan a favor de la libertad y la libertad amigos es el mayor don que el ser humano tiene. El libre albedrío es lo que nos distingue de los micos.
Por eso me jode que si bien nadie tiene la potestad exclusiva sobre la palabra, en España algunos de los conservadores y reaccionarios más rancios y caducos, de esos que echan pestuzo a naftalina, se han apropiado de ella, la han secuestrado. Esta especie de liberales de pacotilla, los que dan el mal nombre a la palabra los encuentras en páginas como www.libertaddigital.com y www.redliberal.com, al lado de gente que si que le da lustre al término. Por contra páginas como www.liberalismo.com son infinitamente mejores y dignifican la palabra a la vez que hacen una gran labor de difusión.
Esa es mi opinión personal, pero por ejmplo donde se ponga un tío como Carlos Rodríguez Braun que se quiten Fedeguicos y Don Cesares.
En España el siglo XIX estubo marcado por las luchas entre liberales y conservadores, los primeros ilustrados y los segundos retrogrados. Ahora que la figura del cura trabucaire vuelve armado esta vez con micrófono radiofónico, esta bien leer este artículo de Hayek uno de los padres del liberalismo moderno, donde explica porqué él no es un conservador.
Algunos extractos:
"This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead.
But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about.
This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces."
Friedrich no está tan potente como Salma pero escribe mejor.
"Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules.
Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people."
"What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them."
"It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal."
"While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others."
"At any rate, the advantages of democracy as a method of peaceful change and of political education seem to be so great compared with those of any other system that I can have no sympathy with the antidemocratic strain of conservatism. It is not who governs but what government is entitled to do that seems to me the essential problem."
"Though the liberal certainly does not regard all change as progress, he does regard the advance of knowledge as one of the chief aims of human effort and expects from it the gradual solution of such problems and difficulties as we can hope to solve. Without preferring the new merely because it is new, the liberal is aware that it is of the essence of human achievement that it produces something new; and he is prepared to come to terms with new knowledge, whether he likes its immediate effects or not."
¿Hay una palabra más bonita? liberal viene de libertad y hace alusión a las personas que aman y estan a favor de la libertad y la libertad amigos es el mayor don que el ser humano tiene. El libre albedrío es lo que nos distingue de los micos.
Por eso me jode que si bien nadie tiene la potestad exclusiva sobre la palabra, en España algunos de los conservadores y reaccionarios más rancios y caducos, de esos que echan pestuzo a naftalina, se han apropiado de ella, la han secuestrado. Esta especie de liberales de pacotilla, los que dan el mal nombre a la palabra los encuentras en páginas como www.libertaddigital.com y www.redliberal.com, al lado de gente que si que le da lustre al término. Por contra páginas como www.liberalismo.com son infinitamente mejores y dignifican la palabra a la vez que hacen una gran labor de difusión.
Esa es mi opinión personal, pero por ejmplo donde se ponga un tío como Carlos Rodríguez Braun que se quiten Fedeguicos y Don Cesares.
En España el siglo XIX estubo marcado por las luchas entre liberales y conservadores, los primeros ilustrados y los segundos retrogrados. Ahora que la figura del cura trabucaire vuelve armado esta vez con micrófono radiofónico, esta bien leer este artículo de Hayek uno de los padres del liberalismo moderno, donde explica porqué él no es un conservador.
Algunos extractos:
"This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead.
But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about.
This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces."
...........................
Friedrich no está tan potente como Salma pero escribe mejor.
"Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules.
Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people."
....................................
"What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them."
...............................
"It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal."
............................
"While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others."
..................................
"At any rate, the advantages of democracy as a method of peaceful change and of political education seem to be so great compared with those of any other system that I can have no sympathy with the antidemocratic strain of conservatism. It is not who governs but what government is entitled to do that seems to me the essential problem."
...........................
"Though the liberal certainly does not regard all change as progress, he does regard the advance of knowledge as one of the chief aims of human effort and expects from it the gradual solution of such problems and difficulties as we can hope to solve. Without preferring the new merely because it is new, the liberal is aware that it is of the essence of human achievement that it produces something new; and he is prepared to come to terms with new knowledge, whether he likes its immediate effects or not."
