One of the reasons I find myself attracted to conservative principles (and sometimes the republican party) is that many of those principles are based in thinking that seeks to understand the limits of understanding, and carries such thinking eventually into policies that allow me economic freedom, educational freedom….and most importantly….time.
I’m no fan of the religious base of the republican party any more than the idealogues of the left. I’m frankly a little scared of all true believers, but often find myself resting upon true belief.
I’m wary of this desire within myself and others. I want to help others but not without practical application nor understanding of where those ideas could lead…which is why I read these thinkers and find them compelling, yet still harbor doubt.
Most of them (Hayek for example) were forged out of the chaotic European 20th century. The Austrian left was crumbling from what I understand, and the right was gathering darkly and millions of lives were lost in the following struggle. But there are also others, and they helped to create a dialogue that continues today. Many of them fled their countries to America, and there was mutual benefit.
To answer your question, I will not, and probably can not solve the problem of poverty. I can recognize it as a problem, doing some good to alleviate it, but I do not spend energy thinking that if I join a group of people, (or worse, a political party) we will eradicate it. I also live in a country where I’m free to doubt whether or not it is a problem in the way you define it. I am also free to join such a group if I should change my mind in the future.
This (and other ideas discussed here) seems important to me, and I hope we can agree to disagree.
See also: The Cambridge Companion To Hayek, Thomas Sowell, even Michael Oakeshott
