Quote Originally Posted by Red_Dave View Post
And heres what I dont get about you. Why is something automatically worth preserving just because its ancient and/or traditional and/or and insitution? Afterall alot of them are at best extreamly silly and at worst offensivly chauvinist.
Several reasons. I mean there is my deep attachment to the traditional culture of my land and region. I don't mind change but I want change that stresses continuity. But sociologically and politically it is because tradition helps to guard against arbitrary power, centralised authority and such. You undermine tradition, you undermine the intermediate associations whose co-ordination it partly grows out of and you leave yourself with isolated individuals and a void where only a centralised organisations like the gov't can take its place to try, usually rather poorly, to co-ordinate what tradition and intermediate associations like kinship once did.

Your question itself suggests this to a degree, it is couched in terms of one individual's reason deciding what ancient tradition and institution is worth preserving and what is not and talking as if the proof is on these institutions rather than those who would knock them down. If you can pass such judgment surely a centralised elected legislature can.

Now you call yourself a libertarian socialist. I'm not quite sure what kind you are, I haven't seen you mention the likes of Kropotkin much so you may not be that kind but still you could gain much by reading the likes of Hayek, Nisbet, Oakeshott and Burke. You don't have to endorse any kind of rightwing traditionalism but they have a lot to say to any libertarian and decentralist. Robert Nisbet has little but priase for Kropotkin and Proudhon.