Nowadays many self-proclaimed "Austrian" scholars in C(h)i(n)a sometimes emphasize that we must revere "our tradition" in order to build a liberal society, otherwise we would commit the mistakes that Co-mm-u-ni$-m has committed: the fatal conceit of "reason". The "revere" here means to abide by the traditional customs and ethical codes. They say that this is the key of Hayek¡¯s theory and further more, every "genuine liberalist theories".
Some lib*era_list literature have been translated into C~h~ine~$e, including Hayek's Con-stit-ut-ion of Liberty, The Fatal Conceit, The Road to Se-rf-dom, Bruno Leoni's L_ib_erty and Law, Bastiat's Economic Harmonies, Mises's Free and Prosperous Commonwealth (having been prohibited. In C*h*i*n*a, some thing that was once le-gal would become il-le-gal later.). I think what these books tell is that we cannot deliberately change the social mores on the basis of some manmade blueprints. (Such as planned economy and the annulment of money, which is based on Marx's historical materialism.) I don't think this is "revere", because they don't condemn the spontaneous change of the society. If we must revere tradition, any change (spontaneous or not) on that should be condemned, and we must try whatever to rescue it from "degeneration". I think this is not the road to freedom but the road to Saudi Arabia or Taliban.
My misgiving lies in the three points
1* C~h~ine~$e culture is the culture of de-spo-tism. When C~h~ine~$e people followed (or revered) this kind of culture unconditionally, they only trapped into an endless misery. How could a culture of de_spo=tism give birth to fre-ed-om without changing itself? Nowadays many websites are talking about the new Iraqi Co~nsti~tu~tion, which claims Sharia should be the source of the h_um_an ri_g_hts. The same question applies to this too.
2* How do we balance the fixedness and fluidity? If we must revere traditional mores, how does a society accept the changes on the mores? Let them alone or reject them to some degree? If we choose to let these changes take place, How much power do the conservatives have to impose their favored traditions on the society and how much power do the enlighteners have to impose their new ideals on the society? Or do these two opposite parties have the equal rights and chances to advocate their irreconcilable ideology? If a person act in a different way than the "standard" moral codes but she/he does never initiate any force against anyone, should we build a society of tolerance in which no one would consciously discriminate them because of their harmless "non-standard" action?
3* Several months ago, some conservative intellectuals intended to launch the "reading classics movement", which would compel school students to read those curios like Analects of Confucius, Dao De Jing, etc. But the present situation is that most C~h~ine~$e people don't know exactly what these curios said. If we must "revere" something, would it be proper to revere the status quo rather than the defunct ancient spirituality? Does the act of equipping people with the now defunct ancient spirituality deliberately constitute a kind of social engineering, which violates the thought of Hayek?
Hope someone can dismiss my confusion.
| 
