In a recent private exchange, I was once again trying to articulate the philosophical difference between conservatives and (classical) liberals. This is very difficult when talking to a classical liberal, because their argumentative predisposition is that anything short of classical liberalism admits the whole of tyranny and absolutism behind it, whether it intends to or not.

But I came across a decent passage in Roger Scruton’s 1984 work, The Meaning of Conservatism. It’s not a perfect quote, because he is trying to distinguish an Englishman’s understanding of freedom versus that of an American, but his description would fit for anyone trying to understand why a classical liberal believes he is free until the law touches him, whereas a conservative believes he is free because the law guards him:

It is a specific personal freedom, the result of a long process of social evolution, the bequest of institutions without whose protection it could not endure. Freedom in this sense (the only sense which matters) is not the precondition but the consequence of an accepted social arrangement. Freedom without institutions is blind: it embodies neither genuine social continuity nor, as I shall argue, genuine individual choice. It amounts to no more than a gesture in a moral vacuum. The concept of freedom, therefore, cannot occupy a central place in conservative thinking, whether about national affairs, international politics or (what for the conservative is of special significance) the internal guidance of an autonomous institution. Freedom is comprehensible as a social goal only when subordinate to something else, to an organization or arrangement which defines the individual aim. Hence to aim at freedom is at the same time to aim at the constraint which is its precondition. Roughly speaking, it is the individual’s responsibility to win whatever freedom of speech, conscience and assembly he may; it is the politician’s responsibility to define and maintain the arrangement in which that freedom is to be pursued. One major difference between conservatism and liberalism consists, therefore, in the fact that, for the conservative, the value of individual liberty is not absolute, but stands subject to another and higher value, the authority of established government. And history could be taken to suggest that what satisfies people politically — even if they always used words like ‘freedom’ to articulate the first impulse towards it — is not freedom, but congenial government. Government is the primary need of people subject to the discipline of social membership, and freedom the name of at least one of their anxieties. [Emphasis mine]

Many of my readers here appreciate that I bring a somewhat different perspective to certain issues, but they claim to have trouble understanding the through-line of my thinking. The above passage from Scruton could be understood as one clear end of the fishing line than unspools in my head. I think in the future, it might be useful to gather into lists more of the writing that has been foundational to my thinking.