we will not be able to -- and, I think, should not try to -- tie material conditions too closely to culturally or historically rooted ways of distributing material goods. Obviously, at the present, we have the opposite: a market economy that is for all intents and purposes opposed to culturally and historically rooted ways of being! Every conservative ought to oppose that. But it seems to me that every conservative ought to recognize the value of selective parts of the socialist or social democratic package (regulation, redistribution, etc.) as part of the means to preserve such things, while at the same time balancing that against and helping to maintain and make more just and more available the material opportunities which have blessed the modern world. That's way too philosophical, I know. But what does it mean? It means a lot of the things which Phillip Blond talks about (see here for more): opposing unthinking privatization, breaking up large corporations, protecting social services which are universal and genuinely empowering (but find local ways of delivering on those services), raising wages for those on the bottom of the market so as to make occupations that reject social mobility and the educational meritocracy more capable of sustaining families, etc. He calls this a "radical civic communitarian conservatism." It's also, whether he wishes (for political reasons perhaps?) to admit to it or not, more than a little socialist: orienting the power of government to enable individuals and communities to better pursue materially just