Conservatives aren't opposed to change, they are only hesitant of it. They worry about what negative effects the change might bring. Like, say, "the owning/ruling class's ability to buy and consolidate more labor as technology improved."
I guess the Luddite movement is conservative after all. Not sure what was up with the earlier comment trying to paint some other kind of picture.
Sure, +10 points for semantics, but it's missing the point. Maybe my fault for invoking a false liberal/conservative binary.
Intriguing to try and reify labor rights as conservative. Definitely a novel argument.
There was a point to that? Hopefully the Luddites being a labor movement wasn't the point, because I've never heard of it as anything else. It would be pointless to reiterate the obvious.
> Intriguing to try and reify labor rights as conservative.
The people were conservative[1]. Labor rights aren't human and cannot exhibit human attributes.
[1] And also liberal. The difference is only a matter of perspective. As you point out, it is false to think of them as being somehow different. No doubt everyone is both liberal and conservative at the same time, all the time. We use the words merely to indicate at which angle we happen to be looking at someone.
Then it's clear your didn't read my comments. Scroll up and you can see that I am replying to a mischaracterization of Luddites.
Here is the original comment that I addressed:
> or to become complete Luddites living on subsistence farming?
Whether or not I did is irrelevant. I replied to a specific bit of your comment that wasn't related to the rest of the conversation. If you didn't want to discuss that tangent, why did you bring it up?
> Here is the original comment that I addressed
Again, that has nothing to do with our conversation. Perhaps it is you who didn't read (meaning here to understand; I know you took in the individual words) my comment?