Michael Oakeshott forklarer, at forsvaret for “the conservative disposition” ikke behøver indebære abstrakte ideer om “the absolute value in the free play of human choice” eller “that private property (the emblem of choice) is a natural right.”  Noget “much smaller and less pretentious will do”, nemlig

“the observation that this condition of human circumstance is, in fact, current, and that we have learned to enjoy it and how to manage it; that we are not children in statu pupillari but adult who do not consider themselves under any obligation to justify their preference for making their own choices; and that it is beyond human experience to suppose that those who rule and endowed with a superior wisdom which discloses to them a better range of beliefs and activities and which gives them authority to impose upon their subjects a quite different manner of life” (fra “On Being Conservative“, i Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays, p.427). 

Oakeshott skriver imidlertid dette i 1950’ernes England, hvor den “condition of human circumstance” han beskriver — frihed som sædvane — unægtelig (selv på trods af Labours nationaliseringer mv.) i langt højere grad var en realitet end vores nuværende velfærdsstat, hvor det virkelig kan siges at vi er “children in statu pupillari”.  Og hvis frihed-som-sædvane ikke længere er en realitet, så er det måske netop at vi faktisk har brug for dé abstrakte ideer om den absolutte værdi af ejendom med videre som traditionelle konservative ikke har haft meget til overs for. Med andre tjener Saxo Bank-grundlæggernes ellers ret komiske anprisning af verdens dårligste romanforfatter, Ayn Rand, CEPOS-universitetet, samt diverse propelhat-liberalist-blogs faktisk et meget gavnligt formål som elementær folkeoplysning.