The second thing I want to say is that the state of slavery in the 1850′s was also a delicately balanced compromise, and disturbing it did have disastrous results. I’m not saying this to discredit your argument with a smear.
Heh, I was actually considering that exact example while writing my post, but considered it was already getting too long—so I don’t see that as a smear :)
I’m not aiming for a Fully General Counterargument against disturbing the status quo, just presenting some more refined reasons moderates could have for supporting it. And slavery in the 19th century is a good example of a case where (as you say) those arguments did hold, but things were still worth changing.
Heh, I was actually considering that exact example while writing my post, but considered it was already getting too long—so I don’t see that as a smear :)
I’m not aiming for a Fully General Counterargument against disturbing the status quo, just presenting some more refined reasons moderates could have for supporting it. And slavery in the 19th century is a good example of a case where (as you say) those arguments did hold, but things were still worth changing.