British Leyland
Slavery
All Socialism Involves Slavery
by Herbert Spencer
In this excerpt from Man Versus the State, Herbert Spencer argues that as the state tries to regulate more of our lives, it inches us closer to slavery.
All Socialism Involves Slavery
We are talking about history and traditions being dissolved, and that it is not always a bad thing.
Traditionally homosexuality was illegal.
Traditionally we were world leaders in the slave trade.
Traditionally we invaded other countries, murdered millions of people for their land.
The point is, we should evolve as a nation and not stay deeply entrenched in the past.
Which was abolished by a Whig Government, were they renowned Socialists?(they were anti-monarchy though )
Look at the original full post.. the context was about historical traditions
I quoted Alan's post and your reply in full, but if you want to discuss something different I'm fine with that 
The problem with that argument is everything 'You' have now, are going have, is because of that past.
Anyway, here's Scruton on institutions.
https://capx.co/what-are-the-british-institutions-that-matter-most/
As usual he nails what socialism is really like in practice,
'The first principle of the Common Law is of course that everything is permitted unless forbidden. And that’s a very strange thing to live by, a strange principle to live by. In the old Communist world, the opposite principle prevailed. Everything was forbidden unless permitted. You had to have a written document with a rubber stamp on it. The rubber stamp was all important'.
I nearly crossed over to dark-side on the socialism thread, but a brief read of this thread swung me firmly back to the middling again..
My issue would be what exactly is a timeless or traditional institution ?
Many traditions we follow and institutions we accept are relatively new and/or changed dramatically over time, even within living memory.
Some traditions and institutions we take for granted since we were children were not the same, vastly different or didn't even exist for our parents or grandparents.
I am not anti-tradition and I certainly endeavor to behave with the upmost politeness in my interactions* with people when I am out and about (I always smile, open doors, use please and thank you etc and would be mortified if I forgot). I just can't accept or adopt the position of supporting a tradition or institution purely on the basis that it is perceived as such.
If traditions are good, beneficial,have a positive effect on society or are just harmless, they will tend to survive time and generations, however those with flaws will either wither away by themselves or be actively argued against on the basis of merit.
* of course I don't always necessarily come across as all that polite during a heated argument on these forums, but I consider that it's a rather special case and would hope others do to.
I asked the question: 'What traditional institutions has socialism destructed?'
IG mentioned (jocularly) the Russian Royal Family, but that of course was outside of the UK and carried out by a Communist regime.
Looking through the replies the answer so far is 'none' as @tapzilla2k said.