Conservatism vs. Progressivism

You can't expect people to do that without intervention. I think your faith in humanity is tragically misplaced. If we were naturally peaceful, tolerant and respectful of other people, we would not need laws or governments at all.





I'm not sure what this has to do with climate change. I'm talking about natural selection and heirarchy in nature, the dominance of the weak over the strong, not CO2 pollution. Everything we do that makes us human, that separates us from other beasts, is because of conscious planning and creativity, not naturally selected behaviour or impulse. It is our natural urges that bring out the worst in us. They should be subordinate to our intelligence. It is because of our natural selfishness and small-minded ignorance that Earth's climate is being destabilised; it will be reason and intellect that saves us from disaster, if we still have time.

You are applying the notion of interference in nature very clumsily, which is why you mistakenly think you have found hypocracy in my perspective. I'm obviously talking about something very specific, and it has nothing directly to do with the environment.

My faith in humanity stands rightly based on my moral beliefs.

What you are saying, to me, is that there are no moral beliefs therefore people must be controlled.

We are not machines and need no central processing unit controlled by some IT guy who will impose his beliefs on people who may not agree with his underlying premise.

To do so will stifle creativity and kill that which makes us unique to this planet - the ability to think.

You would rather, by your assertion, remove the ability to think for ourselves and have us be The Borg. Perhaps you were simply born before your time.

You're remarkably good at ascribing absurd beliefs to your opponents.

Moral codes are not natural, obviously. I think you've quite vehemently argued for moral subjectivism before, so I'm sure you'll appreciate that ethics are artificial. They are a method of control, like formal laws.

I'm not advocating homogeny in any sense, only that people ought to be forced to tolerate difference and diversity while accepting the most basic of ethical strictures.

It's absurd to believe that you can FORCE anyone to accept tolerance. They may mouth the words to avoid being subjected to whatever penalty is imposed, but they could still disagree. Godwin's Law could be invoked here when you think of all the Germans who disagreed with what Hitler did but kept silent so as to not be shot for disagreeing.

You cannot FORCE acceptance on a thinking being. You simply can't.

As to the subjective nature of moral beliefs - you betcha - no wonder I'd rather not have some subjective person imposing their beliefs on other people, huh? Just like my previous post said.

People can be educated. It wasn't long ago that both our societies were viciously racist. They still are, in many ways, but this is not something we should just accept.




Do you not believe that the most basic of ethical truths can be found in common among all people: that it is wrong to cause pain and suffering? Do you find something disagreeable about this?

Education allows for free thought based on one's ability to think. You're not speaking of education in the sense that there is a choice to accept or to reject. You're speaking of subjugation of people based on the idea that people must be made to conform.




I can agree with the idea of what you say, but there are indeed caveats to that. You would then ask what those are and we would then engage in a long discussion as to why those among us that do cause pain and suffering to others should be subject to penalty as opposed to acceptance and re-education.

It's a circular argument.

You're still not getting me. I'm not advocating total conformity to anything but the barest of ethical concepts. Everything else is up to the individual. Unfortunately, it is not in our nature to tolerate individuality or accept unity with all other people; we are territorial, prejudiced and selfish. We have to revoke some small freedoms - the freedom to discriminate, the freedom to seize power over others by force, the freedom to be anti-social - for the sake of greater freedom and happiness.





I'm not following you. Why should people be subject to penalty instead of reformation? The desire for revenge - for punishment as an end in itself - is another of our natural urges. It is naturally selected behaviour which has no place in civilised society. The practice of absolute punishment by legal institutions is an example of the subordination of artifact to nature.

This is part of your One World Order. Again, if people were to subject themselves to your thinking, you cannot then say that they would not view this planet as THE planet and then need to find fault with any other planet that happens to disagree.

Think about this - if it is NOT in our nature, as you say above, to tolerate individuality or accept unity with all other people, why then would you seek to impose something on people which is not natural to them? It makes no sense to attempt to do something that will inherently fail as it is contrary to the being of man.



What impetus would one have to conform if there is no penalty for not holding to the behavior imposed? Especially in light of the fact that, as you assert, it is not a natural state of being?

See - it's a circular argument.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Do you think the people are incapable of being united unless they have common enemies?




Our nature is not something we are incapable of escaping. It is natural for us to die young of diseases, to have awful teeth and walk around naked eating things raw. We overcome our natures by conscious design. That's what it means to be human, and that is what society is about - it is an artificial construct meant to protect us from natural anarchy.





If punishment can be useful as a way of achieving reformation, then there's nothing wrong with it. The problem is when people forget its purpose and see punishment as a necessary end in itself, inseperable from justice. They start taking the penalties far too seriously and forget what they were orginally meant for; just look at half the crap in the Bible or Qur'an, it's completely obsolete.

Laws are an intervention in the natural disorder, a way of averting behaviour which obviously comes naturally but is harmful.

"A conservative government is an organised hypocrisy" - Benjamin Disraeli

While the basic message of what Disraeli was saying here is true enough with regard to certain people, not all conservatives are hypocritical: there are many that truly and honestly believe that a minimal collective state - and therefore maximum individual freedom - is good for everyone, or rather, good in itself regardless of its overall utility.

Some, generally those less well off, believe that freedom will allow them to do what they want, especially as those unfairly propped up by the state and incapable of providing for themselves will be taken out of the picture, allowing honest hard-working people access to their perceived 'birthright'; they are ignorant of what conservatism entails. Others know that freedom will create real inequality and heirarchy, but think that this is a good thing, a realisation of meritocracy where the strong are rewarded and the weak fall behind.

Finally there are the hypocrits, the public figures - almost exclusively politicians - who wish to persuade the majority that conservatism will not lead to heirarchy but to fairness and equality; or, perhaps, that it will not lead to inequality, but that the particular people they are addressing at the time will come out at the top of the pyramid anyway.

The ones who know the real consequences a shrunken state are a minority, inevitably those with the greatest socio-economic advantage who will seize the most in the vacuum of power. Libertarianism does mean that the private individual will have more freedom, but it is the most powerful of private individuals who will impose their influence on the rest in absence of a powerful and representative public entity.

Unless human nature is changed, and our limited perception of collective needs and responsibilities is somehow enhanced, we will never be able to coexist happily without the artificial constraints of law and government. This truth extends further over our activities as individuals than many would like to admit.

I've been listening to glenn beck lately and I kind of agree with him. Progressive is not the way to go. I mean look how close we are to a sociolist govt. because we want to "progress".

Forgive me, but it seems that Americans throw around 'socialist' as if it's some kind of dirty word and expect people to recoil in horror as soon as it's mentioned. What exactly are you worried about?