Conservatism vs. Progressivism

Conservatism and progressivism are very ambiguous terms, so I'm going to come up with some operational definitions just for this debate. Once you've heard me out, please do the poll or post your opinions/objections. Remember that these definitions are just provisional, and probably don't reflect common definitions.

We can say that there is a political spectrum, ranging from extreme left to extreme right, with extreme conservatism at the right and extreme progressivism at the left. Again - just a provisional definition. A progressive simply wants society to progress gradually away from its original state, which is a state of nature. A conservative, on the other hand, resists change and values the natural state.

In nature, there is competition and heirarchy; there is no government, and individuals compete to gain dominance. The strong take power over the weak due to natural selection. This is how animals live. They are totally free, but must live in conflict because they have no concept of society and responsibility for each other. Humans developed society, law and government to intervene in the natural heirarchy and force individuals to think socially instead of selfishly.

The progressive assumes the selfishness of human nature and hence desires for a government to artificially impose equality of respect and law, so that the strong do not simply dominate the weak. The conservative believes in freedom from intervention, and believes that the strong have the right to take power and no responsibility for the weak.

At one end of the spectrum is the anarchist, who believes in absolute freedom and no law: a return to a simple state of nature. At the other end is the extreme progressive, who wishes for constant development of government towards a state where there is perfect equality of respect and no competition at all: perhaps a kind of perfect socialism or benevolent dictatorship.

Basically, which is better? Or is there some middle way which is better than either extreme?

Where's the option for neither?

I decided not to include one; I only wanted to hear from respondents who like one of the extremes. If you like neither, don't respond.

EDIT: Don't respond to the poll, that is. Please post a response if you like neither.

EDIT: f*** it, I'll change the poll.

i would class myself as a centre right political person,but others may disagree.

Do you mean on my hypothetical political spectrum, or the common idea of 'left' and 'right'? Would you count yourself as a libertarian or do you believe in a strong government and strong law?

strong government and strong law buffy

A government which encourages and reinforces the natural heirarchy, or a government which intervenes in natural conflict and artificially imposes equality and social responsibility?

artificially impose equality - is not natural and the idea goes against a lot of what you speak of generally (just look at your sig line), so there's a disconnect, I think, in your premise. Are you not fighting yourself here?

freedom from intervention - does not naturally equate to taking power over someone else. It means that you do for yourself as you see fit, which is natural. That is in line with a lot of what you post, to my mind. Again, you are arguing with you, I think.

When you work out how you actually feel, perhaps then would be the better time to post a poll? Especially if you are somehow asking for people to tell you how you are supposed to think - that is odd in the extreme to me, if that is the case.

Second double of the day - sorry - TFS isn't updating as it should.

My signature is a parody.

I tried to to post a poll with equally controversial options. I would go for progressive.

I'm drunk, I'll dsicuss this later

Hmmm... I'd say I'm somewhere in between but more conservative leaning, I believe that humans are naturally selfish but at the same time if someone can succeed it is their right to rise to the top and should not be obligated to care for those who are weaker.

Err, Progressive I suppose.

State of nature be nasty.

Enjoy the buzz - truly man - g'nite.

As I was saying earlier...

I would choose progressive. It is necessary to artificially impose equality on people because people are not naturally egalitarian - they are selfish and ignorant, and exploit freedom. The whole point of society is to intervene in natural selection and provide for everyone.

Nope - the point of society is to live peacefully and NOT interfere with others right to pursue their lives as they choose.

After all, how many times have we heard progressives advocate for the natural order of things as relates to climate change? They say they don't want the 'intrusion' of man's activities on the natural planet.

Which sort of takes that progressive 'imposition' and tosses it out the window, doesn't it?

You can't have it both ways. It IS or it ISN'T. You can hardly refute that.