TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Conservatism is the ultimate opposition to progress.

A reactionary stance to change limits the potential for progress more than a proactive stance. An example (although not the centre of the argument) being drugs: being reactive i.e placing laws and trying to force the problem backwards wouldn't work as well as allowing the use of drugs within reason and with reasonable restrictions as this would eliminate a source of funding for many of the world's gangs and ultimately increase global security. (Again this example shouldn't be the main focus of the argument/idea)


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Dec 12 2012: I really hate your use of words.

    The ultimate opposition to progress might be violent revolution or terrorism; perhaps the bombing of progressive universities and think tanks. In comparison, conservatism is a mild response to progress.

    And what do you mean by progress? Your statement precludes any possibility of progress in the conservative cause.

    Conservatism is certainly not the ultimate opposition to progress. It is a different view of how to conduct public affairs. If you consider conservatism as the enemy, it would be a better use of your time to learn about it and understand it, rather than using this forum to write a wild statement demeaning it.

    We all want progress. We want everything to progress the way we think it should.
    • Dec 13 2012: I fully understand the concepts, it is a topic for discussion, not some trolling comment or even my actual view. Present an argument rather than bashing the question.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.