Which of the two extremes is best for a western society?

[InsecureLivesMatter]

Paleoconservatism

Anarchy

[nightdrot]

Paleoconservatism, although the definition proffered here is not particularly meaningful. Because what Americans call conservative -or in this question "paleoconservative" - is, historically speaking, not conservatism but is, rather, classical liberalism.

Classical or Tory conservatism, traces its intellectual pedigree through Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas - and probably most importantly - the 18th century British statesman and political philosopher, Edmund Burke, and also the British Prime Minsiters Benjamin Disraeli and Lord Salisbury.

In an American context, it shows up in the thinking of Alexander Hamilton and then - almost by historical accident, the American Whig Party, and the former Whig turned Republican, Abraham Lincoln. (It is a great historical "what if" as to what the GOP would have looked like had Lincoln lived and the radical Republicans not gained the ascendancy.)

Classical conservatives believe, unlike American conservatives and liberals, that the purpose of government is to answer Aristotle's first questions of politics, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?"

To which classical conservatives respond that the purpose of government is to nurture civic virtue. To reinforce those habits and customs, legitimized by historical usage over time, that make a harmonious and stable social order possible.

Classical conservatives believe in the free market as a tool, rather than an end in itself. They recognize that it is a powerful wealth creator, efficient to some degree, and a guard against an overweening state. However, they believe, as Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."

Consequently, classical conservatives support an ameliorative welfare state. (The welfare state was invented by two conservatives - Disraeli and Bismarck.) The purpose such a welfare state being to reconcile the public to the dynamics of a free market economy by alleviating the negative impact of old age, illness and temporary unemployment.

In this they differ from American liberals who see the welfare state as a lever to engineer social transformation. That is, to restructure society according to some abstract a priori vision. Classical conservatives argue that such a vision is ultimately going to be oversimple and will lead to adverse and unintended consequences.

Tories believe that political philosophy should take as it starting point not human reason, but human nature. That political rights are developed through historical usage, and are not abstract pre-existing. Which is to say that they don't deny that such abstract rights exist. Merely that they are of no practical benefit or use in civil society and law. As Burke put it, "Their abstract perfection is their practical defect."

In all this, then, classical conservatives tend to see less difference between American conservatives and liberals than they see between themselves. Albeit that classical conservatives are more likely to align with their American counterparts insofar as American liberals tend to be more deeply hostile to custom and tradition.

As far as anarchy goes, try life in Somalia or increasingly the streets of some of America's inner cities. Suffice to say, such societies are not peaceful, not conducive to freedom, and hardly sustain virtue. Indeed, they are jungles where survival of the fittest is the highest virtue and any means justifies the end.

[MCheetah]

American nationalism, Christian ethics, regionalism, and traditionalist conservatism is the "better" of the two extremes when compared to Progressive BLM anarchy and letting people loot stores unpunished and free crime like all of California right now. But extremes are usually bad most of the time.

[letuswaltzforthedead]

Option B is only viable if you're already in a moral society so probably A. If society became an Anarchy now, it'd look more like an anomie

[Agape93]

Less control is always better. I'd rather flat-out anarchy to conservative control. Nobody speaks for me but me.

[Guy13]

Define you personal take on those two terms, please. Old traditional Conservatism if I am interpreting it correctly... using root greek/latin.

[Perverted_Creep]

I don't know what the asker implies.
Anarchy means no rulers and no slavery, where still people follow the rules of morality willingly and obey immutable laws inherent in creation set by the creator, and real education is required. The way liberty and library have the same root, you can't expect order in ignorance. Chaos will happen without real education of how order works. And this is not indoctrination, it's studying the real word.

Just to clear it up, here is a better presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk9bNAAHdGo

As there are so many ideas of what anarchy isn't.

[InsecureLivesMatter]

Paleoconservatism is exactly what you phrased it as, "old traditional conservatism." Mostly smaller government with the exception of porn and sexual immorality; no wars, no drive-by shootings, urban-suburban neighborhood unity for me.

Anarchy is no laws period, just chaos

[InsecureLivesMatter]

Anarchy is basically communism without a ruler

[Guy13]

Neo-Conservatism, you mean after 40 years of "negotiating and yielding" to the Left... I'm in on this.

[Cassie88]

I don't like extremes (or extremists), so I'll say neither.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Paleoconservatism is. You can't live nor function in a society where there is anarchy.