A fundamental rift between conservatives and progressives concerns their distinctive views on regulating what is good for humans. The arch-conservative advocates unmitigated personal autonomy, selfishness, and property rights. regulated only by the individual who "intends only his own gain...led by an invisible hand" of laissez faire competition, which through the equilibrations of supply and demand, they argue, will "promote the public interest."
In the extreme, this laissez faire view is well-represented as the Darwinian state of nature, largely unregulated, with the exception that it may contain minimal laws pertaining to human-on-human thievery and violence. Thus, aside from acknowledging certain inherent individual rights, such as an inviolable self and property rights (a highly dubious proposition amongst today’s conservatives), there remains a considerable core aggrandizement of selfishness, and a relative disdain for the concept of the common good, which is viewed as a self-organizing event.
In contrast to the laissez faire approach, the arch-progressive approach is to coercively regulate individual conduct and ownership in favor of the common good in order to achieve Bentham’s unattainable utilitarian goal(s) of the greatest good for the greatest number. Bentham’s goals are unattainable, as one cannot maximize two variables simultaneously, in particular one cannot simultaneously maximize "human good" and "number of humans." Ironically, while progressives tend to believe in the science of evolution, they have a hard time accepting the inherent value of human selfishness under this inherent constraint, which is the driving force of evolution itself and the source of "selfish gene."
In a 1968 Science article entitled, "The Tragedy of the Commons," ecologist Garrett Hardin summed up the clash of values and motivations (selfishness versus the common good) thusly:
Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy. As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.
- The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.
- The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
Note first how the agrarian economy is mixed, in that individuals privately own cattle, which graze at the expense of the public property, and second, that it is in every individual’s best interest to maximize personal property at the expense of the commons. To this extent, the conservative proposition of selfishness is always logical in the short-run. However, in the end, i.e., when the population approaches carrying capacity, individual exploitation of the commons leads to ruin for all, wherein a more progressive position of preserving the commons becomes the more sustainable option.
While the collapse of the forests, oceans, and atmosphere will not necessarily bring "ruin to all," the survival of any daughter populations following destruction of the commons is highly unpredictable at best. Who chopped down the last tree on Easter Island? And why in the world did it make sense? For any individual, conservative or progressive, it will always make more sense with respect to short-term gain to continue to cheat against the common good.
In the early stages of population growth, selfishness is quite likely virtuous in the sense of personal survival and reproductive success without being excessively cumbersome to the common good. With few humans, and plenty of food to go around, the ecological balance won’t be adversely affected by a man selfishly killing one bison out of millions just to eat the tongue. Even when a population explodes exponentially, and consumption and toxication of the commons hits carrying capacity for the population, the best short-term strategy remains selfishness, whereas the best long-term strategy becomes progressive. Because cheating always pays in the short-term, the regulation of the use of the commons must be subject to coercive regulation, such that the cost of cheating against the commons is more expensive than playing fairly.