Atheist/Agnostic Conservative Mind....
There are essentially three types of conservatives, IMHO.
- Fiscal conservative, yet social liberal.
- Religious/Family Value conservative.
- Libertarian conservative
The first usually belongs to the rich conservatives. As long as they get their way in creating more wealth for themselves, it really doesn't matte what else goes on. They will encourage whatever religious and/or libertarian ideology (or portions thereof) that fits with their profit-motives.
The second and the third belongs to the rest of the conservative class. In here, the second is usually not present, unless as a troll. That leaves us with the third one: the libertarians.
The libertarians are deeply in infatuation with "the individual," and this is simply based upon their belief that this world is essentially "competitive" in nature: it is up to the person to protect himself (and his immediate loved ones) from the reality that is harsh and brutal. In this world of dog eats dog and everyone for himself, they value strength and independence the most, and distrust anything that smacks of "communal value."
I've once witnessed a father telling a young boy in a store that he [the son] must understand that he has to be strong and not show weakness, because if he shows weakness others would take advantage of it. A very libertarian value. This becomes their self-image.
This core belief about "everyone for himself/herself" leads them to swallow many other b.s. that the first class of conservatives feed them: 1) government regulation bad; 2) if you are poor it's your fault; 3) anything that creates communal value is communism, and therefore evil.
They are quick to criticize any worldview that promotes cooperation, trust, peace, organized or otherwise collective action, promotion of communal value above the individual values, as either being naive (pollyanna), weak (snow flake), or evil (socialism!).
What they do not realize is that their worldview is ultimately a self-fulfilling prophesy. This worldview is so ingrained in their self-image, no other facts or evidence would change their mind. In fact, for the libertarian male mindset, this changing of mind would constitute the demasculinization. This also promotes the fetish of the masculine.
What a horrible world they live in.
11
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
13 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.They never turn down thier socialist Medicare, Veterans, Medicaid benefits.
My ex-husband was a fiscally conservative, socially liberal dude.. but always voted straight democratic ticket and still does. Even though he’s an oil guy.
Green_eyes
Level 8
Jan 2, 2019
6
@Veteran229
Exactly how I was going to reply. You stated it more succinctly than I could have. I'd further argue that if I had had the choice of investing that money I paid into the SS system, I'd be far ahead in my retirement portfolio. Especially since the "community" chose to "borrow" from that fund for other purposes... and never paid back the loan.
Ok.... now my blood pressure is up.
@bigpawbullets that’s socialism.. that’s my point
@Green_eyes
I agree that we live in a democratic/socialist society (I'm not sure that's exactly the correct term), and I'm OK with it as long as it's limited. But the use of funds collected for purposes other than defined, no matter how noble, is corruption of the system.
That's a VERY good analysis of Conservatives sir. If you wrote this yourself, I truly applaud your intellect. Your points are well thought out. Your classification schema is a precise summary.
I'd say that there is a fluidity between types 1 & 3 as I'd fall somewhere in those groups. I can't speak to the religious conservative definition. I think your comments right up to this being a "horrible" world are an accurate reflection of Conservatives. I find my world to be spectacular. As do my Conservative friends. We like it here.
bigpawbullets
Level 9
Jan 2, 2019
2
I am certainly happy for you. I suspect however it is the type 2 who suffer the most, and probably the most numerous in the real world. I have no reason to believe that the world of the type 1 is anything but subjectively spectacular, as long as they have the wealth. 
In my line of work, I deal with psychopathic individuals. When I ask them to describe how the victims might have felt, I usually get a puzzled look in response. Ayn Rand would have been proud.
@KenChang
Damn Ken! You've been peeking in the window of our country club! I can pretty confidently say that we're all ( my compadres & myself ) practicing sociopaths. I'm sure a few of us would be classified as psychopaths too. It kind of goes with our lifestyle.
BTW, as a well educated fellow, would you think Conservatives are created by upbringing, or simply by being successful?
@bigpawbullets Lol! At least you are a conservative with a sense of humor! Good! A reason why I like psychopathic offenders! They are never boring!
To answer your question, they are quite related. 
Upbringing and being "successful." Oh, I've heard it before: if you are not a liberal when you are young you lack the heart, but if you are not a conservative when you are old, you lack the brain, but more importantly, money. But you and I know that's bullshit.
I think all of us are products of indoctrination and circumstance. Being more than a passive product of either or both, takes a bit of imagination, intelligence, and character.
@KenChang
So, roll of the dice. I agree.
"There, but for fortune, go I".
@bigpawbullets Yes, but the problem with gambling is this: the house always wins.
Working class people who vote conservative should just pass the wealthy a pot of lube and ask them to be gentle.
Libertarians are just right wing anarchists, and they're just as deluded. They are completely unaware that it is the very structure they oppose that provides them with a safety net for their fantasies.
MrBeelzeebubbles
Level 7
Jan 2, 2019
3
The working class conservatives tend to be the second type: religious/ family value conservatives. They actually believe in communal values, but their religious values compel them to side with the rest, which is far more capitalist and individualistic.
Ken, not all fiscal conservatives fit the description you gave...many who have been successful have used their wealth to donate to causes that would not get funded otherwise, such as art and music. Many volunteer or support charties in their own communities as well. While they might have profited from a more "republican" platform, they don't necessarily support the inequities and see the pitfalls of rampant greed...in which case, money to support other political platforms can be donated to support those beliefs...I think we have to be careful whenever using the implied "all" to describe people.. "many" or "most" might be a better description.
thinktwice
Level 8
Jan 2, 2019
3
Of course you are right.
Yes. Carnagie & Rockefeller competed on who could philanthrope the most.
Thanks @thinktwice.
My wife & I do indeed support organizations that WE feel are of the most benefit to society. What I don't like, and I can speak for my compadres, is having someone else try to tell me where to donate MY money. I believe I'm the best judge of where my money should go. I don't need a church, or government to decide that for me. There! A typical Conservative response.
@bigpawbullets If you participate in a society, a community, you should be expected to contribute to things that would help everyone: safe roads and bridges, street lights, schools, etc. If everyone gave to what they wanted, the entire community would be wanting...and fail. Do you understand the tragedy of the commons?
@thinktwice
Good morning! "The Tragedy of the Commons"; I think this is the first time I've seen this phrase. I'll have to go Googling.
But! To respond to your comment, which is completely valid, yes, I completely agree about contributions to the "tribe". And I do contribute! I pay my taxes as all good Citizens should. These taxes supposedly fund such things as infrastructure, social safety nets, defense, etc.... and, I pay A LOT OF TAXES. I think the original comment was about charitable contributions though.
@bigpawbullets Good morning to you as well! Good to know that people in our country still want to help their fellow people, directly or indirectly....through taxes and charitable contributions...
I almost feel guilty that I will be paying less taxes this year, but I guess it means I can put it back into the economy, my business, or my own donations...
@thinktwice
You realize that the IRS will gladly take donations above your tax responsibility. You can give our government as much money as you want!
I'd hope you invest in your business though. Growing the economy is the best use of it.....
My humble opinion only, of course.
@bigpawbullets I am retiring...my goal is to help make the lives of those I employ better down the road...I think I might need those funds to run for office in 2020.... .
When I was a kid, I was fairly competitive. I played sports, some well, one very well, one lousy. I also was in other school activities like choir and theater. Those experiences were good for me because it taught me that competition was good, but it was not the only thing or be-all end-all. More importantly, these experiences taught me the importance of putting in the work to usually get a result or payoff later on. Also taught me the joy of working with others to produce something, like performing a work or winning a game, etc. The sad thing is that libertarians never get past that first part of competition, to the teamwork or group experience of competition. They remain stuck at competition for the individual being the only thing that matters and continue on seeing life as alone on an island.
Their extreme individualism would be not that big a deal if it was only their loss and affected only them. But the truth is it affects everyone because of the way they vote and even more, the way they act when they do get power either thru politics, wealth, or leadership of a company. Competition is fine as a part of childhood and youth when the stakes are low and it is more of a learning exercise. It does not work that well as an economic system or social policy for a country if the goal is to provide for the general welfare, which it should be, but not with their Social Darwinism.
TomMcGiverin
Level 8
Jan 20, 2019
2
They are the perfect example of the tragedy of the commons...by being selfish and looking out for individuals, they cause harm to all and the future generations...
thinktwice
Level 8
Jan 2, 2019
3
True, I'm not fond of any kind of conservative. I've had bad experiences with all of them. sometimes the Libertarians are worse than Evangelical Christians. Without exception, almost all conservatives/Libertarians are extremely pro-military and support a massive plethora of benefits for those serving in the armed forces. without exception, everybody else in a their country can go fuck themselves.
Kojaksmom
Level 8
Jan 2, 2019
1
Where did you ever get the idea that Libertarians are pro military?
Well said. And I agree. The world is hard enough, no need to compete with each other more than what is necessary
JoeBarrosIII
Level 4
Jan 2, 2019
2
Some are egalitarian classical liberal capitalists, who wall into none of the categories which you define.
[parncutt.org]
PBuck0145
Level 7
Jan 2, 2019
2
LOL! I am surprised that any attempt to categorize human behavior/values would have exceptions to such an attempt. Of course the categories are not exclusive, or comprehensive. I suspect that even self-professed "liberals" share some portions of the worldviews. In fact, the term "conservatives" is really a very broad and vague term, and quite like the term "liberals", defies any attempt to define them in a truly meaningful way.
@KenChang I think in context of your most likely audience here, that most understand exactly what you were trying to convey...we are just preparing you for the backlash from those who disagree with your message and will pick apart each word attempting to muster up a gibberish defense... .
And I just had the time to peruse the article you cited. UBI-FIT is (or rather can be) another progressive tax scheme, depending on the comparative rate of UBI v. FIT. Hell, I am for it, once again depending on the comparative rate of UBI v FIT. It is fundamentally "wealth redistribution" scheme, and if that works, it's great. But like any "wealth redistribution" attempt, it ain't going to convince the wealthy by resorting to their logic and rationality. The irony lies in the combination of "classical" and "egalitarian" capitalism. The only egalitarianism that the classical capitalism envisioned existed only in fantasies.
@KenChang In my comment, the adverbs "egalitarian" and "classical" modify the adjective "liberal".
The real irony is that implementing a Universal Basic Income along with a Universal Flat Tax will result in increased overall productivity and increased wealth for everybody, INCLUDING THE THOSE ALREADY WEALTHY. Some (not all) would prefer to maintain an aristocracy/oligarchy/plutocracy rather than improve everybody's economic well-being.
Egalitarian classical liberal capitalism existed for several decades in the Scandinavian nations. The "Open Society", "Open Border" "New World Order" policies of the E.U. will likely precipitate populist uprisings which will bring an end to that era.
Marxism, while claiming to be egalitarian, has never produced a nation which was economically successful and equitable. Even China did not become an economic powerhouse with a large middle-class until it embraced capitalism.
@PBuck0145 Hmmmm. I am not going to watch a youtube video and address that issue. Perhaps you can state your position (whether built from the content of the video or not), because that way I am not dealing with your interpretation of what the speaker of the video is saying, but rather a live person who can respond directly.
Having said that, yes you are right. I misunderstood the modifier's referent. You are saying that you are the true "liberal." But I am not sure how ECLC is different from laissez faire capitalistic idea of liberalism, OTHER THAN the affirmative gov't intervention to reduce the wealth gap.... Does ECLC believe in other sorts of industrial and economic regulations? If so, how is this really then different from "democratic capitalism" OTHER THAN the method through which redistribution of wealth will occur?
@KenChang Apologies for the delayed response. I needed to read up on and study what you meant by "democratic capitalism" (attached). I am not an academic. My formal education has been in the technical trades. I have not formally studied philosophy, theology, law or political science.
Egalitarian classical liberal capitalism is how I describe the governments of nations who appear to be simultaneously capitalistic and egalitarian. Examples would be Switzerland, Denmark and Israel. I have not encountered the "ECLC" phrase elsewhere. I have seen the phrase "Egalitarian Capitalism" being applied to the Nordic model.
The main theme of the video is that Capitalism is the engine which creates wealth, and tends to improve everybody's economic well-being. Capitalism needs to be tempered by strong social regulation to prevent runaway plutocracy (as appears to be happening currently in the U.S.). Pure socialism does not work. Socially oriented nations which incorporate and encourage capitalism are more prosperous.
I oppose those wealth redistribution plans which discourage productivity by "clawing back" benefits when employment income is earned. That is the basis of my support for Universal Basic Income, with no means test. The UBI will eliminate the need for legislated minimum wages, allowing employers to pay according to the market value of the work performed. This will provide opportunities (currently in short supply) for young people to gain valuable on the job training and experience. The Universal Flat Tax, with no deductions or loopholes, and applied to both individuals and corporations, supports the UBI while retaining incentives for innovation, entrepreneurship and maximization of wealth and productivity. The UFT would apply to all non-UBI income.
Having read the attached page and several associated links, "Democratic Capitalism" closely resembles what I could support. "Egalitarian Classical Liberal Capitalism" might be a title which is somewhat less objectionable to leftists,
@PBuck0145 Thank you. It makes sense. Your comment is well reasoned and clear. Even though we disagree I can see your point of view.
@KenChang My viewpoint is NOT written in stone.
Can you point me to some credible evidence of prosperous nations which do NOT incorporate a significant capitalist presence, and do not encourage, or at least tolerate capitalism?
@PBuck0145 Hmmmm. At one point in human history, all prosperous nations had a monarchy. Not sure what that proves.
How can one nation, exiting in this global capitalist economy, truly avoid "significant capitalist presence" whatever that means. This doesn't prove that purely capitalist economy is the best system. Indeed, many economically robust nations incorporate "significant" socialist features. Including China.
There are some fundamental "capitalist" beliefs that have been proven wrong again and again. One of which is that the "market" when left alone will provide the maximum wealth for everyone and maximum freedom. This is has been debunked.
I know that mentioning "Marx" is neither effective nor convincing to many. I am not at all convinced that much of Marx's forecast of socialism and eventual communism has withstood the test of the times. Yet his criticisms of capitalism has been very much on point, and deserves attention.
Not trying to convince anyone that he is right or I am right. But there is a clear benefit in questioning the official gospels of laissez faire capitalism.
It's more complicated than that. I'm some combo of 1 and 3 but an actual true traditional liberal (not the anti-speech leftist that is so prevalent today. Fact is these labels don't do well to cover actual thoughtful, intelligent informed people who look at each issue carefully on a case by case basis and can't be pigeonholed. The problem is LEMMINGS - partisan sheep who can't think for themselves and blindly follow due to tribalism instincts. And being anti-science, which very importantly INCLUDES social science. Both of the fake coalitions of lemmings in the neo-con-o-crat uni-party are anti-science to a large degree albeit the left tends to be more anti-social-science while the right is more anti-hard-science.
DannyLandrum
Level 5
Jan 21, 2019
1
The "anti-speech" isn't a liberal it is the conservative.... Look at Trump and his views on speech....
Wait what, human politcal affairs are not biology?!? Minds aren't fake news?? Next you'll be telling me the future hasn't already happened!
neutralite
Level 5
Jan 3, 2019
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.