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.

Where did you ever get the idea that Libertarians are pro military?

@BigMac10 every single conservative that I've ever known in my life has always felt that the military fights for our freedoms. They're anti-tax but when it comes to the military they want to spend spend spend spend.

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.

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.... .

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,

[en.wikipedia.org]

@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.

@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.