20 17

Atheist/Agnostic Conservative Mind....

There are essentially three types of conservatives, IMHO.

  1. Fiscal conservative, yet social liberal.
  2. Religious/Family Value conservative.
  3. 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.

By AtheistReader7
Actions Follow Post Like

Post a comment Add Source Add Photo

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


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Very primitive interpretation!

zesty Level 7 May 11, 2019

I'd say the greatest difference, generally, between Liberal and Conservative points of view is who they see is as their adversary. Liberals tend to punch up, Conservatives punch down. This explains why Liberals support unions and a minimum wage and why Conservatives see immigrants, the underclass, minorities, and even women as threats.

Deiter Level 7 May 1, 2019

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.

The "anti-speech" isn't a liberal it is the conservative.... Look at Trump and his views on speech....

Anti-free speech Leftists, as you call them, are marginal, as are the anti-science Left – such as anti-vaxx and woo enthusiasts – whereas Conservatives see anti-science and the suppression of free speech and inveracity – as in the consolidation of Right-leaning media companies – as their platform for the Corporatist agenda. Conservatives feel empowered enough to be open and naked about their strategies too. If you've been listening to the promises of Mitch McConnell about killing Social Security, Medicare, and other social services.


It's mostly just an issue of self respect and self reliance. I think I'm wise enough to make my own life decisions. I feel better about myself when I accomplish things. I feel embarrassed for people who live with their hand out. I like to choose the people I cooperate and commune with. The issue of masculinity never comes into .

mongo1977 Level 5 Jan 20, 2019

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.


I’m not crazy about fiscal conservative views and I don’t agree with Libertarians, but I can tolerate them better than social conservatives. I have friends and relatives who are social conservatives and I really have to bite my tongue around them.

I think Libertarians are maybe more rugged and feel they don’t need anything from anybody. If my understanding of Libertarianism is correct that is. The ones I know collect their own rainwater, own chickens, etc.


Of course I agree with you about conservatives -- but Libertarians are not conservatives. George Washington said " peaceful relations with all, tangling alliances with none" ( not an exact quote I think)

BigMac10 Level 5 Jan 17, 2019

@KenChang Making generalizations usually winds up making an only a partially correct statement. I have considered myself a Libertarian for decades. I do feel the world is competitive in nature, and if you don't I'd love to hear why you don't. I do not believe is everyone for him or herself, as collective effort is needed for many things. I do believe the individual is responsible for him or herself. I believe some Gov Regulation is needed, some is not, the devil is in the details. Why you say Libertarians think any view promoting trust, peace or collective action is naive is really a mystery to me. Basically we want to be a free as possible. We realize freedom to do anything we want to do cannot exist along with any society.

Bobby9 Level 7 Jan 12, 2019

Like all generalizations, it is really a matter of degree, isn't it? And like all generalizations, it contains exceptions. The term libertarian is in itself a generalization.

The value of generalization is how well it captures the general nature of a more or less distinct category of thing, events or ideas.

When you say you believe that "the world is competitive in natute," you too are making a "generalization," and you clearly believe that the world also contains non-negligible amount of cooperation. It is a matter of degree. Wouldn't you agree? If so then we have a common frame of reference to start a discussion as to how much role "the competitiveness" play in the real world. It isn't one or the other.

@KenChang No, when I say I believe the world is competitive in nature I am not making a generalization, I am stating my belief. The belief may be a generalization, but let's use the English language. Last, yes, generalizations can be more correct or less correct than reality depending of degree of the general statements. Your statements seemed quite wide, and therefore I believe your generalization is far too sweepoing to relate accuracy.


Please give your definition of communal value.

Communal Value by each person individually choosing to participate is ok.
Communal Value with lack of choice, is asserted by force. Which is anything but communal. And is communistic in nature.

Ugh. Seriously? I have to talk civics 101?

How about public roads. There was no 100% agreement to build certain roads. You may not use all the roads your taxes pay for. You tax obligations are enforced by force.

The military. Not everyone agrees to have it. Our taxes pay for it.

The government. The fire department. Schools. All these things you take for granted is achieved because it has communal value.

A communal value is a value that belongs to the community that may not be in the interest of each and every individual that makes up the community. But it provides overall benefit at least to the majority of the individuals that make up the community.

@KenChang Roads. Everyone uses them, everyone pays for them.
The military. Is one of those necessary evil. It is constitutional

Now to get deeper.

Why must I pay taxes to so the government can give it to someone to support their children?

  • I did not create those children. I did not interfere with the relationship of the 2 individuals. And yet I am required by force to hand over money to support someone elses bad choices. Should I not be able to opt out, and also not receive such a benefit? Yes.

Benefits I use I should absolutely have to pay for. What about the ones I dont? Why can I not opt out of any program, with full intention and consequences of never being able to use said program?

@Veteran229 Lol! I should thank you. You are proving all my points in my original post. You still don't understand the fundamentals of a communal value in a democratic society.

@KenChang Even democracy is a failure. A simple majority enforces a concept over a slight minority. Which is why the founders gave us the Amendment process in our REPUBLIC. It is a difficult measuring stick to use intentfully., It requires 3/4 of the States for the specific purpose of ensuring the minority, is an absolute minority. To preserve the rights of a minority , that democracy destroys. The amendment process is so difficult for that reason. When an absolute minority is achieve, the least resistance is found. For the purpose of minimal damage in denying choices/rights of the individual.

@Veteran229 Democracy is only failing because of conservative undermining of it...
"To feel much for others and little for ourselves; to restrain our selfishness and exercise our benevolent affections, constitute the perfection of human nature."
Adam Smith


Religious/Family Value conservative.

This is one I really have a problem with from the Atheist standpoint as well as the Christian overlords. The "values" Christians have is not their own. These things have been well documented by those who have mastered shredding the Christian talking points. If their values are not their own, then why are they dismissed so readily as Christian values.

Why are some of "their values" actually good things? They are lessons humanity has learned over tens thousands of years. The downfall of the values was being co-opted by a mechanism of control. Does that mean those values presented have no merit? I think not. It just implies one must seek answers on why the values were held important in the first place. Ignorance? Maybe. But maybe not. One shall never know if he/she does not even explore the concept.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.


"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:"

The world is deeply competitive. Nature is competitive from single celled organisms to the big cats of Africa. Humans are an exception to nature? I think not. We have competition through history. From light hearted nature of sports/athletics. To cruel domineering of the Roman era and the games they had. To claim that humans have no ground( or to deny) in competition is foolish at best.

"they value strength and independence the most, and distrust anything that smacks of "communal value."
When communal value is not congruent with common sense. Communal value gets denied.

Your indoctrination is showing. There is competitive aspect to the "world." Of course there is. You are only looking at that aspect, and believe what you have been told about the nature and the world. If you are willing to see the world with your eyes open, there is far more cooperation going on. Really, otherwise we cannot have a society let alone civilization. A human being, or any animal, is made up of single cells, all cooperating with each other to make up a fully functioning organism. Humans, like wolves, are pack animals, and we are genetically programmed to be social animals, and tend to work together rather than in competition with each other. There are so many other examples, and all you have to do in order to see them is outgrow your indoctrination.

There is competition in the world, yes. But there is also cooperation in the world. It isn't one or the other, and neither is "the reality" by itself. As intelligent beings we have , sometimes, a choice in how we can fashion our future. We can do that by seeing the world more clearly. Or we can choose to believe (you know, like the faithful) in some myth created by others (and it is in their advantage for you to believe this myth) that proclaims "the world is deeply competitive" and thereby justify some truly shitty behaviours.

Oh, and common sense. You know that it was once a common sense to believe that the sun goes around the earth? Question your "common sense." Because it is often an excuse for refusing to think and learn.

@KenChang "Humans, like wolves, are pack animals, and we are genetically programmed to be social animals, and tend to work together rather than in competition with each other."

  • Correct. This structure is called a Family. Something the left is adamant in destroying. They would prefer you to have a faceless family of government. A government that has no social interaction, other than its ability to force something. You cannot force a pack of wolves to be the same as a herd of cows. They share the quality of "packing" but they have different goals in the order of nature. Competition in humans is the same. They have different goals in life. Families compete against other families. through social status or whatnot. By your illogical reasoning also, the NFL should not be comprised of teams. It should only be the NFL and players assigned randomly each game.

Your lack of common sense has led you to believe that the individual or collective can make anyone comply. History is full of rebellions against those who force humans to comply. Which is why the humans have the concept of choice. Something unique to the species. Something a portion of the species wants to destroy, for their fullfilment of enforced complying.

@Veteran229 once again you are losing me here. You don't have a coherent point to make. I think you enjoy sounding intelligent for the sake of sounding intelligent. But have no actual interest in understanding or thinking.

@Veteran229, I disagree that "the left" wants to destroy families. I think that's just a talking point of Christian conservatives who want women to be baby-making machines. This "lefty" would love nothing more than to have empathetic family members who help each other, rather than a bunch of Ayn Randian libertarians, who are always too self-involved to give a damn about anyone else.

@KenChang The point is, individuality is choice. something unique to humans, and adamantly being destroyed by the left.

As well as your stated vision of cooperation is on a grand scale, which denies choice. There will always be those who do not agree. The only civil way to make everyone happy, is to offer choices. Not forced compliance by gun wielding government.

@Veteran229 I offered no vision. It's only in your imagination. Because you have this preconceived notions about the left (I haven't even talked about the left) you are misreading what I am saying, and you are simply spouting off the assembly line propaganda, like "individuality is choice" and "not forced compliance by gun wielding government." When will you recognize that all forms government, and indeed all civilizations, are enforced by violence or threat of violence?

@KenChang "When will you recognize that all forms government, and indeed all civilizations, are enforced by violence or threat of violence? "

Correct forced compliance is the root of all concept of established government. Maybe it is time for a system of choice in communal programs, instead of forced compliance.

@Veteran229 Ok. I will bite. How will you achieve a system of choice in communal programs, if as you say we are deeply competitive in nature? In fact what is a system of choice in communal programs? Is this some sort of anarchist paradise?

@KenChang It is quite simple.Some things are obvious. Roads fire dept etc, sure one must pay for because we all use them. Even if I walk everywhere, is still use services etc that use roads.

But when it comes to large mammoth overbearing legislation of force. Choices need offered. Choice in participation of social security, medicare/aid. Anyone who wished to contribute should be allowed to as well as those who choose not too. And accept the consequences there of. By having these systems in place force is used to the means of the lowest common denominator. It by default does not discourage haves/and have not, it offer the choice of being able to excel at having or have not, and making your own choices in life. Now should disability go away. Of course not. There are people who do need. And anyone who wishes to purchase that insurance may do so. If not they may suffer the consequences. It is not an abolishment of the system, it is adding the choice of opting out.

@KenChang Just because all currently known forms of government are by a means of force, does not make them by default moral. Nor does it make them by default correct. Maybe this governing by force is exactly why all governments in history have failed. Seeing this is the one thing thats binds them together.

@KenChang Rebellion occurs when the level of force compliance goes past the line created by the social environment. So limit the measure of forced compliance by leaving the force compliance out of social programs. This will leave forced compliance in terms of laws that start with communal acceptance of bad like murder,theft, etc. You cannot create a moralistic society from the immoral stance of force compliance in every aspect of a humans life. That is communism and lesser constructs thereof like socialism.

@KenChang There is only one source3 of volunteerism in the government today. The military. Comprised of volunteers. The government quickly erased the voluntary nature, for Vietnam. The draft magically became legal. This is exactly why force compliance states need abolished. As soon as the states will is rejected, it resorts to force. Despite the will of the people. And this is why government needs to be as small as possible.


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!


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.

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. smile001.gif

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. smile001.gif

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. smile009.gif 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.

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. smile001.gif


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.

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.


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.

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.


Well said. And I agree. The world is hard enough, no need to compete with each other more than what is necessary


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 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.

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. smile009.gif

@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?

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. smile009.gif
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...

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 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.... smile009.gif.


Some are egalitarian classical liberal capitalists, who wall into none of the categories which you define.

LOL! I am surprised that any attempt to categorize human behavior/values would have exceptions to such an attempt. smile009.gif 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... smile009.gif.

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.


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.

Taking back from a system you have paid for and invested in your entire life in not immoral. That is a return on an investment. The investment being done by force is the questionable aspect.

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

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.


They are the perfect example of the tragedy of the being selfish and looking out for individuals, they cause harm to all and the future generations...

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text 'q:257280'.
Humanist does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer.
  • is a non-profit community for humanists!