The problem with Conservatism

[Scott Mayers]

It's not a perfect analogy and would be something greater than merely three players. But they are all more representative of individual players who act as proxies to GROUPS

Well, you're right: there's a little weakness in the analogy, in that it doesn't contain the key difference we're talking about...namely, the extreme collectivism in Progressivism on the Left.

Conservatives do campaign publicly, as do the Progressives; but they don't tend to view the people they're talking to as collectives, but as individuals that can be appealed to separately, each with his or her own interests and values, and none of which are mere thralls of the culture or situation into which they were born.

The players in my analogy ARE group representatives. As such, those who lose are the 'collective' group representatives. The 'progress' is to alter their losing by either trying new moves or by trying to readapt or add more rules to the game to give them a better chance of success. All these players utilize pawns as representing their 'individuals' who support their ideology. The present 'conservatives' are no different because they are often backed by the powers of specific religious groups who still dominate the power structure of each "side" (present winners versus losers). The conservative view tearing away the culturalist/religious among them are just pure secular capitalists and only happen to support individuality where it is useful for the very financial capital that they hold as Corporate or Business power of the present benefactors of anti-democratic governments ('anti-democratic' here refers to the fact that destroying the power of government doesn't make the entity go away but rather just transfers it to private owners to manage, NOT the rest of society,....especially the poor!)

I know that you favor conservatives and won't assume you are one of the bad guys any more than I hope you don't think of me for being left of center. But the power structure of the finances on the conservative side determine the non-biased secular support of individual choices and consequences. The religious and radical members of that side are also supported because business prefers blind faith of its ideal world who have strict Protestant forms of religion in mind.....like anti-abortion, demands of traditional public representation of anti-liberal laws, etc.

Note that 'liberal' means "freedom" of behaviors that don't impose upon others rights of the same. That is you ARE 'free to choose who you are'. The problems lie in what they believe are those 'limits'. Given they are still financed by MORE variation of people (like all other players relative to the winning single player), they have more predominance of the cultural variation than the right-wing supporters when in equal numbers of the whole population and in much larger percentage of the religious because they include all other non-Protestant and non-Christian believers there.

[Immanuel Can]

The present 'conservatives' are no different because they are often backed by the powers of specific religious groups who still dominate the power structure of each "side" (present winners versus losers).

There are people who play religion for power. Just as there are people who play social justice for power. But I think we need to discern the difference between those who illegitimately do something, and those who genuinely do it. It does not make a religious person a shill because he or she is conservative. Nor does it make a social justice advocate a shill, if she or he genuinely thinks she or he is doing some good for an oppressed minority.

The conservative view tearing away the culturalist/religious among them are just pure secular capitalists

No, not at all. Some are surely Libertarians, individualists, or Classical Liberals, even. They don't necessarily have a "capital" motive at all...they may simply want individual liberties and privacy and personal rights.

Note that 'liberal' means "freedom" of behaviors that don't impose upon others rights of the same.

It used to mean that. It doesn't anymore. Now, it often means Progressivist or Neo-Marxist. "Classical Liberal" now means "centrist conservative".

That is you ARE 'free to choose who you are.'

No collectivist or Leftist believes that. They think you are defined by your class, race, ethnicity or other group, and can't choose outside of that at all.

[Scott Mayers]

That is you ARE 'free to choose who you are.'

No collectivist or Leftist believes that. They think you are defined by your class, race, ethnicity or other group, and can't choose outside of that at all.

I'm left of center and so this is not true. I'm somewhat in sync with someone like Bill Maher.

The left's problem IS the 'consevatives' there who want to conserve their cultural beliefs. Those are the ones defining it today by class, race, and ethnicity. Unfortunately, I'm completely disenfrancized because I don't support any actual parties here in Canada for these reasons. I like certain right-wing ideas too but believe we need means to appropriately keep them in check because they are based upon the laisseze faire principles that believe in dismantlng the powers of any government's existence by the people.


I haven't exactly been treated fair by any side, as many today would agree. We are being forced to select for party with least harmful effects against us. I have begun to not vote in the last few elections. Some think that this no-vote just makes my views not matter. I disagree. It is no different than if a dictator called upon an election and demanded you select from the available one candidate. It only appeals to the pretenses of those partys' belief that they are supported when they are not. But it would be nice if we could have a means to vote "none' officially regardless of who gets in just so that we could see this problem.

[Immanuel Can]

That is you ARE 'free to choose who you are.'

No collectivist or Leftist believes that. They think you are defined by your class, race, ethnicity or other group, and can't choose outside of that at all.

I'm left of center and so this is not true.

Maybe slightly left. But you're a centrist. You're not a Progressivist, a Collectivist or a Marxist. There's a whole wild wing to the left of you, and a lot of people on that wing right now. You're far from typical. You've got too much sense for that.

The left's problem IS the 'consevatives' there who want to conserve their cultural beliefs.

No, that's not their problem. They think it is, but it's not.

The Left's problem is the Left. Collectivist ideologies killed over 100 million in the last century. It did horrendous damage in Russia, China, Korea, Cambodia, and now Venezuela, among other places. Leftist policies have already proved to be an unrestricted litany of failure, corruption, brutality, stupidity and economic suicide...and the Western Left just can't afford to own that, because if they did, nobody sane would ever vote for them. So they make bogeymen out of conservatives, and try to saddle their opposition with as many of the Lefts own disastrous failures as they can. But their real "achievements" are their biggest PR problem...economic collapse, exploitation, starvation, gulags, re-education camps among them. To get rid of that history is the Left's biggest desire right now.

Those are the ones defining it today by class, race, and ethnicity.

No, actually.

It's the far Leftists who are utterly convinced that race, culture, gender, ethnicity, and a bunch of other such things are hard facts, and individualism is unimportant by comparison.

I like certain right-wing ideas too

Centrist.

I haven't exactly been treated fair by any side, as many today would agree. We are being forced to select for party with least harmful effects against us.

That's pretty well everywhere. But the present government of Canada is a magnificent example of feeble, foolish, ideologically-possessed governance by a pubescent PM. So you've got it worse than elsewhere.

I have begun to not vote in the last few elections. Some think that this no-vote just makes my views not matter. I disagree. It is no different than if a dictator called upon an election and demanded you select from the available one candidate. It only appeals to the pretenses of those partys' belief that they are supported when they are not. But it would be nice if we could have a means to vote "none' officially regardless of who gets in just so that we could see this problem.

I completely agree. A refusal to vote says, "THIS is your slate of candidates? Not good enough. Do better."

And that's the right message.

[Gary Childress]

We are being forced to select for party with least harmful effects against us. I have begun to not vote in the last few elections. Some think that this no-vote just makes my views not matter. I disagree. It is no different than if a dictator called upon an election and demanded you select from the available one candidate. It only appeals to the pretenses of those partys' belief that they are supported when they are not. But it would be nice if we could have a means to vote "none' officially regardless of who gets in just so that we could see this problem.

I've only voted in a few elections. I've also heard people say that if you don't vote, you can't complain, however, I think you make a good point.

[henry quirk]

A refusal to vote says, "THIS is your slate of candidates? Not good enough. Do better."

I didn't vote in the Obama/McCain, Obama/Romney contests. There was no damned point.

Thing is, my not voting, in the current system, is meaningless. That's why a binding none of the above needs to be included on the ballot of every election.

#

people say that if you don't vote, you can't complain

Fuck those people.

I pay taxes. I'm one of the schmucks footin' the bill. I'll kvetch as much as a I damn well like.

[Immanuel Can]

That's why a binding none of the above needs to be included on the ballot of every election.

Great idea.

Or maybe just call it, "Try again," or "Who are you kidding?"

people say that if you don't vote, you can't complain

Those are mindless conformists who hold onto the silly idea that buying into a broken system and shoring it up will induce it to change. The only way to make it do differently is to cause it to lack legitimacy, in the terms of democratic support by numbers. Participating just legitimizes it.

If there is no reasonable candidate, then no reasonable person should back one.

[Walker]

people say that if you don't vote, you can't complain

Fuck those people.

I pay taxes. I'm one of the schmucks footin' the bill. I'll kvetch as much as a I damn well like.

If you vote for the right candidate your social credit score will increase, giving you access to more goods, services, and opportunities.

[Immanuel Can]

If you vote for the right candidate your social credit score will increase, giving you access to more goods, services, and opportunities.

You mean like in China?

[Scott Mayers]

The left's problem IS the 'consevatives' there who want to conserve their cultural beliefs.

No, that's not their problem. They think it is, but it's not.

The Left's problem is the Left. Collectivist ideologies killed over 100 million in the last century. It did horrendous damage in Russia, China, Korea, Cambodia, and now Venezuela, among other places. Leftist policies have already proved to be an unrestricted litany of failure, corruption, brutality, stupidity and economic suicide...and the Western Left just can't afford to own that, because if they did, nobody sane would ever vote for them. So they make bogeymen out of conservatives, and try to saddle their opposition with as many of the Lefts own disastrous failures as they can. But their real "achievements" are their biggest PR problem...economic collapse, exploitation, starvation, gulags, re-education camps among them. To get rid of that history is the Left's biggest desire right now.

The nature of the 'left' of any politics in general is about preferring the power of people over the power of those who declare a 'right' to power by some belief in 'ownership'. It is that simple.

We need both for civilization to some degree. The power of the 'right' is by might or force in some way that is NOT essential to be about people. For instance, the concept of claimed "ownership" is itself artificial without some force to assure this stays. But how can this be done without people? Those now and in the past of all world politics, often think of the 'right' as those who assert a literal 'right' to rule due to Nature or God, rather than any right of people to declare such 'right' as FAIR or not.

This is also true in a bipolar description of religions. To take a different non-Christian one to compare, if we look at say Islam, about half of the religious split is about those who assert power as due to Allah and numbers of people who may disagree are irrelevant. This is their 'right-wing' types and is exemplified by those who embrace things like Sharia Law, a religious political set of laws DICTATED in perpetuity by God (Allah). As such, they demand the 'right' of power by the MIGHT OF (Allah) GOD. The other side is 'democratic' (what the West might think of as the only 'legitimate' religious variation allowed and what we treat as 'Moderate'.

I used that example split because you might be able to look from outside of another kind of similar split that creates the political problems there.

Can I ask what you think of this? That is, do you agree that the first major distinction of 'left' to 'right' relate to POWER and that the extremes define the right-left distinction to be about whether this power is FAIR when it appeals to the PEOPLE (democracy) versus NATURE ('God' for the religious is Nature and for non-religious, Nature is just the MIGHT one is able to have to assure they can hold what it their 'own').

Those are the ones defining it today by class, race, and ethnicity.

No, actually.

It's the far Leftists who are utterly convinced that race, culture, gender, ethnicity, and a bunch of other such things are hard facts, and individualism is unimportant by comparison.

Yes. But this is not something essential of its definition and is only a contempory factor of those controlling the political parties because money is needed by most laws to maintain party representative in governments (of the West).

Nazi Germany was also defining class, race and ethnicity as significant and this is an extreme of the right because they were not interested in whether this respected the majority of ALL people. What right to left wing parties differ regarding power means that the left would tend to favor those numbers of people who 'collect' in alliance of distinct groups who believe in 'rights' by Nature and thus makes those groups right-wing in principle but who are co-opting the power by limiting the demos to those groups, NOT the individual.

While there are those on the 'right' who believe in individuals to rule, this too is still ruled by those extremes of the religious groups who both believe in the fact that they are in POWER 'by right' and believe they also have a 'right' to impose their particular culture strictly through laws, regardless of the majority on the whole. In any right-wing contemporary power exist more consolidated culture of some type. Here, we have the W.A.S.P. who take an unusual dominance of the population OF those on the 'right'. It doesn't mean this is always the same kind of religious class but are again more marked by how much more they rely on a belief in people to determine morality or if it is to be strictly defined by some religious text. So our right-wings in the general West have a strong solid SINGLE religious group where on the left, they have DIVERSE religioius groups.

This is dangereous when the particular religiouns of the 'right' are themselves more strongly believing that laws should reflect their strong literal religious beliefs. You also get the strongest solidified believers in the beliefs about superior versus inferior meaning of people as due to NATURE. This is why you get the KKK and White Supremacists on that side.

You also get the strong supports of anyone who believes that ones' coincidental access of power is 'right' regardless of the coincidence. For instance, inheritance (genetic or environmental) is an accident. One doesn't EARN what is accidental. Yet, while some of this is NATURAL, why should the majority of the population who simply lack such accidental fortune lay down and accept this as 'right'? If you didn't inherit anything AND the only means you have is to COLLECT by the numbers, then this too is 'right by Nature'.

Note too that the sincere NATURAL reality would reduce to going back to being strictly wild animals doing whatever it takes to fight for our survival. This right-wing Social Darwinism oddly conflicts (and contradicts) the kind of religious people there who embrace imposing their anti-Darwinian stances about Nature. Its hypocritical and absurdly obvious of outsiders looking in. The power of the right succeed more 'naturally' if it utilizes irrational religious impositions upon those they want control over. That is, the types of religious beliefs they would entrench in laws would DICTATE things like 'faith' in their leaders is essential and that one could be penalized for doubting such power of authority.

I like certain right-wing ideas too

Centrist.

I haven't exactly been treated fair by any side, as many today would agree. We are being forced to select for party with least harmful effects against us.

That's pretty well everywhere. But the present government of Canada is a magnificent example of feeble, foolish, ideologically-possessed governance by a pubescent PM. So you've got it worse than elsewhere.

I have begun to not vote in the last few elections. Some think that this no-vote just makes my views not matter. I disagree. It is no different than if a dictator called upon an election and demanded you select from the available one candidate. It only appeals to the pretenses of those partys' belief that they are supported when they are not. But it would be nice if we could have a means to vote "none' officially regardless of who gets in just so that we could see this problem.

I completely agree. A refusal to vote says, "THIS is your slate of candidates? Not good enough. Do better."

And that's the right message.

The concept of 'civilization' begins by respecting each other by agreeing to some formal management system (called a 'government' when it governs over all people). This relates to respecting degrees of power over property and production by negotiating what should be the degree of 'right' to what is one's OWN. What is one's 'own' used to be all you can carry at present and to what force you have by Nature over another. Government is thus by Nature, about the populus as a whole who defines this degree of privilege to what one CAN 'own'.

"Government" is a left-wing concept if we value the right of management of the whole to belong to the POWER OF THE PEOPLE. The counter right-wing concept comes from governments existing but depend on disempowering the people power by demanding 'rights' to a POWER OF OWNERSHIP and/or FORCE.

Since governments are what first grant what is or is not privileged to be 'owned', those systems which empowered laws favorable to a subset of the populous to declare some 'right' to inherit something as ones' OWN, don't appeal to progressive management systems that point out that the very concept of 'ownership' is a privilege only granted by a prior system. If that system gave the 'right' of arbitrary individuals unusual 'rights' to inheritance due to mere genetic relationships (like one's children OR one's race OR one's sex), these people want to CONSERVE this fortune regardless of it coincidence.

This is the problem of 'conservativism'. It is a belief of a system of government that FIXES those who 'OWN' AS the 'rightful' OWNERS of this world who should be granted 'right' to POWER. Thus, once such system is set up AND you happen to be the lucky inheritors' of the degree of ownership, you no longer have a NEED for governments other than to enforce others to respect this 'right of ownership'. Thus governments that define themselves as 'conservatives' are actually anti-government. So why should the masses vote in such governments that take away their power so that those merely lucky to OWN get priviledge to govern without concensus?

I understand the logic and might rationally prefer to select 'right-wing' systems when I happen to inherit the power OWNERSHIP represents. But then you have to also respect the counter force of the masses of people who demand their 'own' be defined by their own irrational embracing of race, sex, or cultural as INHERITED POWER. That is, if one defends a 'right' to OWN simply for being the son of someone in prior ownership, regardless of the INTENT of privilege to own which was originally about those civil govnernments of the past wanting to grant 'ownership' for productive needs only, then those 'left' behind should also have a counter valid claim today of asserting their natural right to 'own' for genetic reasons also.

This is where you get those on the left demanding 'ownership' rights to genetically defined race, sex, or genetic-related inheritances that are also as coincidental.

Since 'OWNERSHIP' claims based upon 'INHERENT' rights are themselves unfair, CONSERVATION of them is itself the problem and why it is most correctly associated to the 'conservative' and not the 'progressive'. Ownership laws initiate in fairness to form means to prevent agricultural lands from being robbed and diminishing 'civil' order among people. We couldn't do without such initial stages and still need them to enable modern society to some degree. But if one demands one has a right to KEEP what they INHERIT when it no longer relates to the initial intent of civilization, they are co-opting the intent of "ownership" as though Nature (or God) itself has 'right'-fully entrenched the concept of 'ownership' to be about ones' genetic features rather than an environmental one.

So I do not think the 'left' is any more innocent than the 'right' with respect to 'conservative' beliefs. But the faults in all politics, regardless of whose side you are on, is about what one thinks should be 'conserved' by Nature as opposed to each and every person born on this Earth.

[Scott Mayers]

Additional related question:

As an atheist, I do not believe a formal religion of Atheism should be set up because the definition of it is non-religious. If it WAS set up, it would be a system designed to self-defeat. *

I perceive a conservative government in the same way. It is a government designed to self-defeat the power of government.

Is this a fair comparison?

I am thus not against the 'conservative' in the same way I hope one isn't against me for being 'atheist'. But I don't approve of a government defined to the philosophy where it self-defeats it as I think no one (other than those in the note below) to set up a church defined with a philosophy to defeat the concept of religion.

[* Note that some athiests DO believe in establishing a Church. This is intended to grant them equivalent rights in a system constititionally designating religion as a 'right' for non-profit supports (as with other potential legal benefits.) I am of the side that sticks to the non-position meaning of 'atheism': one who LACKS a religious belief. So while I would not believe in setting up a church for beneficial reasons but prefer to challenge the constitutions on this. To me, all religions start off secular, like the Church of Scientology as initially formalizing their self-help-psychology-philosophy and scheme set up to conserve their tax debts.]

[Immanuel Can]

The nature of the 'left' of any politics in general is about preferring the power of people over the power of those who declare a 'right' to power by some belief in 'ownership'. It is that simple.

Not nearly.

For "the people" are not some monolithic unity. Leftists might want to believe that, but that's why they can't figure out how Trump got elected. No, people are different. They're individuals. The Left seeks to reduce them to members of the mob, and then direct them to its social-experimental projects.

Additionally, private property is a basic human right. It sits with life and liberty, in terms of legitimacy. John Locke showed this. To deny someone the right to "own" things is to deny him or her the right to manage and arrange the world in a way that suits him or her. That's a denial of the basic human right to determine how his or her world is to be shaped and affected by his or her choices. It's a denial of autonomy. It's a violation of basic humanity.

The power of the 'right' is by might or force in some way that is NOT essential to be about people.

Not at all. This is a massive misunderstanding. Today, the centre right stands for individual rights and freedoms. There could be nothing more people-centred than that. And the extreme Right, or so-called "Alt-Right" actually has almost no power today. But it suits the extreme Left, which is quite large, to have a viable enemy -- so they magnify the "achievements" of the extreme Right in order to justify their power grabs.

For instance, the concept of claimed "ownership" is itself artificial without some force to assure this stays.

This is only to say that rights need enforcement, which is obvious.

... if we look at say Islam, about half of the religious split is about those who assert power as due to Allah and numbers of people who may disagree are irrelevant. This is their 'right-wing' types [/quote]
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're mistaking "right wing Islam" for "right wing libertarian." Those two groups have no goals in common.

And that's the problem with the label "conservative." It begs the question of what is being "conserved": is it a conserving of the rights of the individual (libertarianism, for example) or a conserving of the 'right' of Muhammed's god to dominate the world, regardless of individuals (Islam)?

Can I ask what you think of this? That is, do you agree that the first major distinction of 'left' to 'right' relate to POWER

Well, I disagree with that immediately. It is the Left that takes the Nietzschean view that all human striving aims at "the will to power." I don't believe that for a second...neither do a great number of people on the Right. But I know the non-centrists Leftists sure believe it. They buy into that idea, and the idea that, as Marx said, "all history is the history of class struggle."

So the Left focuses on the power of classes. That's not a right-wing view, except among the extreme loonies, such as racial purists. (Ironically, racial purists have more in common with the Left than the right, in that they also believe the world is made up of classes that are oppressed or dominant, and that the story of history is how they struggle for power.)

Those are the ones defining it today by class, race, and ethnicity.

No, actually.

It's the far Leftists who are utterly convinced that race, culture, gender, ethnicity, and a bunch of other such things are hard facts, and individualism is unimportant by comparison.

Yes. But this is not something essential of its definition and is only a contemporary factor of those controlling the political parties because money is needed by most laws to maintain party representative in governments (of the West).

Yes, actually...it's essential to Leftism...at least, to those beyond the Classical Liberal middle. Leftism sees us all as not individuals but as mere products of our class, gender, age, sex, race, and so on. That's why Leftism is not concerned with free speech -- they think nobody is "free" to "speak" authentically anyway; any utterance of an individual is nothing but the parrot-speech of the class, race, etc. that made them what they are, and all of it ends up being about who gets to seize power in a given situation, according to their thinking.

Nazi Germany was also defining class, race and ethnicity as significant and this is an extreme of the right

Nazis are socialists. They are consummate believers in race, ethnicity, class, and so on. They are Leftists. They always have been. The only reason they hated the Communists was because whereas Nazis are national socialists, Communists are international socialists. The national ambitions of the former were challenged by the latter...but all were socialists, beyond question. All were Leftists.

... the left would tend to favor those numbers of people who 'collect' in alliance of distinct groups who believe in 'rights' by Nature and thus makes those groups right-wing in principle but who are co-opting the power by limiting the demos to those groups, NOT the individual.

The Left does not believe in natural rights, actually. On the Left, only centrists and Classical Liberals do that. The whole field beyond that is dominated by people who do NOT think we have intrinsic, individual rights, but only the power struggles of groups.

While there are those on the 'right' who believe in individuals to rule,

Many more than on the Left, it has to be noted.

this too is still ruled by those extremes of the religious groups

Which ones?

You're a Canadian. You know darn well that "religion" has no power in the government these days. The Catholics have some special privileges they derive from certain historical agreements, and I would be fine with them losing those privileges. But "the Right" has practically zero presence in Canada right now, and other than Islam, no particular religious group gets any special status or favours at all.

Here, we have the W.A.S.P. who take an unusual dominance of the population OF those on the 'right'.

This is so manifestly untrue I hardly know what to say. Do you really think being a "white, anglo-saxon Protestant" (WASP) gets you any favours in Canada right now? You can't possibly believe that.

This is why you get the KKK and White Supremacists on that side.

The KKK was formed by Democrats, who are now the American Left. At least up until the '60s, all the klansmen were Democrat. The KKK was the militant wing of the Democratic Party. Every governor who opposed desegregation was a Democrat. Heck, every slave owner in the States was a Democrat.

So how do you get this weird idea? Doesn't anybody read history anymore?

I haven't exactly been treated fair by any side, as many today would agree. We are being forced to select for party with least harmful effects against us.

You'd best opt for something like the Classical Liberals or the Libertarians, then. The modern Left would take all your rights.

"Government" is a left-wing concept

No, it's not. But "big government" is. Restricted government, with checks and balances to keep it from abusing its power, is a right-leaning idea.

Since governments are what first grant what is or is not privileged to be 'owned'

They aren't. We "own" stuff long before any government appears. It's government that tries to take it away.

This is the problem of 'conservativism'. It is a belief of a system of government that FIXES those who 'OWN' AS the 'rightful' OWNERS of this world who should be granted 'right' to POWER.

This is backward. Conservatism argues for small government, limited government, and for the rights of the individual to life, liberty and property. It's Leftism that has the preoccupation with government, power, mass-management and collectives.

[gaffo]

No, not at all. Some are surely Libertarians, individualists, or Classical Liberals, even. They don't necessarily have a "capital" motive at all...they may simply want individual liberties and privacy and personal rights.

me me me me me me!!!!! raising hand here!

Liberal Libertarian - registered Independent since 1992, formerly registered Democrat.

[Immanuel Can]

me me me me me me!!!!! raising hand here!

Liberal Libertarian - registered Independent since 1992, formerly registered Democrat.

Henry's like that, too. I don't suspect him of running a greedy multinational with sweat shops in India. I get the sense his reasons for conservatism have a heck of a lot to do with his desire to be left alone to do things for himself, as a private individual. I would guess he doesn't even object to things like charity or social help programs, provided that participation in them is not mandated by the government, but optional for the individual who wants them.

[gaffo]

me me me me me me!!!!! raising hand here!

Liberal Libertarian - registered Independent since 1992, formerly registered Democrat.

Henry's like that, too. I don't suspect him of running a greedy multinational with sweat shops in India. I get the sense his reasons for conservatism have a heck of a lot to do with his desire to be left alone to do things for himself, as a private individual. I would guess he doesn't even object to things like charity or social help programs, provided that participation in them is not mandated by the government, but optional for the individual who wants them.

Yes i'm willing to affirm Henry as a fellow Libertarian (but barely - i see an Athoritarian streek in him more suited to Rebuglicon party of today - he did/does affirm King cheeto benneto and no Libertarian worth a shit would affirm dictatorial tendancies - conservative or liberal bent).

but, ya he is on the opposite extreme of the Libertarian mindset of me. he conservative me liberal.

unlike him i affirm the role of gov in some social programs (in fact i like old Bernie and hope he is he dem nominee (OMG!!!!! a soclaimist!!!!!!!! - i've seen Global corps ruining american middle class for the 1-percenters - middle class gets smaller and smaller and smaller since 1973 - you can work your fingers to the bone - no matter you lose money to the top 1-percenters).

He fear "big gov" while global big corps are govs and are robbing and stealing and henry is silent! well i see several big gov's and they are all global corps - bought out our gov decades ago "corporate capture" - so unlike Henry, i no longer fear "big gov" i fear the many big gov's the global corps!.

i affirm the little guy, gov retaken by the people for the people, and the breakup of the global corps down to the sizes they were in the 1970s when the middle class was twice the size it is today.

that means i affirm paying taxes for social services via the gov that is not corporate captured, i affirm small SMALL business, inalianble rights of all persons (including children (who are property legally - sadly - and the insane - who have less rights they should).

I am VERY Conservative! WRT The Rule of Law, and my Constitution (and why i know Trump is am illegal thug worthy of impeachment). I FULLY affirm the concept of original intent of my Constitution (in a 75/25 ratio to the latter "living document" concept which i do affirm in some instances).

Where Henry and i diverge is (and where All Libertarians are on my side) is WRt to Authority, WE ARE NOT AUTHORITARIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO President should be a fucking KING!!!!!!!!!!! EVER!!!!!!!!!!

peace to ya.