Conservative literally means doing what used to work. Conservative does not have the highest IQ. They often want all of us to follow some ancient stuffs. It could be ancient religions or their own emotion, which have been mercilessly fine tuned beyond ancient times. Of course, our emotion are effectively ancient proven algorithms, just like religions.
Guess what. As I get older, I start seeing that conservatives are the wisest. I still don’t agree with them. I still hate them. But now I see why they do things the way they are. And yes, on areas of life important to gene pool survival, our emotion, myths, and religions do work well.
Now let’s examine the difference between the 3.
Socialists are poor. Quite obviously.
Libertarian got money. They’re good at making money. That’s why they’re libertarian. Jews are usually libertarian. Rich minority groups are usually libertarian. Yap. Libertarian got IQ. I think typical libertarians are people with a special talent. Maybe they’re extremely smart, extremely pretty, or have something that most people just don’t have. Quite obviously, their interests diverge from the interests of most of their peers.
Conservative got power.
Now, power is the true wealth. It’s wise to have power. Wealth is just a form of power. What’s all the money in the world for if someone got gun on your head? German Jews got quite some wealth before second world war. The Nazi had something the Jews doesn’t. Power. Guess who die first? Guess who died more horribly?
It’s power over money, not the money it self that is worth pursuing. By similar principle, we can guess that it’s power over happiness rather than happiness it self, that are often worthy to pursue.
So that explains how conservative want and think. ANYTHING that makes you happy is things they want to regulate or control. From drugs to sex. Ecstasy is less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes. So why are cigarettes legal? Because ecstasy bring fun. So it’s a controlled substance. Ladies and gentlemen. Case close. Seriously. For a power hungry conservative, that’s is it. If you want to convince someone, convince the swing voters. Extremists never switch side easily.
Conservatives, following their instinct to acquire power, will want to regulate it. Can’t blame them. Yea they’re a jerk. So what? Don’t we all? That’s what humans are.
Yes and power brings money. Legislators in Indonesia got $2k A DAY just for doing dubious comparison study overseas. A 5 star hotel overseas are only $200.
If people love money too much, they’ll be willing to trade power, say over their private freedom, for more money. People are angry when they heard their leaders take their money. Are people angry when their leaders take more power for themselves? We concentrate too much on money we forget to guard something far more important than money. Power.
Socialist are financially irresponsible. I saw a guy that didn’t have a job. I asked, what’s his major. He said that his major is Scandinavian language and now the eastern Europe fall, so he didn’t have a job. A socialist will say, he is poor not because of his fault. See, it’s not his control that eastern Europe fall. I, being a libertarian, will say it’s his fault. He should have been a programmer instead. One thing for sure is it’s not my fault that he messed up. How come, socialists do not even understand simple supply and demand relationship?
However, we, libertarians, are politically irresponsible. Many libertarians do not understand median vote theorem. We can’t change the world just by bitching. Well we can actually if everyone else bitch about the same thing. Remember, libertarians are minority here. Anyone can bitch. Socialists bitches.
Most libertarians do not understand Nash equilibrium. So they don’t understand how changing people beliefs can greatly affect outcomes. In fact, it’s the only thing that do as far as I know off.
Ann Raynd, for example, believe that we should all based our beliefs based on reality and that’s it. Yet she painstakingly encourage the world to believe that your right comes from your productivity. If beliefs doesn’t matter so what? If the world will be the way it is no matter what we belief, why bother changing people’s belief?
Yet she is quite correct in this regard. What we belief to be our right decide when we fight or yield. That’ll shift the nash equilibrium to the side of the productive. But how far? Do we bother asking? No. We just think it’s some absolute truth or something.
Libertarians believe that people maximize their selfish interest? What is their selfish interest? What they want to maximize. What is that? Their selfish interest. So selfish interest is circularly defined as what we want to maximize. Look guys. Don’t we ever read a book, or meet people, and ask, what do they want?
Libertarians believe that whatever humans’ interests are, when we all embrace free market, then all of us are better off, or sort off. Yea, what about if our interests are fulled with zero sum games? One guy got power, the other doesn’t have it. One man got the girl, the other doesn’t. Game theory dictates that on zero sum game we will bullshit each other. Religion often talks about sex and power a lot. Faith is not a stupidity that can be cured by explanation. Faith is a strategy, to blame others without evidence.
As a libertarian we have a hard time understanding this. We thought that something is prohibited due to the harm it causes. It’s a lie of course. Once we understand that conservatives, in their power seeking journey, want to prohibit something because it’s good, AND safe, then things sort of make sense isn’t it? Of course, conservatives will lie about by calling it harmful. Smart moves. In places they can’t lie then they do nothing. Then the “harm” theory will start working again.
Conservative, seeking power is not only financially responsible (many of them are rich folks), but often are politically responsible too. If they want to prohibit something for example, they do not always outright prohibit it.
See, there are too many libertarian among us with great antibodies against force or fraud.
We abhor force. What about prohibition of SOME (rather than ALL) alternatives? Of course the one prohibited will only need to be the one popular and profitable. That is as good as forcing with far lower political costs. The unprofitable ones do not need to be prohibited. Sample of which is prohibition of sex outside marriage, prostitution, or polygamy. Abstinence is legal but lead to extinction. Also most women that become professors or engineers often fail to make kids.
We abhor fraud. What about faith (porn stars cause tsunamis)? What about deceptive marketing (they live happily ever after)? What about censorship (no porn)? What about failure to disclose facts (keep paying alimony is not part of the marriage vow)? On the latter I bet some libertarian will side that failure to disclose facts should be legal.
Then we have people like Beatty Chadwick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick) that rot in jail for 14 years because he got married. Wouldn’t have happened on truly libertarian society where people draft explicitly their marriage contract without government’s involvement.
Yet libertarians are not outraged to this as much as they should be. Well, Beatty, no body force and trick you into marriage right? Yea right.
The joy in being libertarian is to see that only our target market deserve our attention.
The truth is, as long as the people have power, and they do have, on us, everyone is our target market. We still need to persuade them to choose favorably for us. Fortunately, our option are no longer limited to positive intensive either. That means we need to be able to hurt them. That means power. That means we need to be able to signal that capability in a credible ways. That means we need to actually hurt them once in a while. That means evil. Only evil people are powerful, says libertarians. Yea right.
Conservatives, through emotion and religions, understand that. Libertarian doesn’t.
In the game of live, everything is part of the game. To get what we want, we need right, freedom, and capability to do so. To have right we need people to agree that we have that right without further positive intensive. To get people to agree without positive intensive, we need power. To have power, we need friends. To get friends we need concession. You see why those welfare parasites are our target market too? They can vote, after all.
Socialists do not understand wealth and expect everyone to be equally wealthy, namely having enough for him self.
Libertarian does not understand power and expect everyone to be equally powerful, namely having power for him self.
Conservatives understand that some will just be more powerful than others. They seized that as much as possible.
What we often thought as exchange of wealth is actually exchange of power. And they both can be analyzed the same way.
Imagine if you know that the cost of a product is $10, but you know that the other guy value it at $20. Would you sell it at $10? He’ll pay anyway even if you want more.
The same way, if we know that a conservative can prevent you from having sex or consuming some fund rugs, why would he let you do that without his permission? You’ll pay anyway even if he requires it. Remember he does have the power. He shouldn’t have. He does.
The only difference between a threat and a promise is the status quo. I can say I pay McDonald due to a promise that McDonald will give me Big Mac if I do that. However, if I can get big mac even without paying, will I still pay? So actually I pay for Big Mac because of both the promise that I will get one if I pay and a threat that I won’t get it if I do not pay.
If I think the status quo is no pay no big mac, then I would think that Mc Donald’s offer is a promise. If the status quo is I get big mac and I pay, I would think the schemes as McDonald threatening me to stop supplying me with Big Mac if I stop paying.
Conservatives understand that. It counts prostitution as force. Otherwise the prostitute will stop getting money if they stop using their cunt. To add credibility, poverty is usually added to the story. That’s despite the fact that many of those prostitutes are way richer than typical house wifes and are richer than they would have been had they aim for some single (=don’t sale) males.
The same way Conservatives count marriage as promises, despite the fact that virtually all popular alternatives are prohibited. I wonder why we protested so much when Iran government kill 1 or 2 women for committing adultery. Yet in most countries, including western countries, billions of women face fate worst than death, namely extinction, just because they do not want to get married.
In some extreme cases, like the Taliban, the only alternatives for women besides marrying, will be begging or starving because women can’t work. In a more liberal place like US, the alternative is begging, starving, offering sex for free, or working her ass off competing with males.
Also libertarian simply claim that the status quo is that all of us are in some form of non aggression pact with everyone else. Conservatives correctly see that the status quo is we are in a free for all warfare, which is a more natural assumption.
That being said, all is not lost.
There are plenty of nash equlibrium. The one that will become reality is what everyone believes in. Due to globalization, the world will be more and more libertarian. Here, beliefs, matters. You can change the world by changing everyone’s beliefs. You can do that more than by simply observing the world to form your believe and declare that all other ways to form beliefs are wrong.
Again, conservatives know that more than libertarians or worst, objectivists.