Any rightists in house?

As of September I'll be doing Environmental Science. I agree with democracy as it exists today, yes the lure of power seems to be the corrupting factor.

As of September I'll be doing Environmental Science. I agree with democracy as it exists today, yes the lure of power seems to be the corrupting factor.

You can't be a libertarian conservative. Like, you just can't. You can be a libertarian Conservative, as in the Conservative party, but libertarians and conservatives are fundamentally different on a variety of issues

Haha in all honesty I wouldn't say that defines me. Truly, I believe in a world without money and where management and equal distribution of resources is the priority. Where technology is used by all to its full potential and isn't used by one group as a means of power and control over another.

Brb getting my kevlar bodysuit on..

I am idealistically a 'Marxist', if society could be built up from scratch. It would be possible in that case and that case only.

Oh nice! I want to do law at Cambridge, hoping for A*A*A* predictions next year. Good luck with your course and I wish you all the best

I agree with you two. If we started not only a new colony, but also if human nature were malleable, we might be in for a chance of a free society without prejudice and discrimination; no rich and poor, etc. but damnit, everyday I wake up with a constant reminder that this is the real world and Marxists got it wrong and human nature must be catered to, as it has been for thousands of years. Unfortunately, this means that people care more about their close ones than others and each group will do their best to look after THEIR people rather than just people. How sad, eh?

Thank you kindly, best wishes to you as well I hope you achieve your potential.



I think it's a common misconception that it's 'human nature' to be greedy and materialistic. I think it's a condition of the society we live in that we think that it's natural behavior to hoard wealth and have this consumerist attitude. Believe me there is nothing natural about it.

Let me stop you there: there is a difference between hoarding wealth and a consumerist attitude. the two are, in fact, a paradox. You can't hoard your wealth if you're always spending, can you? Saving, conserving and hoarding for a rainy day are all natural. Back in the day, you'd buy a pair of shoes and spend money having them repaired- not on a new pair. Now point me to the cobbler in the street.

You see, people constantly blame "capitalism" for this poverty, and "greed", but really it's down to certain incentives and keynesian economics of bolstering consumerism and not encouraging saving. Brave New World prophecises that we create broken individuals when they are born so we can charge them as adults to fix them. It's not far off, if you look at how many children are on drugs for this and that mental issue.

I didn't really explain clearly, sorry. It's encouraged by institutions, business, hell even government to be consumerist. Spend spend spend. Advertising and conditioning people that they have to have this next product or that brand is impossible to escape. (I myself am as guilty as the next person of buying in to it, don't get me wrong.) Where does all this money go? The majority to a handful of people at the top. People earning hundreds or thousands of times what the average Joe does.

Why are we encouraged to spend? So that we have to work. It's a means of control. A lot of jobs could easily be done by robots. Look at production lines of the 30's and 40's as an example to what we use today. (Anyone remember the Citreon Xsara Picasso advert with the spraying robot?)

Look at the UK minimum wage as an example, considerably less than what one group (I forget who) consider the minimum basic living wage. Anyway, we have to take out loans (credit cards, mortgages, bank loans, etc.) All that is charged with interest. Where is this money they loan us coming from? It's made up out of thin air, it's information stored on a computer. Or it's the money that we already gave to XYZ company which goes to the 100 million quid a year chairman who banks it and earns a high rate of interest on. Which we then pay to him with the interest we end up paying from our own debts.

I explained that terribly, perhaps someone with a bit more eloquence would care to decipher it. Hopefully you get the basic jist of it.

tl;dr: Poor get poorer and therefore more easily subservient. Rich get richer and in this system money = power.

Just because you change the system to be fairer doesn't mean people suddenly get less, in fact it would mean the average person getting far more. Take money out of the equation altogether and suddenly you have a system where resources alone determine what you can have.

Conservatism, inasmuch as English conservatism is concerned, is very libertarian in comparison to the leftist totalitarianism we're under now, with all the business and social regulations, not to mention the welfare state. There is considerable overlap with libertarianism and conservatism, and indeed, Dr Sean Gabb - leader of the Libertarian Alliance- concedes that hardcore full-on stateless libertarianism is impossible, at least in one sweep. He also concedes that maintaining borders are extremely important.

I combine my libertarian and conservative values and call myself a traditionalist.

So like, for example, a conservative would be opposed to drug legalisation or gay marriage and wouldn't be very interested in maintaining civil liberties, whereas a libertarian is the opposite. You can be socially conservative and economically liberal (capitalist), but I can't really see a libertarian coming to terms with a lot of conservative ideas.