Conservativism is the root of all evil - The individual is all that matters

I consider conservativism to be the root of all evil.

But what does that mean?

Well look at this article, wherein the Toronto Incel Rapist Terrorist (Rapist because he insists women sleep with him against their will making him a Rapist even if he has not been known to rape, and Terrorist because he uses terror as a tactic to promote his political beliefs) justified randomly killing people because women aren't sleeping with him.  We can see here that he is definitely selfish, which is at the heart of libertarian and conservative philosophy, as well as a resistance to change, change in this case being that women are getting rights.

I posted in an earlier post that all conservatism is evil and it lies more.  Conservatism is resistance to change since change has almost always favored granting more rights, but I do think it important to understand, not ALL change is good.  A change BACK to previous conservative times would and should be a change to be resisted.  Conservatism is largely about, why the fuck should I have to give a fuck about anyone else?

The problem is, liberalism and very often to a lesser extent progressivism, and certainly what lying libertarians refer to as 'collectivism' has one flaw and that is a disregard for the individual.  The individual is all that matters in any philosophy that is inherently evil, and is the root of what you can call good or evil.  It is a balance that must be constantly sought and found and then refound to prevent excess.

What do I mean by that? If we call "Greater Good" as doing the most good for the most people possible, then that means just that.  PEOPLE.  A system unto itself is worthless except to the extent that which it helps the PEOPLE that are part of it.  Let's look at the greatest example of 'colletivism' to have a historical model with which to draw example to look for patterns.  Routinely, we saw that the soviets in mid level management worked for the good of the system rather than the individuals in it.  The reason Atlas Shrugged resonates with young impressionable minds is because this really happened.  They can see and sense the truth in it.

If your system does not help PEOPLE, your policy is fuck.  Fuck your system and fuck you.  But ALL people matter, and that means a lot of things.

• It means that you can't write someone off just because their needs are different than yours.
• It means that because everyone matters, the minority can't get a benefit at the expense of the majority.
• It means that you CONSTANTLY have to reasses the benefits of the minority and the majority.
• It also means you must have a HIERARCHY OF VALUES. (Defined below.)

Let's look at Health care as a way of applying this.  The right to have medical care is a reasonable one, and as I've mentioned in previous posts, the concept of what is or isn't a right is an going on.  Natural rights as a concept are garbage.  So for health care

*A minority, libertarians have a need for more money than everyone else.  The majority, not libertarians, have a need of not dying.  You can't just simply write of the libertarian need for more money just because more people need it.
*But some minority rights matter; like religion.  That religion might not matter to you but to that minority it is THEIR WHOLE LIFE.  And if all individuals matter, then those rights are at a basic level fundamentally important and they need to be protected.
*People change, values change and so what is a right today will change vs tomorrow.  If a society is comprised of individuals, then the rights of the current society should constantly be assessed.  (I'll leave off argueing for the rights of previous societies (which should be considered but last) and the values of future societies (which should be considered above all but only in very limited contexts) when making this decision.
*A Hierachy of Values is the key to all of this.  There will be conflicts, and it is not always a black and white case, common sense must be applied, but the fact is, a society, and at that the majority of a society should get to determine what values matter most and when the needs of the majority can trump the minority, but there is NO SUCH THING as fixed rights which do not go away ever regardless of the minority or the majority.

Using that logic, conservatism is always about trying to prevent the natural reassesment of values by the majority to match the individual needs of everyone.  What libertarians argue about in terms of 'collectivism' in this context would be about ignoring the rights of the minority at the expense of the majority in the hierarchy of values, and it is a legitimate point.

Let me repeat that, the SYSTEM is never valuable.  It is only the individuals it serves, so if 90 percent tax is actually LEGITIMATELY helping 90 percent of the people and their desires and needs, then it is legitimate BECAUSE it is helping 90 percent of the people despite the whining of the remaining 10 percent.   But it has to actually be helping people.  A system exists to serve people not the other way around.