My Conservative Manifesto Rewrite: Loose Background: Part II

 So, this is where i give you a little background. i decided to break this section out on the rewrite.

For me, the first conservative role model was the fictional Alex P. Keaton from the show Family Ties.  Alex P. Keaton came from hippie/60s activist parents, but somehow turned out mostly right. He was an overachiever with a decent understanding of economics.  In many ways, he was a throwback to the good old days before the tumultuous late 1960s.  He was confused by the feminist movement and the new rules between males and females. To me, he was socially moderate - however it was the economic arena where APK shined. This is where he was really conservative - despising government regulations, loving the free market system, and believing success was the role of the individual not the government. 

 i know you can't tell from the way i write, but i actually had a similar major (not considering specializations) to APK - Business and economics.  Sometimes, i find myself thinking What Would Alex P Keaton Do (WWAPKD).

For all of the personal differences, life experiences, and views that conservatives possess; there tend to be commonalities. Conservatives generally believe in a small hands-off government with personal freedom and responsibility where the outcome is largely determined through personal effort. 

Capitalism is the perfect vehicle to channel this economic behavior  i believe that government intervention limits vital personal incentives to succeed and grow. Of course, government intervention can lead to changes in behaviors (especially saving, investing, and whatever nonsense is in the tax code) and weaken incentives. 

For me, one of the major differences between liberalism and conservatism is the role of the individual. In liberalism, the view of the individual is usually overshadowed by grouping them together to form some type of "society".  It is society's overall goals and health that seem to be the greatest concern. However, i believe that liberalism is just overlooking the fact that the so-called societal goals have an individual benefit component.  

Basically, i view people in a context where they will do whatever is in their self-interest (what they perceive to benefit them the most), though this can be extended to the family unit (as it is an evolutionary construct to ensure that the person's DNA survives into the next generation).  i side with the conservative view that the individual is the basic building block of society and that the individual's rational actions can incidentally benefit society. 

Another difference is the view of so-called equality (don't even get me started on the trainwreck that is "equity").  The assumption that people are inherently equal is false (and delusional). People have different strengths and weaknesses. As hard as it is to accept, there are people who are worth less than others (maybe due to physical ailments or brain functionality).  The value of a human is not universal. It is one thing to say that everybody (citizens) deserves equal protection under the law, but it is an entirely different thing to say that everyone should be seen as equal in other aspects of life. 

Personally, i am more concerned with economic efficiency than equality.  As stated above, true equality is a delusional dream.  However, economic efficiency is something you can measure and improve upon.  There are just some people who will never cut it.  Diverting resources from successful to less successful is a recipe for disaster.  Racial prejudices can be deal with economically (at least in the work force).  There are definite economic incentives to hiring the best candidates regardless of race (or other "protected" conditions).