Conservative, communist, socialist, fascist, progressive—all collectivist. Besides some variations in rhetoric, it’s hard to see any difference between them in practice. They want power and to tell people how to live their lives. — NOS4A2

That's true. We're all hoping for a chance to tell people how to live their lives. But I still think there is some difference between telling people : "Do what I believe is right or go to jail. " and "Do what you believe is right, as long it's not hurting others."

I find something quite offensive in people who have not been taught critical thinking skills (presumably getting by on the basis of their own superhuman natural talent) suggesting that others (lacking such natural brilliance as themselves) need to be taught these skills. — Isaac

Maybe just the ones whose state governments have forbidden them to read books or study science or learn their own history or ask questions. And I don't mind if it's classist to demand that the children of the working class have education of the same quality as the children of executives and bankers.

Me too! I think this shelter will be full of kids who will be surprised to be there! — universeness

There will no doubt be a few selfish adults ready to put 'em to work as soon as the all-clear sounds.

I think ending the UK monarchy, replacing the embarrassing house of lords, with a citizen based second tier of authority, getting rid of the civil list and ending the embarrassing yearly joke, that is the current UK honours list, would all be about consolidating the multi-culture, that IS the current UK population. — universeness

Maybe so; I'm not partial to the idea of aristocracy or monarchy. But given how well the US republic is doing just now, that may not be an ideal to strive for. Every large organization, however its tenets are laid out at its inception, tends to stratify over time. I don't see much difference between a landed aristocracy and a broadcast-media-owning one -- how bad they depends on whether they have any sense of noblesse oblige.
Any form of government works, as long as the people in it adhere to the rules and take responsibility. No form of government works they don't.

I honestly can't envision how you'd go about consolidating the population and I'm not sure it's good idea to .... social-engineer, to let my inner conservative come up for air .... such an outcome. If the economy, law-enforcement and social services are adequate to the needs of all the people, they will naturally mix anyway; interest blocs do not necessarily correspond to ethnic ones.

Britain or more precisely the four nations of Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales could become what they need to become. — universeness

Could work. If that's what they unanimously think is best for them. Is it, really? What kind of clout would Wales have in EU decision-making, compared to France and Germany? (keeping in mind that those countries are themselves not entirely strife-free) What about Cornwall?

What will you do with all your conservatives? I can't speak for Australia, but we sure don't want them!

I don't make such condemnations either, especially in the case of those who remained true to their principles. — universeness

So no, I will not cut the old guy some slack. — universeness

I don't think Sir Manny had much to do with looting the empire, or was consulted in whether to abolish it.

It needs to start new traditions and a new culture not conserve the old vile ones. — universeness

A scorched-earth radical? OK. I'll just wait for the whole ball of wax to melt in climate change.

Well a 'socialist monarchist,' just makes no sense to me at all Vera. Monarchy and aristocracy is a really old, really stupid concept. It needs to be made extinct imho. Accepting a gong with the title 'Order of the British EMPIRE,' also reduces yourself and your works to comedy and caricature, again imho. — universeness

But you were not born in the 19th century. Socialism has changed; attitudes have changed; the basis of the economy and British identity have all changed. Just sayn', cut the old guy some slack!

Would you not agree that our individual, personal experience, of living as a human being, along with the historical legacy we have, and can consume, almost as a 'believe it or not' offering, causes us to at some point in our lives, plant our flag in one camp or another? — universeness

This is true. But as a casual student of history, I can also understand that a person living in another time and having a very different experience may perceive their options and possibilities differently from us; that the borders of their "camps" may have been drawn along different rivers. Remember, too, that your historical heritage andmine are dissimilar, though both to some degree include the life work of Manny Shinwell - while his historical heritage was absent us, but very much present the shadow of the War to End All Wars - which, from our perspective, has been eclipsed by intervening events.

WE EACH decide what we feel is NOW vital to 'protect' or 'conserve?' — universeness

Yes, but I will not condemn dead people who - I believe - acted on their best conscience.
Or anyone who does now, even if they disagree with me on ways and means.

The problem as you see it is that most English speakers instinctively buy into the idea that stupid is as stupid does. — Hanover

And, as is often the case, instinct prevails. As Forrest Gump's mother would tell him: you should not judge a person by his IQ score, but by his actions.

And then there are the regional and colonial variants. In any case, it works adequately for everything I need to communicate....

Humorist PJ O'Rourke said much the same about his move from the left to the right. — Tom Storm

I read some of his early stuff and some of his post-conversion stuff and found both unconvincing, leading me to wonder whether he had any convictions, or was merely striking poses for effect.
This, OTOH, I don't find so shocking.

I could not believe it, when he became BARON Shinwell in 1970, — universeness

Especially in those days, but even now, I think you could be a determined socialist without turning on the monarchy. Robin Hood was utterly loyal to Richard - gods know why...Well, it's the oldest constitutional one (in the modern world), isn't it? I don't know that much about how people in then-united kingdom were thinking, but in more recent times, quite radical artists, scientists, performers and reformers have been given OBE's as a mark of recognition for their contribution to the nation - not of a political stand.
I don't think people of that generation, from either end of the legitimate political spectrum, would see a contradiction in disagreeing on what's best for one's country and agreeing on respect for the king. And for ERII, pretty much everyone did.
That's another indication of the shift in perception over the past century.

The correct solution would be for me to give both my tickets to two children. — T Clark

That's exactly what I wanted to say!
I don't know what the world will be like after the emergency, but if it's much more of a mess than it is now, I couldn't cope with it anyway, so I'd stay with my 98-year-old mother and 78-year-old life partner to watch the end of our world.

I understand The Passion of Donald Trump is complete. Can't wait till tomorrow, when the disciples find Mar-a-Lago empty. (Psst. Look in Trump International Golf Links, in Scotland.)

my point was the English language version. — Tom Storm

You mean the Murdoch influence? I completely agree that his outlets were instrumental in shaping this version, but not unique; the same sentiments and ideas can be, and are, expressed in every language.

Traditions. — praxis

Selectively.

Here in Australia too. I suspect the Murdoch influence and cultivation of the 'culture wars' has been inimical throughout the English speaking world — Tom Storm

Germany, Poland, India, Brazil, France, even the most progressive countries

We are used to seeing Nordic countries topping global rankings thanks to their stable democracies, generous welfare policies and commitments to equality. But when it comes to immigration, Denmark – and more recently Sweden – appear intent on modelling more regressive approaches.

It's all over the world. It's the politics of fear.

English is a dog's dinner of bits of all sorts of languages, and it's a complete mess. You have my admiration and sympathy using it as a second language and trying to philosophise in it. — unenlightened

It's not a complete mess! It's an amalgam. It's grown so big and rich that you can express in it just about anything a conscious entity is capable of thinking and feeling, with a fair margin of redundancy. Most people use only 1-2% of the available vocabulary; even the most erudite people only use only about 5-6% - but not all the same set, because English affords specialized sub-languages for different fields of study and endeavour.
And it has internal logic. As pointed out, you can intuit quite a lot of that logic by simply paying attention to good writers and speakers use grammar, which of three or four synonyms they choose, how they employ word-order to convey nuances of meaning. It can also be learned; the rules make sense. It was a second language for me, too - fortunately, at a young age - and an unending delight of discoveries.

I have no brief with coriander. Don't wash my hands for a long time after picking it. Of course people tend to become less radical as they take on the responsibilities and limitations of adulthood, and when they have finally been convinced that the society they have can be improved without burning it down.
But I've never changed my basic principles, converted to a punitive religion, supported miltarizing the police, rewriting history, denying the efficacy of vaccines or letting the mega-rich off paying taxes. I've never changed my my mind about what personal liberty ought to entail or what citizens owe the state and vice versa.

Of course, I never was a revolutionary, but a staunch believer in subversion, if democratic process fails and gradual improvement proves impossible. I have always believed in conserving nature and culture and heritage; I even found the British monarchy picturesque than annoying. (Didn't mind a major thoroughfare being shut for a royal visit, did for a papal one - but that's just my little prejudice: I wouldn't advocate hurling a bomb at either.) I do recall a time when Canadian conservative, liberal and soft socialist parties conducted civil public discourse regarding their agendas.

Now you've put in the effort to be more specific and probably expect that I will do the same, — T Clark

Not at all; I routinely make the effort to clarify my position, out of a personal distaste for ambiguity. I don't expect anyone to share it. Wondering about where and how conservative values were suppressed was a mere passing whimsy.

What I remember most is the notion of “inheritance”. Since it is much easier to destroy but not so easy to create, we owe it everyone to pass on the Good to the future, as a sort of bond between the past, the present, and posterity. Even if these things and institutions are useless, like royalty, they are forged through generations, are often beautiful, and indicate this inheritance. — NOS4A2

That resonates. It sounds like the conservatism of Premier Bill Davis and federal Conservative leader John Diefenbaker, to whom Doug Ford and Pierre Poilievre are a stark and horrific contrast. At the pivot point in between were Mike Harris and Brian Mulroney. Other English-speaking countries experienced a similar shift in their conservative governance style.

The result is that everything is getting scrambled. — frank

Yes, that! Maybe I'm not supposed to understand....
I'm old and have always been a progressive socialist. The last conservatives I understood and respected were old when I was young.
It irks me when I keep hearing that old people tend to be more conservative, and everything will be better, once we die off. On the other hand, I'm reading things like this:

over the last 10 years, the role of right-wing youth movements has grown even more central, helping to establish the guiding narratives and elevating some of the most visible faces of conservatism today,https://www.salon.com/2022/10/14/how-youth-activists-energized-the-right--and-drove-into-madness/

If I'm confused, at least I'm not alone.

class and war and inequality are naturalized in conservatism, and particular social formations dehistoricized. — Jamal

Yes, I was aware of that, though the process by which this happens is less clear, given that the personal perspective is a desire for peace, prosperity, security and continuity. I understand the tribalism and its strongest political expression: isolationism. But that should lead to wall-building and exclusion, not international warfare.
So, there seems to be a dissonance between the individual and collective expressions of the conservative mind-set, which makes it less comprehensible, not more; a discrepancy between the local and the state-level application of policy. Of course the Abrahams are willing to sacrifice their sons if God wants them, but it's not their own idea - or they claim that is isn't; they're just following orders. That makes it even more confusing to me.

I really find this attitude needlessly combative. — Jamal

I apologize. That was not my intention; I was only trying to make the same distinction as above: to separate personal conviction from general perception, professional analysis and political platform. Those perspective strike me as each markedly at variance with the others.

There must be a book about what has happened to conservatism in the past fifty years, and no doubt it’s a strange and interesting story. — Jamal

There are dozens.

But I wasn't asking about books or philosophers. I was asking about what conservative people value; what, specifically, they want to conserve. The confusion seems to enter when several incompatible ideas are introduced as part of a single vision: it becomes incoherent.
This comes very close to the feelings I noticed in sincere conservatives of my politically aware youth:

For me, if there is a core of conservatism it’s a basic suspicion of Utopianism and the idea of the “perfectibility of man”; a resultant pragmatic attitude to politics that aims to maintain a harmonious community in which change happens only slowly and organically on the basis of experience rather than on the basis of doctrines and principles. — Jamal

Thank you.

As I previously explained, I only see conservatism in an economic model. Reducing taxes + allowing the rich to expand their wealth + not intervention from the state = more employment. — javi2541997

But I'm told that's actually neoliberalism. Still can't quitewrap my head around how the word 'liberal' - which means 'broad-minded, tolerant, inclusive, generous' got mixed in there.

Anyway, there is this very strong religious element - different religions in each place a powerful 'conservative' faction takes over: it also means suppression of other religions, secular, humanist values, science and diversity.

These are the vague accusations I was speaking of. — T Clark

Oh. I didn't mean those as accusations, so much as descriptions. But I can bring them into better focus.

The far right embodies the worst of the European ideological tradition: exclusive nationalist essentialism, counter-Enlightenment dogmatism and political authoritarianism. Its message today is based on three core ideas: chauvinistic and ethnic exaltation of the nation; anti-immigrant xenophobia; and “anti-politician”, anti-establishment populism. In this regard, the far right offers its followers an exclusive identity, singles out the culprits (the establishment) and advocates simple and expeditious solutions (throw out the foreigners, overthrow the “political class”).

which is what I meant by rabid right.
Then, what I meant by all over the world:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45902454 In Brazil, a broad coalition of conservative groups helped push President Dilma Rouseff out of power in 2016, amid protests about widespread corruption
Ukraine has seen radical national activists protest against Russian interference, while socially conservative groups focused on religious and family values have also grown
In Thailand, conservative social movements seen as anti-democratic have helped to underpin military rule
In India, Hindu nationalists have gained influence as supporters of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's policies, including moves to strip four million people of citizenship
Islamist civil society in Turkey has thrived in tandem with the rule of the Justice and Development party
In Poland, a powerful conservative civil society now works closely with the Law and Justice government, which brought in a range of measures tightening control over the judiciary

And Orban:

...over the past decade, Orbán has become something of a hero to conservatives throughout Europe, and has piqued the interest of the American right wing as well.....“It’s not just his anti-immigration stance or his moral traditionalism,” Douthat wrote. “It’s that his interventions in Hungarian cultural life, the attacks on liberal academic centers and the spending on conservative ideological projects, are seen as examples of how political power might curb progressivism’s influence.”

and Johnson

Boris Johnson was the man who delivered England Brexit. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-07/boris-johnson-legacy-defined-by-brexit-and-scandal/100769902

Quite specific I'd've thought.

This is the key to understanding conservatism. A conservative government is against public intervention, — javi2541997

Except in making and enforcing laws that curtail personal freedom.
This is what I can't come to grips with: the logical contradictions.

if you reduce taxes, you will allow the rich companies to create more employment. — javi2541997

This is not borne out by documented evidence from the past. If they value the past, why do they have such short memories?

traditional family values. — universeness

There they are again! What does that mean??? There are many conflicting traditions. Which do conservatives prefer? Abraham's domestic arrangements? Thomas Jefferson's? And how do they see more marriages undermining the institution of marriage? How do they see the practical, logistical aspects of a strong community? What makes a community strong?

I've heard all the general descriptions and desiderata, but they don't correspond to the actions of any conservative government I've seen. The individuals I have met who identify as conservative by nature, temperament do seem to imagine

a society that is stable, secure, and prosperous, with a strong emphasis on family, community, and individual responsibility. — universeness

and yet the political parties they keep voting for keep making more people poor and insecure.
I do understand the vision, the magical vision of a 1950's American small town. Picket fences, lace curtains, friendly neighbourhood shops, Officer Mike strolling down Main street, women with shopping baskets, red-cheeked youngsters cannonballing into the river, whale-shaped cars parked along the street, having come in on a perfectly maintained highway; ice cream parlour with wholesome teenagers exchanging shy glances over gold-flecked formica tabletops, all present at Sunday service in their best clothes and scrubbed faces, then stopping for a little gossip before hurrying home to roast chicken. All white, all middle class, all busy, faithful, happy and law abiding.
And I know what's under the bile-green linoleum in those kitchens. They choose not to.

Accusations. — T Clark

The book banning? To clarify:

According to PEN America, there were 2,532 instances of book bans between July 2021 and June 2022. This number is staggering, especially when you consider these are just the bans PEN America is aware of — it’s unclear how many challenges and bans there are that haven’t been reported.

Texas came in first as the state with the largest number of book bans at 713, followed by Pennsylvania with a striking 456 bans, Florida with 204, Oklahoma with 43, Kansas with 30 and Tennessee with 16, according to the report.

The only other accusation I made was against the Texas legislature and there was nothing vague in the reference I supplied.

I don't see the marginalizing or suppressing of their expression.

No vaguer or less specific than yours. — T Clark

My what?

people should start with implementing critical thinking classes into basic education. — Ying

Republican Party of Texas wrote into its 2012 platform as part of the section on education:
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

It hasn't changed; Texas is well on the way to eliminating fact- or reason-based public education.

102. No Regulation of Homeschooling or Private School Curriculum: We oppose any attempt to regulate homeschooling or the curriculum of private or religious schools.

I think your version of ‘conservatives’ tends to be neoliberal folk who follow that cultural wrecking ball, — Tom Storm

That's not my version; that's the version I see under the political label that identifiable parties, their public spokespeople and their supporters wear. I can't tell who a real conservative is and who is a neoliberal calling him or herself conservative. That's why I asked.

But no doubt some neoliberals share some conservative values mainly on social issues. — Tom Storm

Those are the values I'm trying to identify. I'm not even asking for hard and fast; I'd settle for casually ambling Jello; I can't seem to find anything solid or positive enough to identify. I hear a lot of stuff that self-professed conservatives are against, - mostly other people being allowed to do something that doesn't affect them - but there, too, the substance eludes definition, and when you ask what they're for, it fades into smoke dissipates in neoliberal policy.

I understand wanting to keep the monarchy... even though they hate the present monarch. That happens, and the resolution has usually been bloody and costly, but I don't think it's a danger this time.
I understand the idea of patriotism, but not "my country right or wrong, unless the other party is in power, in which case, burn it down."
I get wanting to hang on to power all just for "us", but self-identified conservatives rarely admit that. And they elect such prats and twits and mountebanks, it's hard to respect even that desire.

If it’s authoritarianism, suppression of opposing voices and minority groups then are there not ‘Leftist’ groups who do all this? — Tom Storm

I suppose there must be, though the leftist groups I've been associated with were a lot more like a herd of cats than a phalanx. When that happens, though, are they still socialists and liberals? Or is there a leftward equivalent of 'neoliberal'? All labels can be abused and perverted.

But I do expect people of conviction to be able to articulate, clearly and consistently, their own values: what they believe, what they consider important personally and as a society; what they think is a desirable state of affairs.
I keep harking back to Archie Bunker's theme song. They may have been deluded, that generation of conservatives, but they had a picture in their heads of how things should be.

Universal access to abortion. Lack of respect for traditional values - patriotism, religion, marriage. Normalization of unconventional ways of life - transgenderism, gay marriage. Anti-family policies. Anti-gun policies. Pornography and the sexualization of culture and children. Lack of respect for the work ethic. Failure to support working people. Contempt for working class and white people. — T Clark

That's a lot of vague accusations at unidentified perpetrators.
It doesn't really clear things up. (Especially the part about how anti-gun policy hurts families.)

as history of the modern era amply shows, 'conservatives' are just as, or more, comfortable with autocracy (i.e. centralized minority rule) than they are with democracy (i.e. agonistic majority rule). — 180 Proof

This has been my observation, as well. The political right does tend to pull toward conformity, hierarchy and the imposition of order by force from above; it might well support an American ruling dynasty, but has not yet cast up a family equal to the role.

I think it would help if you named a particular conservative. — frank

It would help to name one if I knew how to recognize one. In politics, it seems to me that people who call themselves conservative in some way, e.g. fiscal responsibility or individual liberty, actually do the opposite when they're in office: cut government revenue while spending borrowed money on arms contracts and subsidies; curtail civil rights and freedoms.

many people who say they are conservative are actually neo-liberals, — Tom Storm

I don't exactly know what that is when it's at home, either. I have a definition for 'liberal' and I have one for 'new', but when they're put together, it becomes a political portmanteau of bad policy. Unless the liberalism referred-to is laissez-faire libertarian, which is quite different from social liberalism.
Okay, so the money-oriented, deregulating, privatizing conservatives are not, in fact, conservative.

A conservative is someone who opposes radical change — Tom Storm

I can't tell what counts as 'radical' change in the age of over 8000 satellites and every politician sounding off on social media like teenagers. And again: trade unions are a well established institution and tearing them down is - to me - a radical change brought about conservative administrations. So contracting "corrections" out to private enterprise: a state monopoly on law enforcement and retribution is a very deeply rooted tradition in all civilizations. (neoliberal?)

what they call 'social engineering'

That's another one of those terms I don't quite grasp. God made things a certain way, and nobody should change it. But every king and aristocracy and economic elite - the conservatives of their era - did change the order that prevailed before they took over. I understand that some Americans want their women back in the kitchen, pregnant, barefoot and illitarate, and their slaves back in the fields, singing sweetly from dawn to dusk. But that state of affairs, like every other, had also been brought about by human intervention - the pair God made was naked and unencumbered by possessions.

and works to maintain institutions and traditions and cultural artefacts (buildings, museums, landscapes, the arts, the rule of law,

Some institutions. Some traditions. cultural artefacts, buildings and the arts, not so much. At least in the US

The NEH and the NEA, despite commanding a tiny fraction of the federal government’s budget, have long been on the GOP’s kill list, since conservatives consider them to be a complete waste of taxpayer money.

they tend to believe in high culture — Tom Storm

Not that I have ever seen in the US or Canada. Certainly not among their voter base, and not conspicuously among their elite. Unless C&W&G are "high" culture, compared to symphony, ballet and opera - the despised province of the east coast liberal elite.

Conservatives often wish to preserve anachronistic social systems and privileges, — Tom Storm

This is the one part that rings true and corresponds to my own observation of conservative political behaviour. It doesn't tell me about values,though; only about holding on to power and depriving minority groups of rights and freedoms - while screaming about rights and freedom.

I don't think that's a true conservative position, either. I have kind of a nebulous idea what it is - at least, I have a memory of attitudes among elders I once respected. But they're all dead now.

This is especially true of the good things that come to us as collective assets: peace, freedom, law, civility, public spirit, the security of property and family life, in all of which we depend on the cooperation of others while having no means singlehandedly to obtain it.

That wouldn't look out of place on a socialist agenda.

Their position is true but boring, that of their opponents exciting but false.”

We don't hear that 'position', ever. We hear: no gun control, defunding social services and public broadcast media, lowering taxes on the rich, interference in public school curricula by special interest groups, and making war on some small foreign countries while exploiting others for natural resources.

In the US in particular, conservative values have been marginalized and their expression restricted for a long time. — T Clark

Tell about that.
Which specific conservative values have been marginalized, by whom, by what means? The only restrictions of expression I know about is hate speech, and keeping that off the mainstream broadcast networks has not done all that much to suppress it in social media.

Getting these things out in the open is probably a useful, if painful, thing. — T Clark

I wish someone would convince the book-banning conservatives of that.

I've heard certain people say that giving students belts of rank can be bad because it can result in toxic ego effects. — HardWorker

What is toxic ego effect?
You mean people become conceited through recognition of their accomplishments?
Some people are conceited with no accomplishments at all; some people are rewarded for lesser accomplishments while some who accomplish more are passed over. The world isn't always fair.

However, in skilled occupations, crafts and sports, as well as in organizations, it is necessary to devise some system of classification or rank. A match between two unranked karate students would not go well for the one who actually rates yellow against one whose ability rates a brown belt.
Similarly, I would prefer to get my medication from a pharmacist who knew 95% of the answers, rather than one who only scored 55%, even he's more charmingly humble.

Using intelligence as an example, we can describe actions, ideas, concepts and systems as being intelligent or stupid. — Judaka

We can, but it's always a matter of opinion.
The word, however, is more interesting than that. Intelligence, in the context of biological classification, is a quality of complex animal brains, which sets these aside from simpler, non-reasoning organisms.
In human psychology, it is a measurable trait that can be studied and compared.
In the humanities, it can be subdivided into areas of application: technical, tactical, verbal, conceptual and emotional intelligence.
In military parlance, intelligence is information collected through surveillance; in clandestine operations, intelligence refers both to the agency that organizes the activities of spies and to the fruit of their labours.

I'm not saying one can't word themselves carefully as to be clear on what they mean, or that this is a totally unsolvable problem or anything like that. — Judaka

It's a good reminder to use words with as much precision as one is able to, and to choose the appropriate term for the context in which one is commenting.
And also, incidentally, to distinguish between opinion and fact.
(Edited to eliminate errors in typing that could lead to misunderstanding.)

Have I just become old and cranky, — ssu

It was bound to happen! I rather enjoy letting myself be cranky - hell, I'm old; I've earned it!

but are especially Hollywood films become worse? What do you think about current films compared to 20th Century films? — ssu

Too soon to tell. We're not talking about all the movies made in the 20th century, just the ones from the second half that were memorable for some reason. Most of every century's artistic output is discarded and forgotten; only the good stuff survives.
Some of those popular favourites, like the Godfather series and Cuckoo's Nest were good movies, but I didn't like them as much as the books. That's a problem with reading: the movie never quite lives up to your internal image. They always have to leave out parts you're particularly fond of, or cast the wrong actors or something.
I can think of two exceptions: Cider House Rules and Fried Green Tomatoes.

Let’s Just Say It: The Republicans are the Problem — T Clark

To a very large extent, I believe this to be accurate. Not only the US; rabid conservatism has been showing up all over the world, polluting democracies everywhere. Hungary - so recently liberated from what the communist ideal was corrupted to by Russian aspirations to world domination - has recently become the poster child for right-wing assholity. The UK has divorced its entire continent under a conservative government... What did Boris think, he could get people to row the whole island over to Virginia Beach?

This a backlash to everything progressive that's been accomplished in the last six or seven decades. It's aided by electronic media and sensationalist news reportage.
The central problem is not hate, but fear. Fear and stupidity*.

(*This is a brand of stupidity that has existed since the beginning of civilization, but has now grown to pandemic proportions.)

What about the concept of humans being made in the image of a god, but far short in abilities? — TiredThinker

Then we'd just have the converse of what we do have: gods made in the image of humans, with greater abilities.

And if a god were in fact all powerful would the term "scale" even mean anything? — TiredThinker

Not to the god, but to the humans. That is also true of morality: it has meaning for humans, not for overgrown gods. Beyond a certain size and power, the god can't communicate with the humans; they no longer have a language in common. Whatever the chosen ends of such a god might be, we couldn't comprehend or appreciate it.

Or is it us - "the system" itself that generates both wealth and poverty (due to our collective obsession with and high regard for wealth/material/asset gain) that naturally empowers those that have it and disempowers those that don't. Is the system itself the flaw? — Benj96

Bullseye!
We were never told why A failed or refused to pay B, so we can't really say to what degree each of those persons is guilty and of what. I might mention, though, that this:

Person B takes legal action against person A and their finances are restored on court order. — Benj96

is not necessarily justice, because the court operates on a monetarist civil law, rather than karmic principle. And it is certainly not restorative, because now we have other persons involved, who need to be paid for their time and effort, and both litigants have spent extra money, time and effort on the court case. What began as a simple one-to-one transaction has snowballed into a societal issue.

Who is to blame? — Benj96

Why is it necessary to blame? What purpose does it serve?

Objects? There aren't any in the thought experiment. We can imagine something like that, because we have some basis for imagining and material to imagine from. Look at all the mythical creatures. What do they have in common? They're made up by recombining or extrapolating creatures that exist. We can imagine out of reality as we witness and experience it. A reality we didn't make, that was here - present, vital, vivid and varied - before 'we' arrived on the scene. I can't imagine anything entirely original, out of nothing. Can you?
(ps read the god thing)

Would you get bored of yourself? — Benj96

Almost immediately; within an eon or two. But I don't know where i would get the idea of creating or fragmenting or anything else - I would have nobody to learn from and nothing to learn. Just me and a whole bunch of nothing. I'd probably flip out.

As laid out in the sanest of philosophical systems:

In moral philosophy, the Epicureans argued that the avoidance of pain, inflicting it and experiencing it, and the enjoyment of harmless pleasures ought to guide human ‘choice and avoidance.’ Unlike the Stoics, they did not suppose that the human mind has unlimited power over the body; insofar as we are fully material beings, we act and suffer as one psycho-physical unity. They cautioned against excess, pointing out that that while eating, drinking, and sex are pleasurable and so to be enjoyed, moderation is called for. Overindulgence or imprudent choice brings on all manner of vexation, pain, social punishment, and remorse.

He believed that there were 3 ingredients to happiness. Friends, Freedom, and an Analyzed life. He also believed that we needed to be self sufficient in our lives to procure happiness

The philosophers job then is to guide, issuing principles — invicta

based on a close observation and analysis of how society works, what elements are required to its working to the benefit of its members and what circumstances render a society dysfunctional. Religion lays down precepts and rules; philosophy makes sense of the need for precepts and rules.

So you agree that a single god with unlimited knowledge must be sadistic, or indifferent in terms of morality? — TiredThinker

Yes, of course. Not the omniscience is the problem, but the omnipotence. Nothing moral could have that much power; nothing that powerful can be moral. Morality is a human concept; it can only apply on a human scale. Gods are a human concept and can only be thought of in human terms.