Economically Conservative, Socially Liberal

“I’m a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal”.  Is it an oxymoron to describe yourself as such?

How can one be socially liberal yet support a system (such as capitalism) that inherently devalues a working woman who needs to go on leave for two years to raise her children?

Essentially, we want the government out of our bedrooms and also out of our wallets.

Folks who like this description probably believe that they are taking the best parts of the two major political parties. Social liberalism from the Democrats/ALP, and economic conservatism from the Republicans/Coalition. My problem with this perspective is that it is based upon an incorrect assumption. The incorrect assumption is that economic and social policies and ramifications are mutually exclusive. They do not interact with each other. As far as I can tell, they do indeed interact. Socially progressive and fiscally conservative values are not mutually exclusive.

The reason for the interaction is simple. A growing number of the so-called social liberties are costing all citizens more and more real dollars. In other words, there is a price to be paid for the reckless and irresponsible choices that some people make. There would be far less linkage between social issues and economic issues if people were required to clean up their own social messes and not pass the bill on to others. This is not the case. We live in the era of the government solution. We try to solve problems by collecting money from everybody, and transferring it to the problem, which is often cast as a victim.

The key question becomes, when others choose to be socially liberal, are you willing to spend your money, via the government, to help them fix situations which they caused? These situations may often involve behaviours and choices which you might never even remotely consider appropriate for your own life. Is this being economically conservative?

As I look out on the number of divorces, unwed mothers, declining test scores, and the increase in violence by children, I can come to no other conclusion than we are simply taking too many risks. I do not want to tell or even suggest what people should do. But I also do not want to be handed the bill when their choices require a bailout.

Being in the era of government, we react to these trends with more and more programs. In the end, I believe that this is an approach that will not work. It has not worked to the extent that we have tried. Do you really believe that these disturbing trends will be slowed and even reversed by government programs? The government should not reward and subsidise risky behaviour. And even if you believe that the government is doing good, will you at least acknowledge that the money that the government spends comes from taxes extracted from families that may very well have far better use for that money - their money. On what moral basis can we extract money in order to fund risky behaviour?

I do not claim that raising children can be done without money. Far from it. I do not believe, however, that government should have a role in the raising of children. Historically and constitutionally it does not have a role. It is simply the wrong institution for the job of raising children. If a family needs financial help, the far more appropriate institutions are extended family, churches, and the large number of charity groups that exist for this very purpose. Getting government out of this function will provide substantial funds which can be redirected to these much better alternatives. Further, it would eliminate the discrimination against individuals and couples who choose not to have children.

There appears to be some tension between some “right” and “left” libertarians. There appears to be a rift between libertarians who lean socially liberal and the libertarians who lean socially conservative. There is no denying that many in the libertarian camp are both fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But that by no means insists that all libertarians are socially liberal. (Some even claim to be libertarians who are economically liberal – I just call them wrong). In fact, many libertarians are both economically and socially conservative. So how do we explain the compatibility of these socially liberal and social conservative fiscal conservatives? How can two groups of individuals who differ widely on social issues reconcile their differences? The answer is that both are libertarians, and being a libertarian is not about social liberalism or conservatism. Libertarianism is about social responsibility. The word means “a believer in liberty”. Libertarians believe in individual conscience and individual choice.

Regardless of what they believe about proper social behaviour, libertarians maintain that individuals and communities are responsible for social values, not the government.

The term social liberal/fiscal conservative represents an opinion about public policy. It represents your opinion about the proper relationship of one to the other, your view about the proper relationship of state expenditure to the various “social” needs of the population.

Social conservatives can still be libertarians. That is because it is individual responsibility that holds together “left” and “right” libertarians. Those who claim libertarians are merely “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” should therefore be corrected. Instead we should say that libertarians are “fiscally conservative and socially responsible”.

How do you reconcile fiscally conservative and socially progressive values? I think they’re both saying essentially the same thing – they just want government to spend their tax dollars wisely and get out of their private lives. Take the state out of private decisions. Abolish both halves of the welfare/warfare bureaucracy and liberate 90% of our wealth that’s currently soaked up by the costs of a bloated and ineffective government, to make us all richer and freer.

Government bureaucracies have no incentive to lift people out of dependency and every incentive to keep them in it. After all, more poverty means a bigger budget and more power for the bureaucrats. Instead, income tax should be abolished and people should be allowed to keep what they earn instead of taxing it away from them. The wealth freed up would go directly to the private sector, creating jobs for the poor, decreasing the demand on private charity, and increasing charitable giving. We should be promoting solutions that empower people rather than demanding government intervention. Start your own business and create your own wealth.

When I think of a fiscally conservative person, I think of someone who believes in free market principles in the form of less taxation, regulation and is a proponent of capitalism. When I think of someone who is socially liberal, it is a person who believes in social equality in the form of, perhaps, gay rights, feminism, and other issues.

In broad terms, being socially conservative means you value tradition and established conventions, while being socially progressive is about trying to change things for the better. Economically, conservatives advocate a small government, lower taxes and harsher stances on crime, while progressives advocate a government that provides services and regulates the economy.

If you're fiscally conservative (small government, low taxes) and socially liberal (generally for people having the right to do what they please so long as it isn't hurting anyone else), you're a libertarian (who supports free markets, low regulation and social policy). I consider myself in this category.

If you're socially liberal regarding a greater redistribution of wealth, a stronger welfare state, or other policies that imply a significant degree of government intervention (affirmative action and abortion can be hazy here), but are otherwise economically conservative (free markets, low regulation), you might qualify as a "moderate libertarian" or just as a moderate. I do not advocate the creation of a welfare state. The welfare system is flawed because it rewards people for being poor and deprives them of incentives to work. It is the welfare system that has sucked individuals into the trap of dependency. The availability of government subsidies lures people away from the effort of work. The opportunity to get compensation for drug- and alcohol-related disabilities lowers people's resistance to these vices. Payments made to unwed mothers undermine the incentive to take precautions against unplanned pregnancies. The best escape route out of poverty is one that government cannot provide – motivation and hard work.

Almost everyone agrees that a job is better than any welfare program. Yet for years this country has pursued tax and regulatory policies that seem perversely designed to discourage economic growth and reduce entrepreneurial opportunities. In addition, government regulations such as minimum wage laws and mandated benefits drive up the cost of employing additional workers. Individual initiative and hard work should be rewarded, not punished. I believe that the system of a progressive tax is unfair. Why should I be required to pay more taxes because I happen to make more money? Percentages are equal for everyone, so if I make a million dollars and have to pay 20% for taxes then it is equally difficult for me as it is for the person who makes ten thousand dollars. Everyone earns money according to the amount of time, energy and education that they have expended, as well as the experience they have garnered. Capitalism has proven to be the most efficient way of creating and distributing wealth.

A national sales tax would be better than income tax. The rich would pay more simply because they would buy more products and the poor would pay less because they would buy less. By allowing the rich to make more and more money, we encourage them to do and invest in things that we want. In the short term, inequality is increased, but in the long term, everyone wins. Government should be in the business of making sure that the rules of the game are fair, not in redistributing the winnings. The perspective that a person should pay a higher rate than another is unjust in that it infringes on the personal freedom of an individual. Distributing a well-off person's money to everyone just teaches others how to be lazy and get money for not working. It discourages success. If the rich have less money to spend, there will be fewer jobs because the rich spend money, and create jobs. A poor person has never hired me for a job. Nobody should be forced to support another person entirely, nobody should be paying for another person's healthcare or whatever. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap. In exchange for public assistance, the government is entitled to make demands on people. Benefits should be linked to socially accepted behaviours such as getting a job and refraining from having more children before a family can afford it.

My support for smaller, less intrusive government means that government should have less of a role in both the economic and social realms. Free trade provides economic growth and jobs, and is the best policy for economic development.

The term libertarian is generally someone who has economically conservative and socially liberal political views. Thus a libertarian is someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and against government intervention in economic affairs, and for expansion of personal freedoms. An individual who is liberal is one who is favourable to progress or reform. They are also one who is generally considered to be free from prejudice or bigotry and tolerant. Libertarians believe that every individual is entitled to equality before the law and fair treatment as an individual responsible for their own actions. We oppose racism, sexism and sexual preference bigotry, whether perpetrated by private individuals or (especially) by government. We recognise that there will always be bigotry and hatred in the world just like there will always be fear and stupidity. But one cannot use laws to force understanding any more than one can use laws to force courage or intelligence. When people use bigotry as an excuse to commit force or fraud, it is the act itself which is the crime and deserves punishment, not the motive behind it.

It is not the role of government to negotiate maternity leave arrangements between employers and employees. Similarly, I want the government out of marriage. I do not support a government ban on gay marriage, a Constitutional amendment to define marriage, or laws that discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation. It is the place of individuals to decide whether or not a marriage can occur; the government should not be involved in the matter at all. I am also anti-drugs. So much so that I don’t even like to take pain killers for minor afflictions such as headaches and minor pain. So I am pro-drug war and anti-legalisation of drugs, right? Wrong! I believe that individuals are responsible for what they put into their bodies, not the government. That being said, I do support voluntary education and drug support groups. But I refuse to let the government be responsible for policing individuals’ drug use. Responsibility is for the individual, not the state. And like with marriage, it is also not the government’s place to legislate on abortion rights. The government should not meddle in a decision that should be private between a woman and her physician. Having said that, pro-lifers should not have to subsidise with their money behaviour they consider to be murder. I would also end all government funding of art. The label “artist” confers no special right to a living at public expense.

The problem which has been evident for many years now is the fact that the Australian Liberal Party are called so. The Liberal Party of Australia is a misnomer -  they are against more or less everything that liberals are for except for gun control, which they support.

How can a political party, a major national political party, call themselves Liberal if their views are counter to that adjective? How can a party, who’s members identify heavily with nationalism, conservatism and protectionism be named Liberal?

It is a great misnomer, one that would cause great embarrassment amongst those of us who are politically charged and sufficiently educated.

How do libertarians differ from conservatives? For starters, by not being conservative. Libertarians hold no brief for the right wing’s rather over militarist, racist, sexist, and authoritarian tendencies and reject conservative attempts to “legislate morality” with censorship, drug laws and obnoxious Bible-thumping.

The Liberal Party, has at the moment, employed as their leader an icon of Australian conservatism. Tony Abbott is not a progressive and clearly not an advocate of personal freedoms and liberties. He supports a bottom line of policy based on religious belief which could in turn effect legislation if his party were to ever form government again under his leadership.

In the sane world, Liberal is a word which describes those of us who are progressive in our thought, opinions and actions. Those of us without bigotry or prejudice. It describes those in our society who support freedoms and liberties. This is a Liberal.

Tony Abbott is quite possibly, one of the farthest from that description right now in mainstream Australian politics.

So why does he lead the Liberal Party? Why has this party, or perhaps, how has this party been able to hang on to this name for so long? Even with a long line of recent men at the helm – John Hewson, Alexander Downer, John Howard, Brendan Nelson, Malcolm Turnbull (actually, Malcolm is one of the few MP’s in the party with slightly progressive opinions. Two such being the republican issue and on same sex marriage) the party has still kept its name.

Since the party was formed after the 1943 federal election after the destruction of the United Australia Party, the Liberal Party, who has historically held a coalition with the National Party when in government, the Liberal Party identified themselves as economic liberalists. Economic liberalism is not the same as being a liberal, as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were also quite the economic liberalists, however I would dare anyone to even call them remotely progressive.

The party has always identified socially with the conservative ideology. They have leaned towards the old policies of the now non-existent Australian Protectionist Party. There has always been a nationalist undertone to their ideals and their governmental policy-making. Their number of government coalitions with the Nationals – a slightly more right-leaning party, have produced more border control measures and have made it significantly more difficult for legitimate refugees to gain asylum and start a new life in Australia.

Social conservatism is the best way to describe the Australian Liberal Party. And despite their economic liberalism, this does not in fact, make them liberals in the slightest way.

Libertarians believe in open borders but given unrestricted immigration would attract a huge influx of welfare recipients, libertarians would start by abolishing welfare programs before opening the borders.

If a party’s name were fairly based on that party’s agenda, then the Australian Liberal Party would more realistically be known as the Australian Conservative Party.

I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralised authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. True conservatism, at its heart, is libertarian.

Thus it pains me greatly to see some self-proclaimed conservatives these days attacking libertarianism. Instead of true conservative beliefs – those of small government, individual freedom, and free markets, they preach social authoritarianism and government control. Casting aside the ideology of the ‘founding fathers’ of what is now considered conservative thought, they instead replace it with a statist regime little different to that of the socialists. Rather than trying to minimise the size and scope of government, they instead seek to use it to their own ends. Seeking to use government to achieve your desired aims is not conservative.

Indeed, while conservatives and libertarians certainly can disagree on some issues, these are at the periphery. It is our shared view on the size and scope of government that unites us.

The fact that there are now these faux-conservatives who argue for greater government regulation, greater responsibilities for the State and greater control over peoples lives, is nothing more than an insult to the memories of the true conservative heroes. It is not conservatism, but socialism in drag, and it is a disgrace.

If you want to be a social authoritarian statist, that’s fine. We live in a free country, and you have the right to be wrong. But please, please, don’t you dare call yourself a conservative.

What if I want to crack down on wasteful pensions and union spending on behalf of the taxpayer, but don't want to deny this country's gay citizens the equal right to marriage? What if I want to shrink the mind-numbing bureaucracy of government while continuing to allow women to make their own choices governing their body? Who do I vote for?

Herein lies the problem. If you want a fiscal conservative to represent you in Australia you have to accept an unacceptable amount of socially backward baggage. If you want a representative committed to human rights and personal liberty you have to accept a bloated government too close to the nation's unions and too willing to waste taxpayer dollars.

I am disappointed by the lack of a reasonable individual to rise from the right to save the Liberal Party from the religious hijacking currently besieging it. The Liberal Party has created a social litmus test that is impossible for people outside of evangelical Christianity to adhere to, and this is going to hurt them in the long run. As of now, those in my generation have nowhere to turn for a socially liberal fiscal conservative.

It is not married gays that keep the nation's unemployment rate high; it is not gays in the military that have mired us in Iraq and Afghanistan; it is not a woman's right to choose that has caused foreclosure after foreclosure; and it certainly has not been a lack of faith in Jesus Christ that saw nearly a trillion taxpayer dollars go to the very same companies that plunged this nation close to recession. Yet these social issues remain the priority of the Liberal Party supposedly focused on reining in government spending and getting our economy back on track.

Because my economic views don’t align with the Liberal Party’s social views, this leaves me politically stranded. If you feel that politics is broken, well you’re probably right. One should not have to compromise their opinions to fit into arbitrary pigeon holes because our country doesn’t offer an alternative party that values socially progressive and fiscally conservative policies. A true libertarian party.

This conundrum demonstrates the need for balance in our approach to governing. We must have visionary leaders with courage to move our country forward, but they must temper their exuberance with sound fiscal policies that support new initiatives in a responsible way. In this sense, we must learn to run government like a business and make sure our policies are both effective, and cost effective.

Cut her some slack - Gina Rinehart

Gina Rinehart is probably one of the most despised public figures.

Contrary to popular belief, her wealth was not an accident of inheritance. Few people realise Rinehart inherited a much indebted company after her father's death 20 years ago. Unlike many wealthy heirs, Rinehart has not just maintained her fortune but multiplied it many times over. When she made her debut on the rich list after her mining magnate father Lang Hancock died in 1992, her net wealth was estimated at $75 million. Now she is worth 386 times as much. At nearly 58, she remains the ceaseless entrepreneur.

Rinehart’s success is indicative of the changing role of women in our society and the positions of authority they now occupy, something that simply wasn’t possible let alone conceivable 40 years ago. It’s a cause for celebration that finally our society is in a position where the person who has the most drive, the brightest ideas and the tenacity to see something to the finish is the person who will succeed, regardless of gender.

Yet despite her enormous success, she is constantly mischaracterised as self interested, arrogant, selfish, greedy and cold hearted. Similar unfair criticisms have been made about other successful women like Hilary Clinton and Julia Gillard, who are constantly denigrated for their appearance. But these women (including Rinehart) are simply too modest and humble to hijack the feminist movements to attract sympathisers.

Rinehart’s increasingly frequent forays into public policy should surprise no one. The media preposterously paint Rinehart as being in agreement with the Liberal Party, when the truth is that she is on one side, and both the Labor and Liberal Parties are on the other. And it’s no wonder that she refuses to engage with the media when they are unrelentingly left-wing in policy terms.


But despite her unpopular opinions, a lot of her comments are irrefutable.

“If you want to help the poor and our next generation, make investment, re-investment and businesses welcome. High-tax socialist policies don’t create jobs, business and investment do”, Rinehart said recently, pointing out Australia is mired in costly labour regulation, investment-sapping taxes and carping jealousy fanned by a pusillanimous political class. Her basic message was that the costs of business are running out of control and that the Government is not listening to the business people who know first-hand what it takes to employ a worker.

Her remarks drew vituperative rebuke from the Prime Minister down.

A seemingly self-serving economics lecture by one of the world’s richest women, whose fortune owes as much to progeny as to acumen, might not be a marketing triumph but it doesn’t blunt the truth of her message.

And the truth, backed up by a mountain of economic theory and evidence, hurts. Australia has become excessively expensive, with price increases concentrated in parts of the economy the government meddles most with (ie. health, education, and child care).

The Commonwealth parliament alone passed a farcical 7,100 pages of legislation last year, compared to 358 in 1958. The tax system requires 21,000 bureaucrats to enforce, and the federal departments of health and education, for example, employ almost 10,000 people without running a single hospital or school.

Far from being loopy, Rinehart’s remarks reflect standard, even boring, economic theory, entwined with a classically liberal philosophy that unwieldy government undermines national and individual prosperity.

Rinehart’s observation that Australian wages are high compared to Africa’s prompted fury, but logic points out higher minimum wages and laws hampering businesses hiring and firing decisions bolster unemployment.

The prime minister’s response that paying people $2 an hour “is not the Australian way’’ not only grossly misrepresents Rinehart, but is pompous, suggesting Africans pay each other miserly sums by choice, and ignorant, implying the costs of goods and services in Africa are similar to here.

Rinehart mentioned labour rates in Africa - she did not advocate $2 wages in Australia. Her comment on statistics was immediately manipulated by the Treasurer and most of what she had to say was soon lost.

When criticised about wishing to employ foreigners, this is also untrue. The government is right to assist mining companies — even those run by Gina Rinehart — to obtain foreign workers for constructing large projects. Australians are unwilling to work in remote locations – and they particularly don’t like to ¬settle thousands of kilometres from their family and friends to do hot, hard and dirty work for the resources sector. So we’re left with training programs and importing workers to fill the skills gaps that the rapid expansion of the industry have opened up, or major projects get delayed or cancelled. Preventing employers bringing in workers will simply delay projects and drive up the price of labour (which of course unions are happy to see). In 2011 there were more than 70,000 people in Australia on temporary employment visas. The maximum of 1,700 that would be employed at the Roy Hill iron ore project are a tiny addition to that.

Companies in WA are investing in low-cost highly resourced Africa as businesses need to sell their product on the world market and not at Australian prices.

Fortescue put off a thousand people recently and Xstrata has just announced another 600 job losses. Rinehart said Australia was becoming too uncompetitive. This is a statement of the accepted truth. It has been said by numerous business people for the past two years e.g. Jack Nasser, chair of BHP, and his CEO Marius Kloppers when announcing the deferral of the Olympic Dam.

Rinehart’s claim that Australian taxes are driving international investors away reflects the Government’s own Henry tax review, which argued global investment decisions are highly sensitive to differing international tax rates. Australia is slipping down the ranks of global competitiveness due to the carbon tax, red tape, new and increasing taxes and infrastructure that lags well behind the world’s best.

Even Rinehart’s admonition of excessive smoking and drinking channels Max Weber, the German political theorist who argued the relative success of the Anglo-Saxon countries rested on their relative monopoly on industry, thrift and abstemious living. “Our mines still produce great wealth, but it no longer will be enough to subsidise class warfare, complacency, overspending and an increasingly expensive bureaucracy’’ Rinehart says. When Australia’s boom becomes a whimper, her ideas will start to resonate more widely.

While the media continues to mischaracterise her, little is known about her charity work and her passion for helping young girls.

Rinehart could sell her mines and swan around the Riviera for the rest of her life. Australia is lucky to have a billionaire with an interest in public policy, with the resources to provide a potential counterweight to the tired chorus of vested interests in Canberra.

Don't shoot the media

For many of us, disasters are fortunately not things we experience first-hand. Instead, they are events we hear about, read about or see in mediated ways, be it in newspapers, movies or books, or on television or the internet. It’s true that if you only read the headlines on an issue, especially in a biased media element, you will be likely lead into thinking the way that media element wants you to think. Often, headlines are worded in such a way to grab attention, and only in the fine print will you find any reasoned, substantially accurate information on the topic. Such investigative journalism is right and proper however if it’s backed up with documents, interviews with responsible witnesses, and other reliable primary sources. Emotionally charged aspects can in fact be properly drawn out without providing the elements needed (such as pertinent background, investigative, or contextual information) for the audience to form its own opinions on the subject so long as critical thinking is applied.

What I believe in (Religion)

I believe that religion is a matter which ought to lie solely between each individual and their chosen God. I believe that each individual has a right to exercise their own religion so long as they do so within the parameters of the law. Religion should never be used as an excuse to do unconscionable acts or to discriminate against others.

I believe in an Australia where the separation of the church and state is absolute and our Federal and State Governments remain religiously neutral. No one should be compelled to support any religion nor should anyone be threatened with punishment on account of their religious beliefs. Religious leaders and religious institutions should not have any influence on public policy and similarly, should not tell their parishioners for whom to vote. Churches and religious schools should not be granted public funds or political preference. Similarly, public funding should not be used to fund school chaplains for public and private schools.

Inciting religious hatred should also be condemned. It is important to distinguish between encouraging hatred against individuals and hatred of a belief system. As religious people themselves might put it – you can hate the sin and love the sinner. Freedom of speech is one of the central values of a liberal democracy. But freedom of speech should not extend to religious hatred. We need to ensure that we distinguish our legitimate objections to religions from prejudice which threatens to tear our communities apart. It is a mistake to confuse disagreeing with religion, perhaps very strongly, and advocating discrimination against religious followers. If people are to be critical of religions, which they surely have a right to be, then it is irresponsible to do so without taking great pains to distinguish this from hatred of its adherents.

Having said all of this, throughout history, religion has been the single greatest source of human-caused wars, suffering, and misery. In the name of God, more suffering has been inflicted than by any other man-made cause. In addition to this, there are many other problems with religion. Most religions are heavily outdated and are incredibly contradictory.

And the most fundamental point of all is that all religions rest on the patently illogical, unproven premise that “what this book says is true because the book says it’s true”. That, unfortunately, is the best that religion has, and ever can offer, as a way of proving its God/divine authorship premise; an embarrassingly paltry, painfully childish claim that would be laughed out of any court, as well as any credible institution of higher learning.

Religious faith requires that we unquestioningly accept that the presumed very Creator of logic itself, as well as the laws of cause and effect, both of which are absolutely foundational to the operation of the entire universe and everything in it, capriciously violated (and commanded violation of) all of these laws, commandments and crucial moral and ethical standards and behaviours with no rational explanation. It therefore seems absurd to rely on all of the God-related premises, theories, etc., solely on belief, not real evidence, not reason, not logic, not true morality, not any rational thing at all – solely on belief and it’s senseless sibling, faith (as well as a good dose of fear).

It is common, of course, to say that all religions, or certainly most of them, teach some sort of brotherly/sisterly love, that all major religions have some version of the Golden Rule, and that religions therefore have acted to introduce love and compassion into the world. But once again, that flies in the face of historical fact - for every year of peace in humankind's history there have been fourteen years of war, 90% of which have been fought either because of, or under the banner of, God by whatever name.

Morals aren't begotten from religion, but secular moral philosophy, jurisprudence and dinner table conversations. So, as a non-believer, I find it personally insulting for religious individuals to suggest that people who reject the notion of a god are in some way morally "unjust". Especially considering the reality that religion has been responsible for more strife, death, suffering, ignorance, and atrocious injustices than free thought ever has.

If anything, it's been my experience that religion is a detrimental control mechanism, as it forces people to adhere to strict, often impossible expectations that is just not reasonable for most. As a result, the person may be more prone to engage in "sins", as what religion deems a "sin", is in fact normal, appropriate human behaviour - behaviour which has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years before humans even developed religion.