Defined as such, liberalism is evolutionarily novel.  Humans (like other species) are evolutionarily designed to be http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/altruism" rel="nofollow - altruistic toward their genetic kin, their friends and allies, and members of their deme (a group of intermarrying individuals) or ethnic group.  They are not designed to be altruistic toward an indefinite number of complete strangers whom they are not likely ever to meet or interact with.  This is largely because our ancestors lived in a small band of 50-150 genetically related individuals, and large cities and nations with thousands and millions of people are themselves evolutionarily novel.

The examination of the 10-volume compendium The Encyclopedia of World Cultures, which describes all human cultures known to anthropology (more than 1,500) in great detail, as well as extensive primary ethnographies of traditional societies, reveals that liberalism as defined above is absent in these traditional cultures.  While sharing of resources, especially food, is quite common and often mandatory among hunter-gatherer tribes, and while trade with neighboring tribes often takes place, there is no evidence that people in contemporary hunter-gatherer bands freely share resources with members of other tribes.

Because all members of a hunter-gatherer tribe are genetic kin or at the very least friends and allies for life, sharing resources among them does not qualify as an expression of liberalism as defined above.  Given its absence in the contemporary hunter-gatherer tribes, which are often used as modern-day analogs of our ancestral life, it may be reasonable to infer that sharing of resources with total strangers that one has never met or is not likely ever to meet – that is, liberalism – was not part of our ancestral life.  Liberalism may therefore be evolutionarily novel, and http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/the-hypothesis" rel="nofollow - the Hypothesis would predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely than less intelligent individuals to espouse liberalism as a value.

Analyses of large representative samples, from both the United States and the United Kingdom, confirm this prediction.  In both countries, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to be liberals than less intelligent children.  For example, among the American sample, those who identify themselves as “very liberal” in early adulthood have a mean http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/child-development" rel="nofollow - childhood IQ of 106.4, whereas those who identify themselves as “very conservative” in early adulthood have a mean childhood IQ of 94.8.

Even though past studies show that women are more liberal than men, and blacks are more liberal than whites, the effect of childhood http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/intelligence" rel="nofollow - intelligence on adult political ideology is twice as large as the effect of either http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/sex" rel="nofollow - sex or race.  So it appears that, as http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/the-hypothesis" rel="nofollow - the Hypothesis predicts, more intelligent individuals are more likely to espouse the value of liberalism than less intelligent individuals, possibly because liberalism is evolutionarily novel and conservatism is evolutionarily familiar.

The primary means that citizens of capitalist democracies contribute their private resources for the welfare of the genetically unrelated others is paying taxes to the government for its social welfare programs.  The fact that conservatives have been shown to give more money to charities than liberals is not inconsistent with the prediction from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/the-hypothesis" rel="nofollow - the Hypothesis ; in fact, it supports the prediction.  Individuals can normally choose and select the beneficiaries of their charity donations.  For example, they can choose to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Haiti, because they want to help them, but not to give money to the victims of the earthquake in Chile, because they don’t want to help them.  In contrast, citizens do not have any control over whom the money they pay in taxes benefit.  They cannot individually choose to pay taxes to fund Medicare, because they want to help elderly white people, but not AFDC, because they don’t want to help poor black single mothers.  This may precisely be why conservatives choose to give more money to individual charities of their choice while opposing higher taxes.

Incidentally, this finding substantiates one of the persistent complaints among conservatives.  Conservatives often complain that liberals control the media or the show business or the academia or some other social institutions.  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201003/the-hypothesis" rel="nofollow - the Hypothesis explains why conservatives are correct in their complaints.  Liberals do control the media, or the show business, or the academia, among other institutions, because, apart from a few areas in life (such as business) where countervailing circumstances may prevail, liberals control all institutions.  They control the institutions because liberals are on average more intelligent than conservatives and thus they are more likely to attain the highest status in any area of (evolutionarily novel) modern life.

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” - Winston Churchill

So “labeling” is the new comfort zone, slicing and dicing until its comfortable to swallow, a sickness that permeates the PA site as well, everything needs to be in a neat and accessible folder and compartmentalized!

I yearn for a world where debate encompasses empathy and research, where labels are torn away and the truth is revealed as it really is, in all its nakedly pure existence, without camouflage and deflection.  

I know what anger is, suppressing it for 56 years now, best expressed by Einstein, who stated something to the effect of " there are 2 infinites, the universe and human stupidity but I am not too sure of the first one"