(big edit, hoping to make it fit better) ho noh... our universities will be filled with communists Hwi thinks she got there with serious work and studies some others didn't care for, Edric thinks he did just like many others. All are not born equal while all do not study equal either. Adam Smith, who was certainly gifted, also studied hard and himself gave much or most of his wealth to charity - he did not do things "equal" to others. If he built up his system from his own personal expectations that people look like that too (or become like this in his system), those not fitting this expectation are in a gap.* Edric, you seem to take the left side of this road. With the care for studying and a head that's helping with school, not to mention thinking about giving extra earnings, you might actually have more to agree than it looks with the marxists' steretypical nemesis. Adam Smith's system might share more than you think with your thinking - if you take into account the entirety of his writings.* This means Smith could actually agree with much of your principles (and by extension disagree with some who'd have claimed legitimacy from his heritage). Unvoluntarily, by some common principles, you might both defend the same thing except that in a group of 10 with a conflict you'd defend 5 of them and he'd defend the 5 others.** Overall, I think it makes that a part of what you bring, whatever the field, can work out fine with some calling themselves "right wing", libertarians, whatever. As long as it doesn't become just about politics I guess. It makes some place for agreement with "right-wing" people with different views if nuances are kept, as long as each takes care of his respective specialties. Ex: You and Hwi both want some integrity around which, from you, is useful to rulers and, from Hwi, is useful to people in need of honest information from lenders to make good economic decisions. * Note also that Adam Smith wrote about morality, ethics and such topics. This might tell how his economic system is counting on that part actually being there. Many present views arguably based on Smith are actually not agreing with Smith's grand view and could be cherry-picking. ** i.e. Like people defending freedom or else, just for different groups. They actually defend the same thing on some points, though their vocabulary does not explicitly say so.