Visions perspectives and worldviews: the birth of echo chambers (Sowell, 14)
Our worldviews shape who we are. While we aren’t always consistent, we tend to lean in the same direction. That direction being whatever the tribal group we are a part of. This tribalism invites the individual into the religious worldview but also binds them into an echo chamber that reviles any disagreement.
Whether religious, secular, conservative or liberal the opposing view is not only incorrect but misguided. It hurts the heart hearing someone else’s view. How could they believe in that? How heartless could hey be? Views are embedded in the psyche attached at the hip. The viewpoint is corralled with emotional stress. How dare it be challenged? How dare someone disagree with a perfectly pure position? Outrageous. Outlandish. Utterly disgraceful. Such is the predicament of disagreement. A believer hearing a secularist deny God or a secularist hearing a believer deny evolution. The degree of latitude varies based on the magnitude of the denial. For some denying God is bad for others it isn’t so bad. Ridiculing homosexuality may bother some liberals while burdening others more. The more connected to the view the more emotion exerted the harder to disagree. It is a matter of scope and allegiance.
Worldviews are consistent with tendencies. The progressive impulse follows several issues across the board. Beyond the intersectional crowd and the party titles, liberalism tends to promote innovation and conservatism static. This doesn’t mean that a conservative would be anti-technology but the tendency is to pushback on alterations that threaten one’s way of life. Liberalism is not a one size fits all. It corresponds to various individuals and various degrees. Liberalism can be synchronic and diachronic. How liberal one is to their peers versus how liberal they are to other societies. Liberal has come to mean a lot of things but in the strict definition of its progressive character those who wish to make alterations are liberal and those who oppose these alterations are conservative. It may vary in age but there is a consistency across socio-political and socio-economic lines. The quadrant axis of horizontal-economic and vertical-political find equivalency had the vertical axis been turned ninety degrees to parallel the economic spectrum. There are those neo-liberals who are socially liberal but fiscally conservative. Such individuals may a time desire more governmental intervention to cover the market’s limitations.
This does not mean that libertarians are socially conservative. Socially conservative in the normative conservative definition. This is the problem with definitions. Libertarians are socially conservative not in progressiveness but in governmental intervention. The progressive agenda is anti-religious values thus those fiscally conservatives have been hounded by religious dogma in their ideals. Fiscally conservative is concerning interventionism. No governmental interventionism in social or economic issues. Yet the religious formula has conflated conservative and anti-LGBT. Religious conservatism is reactionary to progressive secular ideas, this is not the same as anti-interventionism. Many libertarians believe that individuals can make their own choice. Non-interventionism does not mean that one cannot marry a man nor have a sex change, only that the government shouldn’t demand or even recommend. Each individual is to make their own choice. To some extent the authoritarian axis demonstrates a regulation of the social filter but absent religiosity, the issue has nothing to do with progressive or regressive but solely the governmental infiltration.
All this is to say, that looking at the position misses the mark. Both lefties and libertarians support legalising cannabis and abortion. Yet concerning gun rights they divert. Their philosophies differ. The lefty wishes to maximise progressivism with governmental intervention but the libertarian solely wishes to maximise autonomy and minimise governmental intervention. While their results may align in many cases, they permit all these progressive ideas at the hilt of governmental silence. Guns is a highly contentious discussion. While the debate turns into second amendment hacks and Texas gun lovers this fails to account for the genuine debate with libertarians. Libertarians reckon with the tragic deaths. Yet they believe that governmental intervention will do more harm than good. The government’s control is a hindrance to this as well as it controls the population. They cannot defend themselves against intruders or a potential tyrannical government. Anti-control doesn’t mean that it is the Wild West but individuals need to make their choices and be free to mark them. Control is a dangerous choice. Gun deaths by murder were higher in liberal populations and suicides in conservative areas. The more control the potential horror from black markets as well as inadequate policies.
Differences on principle and on policy demonstrate a clear bias in consistent perspectives. It boils down to values. Should people be left to their own devices. Should fate be the guide of the distressed life. Libertarians aren’t necessarily anti-community or anti-charity. If locals wish to fund an event or raise money for a sick patient they would welcome it. The core is governmental intervention. Volunteering is the core of the ethical foundation. Responsibility to others and aiding out of volition. Not waiting for the government to do its job but acting for the sake of the self and others. Should people take initiative or allow others to do the job for them. This is not to break down to libertarians are against hiring maids or buying dishwashers and it is those dependent lefties that pawn off their work (that would be super interesting and would turn leftism into a childish complaint yet it is most probably if genuine amongst the immature youth). Yet concerning policy they believe that it is only the government who can provide these abilities. Their governmental input may solely rest on the conservative rejection of the progressive ideals thus attempting to usurp their state legislation with federal legislation. The bedrock is not of the policy but how the policy relates to the execution of other variables.
Thus to some extent conservative individuals are fakes. They do not want federal invasion but they do wish state government to intervene. In this vein, they wish to live by certain values and for those to be enforced. Banning abortions and gun polices are state enforced. Yet further is the homosexual alienation and dismissing secularism. While this may not be legislation, it a collectivist ban and even more so a dogmatic disdain. It isn’t that individuals can do whatever they like. They can only do what the the community likes. Both have constructed communitarian exclusivity. Conservatives are no more anti-interventionist than liberals. In some regard, they wish the market to run its course but provide fares to minors and farmers. When technology can rid these groups, they wish to halt progress and perish in the archaic doctrine (though to some extent the green energy institutional push is carrying a lot of weight). Fighting fire with fire. One interventionist scheme attempting to overpower the other. Conservatives banned state abortion so liberals permitted it on the federal level. The particularist prose of the conservatives is still a collectivist restriction. This is not the libertarian motto, far from it.
Much of contemporary politics and the culture war concerns the power of government. How much power states should use and how much should the federal list use. Each trying to outdo the other. Whomever is in charge uses their political power to exert more power of the public. Yet the media continues to expel the conflict in a horizontal spin. It is left versus right when it reality it is elites versus the citizens, it is the self-proclaimed aristocrats and the commoners. Collectivism fights on both sides. Neither wishes to yield. To some degree, the identification model of the progressive wing is an individualist motif that conservatives cannot reckon with. Libertarians seemingly could care less. Do your part as a citizen, do not compel me to do anything leave me in peace and you can whatever you like and call yourself whatever you like. The libertarian does not concern himself with the socialisation of society. What people wish to do is their own thing. A modern phenomena that many traditionalists cannot fathom. They wish to live in a democracy. A country of freedom and yet cannot handle when people desire more of it. The libertarian acknowledges the right to individuality insofar as that individuality does not press on his freedom. Do what you want but do not enforce anything on me that I do not consent to.
Conservatives attempt to live in the modern world with the market as the core but ultimately cannot forgo their traditional values. They use these values as the essence of a just society. Like their institutional dogmas of yesteryear who massacred on the basis of collective ideals. At least lefties permit people to do as they wish. Their problem is that they desire the government to ensure that this is the case. That the parent intercede and punish those who refuse to accept. Accept or else hellfire will rain down on you. Mother will punish you for your insolence. A bratty little brother who wishes for you to accept him for doing nothing. Yet there is no real problem with except the coercive aspect. Their collectivist scheme is irritating and deflating. All for personal autonomy and experimentation but not with the governmental overhaul. Not with the compelled collectables. When such critiques are levelled, they cry scream and yell. They respond with fanatical polemics. The fail to comprehend the position, falsely group their dissenters and respond negatively. Even if they take the time to listen they may still object out of fear that someone will try to take their rights away. If the government compels then everyone must conform. The wrongheaded logic fails to consider that the next government can overturn their favourable policies. It then becomes a battle of electing specific officials that agree with a certain issue or electing officials on a single issue.
Whoever started the firefight began a battle for the ages. From the onset, states have chosen their own rule book and then the federal government attempted to overhaul it. Fighting endlessly for institutional power. This has nothing to do with social or economic aspects but simply who decides the law. Whomever is in charge does so. It may not reflect the state or even the country’s position. This axis is very different than the lefty-libertarian discussion. Yet it gets convoluted into a left-right debate. Not everyone who is economically left is socially left nor vice versa. Yet those who are economically left desire governmental intervention for equity purposes which then generally includes the impoverished and immigrants who could use some aid. Whether it goes so far as accepting transgenderism or other LGBT rights is questionable. Yet they would be considered a minority group that falls on the lower half from discrimination and would potentially need assistance. Those who are socially left see the social disaster and require interventionist economics to assist them.
The two axis divide the perspectives. Social and economic have their overlap but they are varied agendas. They may run hand in hand for certain issues such as student loans. Not only does the government freely give the loans, it then ought to forgive them as well (the government on behalf of taxpayers covers the payment). The government intervenes due to expensive school prices. Other times, the push for government run health care may be based on a humane right or to assist destitute areas of the country. It may be for both. Both may support reparations yet one does so on racial justice while the other does so on wealth imbalance. The socialist may not consider the various groups but instead categorises them into the oppressed. Though this is similar to the social intersectional victimisation, it doesn’t differentiate but unites into one class. The social lefty and the economic lefty may agree on the solutions but their philosophies are divergent despite how similar they are. The social lefty reckons with the discrimination of minorities and thus seeks redemption through interventionism while the economic lefty reckons with the tyranny of the employer thus seeking redemption through interventionism.
A socialist isn’t always as progressive as many today seem to be. Some socialists are nationalists others are racist. Yugoslavia was a socialist country. The Balkans has always been a traditional place with its personalised language and culture. In spite of this, they were indeed quite ethnocentric: racist and anti-semitic. The nationalistic ethos opposed diversity even when they did depart to support the decolonised areas in Africa. A socialist may open to others as long as they are off the mainland. A socialist need not be a fan of homosexuality but such characterisation means little. In the face of the economic imbalance, what matters is congruency. That doesn’t mean everyone can do as they please but instead they must conform to the national ethos of the nation. This is an idea that has transferred through various political institutions. American democracy rid the king but held onto the social limitations as well as did Soviet Russia from the Russian Empire. There were innovations but also many limitations. Many innovations were skewed or focused. For the socialist, some social progression may be required or a consequence of the economic standardisation but that is not the main goal. The socialist cares little for Bezos’ big tech defence of diversity hiring or pro-LGBT rights does not obviate the employee oppression.
Today, social implies the economic but not vice versa. A self-proclaimed socialist is a progressive fan and an anti-nationalist. In their anti-nationalism they desire the nationalism to control. The nationalism of China, Yugoslavia and the USSR all operated on ethnocentric philosophies. They merely continued the institutional traditionalism. The same can be said of the shift from monarchy to democracy with the same institutional order. Lefties bashing America still desire the government to take charge albeit in a different way. Conservatives wish for the same. Taking the case of war, it is only libertarians who are anti-war. Liberals and conservatives wish to spread democracy to the world. Sending troops or military aid is consistent though the destination or the rationale may be divergent. Libertarians on the other hand are anti-war. It doesn’t make them more or less nationalistic, it is a policy of staying isolated rather than involving on the world stage. For the current political climate whether it’s spreading democracy or assisting oppressed minorities the goal is the same. The irony is the symmetry between the two ideologies. They have different opinions, many times they overlap but they utilise the same framework. Political power to impress ideas onto others. It is no wonder they support war. The results must be authoritatively supplied from the dynamic governmental apparatus.
Contemporary tribalism falls into socio-economic politicalisation. The privatisation of social compels the economic to accompany. The social is the left and the economic is the right. Yet such a dichotomy cultivates binaries. If one is pro-LGBT they are a socialist and if they are pro-market they are a republican. Such dubious characterisations fail to meet the standard quest of interpreting one’s position. There is rare nuance. Stepping out of line is a crime. To be part of the tribe is to agree to both sides. Be both socially and economically on one side of the aisle. Yet this forces everyone into a frame game. The only way to to be on the left or the right on both issues. Yet this duality is divorced from the major issues plaguing others. How dare Jill Stein steal votes from Hilary. Though the idea preventing another candidate from running (had she stolen votes from Trump they wouldn’t be complaining) is itself an attack on liberty and authoritarian. At the best it is a separate issue that blinds people. Nobody inquires why people voted for her. People voted for her because she was anti a lot of things that people were upset about. The authoritarian binary was invaded by a foreign export. She must be a Russian ruse. No she represents a significant part of the nation that disagrees with the conventional political landscape.
On the outskirts of the political plane are other positions. While Stein isn’t a libertarian she does bring something new to the field. She asks questions and provided critical innovative ideas. She seems to have an authoritarian pull. Gary Johnson was a right libertarian. Relying on private companies to handle much of the public access. The question of left libertarianism isn’t so common but it most probably resembles communitarianism. Small government in its smallest collective force. Property is shared by the people not held by the government. The ideals of individual freedom and liberty are manifest with more collectivist consideration. To some extent a town would share its resources with one another and work together instead of each townsman doing his own thing. It is like working at a factory just for a town and equally shared amongst the workers. While starting from scratch, this may be possible, it must begin on a small scale. All recent socialist states and cities are government heavy. A town could pull this off but it is far from ready. Though placing these ideas in light of the current market, left leaners would protest corporations and right leaners would wait for the market to force corporations to compromise. Anti-interventionism is solely government based. Though many libertarians may draw the line at health care or police. Anti-interventionism is not anarchism. There isn’t a one size fits all but the message is the same. Government is imperfect so how much of is involved is calculated but limited.
The political compass encircles much of the perspectives on reality. Most candidates and voters seek governmental intervention to decide the lay of the land. Biases of various dogma prevent the vertical axis from challenge. It is a horizontal battle of left versus right. Only authoritarians are allowed in the ring. Libertarians have to drink from the dirty water down the hall. Libertarians are just trying to screw with the electoral system and vote in Trump. At the core of it all is not always the inherent socio-economic biases but the execution heuristic that falls short of the true liberty. On both ends forcing LGBT and banning LGBT are authoritarian. The bedrock is coercion for the sake of an idea. While my bias may be quite obvious, it is evident that while the horizontal axis differs the vertical axis is identical. Visions of reality only matter if one’s logos is consistent. Liberals and conservatives are progressively fighting for their side to emerge victorious. Instead the foundations of liberty are muddled by authoritarian force. At the root of these ideas is institutional pressure over individual volition.
