So, you see this a lot. I crap on a lot of other ideologies and their supporters for being closed minded ideologues. Marxists, libertarians, georgists, conservatives, liberals, SJWs, I crap on everyone. They all have their own moral systems and I have issues with them all. But am I really any better? Short answer, yes and no.
In terms of no, yeah, I'm just as ideological as any of them. I admit it. I have a certain values set, I rigidly apply it. I even reject solutions that might make sense to reasonable people who don't share my worldview and merely use a different set of ethics. I have a certain set of values and I stick by them.
Honestly, everyone does. Ethics and morality have large subjective elements with no one correct objective answer. You're going to choose an ideology no matter what you do. There is no such thing as not having a side unless you literally pay no attention to politics at all and have no value system. Even the snarky centrist liberals who act like they're so great and wonderful and objective and claim to "follow facts", yeah, they still make tons of value judgments they're not willing to admit. That's one of the reasons I find them so insufferable. Their crap stinks like everyone else's and they're no better. Like me they sit in their ivory tower crapping on everyone else and claiming to be above them, but they're not.
The fact is, everyone has a value system. They value certain things. The difference? And this is one of the reasons I AM better than that, is that I'm aware of this. Like, I get it. With my views, take them or leave them. I have my own brand of politics I'm trying to cultivate here. You might like it, you might not. That's totally up to you. But at least I'm honest about it and I'll tell you to make up your own mind, even if you disagree with me. I don't have a monopoly on truth. I advocate my case, but at the end of the day, the only reason you should accept my views over someone else's is because you like my values. I believe I follow facts, most people in most ideologies do to some extent (conservatism is the only ideology I see as completely devoid of intellectual value).
Although to be fair that's another reason I would argue I'm better. I acknowledge limits to my ideology. For example. Ideologically I love me some single payer healthcare, if not a full on NHS style system (so jealous of the Brits and their top tier free at the point of service healthcare system that only costs 9% of GDP). But, due to recent analyses into funding, I've decided that single payer may not be a good idea on top of UBI. So I made a choice based in reality to instead formally support a public option. I still like single payer. But, I know in a world of limited amounts of money and having trouble acquiring the revenue and making it work, I'm kind of leery about implementing it. That's why on my recent purity test articles I only score 80/100 or something. I literally don't pass my own purity tests because I try to compromise with reality. I do this a lot. I argue about how I want everyone to have a choice not to work, but I also understand that if everyone makes that choice that the incentive structure will need to be changed and balanced with our realistic needs. I have my guiding stars morally, but sometimes I deviate from them because I have to be pragmatic and acknowledge reality. Not doing so just leads to getting so out of touch you support destructive ideas like violent revolutions (the left), massive LVTs that destroy the economy (georgists), or gilded age dystopias (the right). I mean, any ideology requires a bit of moderation. It's fine to have your morals, but sometimes you need to understand that a partial implementation is all you can do at the current time.
A final way in which I am better is my ideology is my own. I don't just take some other dude's work and adhere to what they say 100%. I feel like a lot of the ideologues do this, which is particularly annoying in debates and leads to out of touchness. I mean, I constantly crap on my allies and heroes. I call myself an indepentarian but have critiqued Karl Widerquist (creator of the ideology) before. I am constantly ripping on Yang despite liking his human centered capitalism. I criticize Bernie a lot. Honestly, criticizing your heroes keeps you honest. And sometimes you gotta look at what other people do, and say, I like this, but I don't like that. So you take what you like, but you leave the rest. Obviously, some authors are going to influence us more than others. Some people like Widerquist, Van Parijs, Yang, Sanders, influence me significantly. Some influence me far less, but I still admit they have a point. Like Henry George, or Karl Marx. Some I might pick and choose a point or two from but largely dislike them, like Milton Friedman who made good arguments for NIT/UBI. It's good to read lots of sources and delve into tons of ideologies and take what you like but leave the rest. If you're not an ideologue to someone else's ideology, you likely won't ever agree with someone more than, say, 80-90%. And that's fine. Take what you like, leave the rest. That's what being a free thinker is about. Thinking for yourself.
That said, yes, I'm aware I can be just as insufferably ideological as those I criticize. This isn't necessarily a bad thing since everyone has a value system. But there are key points in which I would argue I am better than those i criticize. I am more aware of my limits than most people, I'm willing to compromise my own ideology with reality, push comes to shove, and my ideology, despite being influenced by others, is truly my own, and I'll even purity test my heroes.
No comments:
Post a Comment