Perhaps I accept that there are more than 2-5 dimensions in the sphere of politics, and that occasionally one must compromise because no singular philosophy is perfect in all circumstances. That doesn't mean that an entire political ideology is at fault.
The modern political system would be far better off without this kind of (engineered?) rigid thinking.
Taleb has an interesting take on why a person might state their position this way. He states he is:
Libertarian at the global and national level.
Republican at the state level.
Democrat at the city level.
Socialist at the club/neighborhood level.
Communist at the family level.
Makes quite a bit of sense to me. And if one does not realize one has this hierarchy of beliefs, it is hard to talk about ones politics. What do you call yourself if you hold such beliefs?
That "hierarchy" of beliefs just sounds selfish, with an interest in disproportionately consolidating resources in your proximity, but then demanding permissive access to them once they're at arms length.
Of course, policies must be crafted differently to create a benefit at different levels, but that doesn't mean you can't have consistent philosophies.
> that doesn't mean you can't have consistent philosophies
Social structures and politics are not philosophically or logically consistent! Philosophies are, at best, a useful set of guide, but it isn't hard to find pathological examples for any philosophy.
I don't necessarily think that's true. You can allow policies that are more open to abuse at more local levels because you have more control to avoid those abuses. For instance, I think communism at the national level would be a disaster because it implies a level of government control that can and would be abused. At the family level, it _might_ be workable.
Liberalism at the global and national level. I have no choice about choosing the world I live in and limited choice in the country without a lot of red tape.
I have a choice when it comes to the state, even though it would be inconvenient.
I have a lot of choices which city I live in. Semi officially, the metro area where I live is made up of over a dozen counties and 40+ municipalities.
I can definitely choose which social clubs I belong to.
It seems like that world view maximizes your practical choice on where you live.
Besides, the more local the politics the more it has to be in line with what the people want.
It was interesting in an earlier time. Today, that's just fancy clothes on a reactionary/right-wing philosophy, a really cynical worldview that creates nasty outcomes.
Translation:
- "Communist at the family level": I like total control.
- "Socialist at the club level.": I like my religious denomination/tribe
- "Democrat at the city level.": Bread and circus for the plebes, but no money or power.
- "Republican at the state level.": Make sure my friends can make money.
- "Libertarian at the national level": Keep government out of our lives, except when I want it in your life.
- "Libertarian at the global level": These barbarians won't subscribe to our ideals of liberty. But, we have tanks to help deliver liberty to them. <enter fascism>
Yes, if you rewrite the meaning of every single word that someone uses, you can completely rewrite their original statement. That's not a terribly meaningful outcome.
Are you sure you want to go with calling someone "reactionary", which generally labels you as fairly far left, but then just agreeing that "communism" is "total control"? I can imagine a person who can make all the statements you made and be self-consistent, but it's an awfully narrow window with a complicated shape.
I think most ex-libertarians eventually realized that (most of the time) a smaller government just means a power vacuum that gets filled by other organizations that have the means but not the peoples' interests.
The modern political system would be far better off without this kind of (engineered?) rigid thinking.