[beager]

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.

[pdkl95]

> 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.

[stordoff]

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.

[scarface74]

I don’t see it that way.

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.