05-14-2022, 10:25 PM
I have to laugh at how classically Civic vs Idealist (or perhaps Reactive vs Idealist) this conversation is. Guess it's better I start practicing in advance before the "new boomers" start giving me a hard time in the 2T.
Anyway, I've been thinking for some time now that the difference between your "liberal" and my "liberal" (indeed, I think both of us are variations of liberal at the end of the day) is that you view liberalism as a mechanism to tear down boundaries. I view it as a means of building them up, giving people the opportunity for maximum privacy, maximum freedom of association. If I had to describe an "ideal world", it would be one comprised of several smaller civilizations, connected by networks of trade, non-aggression treaties and perhaps some anti-pollution agreements for good measure, but otherwise catering to largely different cultures. People would not associate based off of race or ethnicity, so much as cognitive style, values, character and other more fundamental factors to human nature. My brain is increasingly attracted to concepts like order, institutions, cooperation, etc, but at the end of the day....more as a means to an end.
In fact, in many ways I'm a stereotypical example of what you're talking about. "My people" include Europeans from several countries, a refugee from India, a few black people from both the United States and Africa, and childhoods ranging from the streets of Detroit to the son of a wealthy CEO. When I'm making friends, I give zero fucks about borders, skin color, socioeconomic status, etc. What we all share in common is a fierce commitment to individualism, intellectual and artistic expression, autonomy and creating a high quality of life for those we care about.
The reason I care about the United States is twofold
1) I happen to have been born in the one country in the world where valuing such things as fiercely as I do is respected.
2) Looking out for your own is...just more practical. The smaller the sphere you wish to influence, the more efficient you can be.
Anyway, I've been thinking for some time now that the difference between your "liberal" and my "liberal" (indeed, I think both of us are variations of liberal at the end of the day) is that you view liberalism as a mechanism to tear down boundaries. I view it as a means of building them up, giving people the opportunity for maximum privacy, maximum freedom of association. If I had to describe an "ideal world", it would be one comprised of several smaller civilizations, connected by networks of trade, non-aggression treaties and perhaps some anti-pollution agreements for good measure, but otherwise catering to largely different cultures. People would not associate based off of race or ethnicity, so much as cognitive style, values, character and other more fundamental factors to human nature. My brain is increasingly attracted to concepts like order, institutions, cooperation, etc, but at the end of the day....more as a means to an end.
In fact, in many ways I'm a stereotypical example of what you're talking about. "My people" include Europeans from several countries, a refugee from India, a few black people from both the United States and Africa, and childhoods ranging from the streets of Detroit to the son of a wealthy CEO. When I'm making friends, I give zero fucks about borders, skin color, socioeconomic status, etc. What we all share in common is a fierce commitment to individualism, intellectual and artistic expression, autonomy and creating a high quality of life for those we care about.
The reason I care about the United States is twofold
1) I happen to have been born in the one country in the world where valuing such things as fiercely as I do is respected.
2) Looking out for your own is...just more practical. The smaller the sphere you wish to influence, the more efficient you can be.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
reluctant millennial