There Shouldn't Even Be Ideologies

 If you disagree with this headline, you probably want to tell me that's because your ideology is good for people, or it's moral. But if you really think it is, then why would you define yourself over how you implement that morality? I think a libertarian for example values freedom more than a socialist, who values security more, that's just a fact. Now, if I propose for example a tax, would that increase freedom or increase security? Well, it depends what the tax is on, right? A fee on 911 calls decreases the "size of government" because the police would get fewer calls, yet I doubt any libertarian would support it, and even though it's a tax no socialist would find himself supporting that. 

And that's because on some level most of us when we are confronted with new policy actually look for our core values, and try to found out what the policy does about those.  think too often do we just have a quick reaction when somebody attacks a policy we support, and immediately rush to defend it. But why would we do that? At the end of the day, perhaps subsidies for green technology actually aren't the best or even a good way to achieve a redution in CO2 emissions, and perhaps regulating internet companies to treat everyone equally actually increases the freedom of consumers. As much as we shouldn't marry ourselves to an idea in general, we especially shouldn't marry ourselves to a means of implementing an idea. Or does anyone here really think that we somehow magically already found the perfect solutions to everything at age 18 when we first got into politics? No, of course policies we support could be pretty bad, but it's really the moral basis that should stay constant, if anything. And even that should of course be checked every now and then, but simply from basic human empathy alone, I think most people do actually have good intentions when thinking about what a democratic government should do in their opinion 

My goal is to make sure as little severe, systemic, preventable suffering exists as possible, and that generally everyone can lead not only suffering-free but actually enjoyable lives - if possible to implement. That means I want to make sure nobody is poor, everyone can get an education, no systemic discrimination exists, and that consumers aren't screwed over all the time. Does that mean I'm a socialist? Well, if I somehow got it into my head that a completely different system than relatively centralized social democracy would be better at this, then of course I'd support that over the socialism I supported before, and I wouldn't actually change my politics, would I? I'd keep exactly the same goals, only my way to achieve them would change. It's like a captain who wants to go from New York to Australia, and changes his route from goins eastwards to going westwards because he found out that's actually shorter. 

Now, libertarianism was developed in a time when people were ruled by kings. That's why the people who developed it valued freedom so much: They had so little that even speaking about the enlightenment freely was a dangerous act. Had the very same people developed their ideologies today, they would probably not be so overly concerned about freedom as they used to be, because guess what: We already are pretty free, aren't we. Perhaps they'd see that restricting what a government can do is not always the best thing to do, especially when there's much more pressing issues in the world, that back then weren't even a thing, and nobody is calling for the heads of "traitors to the crown" anymore.

Taking an ideology from 250 years ago and applying it today really means taking the main goals people had 250 years ago and taking them further and further. Just look at the world and set your own goals, just because a smart person 250 years ago wanted freedom badly, doesn't mean you have to take his goals and go with them even if today's problems don't even go in that direction anymore.

While obviously individual freedom is important, it seems to me preventing human suffering in millions of people seems to be worth more than the freedom of some rich dude to be able to afford his 8th house this week. You may think individual freedom should be put first, but do you have to value it more than everything else combined, just because you've gotten used to the idea that "government is bad"?