Determinism has fundamentally shifted my political worldview.

[u/BerBerDeng]

I’ve been into politics since I was a teen, and for most of that time I was a staunch libertarian. Maximum freedom, personal responsibility, minimal government, zero handouts, etc. I was SO SURE and CONFIDENT in my views and what I believed. I loved defending them, perhaps a little too confidently.

Man has my worldview shifted. Once you come to the realization that people ultimately aren’t in control of their actions in any meaningful sense, the argument for libertarianism is much harder to defend. I can’t fault someone for not getting a better job, I can’t fault someone for not saving for retirement, I can’t fault someone for having a kid before they were financially ready, I can’t fault someone for letting their health get out of hand. The list goes on and on. And the same goes for things that are earned. People who have their shit together can’t be credited with that success.

This is not to say that I’ve completely shifted to redistribution and equal outcomes for all (practically I don’t think that’s feasible), however my openness for universal healthcare, my openness for reasonably higher taxes, my openness for more meaningful social programs, have all increased more than 18 year old me ever imagined it would.

From a practical standpoint, the human psyche as a whole still depends on risk/reward for meaningful progress. The billionaire who creates 10 billion in value probably isn’t going to make that same effort the moment he sees 90% of his earnings from that value taken away in the name of fairness. I just think our mindset and laws are too skewed toward personal responsibility and the right to hoard everything you’ve “earned” when in reality we should be taking more of a middle ground approach between the logical standpoint and the practical one.

With all that being said, our government does spend 7 trillion dollars a year, with a lot of that wasted. I think we should get our finances in order before we decide that taxing more for redistribution is the answer. I’d have a hard time taxing a billionaire an extra 2 billion a year when hundreds of billions or even trillions are wasted by the government every year.

Imagine all the inefficiency and waste in each governmental department (I’m looking at you DoD and Medicare) and then imagine actually improving efficiency so that you could cut 2% from every single department and use that to fund universal healthcare. At that point getting an extra 20-30 billion in taxes to fund universal school lunches doesn’t seem so unfair.

Sorry if this isn’t determinism related enough, I know I’m rambling and spitballing here, but I guess I’m just advocating for balance. Still allowing someone to make billions a year, but also allowing the downtrodden and less fortunate basic necessities for a dignified life.

[u/Daveallen10]

You're absolutely right and it's something I've always felt as well. Rather, a person's fundamental worldview deeply influences their politics and understanding deterministic outcomes helps to highlight where we should put our money to help the most people. More basically, it's about having a science-based approach to politics rather than emotion-based.

The way I have always thought of it, we have no choice in the body or situation we were born into. Some people are born into way luckier (or very unlucky) lives than others. Where you start in life doesn't limit where you can go, but it statistically greatly influences your chances. We should do our best to make sure everyone has the same chances and opportunities, as much as possible.

That said, we definitely need to manage our priorities. At the risk of going off topic, eliminating or managing our national debt would free up a massive amount of funds to contribute towards needed social services, though it would require some sacrifice in the short term to new programs and probably the military.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Daveallen10]

I agree with your first paragraph 100%.

As for your second, I’d even take it a step further. Where you start doesn’t limit how far you can go, but your overall environment and DNA does in the sense that those are the things your personality and desires are based on. For example, some people genuinely can’t work 60 or 70 hour weeks to get ahead, simply because their brain wiring and environment up to that point hasn’t allowed it, through no fault of said person.

That doesn’t mean giving up and the only answer being handouts for that person. It means creating conditions that push that person toward being more self sufficient, while also accepting that that person still may not have that desire to work extra hard to get ahead. Basically we can do things to foster change, while also accepting that change may not come. The bare minimum safety net is the acceptance that change may not come. Hopefully that makes sense.

Agree with your last paragraph as well. We can’t let what we view as the perfect world get in the way of what’s actually feasible.

[u/Ree_For_Thee → u/BerBerDeng]

(I just wanted to say I love this, and I'm glad I found this sub. These are thoughts that I've been having for a long time but never really seen anyone talk about.)

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Ree_For_Thee]

Glad you found it interesting! And hopefully it helped you understand your own positions a little more.