Politics
I suggest to read 'The Balance of Giving and Taking' first.
When I was younger, I defined my political sympathies as socialist or anywhere on the left, and later on I added sympathies for the green movements. This was mainly based on the fact, that the leftist and green basic concepts were the nearest to my value of equality, especially the equality of women with men.
Rather they were the least in favor of inequality. I just loathe the conservatives, the right wing politicians, who are in league with those, who feel no shame or guilt or hesitation to usurp privileges and who enable the managers to earn 20 times as much as those, who really do the hard work in the factories.
Then I started to learn more about psycho biology, evolution and the importance of tendencies hard-wired into the brain. I got aware of the principal logical contradiction between the ideal of equality and the hierarchical structures of all political organizations and parties. To gain political influence in any party, it always needs a power struggle and strong competition. Only people, who are driven by an instinct to gain a higher position in a hierarchy, will ever reach a position of influence. Egalitarian people, who do not feel inclined to fight, but want to cooperate, do not gain any influence, because of the absence of the competition instinct.
Thus, unfortunately, egalitarian people never get any influence to bring more equality into the politics. As an egalitarian person, I would not want to vote for persons, who then use my vote to gain power and use it for their interests more than for mine. People should have a chance to vote on issues instead, like the referendums in Switzerland. Then every egalitarian person has a fair chance to vote for a more egalitarian way of administration and government. All political decisions should be voted for by the population and not only in the Parliament. The politicians should suggest and inform.
But the hierarchy driven politicians continue to use their power to maintain a hierarchical society.
The egalitarian principle of balancing giving and taking, of a tit-for-tat strategy can as a result enable people to rely on getting a fair deal in life, when everybody is egalitarian. Logically, this can work in small groups, where everybody knows and trusts everybody, where there is the forming and entering of the group by choice. Kibbutzim in Israel are an example.
In political systems, where under the label of socialism or communism equality was verbally proclaimed, but where the power was hierarchical, egalitarian people were just as much the victims of those driven to selfishness by instincts and collective delusions as in systems, that did not even pretend to favor equality.
As a consequence, my interest has shifted from general political issues to the questions of the value of equality and egalitarianism in the framework of politics.
