# Rambling… Groups are defined by boundaries. Having a group necessarily means you are identifying people outside of your group. The purpose of your group is essential to identify in order to ascertain who should be members of your group and who should be excluded from your group. There are certain groups of people who need to be ejected from the current political left-wing movements because they don’t align in certain ways. How do you figure out who should be included and who should be ejected? Having a group that’s too broad leads to issues related to group stability. If you incorporate too many people, the movement may be too broad to appeal to any particular person, and conflicts within the group will be numerous such that they erode the cohesiveness past the point of maintaining any effective organizing capabilities. Having a group that’s too narrow leads to issues related to securing political power. If you have too few people, or the issues are too niche, you won’t be able to win elections or convert enough people to your side. So in a liberal system, what’s the best way to do this? In my mind, you need: Close to 100% alignment on determining what’s true or real. This means agreements on how to determine the validity of research or effective methods to deploy policies that accomplish positive ends. Close to 100% alignment on foundational moral agreements. Things like equal rights for different genders/citizens, or other fundamental moral issues. High alignment on policy goals. If everyone agrees on how to determine what’s true and real, and everyone has foundational moral agreement, there should be fairly high alignment on policy goals. Medium alignment on actual policy. Reasonable minds can disagree in a number of ways on what policies best effectuate some desired outcomes. ## Who to Eject? Let’s test some of these ideas with different groups of people. 1. MAGA 1. Almost no epistemic alignment. This is immediately disqualifying. MAGA does not place very high value in scientific or empirical truths, but rather rely on other sources to determine what’s true. 2. Very low foundational ethics alignment. This is immediately disqualifying. MAGA does not share a similar foundation of ethics, and is very high in xenophobic belief, even if it comes at great economic cost. 2. Tankies 1. Almost no epistemic alignment. This is immediately disqualifying. Marxist-Lenninists put ideology oftentimes before any factual investigation, meaning all of their answers are poisoned from the start to point in only one direction. 2. Medium foundational ethics alignment. This is immediately disqualifying. Although they don’t have the same racist or xenophobic traits that MAGA may possess, they reject anyone who is of a different economic philosophy than them. 3. Progressives 1. High epistemic alignment. Most progressives believe in scientific consensus, though they will get prickly when it comes to investigating “unsavory” scientific areas, e.g. IQ, race-statistics, etc… 2. High foundational ethics alignment. Progressives generally believe in creating a world of equal opportunity for everyone, which largely aligns with my point of view.