Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I think your comments are validSo we're right back where we started - everyone creating "their own little bubbles of meaning" and often sharing it with others, including with religions.
Post-religion, I still wonder how one deals in consistency. By what standard? Is it a universally applicable standard or is it based on the little bubble of meaning in the moment? If it's based on "meaning bubbles", well then surely it just becomes a power play - i.e. if you can politicize your narrative (bubble) and garner more followers you win, doesn't matter if there's any truth to the matter. Doesn't matter if innocents are hurt.
Perhaps it really is just all about resources and power, utilitarianism. Maybe we should all just choose political sides, even if we feel they don't abide by non-aggression? So support laws and policies that support me and screw fairness?
Hope that makes sense. It's just the sort of thing I pick up on whenever I get my head stuck in political narratives and social media, people seem really all over the place when commenting. It's always about some label like race, capitalism/socialism, social classes etc... but no fundamental way of sorting through those, like non-aggression principle or some universal measuring stick. No agreement.
If there's no fundamental way of measuring who the good guys are (That I can justify without false circular reasoning), then I guess I must just choose a side or narrative either at random or that benefits me and let the wars continue? The good guys are just those on my side then (collectivism in other words), there's no objective good - just relative good for the numbers.