“Could the disconnect be that it’s a matter of prioritization of concerns or weighting of issues?”
In my experience, the disconnect is more around the fact that we in integral land are explicitly trying include certain ideas that you do not want included. We say we want to fully include the polarity of individualism and the collective, and you accuse us of being Marxists. Which seems to come from an ideological resistance to a post-ideological discussion.
Every one of us will be attracted to particular issues and dysfunctions, depending on our kosmic address (how “grown up” we are across a number of developmental lines) and our life situation. Healthcare is a primary concern for me, because my daughter received a life-saving liver transplant when she was a baby, and I’ve seen so many families destroyed by our very poor systems of healthcare access. She was diagnosed a week after the ACA made “pre-existing conditions” a thing of the past, which would have guaranteed a lifetime of financial duress for her, and possible medical bankruptcy for us. So I am keenly aware of how even incremental systemic progress can have a massive impact upon families like mine, and resolve an incredible amount of suffering for folks who are already experiencing unimaginable fear and suffering.
So that is what I see when I apply my own political algorithms and personal experiences to the field of healthcare. When it comes to improving our systemic access to healthcare in the LR quadrant, I am a progressive.
But that does not necessarily apply to other issues. I am also a staunch 2A supporter. Hell, I am the guy who wants to reinstate the draft as a way to build new amber foundations, create a healthy national identity, and put citizen’s skin in the game. I want high schools to train kids how to use and respect firearms, which puts me in agreement with many conservatives.
I also want some degree of economic inequity. I understand that a healthy capitalist society is always going to have some degree of economic inequality, and that is actually preferred in order to drive innovation, reward achievement, and create a competitive marketplace of ideas. However, I do not see it as a false choice between “total marxist takeover of the economy” versus “total deregulation of the market”. I seek “more equitable inequities”, which means that yes, I should be able to talk about increasing tax rates for the rich and protecting society from corporate plutocratic interests without being labelled a “maoist”.
“Should the government “enforce” this conveyor belt and who within our government would be qualified to do this?”
I personally believe we need a system of decentralized regulators at a transnational level — a number of mutually-benefcial agreements between nations that allow the enforcement of basic guardrails to keep transnational corporations from extracting resources in any nation-state without some form of fair exchange. A transnational system that can help prevent the sort of regulatory capture we regularly see (more from the right than the left, but certainly happens on both sides). A transnational system that can help monitor and regulate free and fair elections within its constituent nation-states. A transnational system that can incentivize solutions for global problems such as climate change, which obviously cannot be addressed by any single nation-state alone. A transnational system that understands individual and cultural development, and is capable of communicating a given set of goals to any number of players. A transnational system with the economic teeth to impose sanctions and/or other correctional methods for bad actors, including alliance-based military interventions as a last resort.
Almost like an integral “guidance councilor” for developed and developing nations.
“If I were to make a simple guess based upon real world results, wouldn’t the most developed societies also already the most effective developmental conveyor belts in place?”
I think we can probably find different conveyor belts within different developed nations. Some nations figured out how to fix one particular belt, and some nations have figured out how to fix other belts. And what works in Portugal may not necessarily work in other nations. (Solutions for gun control that might work in New Zealand, for example, cannot work here in the U.S., even if the two nations have similar centers of gravity, and even if we are using the same moral reasoning for multiple different solutions.)
This is one reason why many progressives like to look at the Nordic countries for influence – because they have figured out aspects of their conveyor belt that we are still lacking in this country. Such as not charging patients $2500/month for insulin shots, as an example. Folks happily enact their social contract, which says they will exchange a significantly higher tax rate for a significantly higher quality of life (and should be noted, the additional taxes they pay for their health care are still lower than American spending within the for-profit insurance system we currently have.)
An integral view, I think, helps us render unto Caesar what is Caeser’s. Integral thinkers do not wish to eliminate for-profit incentives from society. However, an integral thinker might understand that some activities are best served with a profit motive, and other activities are not, and in fact in some situations the profit motive can create more suffering than it alleviates (for-profit prisons, for example).