Consensus

There’s a predictable pattern in how social and cultural movements evolve. They begin with conversation—small groups gathering to discuss ideas, share grievances, and articulate visions. This phase is necessary. It’s where consciousness forms, where people realize they’re not alone in their concerns. But here’s the problem: most movements get stuck here. They mistake the beginning for the destination. The discourse phase feels productive. There’s energy in the room when four or five people sit together and talk through complex issues.

There’s a persistent narrative in certain political circles that goes something like this: identity politics is a distraction, a tool of division that keeps the masses from recognizing their shared class interests. If only people would stop fighting over race, gender, religion, and other identity markers, they’d see that the real enemy is economic inequality, and unite as the 99% against the 1%. This narrative is seductive in its simplicity.

Markets emerge naturally wherever humans gather. This is not a political claim but an observation about human nature itself. When people recognize each other’s property rights and engage in voluntary exchange, something remarkable happens: time-preference rates fall. People become more future-oriented. They save, they invest, they build. The farmer who knows his harvest belongs to him plants seeds for next season. The craftsman who owns his tools perfects his technique over years.