[W]hite males (the european, or perhaps germanic, race) seek status under the ancient indo-european proscription for heroism via competition. The west is unique for having produced this philosophy of aristocratic egalitarianism – inclusion in equalitarian leadership, and therefore obtaining the reward of property rights, by demonstrated heroism. And the high trust society of the west is the result of aristocratic egalitarianism (heroic achievement, demonstrated excellence, virtue). For most of history, and pre-history, males could achieve this only through combat. With the advent of manorialism, males could demonstrate their fitness through hard work. With the advent of chivalry males could demonstrate their heroic status by charitable service. With the advent of consumer capitalism, males could demonstrate their heroic fitness in commerce. Heroic achievemnet grants access to mates (we have a lof of data on this now that confirms this fact – to the point where we know how many dollars in income per inch of height under 5’10” you must earn to gain the same quality of attractive woman…. Really.) Women are as shallow about status as men are about physical attraction – and the data is the data. As such, white males are intuitively attracted to libertarianism if they see in libertarianism a means of pursuing traditional signals for mating, social status, and wealth. That libertarianism is a rigorous philospohy equalled in detail only by Marxism, and is articulated in economic language and analytical philosophy. It is accessible only to those people with both incentive to learn it, and the ability to understand it. This is why libertarianism is a minority white male philosophy. It is an aristocratic philosophy and difficult to access. Other cultures lack both the mythology and cultural values for heroism and egalitarianism Which is why other cultures also cannot produce the high trust society. And without the high trust society, the wealth necessary for redistribution (charity) is impossible to achieve at scale.
People organize. They organize to their advantage. Especially where that advantage is mating preference, easier communication and collaboration, .
When people organize, they organize by race, class, culture, gender, religion and political association. They organize by neighborhood, by type of work, and by professional association. In the USA, class and race have the most influential and visible biases.
As consumers people do not organize in the consumption of commodity goods and services, but they do organize in the consumption of specialized goods and services.
For people to organize by political association, they must desire either to change the status quo, or to resist change in the status quo.
There are very big bureaucratic companies, that because of size, are politically antiseptic to the point where political discussion is taboo. There are small and medium sized organizations where they actively select for political affilliation. It is very hard for a conservative to be hired by a left wing non profit organization, and it is very hard for an ideological liberal to be hired or work in, a firm where every individual is personally accountable for financial results.
This is because people with similar political affiliations have similar value systems, and in many companies subjective preferences are meaningful to how they get along. Further, some industries are biased one direction or the other because of both values, and because of the signals associated with certain types of careers.
While most companies ostensibly have policies against hiring for anything other than skill and experience, the fact is that everyone hires for ‘fit’ into the culture. In most businesses this means fitting into a business model that self selects: a tradesman (conservative) an entrepreneurial culture (libertarian), a care-taking culture (progressive) or a bureaucratic culture (postmodern).
I cannot see the logic of working within an organization that contains a lot of people whose views you disagree with. The job is at a very high cost in opportunity to you, and at a very high cost of friction to you and others. THe only reason that makes sense is if you want to draw attention to yourself. And usually this is because your self perceived status is higher than other people treat you. Or that you have psychological issues outside of the workplace that you want to exercise within a workplace where people have less easy means of walking away from, or avoiding you. If there is some place that you would very much like to work, then the question remains why you should impose upon those people your beliefs and desires that are arguably external to the work place. And instead, it may be wise to work elsewhere.
https://www.quora.com/Should-the-personal-socio-political-views-of-individuals-working-at-a-company-dissuade-potential-job-applicants-if-they-disagree-with-those-beliefs