Political Theory

Re: The solution to the immigration problem...

JimS — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:27:29 GMT

Byzantine:

You really think 18th century Englishmen walked around telling each other diversity is strength, race is a social construct, etc.? Any Jew or Muslim howling about discrimination or human rights back then would have been laughed at, right before being strung up a lamppost.

You are hopelessly projecting your own prejudices and today's social conditions in your presumptions.

1. It would be hard to hang anyone up a lamp post in 18th century England . . . because it would be hard to find a lamp post back then.

2. 18th century was before Charles Darwin's treatise on natural history, therefore long before the (erroneously) derivative "social darwinist" ideology. "Race" in the 18th century was a taxonomy concept, not a biological concept. When discussing "race," a person in 18th century England and France would mostly be talking about Saxons vs. Normans or Franks vs. Gauls.

3. One doesn't talk about diversity if that's the social environment that he is born into, grown up with and presumed to be the norm. In the major trading cities like London, that was apparently the case. What do you think Voltaire's writings mentioned earlier were about? An _outside_ who was impressed by the diversity he saw in London; that's why he was "talking" about it in his letters to his friends back in France.

4. Outside of metropolises like London, before the age of railroad, most people lived and died within a few miles of their place of birth. Most of the people they saw every day were their own blood relatives to the nth degree. The few who could afford to travel far and wide (via sailing ships) had no qualms abot marrying local members of the opposite sex that they found . . . and vice versa for many traders who arrived in England; sailing was too dangerous and arduous to involve many women. "Race" was a much weaker concept in the 17th and 18th century than it later became in the 19th century.

5. While France had special laws against Jews as far back as 13th century, England did not have such discrimitory laws. Netherlands first codified religious freedom in the 17th century, and became the pre-eminent sea-faring nation. When Dutch Republic declined in the 18th century due to invasion and war by neighboring France ruled by despotic kings, much of Dutch mercantal capital migrated to England, and brought with it profound social influences. Jews and Muslims wouldn't need to howl about discrimination (as Voltaire observed first hand). As for talks about human rights, Hobbes and Locke, among many others, had been talking about that ever since 17th century, and always in universal terms . . . not, say, defining rights as those belong only to the "race" of Normans. As far as we know, people around them did not laugh at them or hurry up and invent street lamp so as to hang them from the lamp posts.

Re: The solution to the immigration problem...

JimS — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:52:23 GMT

Byzantine:

You are projecting your modern multiculturalism on a very different time and culture. Jewish and Muslim minorities got along in 18th century London because otherwise they'd have had their wealth confiscated after being beaten and left to die in the street.

As if beating and looting Jews and Muslims did the Spanish crown great good? Practically all the gold that Spaniards looted from the New World ended up in Venice, Antwerp and London . . . why? After beating and looting Jews and Muslims, there was hardly any banker left in Spain. The Spanish crown had to borrow heavily from Italian bankers and went bankrupt numerous times, despite all the treasur fleets arriving every year. Where the Jews and Muslims fled, Antwerp and London, became new centers of wealth and prosperity, outside Spanish control and very hostile to Spain.

Human action is more than bloodthirsty coercion. Otherwise, totalitarianism would have flourished, and there would be no room for Austrian Economics.

Byzantine:

In fact, I believe that's what used to happen to Catholics in jolly old multi-culty England back then.

England was Catholic, then the king decided to be his own head of the church. There was no real theological or cultural difference between Anglican Church and Catholic Church. The inter-faith bloodshed in England was a factional struggle between different factions of the court. England wasn't exactly a properous place while that was going.

Re: The solution to the immigration problem...

JimS — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:49:50 GMT

Stranger:

You are one presumptuous son of a *** to compare yourself to Friedrich Hayek and then demand proof to the contrary.

So much for rational argument. Why the heck would Hayek write his books if not for trying to make more people think just like himself? If after reading Hayek, no reader can follow his thought process as intelletual framework and apply to current events, then he would have failed as an author.

Stranger:
Sorry, I don't respond to inquisitions.

There is no inquisition here. Just curious mind wanting to know what you really meant by what you wrote; how is it any different from other garden variety of "high-spirited" totalitarian ideas wrapped in flowery languages. Apparently, there is precious little difference, and your positions are not defensible.

Re: The solution to the immigration problem...

JimS — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:45:25 GMT

Byzantine:
Correct. It was ruled by a cadre of Anglo-Saxons--mostly men--who considered themselves racially superior and who would have happily had every Mohammedan in their borders swinging from a rope at the slightest sign of political activism.

You have the century wrong. Mohammedians would perhaps be swinging from a rope in the 12th century England; even then Richard the Lion Hearted was quite a deal maker with the muslims on his crusade . . . His biggest accomplishment was successful negotiation with Saladin for safe passage for Christian pilgrims. Richard even offered his own sister Joan of Sicily as bride to Saladin's brother Al-Adil before he left the Holy Land.

Feelings of racial superiority? That came much later in the late 19th century, and laid the ground works for the decline of Britain through unprofitable imperialism. Also, British sense of racial superiority had a very peculiarly narrow definition of "race"; they were talking about a race of Brits! as they waged war of conquest and extermination on Boers, who were the forefathers of the last institutional apartheid whites in South Africa.

Prejudice and arrogance was not in vogue when Britain was on the rise in the 16th, 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries (Voltaire was in London in the mid-18th century) . Much of Britain's initial capital came from Jewish communities that initially fled Spanish Inquisition then later fled Netherlands due to invasion by the despotic Louise XIV.

Re: The solution to the immigration problem...

Stranger — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:21:39 GMT

JimS:
I'm quite confident with regard to my ability to cut through obfuscations that usually come with totalitarian ideas . . . people knowledgeble in Austrian economics are often quite good at seeing through such nonsense and getting a good grasp of the practical ramifications of such policy proposals . . . after all, Hayek authored Road to Serfdom more than half a century ago. So tell me, what did I miss, in substantive terms, in my summary?

You are one presumptuous son of a *** to compare yourself to Friedrich Hayek and then demand proof to the contrary.

Sorry, I don't respond to inquisitions.

Re: The solution to the immigration problem...

JimS — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 03:50:46 GMT

Thought crime? Nah, that charge only exists in a feudalistic/totalitarian political system. On the other hand, I'm still all ears if you can tell me what substantive difference is there between your position and my summary of your position, after cutting through all the flowery obfuscation. I'm quite confident with regard to my ability to cut through obfuscations that usually come with totalitarian ideas . . . people knowledgeble in Austrian economics are often quite good at seeing through such nonsense and getting a good grasp of the practical ramifications of such policy proposals . . . after all, Hayek authored Road to Serfdom more than half a century ago. So tell me, what did I miss, in substantive terms, in my summary?

Re: The solution to the immigration problem...

Stranger — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:56:52 GMT

If my words are so obfuscated, why are you so confident in your interpretations of them? Do you want me to be guilty of the worst thought-crime?

Re: The solution to the immigration problem...

JimS — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:55:06 GMT

Stranger:

If you want to refer to my words, you ought to use direct quotations instead of your fabrications. Obfuscating the truth is not going to win you any arguments.

You are the one obfuscating. You did not put your words into concise terms, so direct quote would be quoting multiple paragraphs from several different posts, making the debate quite unwieldy. If you don't like my summary of your thesis, please let me know how such summary is substantively different from your thesis:

1. You argued that:

(a) less than 5% of the population is "educable"

(b) the remaining 95+% are sheeples/followers, and therefore they should not have the vote or any say in politics

Am I missing anything in summarising your position on this topic?

2. On the second topic of immigraiton, you are against it and think government should have laws and enforce such laws against it. How is that position any different from my summary that you are against voluntary population migration?

In case it's still not clear to you, an advocacy that "a nation should follow the leadership of a wise leader without second-guessing him" is no different from advocating dictatorship under "Furherprincipe." The former is dressed up in flowery language (i.e. obfuscating), and the latter is a concise summary of facts and ramifications.

Re: The solution to the immigration problem...

Stranger — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:55:57 GMT

If you want to refer to my words, you ought to use direct quotations instead of your fabrications. Obfuscating the truth is not going to win you any arguments.

Re: The solution to the immigration problem...

JimS — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:21:26 GMT

Stranger:

Is this the inquisition? I stand by my words. If you think your interpretation is valid, you have to provide your own argumentation.

Feudalistic Inquisition is what you will end up with if you insist on judging people based on their origin and "educability." Which part of your words are you standing by? The part where you advocate that political power should be concentrated into the hands of less than 5% of the population, or the part about government sanctioned violence should be used against voluntary population migration?

Re: The solution to the immigration problem...

Stranger — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:14:01 GMT

Is this the inquisition? I stand by my words. If you think your interpretation is valid, you have to provide your own argumentation.

Re: The solution to the immigration problem...

JimS — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:30:55 GMT

Stranger:
Once again, this is pure invention on your part.

Really? Which part?

Did you or did you not suggest that political power should be concentrated into the hands of the less than 5% "educable"?

Are you or are you not against allowing voluntary population migration?