I made a point against some socialists, opposing anti-racial discrimination legislation, most obviously based on the idea that it is unethical to force people to work with certain people, you wouldn't force them to be friends with other races if they didn't want to etc. However, I also made the economics point that the racist customer, employer or labourer pays if they choose to restrict themselves to purely their own ethnicity/race.
Is this second point valid?
Basically I made an example where the black guy would work for £1,000 less a year, and so the employer had to choose between satisfying his racial preferences or an extra £1,000. I was attacked for gerrymandering the example. I've got a mental block on this subject so I was wondering if anyone could help me think this over/explain it to me.
To make it clear, I'm fully against anti-discrimination laws on ethical grounds - but I was wondering if the economic grounds were solid too.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
GilesStratton:I fail to see how religion plays any part in this, so it would be great if we could keep this on topic.
Are you really denying that it is in our nature to dislike those that are not similar to us?
How does free trade and the end of the state undermine concepts of cultural identity ?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
MatthewF:Tell that to the Asian, Hispanic, Slavic, and African American communities where I live. Vast numbers of them choose to live in common neighborhoods and they even have whole community shopping areas dedicated to the tastes and culture of their own unique people's.
Juan:Revealed religion is a key component of cultural identity. So, if you're going to analyze/rant against multiculturalism, you have to deal with revealed religion. Now, since revealed religion is baseless, so is one of the justifications for different 'cultures'
And yet cultural identity is possible without "revealed religion", so this is just a red herring on your behalf.
Juan:ndeed, I'm saying that your assumption that everybody is 'race/culture conscious' (like you ?) is false. Furthermore, being race/culture conscious is not something people are born with, rather it's a trait created by indoctrination, political manipulation and the like.
No, it's not. People are by their nature race conscious, call it a survival mechanism. Actually, there's a good reason why children tend to be far more race conscious than adults, they've not been brainwashed that it's a bad thing.
Juan:In reality there are two more options. People of different cultures can coexist peacefully, or even better, 'culture' will sooner or latter become an anachronism.
They can coexist peacefully. I've never said otherwise, just that it's less likely that they will do so. As for culture becoming an anachronism, you wish. In any case, I can see this quickly turning into the usual petty argument, so I'm going to choose to stop now.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:And yet cultural identity is possible without "revealed religion", so this is just a red herring on your behalf.
Actually, there's a good reason why children tend to be far more race conscious than adults.
Juan: MatthewF:Tell that to the Asian, Hispanic, Slavic, and African American communities where I live. Vast numbers of them choose to live in common neighborhoods and they even have whole community shopping areas dedicated to the tastes and culture of their own unique people's. As as far as I can tell you don't live in a free society because there's currently no such thing as a free society anywhere on earth. So, right now, [some] people stick to their own 'tribes' ? Well, in a free society, where individualism would be seen as a key value, such tribalism would not be likely to last.Anyway, your example seems to show that Giles' view, that is - different cultures are bound to conflict with each other - is not accurate.
True, I don't live in a free society. However, that still doesn't change the fact that these groups have voluntarily organized based on their culture. Maybe it's in their own self interest to do so...
And I wasn't attempting to side with Giles. I think there is a middle ground, but I believe he is essentially correct.
However, that still doesn't change the fact that these groups have voluntarily organized based on their culture.
Maybe it's in their own self interest to do so...
And I wasn't attempting to side with Giles.
I think there is a middle ground, but I believe he is essentially correct.
Juan:However, that still doesn't change the fact that these groups have voluntarily organized based on their culture. Unproven assertion. Not to mention that groups don't act. Maybe it's in their own self interest to do so... Unproven assertion.
Correct, groups don't act, individuals do. You still never answered my point. Are you asserting that these individuals have acted, and that this action has lead to culturally organized communities randomly? Or is it due to state coercion? Maybe something else?
MatthewF:You still never answered my point.
MatthewF:Are you asserting that these individuals have acted, and that this action has lead to culturally organized communities randomly? Or is it due to state coercion? Maybe something else?
...being race/culture conscious is not something people are born with, rather it's a trait created by indoctrination, political manipulation and the like.
I reject any cultural identity that is not an individual one - only a unique individual identity suffices for me. Within each and everyone one of us, there lies a least the potential of a unique culture. A culture is just a conceptual landscape, a collection of memes. Culture is not some kind of fixed and monocentric "natural order", and many of the high-order abstractions of culture are simply spooks. And there is no such thing as a "pure" monoculture - cultures inherently overlap and influence eachother and change over time. Culture is not uniform or atomistic and it is contextual to time.
The arch-conservative reaction to this this dynamism and overlapping of culture is to ignore or oppose it in the vain attempt to preserve monoculture when it is losing the cultural competition. All culture influences culture, and it becomes more complex and pluralistic over time. All culture is multi-culture. The more that economic incentive becomes the driving factor of life, the less collective "culture" of this sort matters. Placing "culture" above economic incentive is - economic suicide in the industrial world.
It may be important to distinguish "multiculturalism" as such from "cultural relativism". Multiculturalism is more like Neitzsche's perspectivism - the aknowledgement of the fact that there are multiple, overlapping cultures that are dynamic both in themselves and in relation to eachother. However, it does not necessarily entail the judgement that all cultures are equal, which is cultural relativism. All cultures are indeed not equal, but that's not an argument against multiculturalism per se.
Arguably, the post-Marxist cultural relevatism that is often taught in colleges is a bastardization of multiculturalism. The origins of multiculturalism lie in a sort of individualistic pluralism - the idea of a global monoculture is anti-thetical to it. However, an overt sense of nationalism and tribalism is also anti-thetical to it. Both of them go against free competition in culture, only a global monoculture would take this to its most extreme possible level. Even at the level of "the nation", monoculture breaks down.
The state didn't invent polyculture - in some sense the state is itself a product of culture and it fixes certain cultural memes into laws. A uniformly forced cultural standard is not polyculture, it is monoculture. Polyculture is inevitably comparatively decentralized, while at the same time overlapping at various points. The state does not allow for such overlapping - it is extremely monocentric in nature. "The natural order" is not so strictly monocultural, unless by "the natural order" you really mean "the status quo". Enough with such naturalistic fallacies! And down with crackpot realism!
Brainpolice:Placing "culture" above economic incentive is - economic suicide in the industrial world.
But this is what Hoppe's argument consists of, an explanation of why conservative culture would indeed come to be predominant in a free society as a result of economic factors, to say that he puts culture above that is to misconstrue his entire argument.
Brainpolice:The state didn't invent polyculture - in some sense the state is itself a product of culture and it fixes certain cultural memes into laws.
Whether or not this is true is not relevant. In any case, the state will inevitably destroy an institution by either abolishing it or coopting it. The same applies for culture.
Brainpolice:"The natural order" is not so strictly monocultural, unless by "the natural order" you really mean "the status quo".
That's a strange thing to say since nobody has ever claimed that much.
Brainpolice:Enough with such naturalistic fallacies!
Which naturalistic fallacies would these be?
Of course, he only does that by assuming as an absolute a priori rule that "cultural conservatism means a low time preference". While in actual fact, there is no way for him to prove such an arbitrary assertion, and appealing to praxeology in the attempt to prove it is a sick joke. And furthermore, the field of free market economics has generally proven that arbitrary discrimination is an economically self-damaging policy that tends to slowly be disincentivized through competition over time, particularly in the context of our industrial era. It is inherently only in the more agrarian and less developed areas that discrimination is more sustainable as a policy. Such large-scale discrimination simply does not completely survive industrialization.
And this does not necessarily specifically have anything to do with multiculturalism. The state can formalize cultural conservatism just as well. It can illegalize any concievable unpopular cultural practise. The proclaimation that the state is "multicultural" by default is rather grandios and goes against the evidence of the bulk of history. And the state has not "abolished traditional culture". Your claims of this sort are always over the top and unproven. It should be clear that the co-existance and overlapping of cultures does not require a state in order to occur. The idea that it is necessary for it to occur, or that people are "naturally" atomistic to the point of total isolation from people of other cultures, is frankly rather Hobbesian.
GilesStratton: Brainpolice:Enough with such naturalistic fallacies! Which naturalistic fallacies would these be?
Essentially, the entirety of conservative social philosophy is an endless series of naturalistic fallacys from my POV.
Brainpolice:Of course, he only does that by assuming as an absolute a priori rule that "cultural conservatism means a low time preference".
I don't so much think that he is assuming that, as much as he is defining it as such. Or at least, he defines it in terms of certain features all of which are indicative of low time preference.
Brainpolice:While in actual fact, there is no way for him to prove such an arbitrary assertion, and appealing to praxeology in the attempt to prove it is a sick joke.
Once again, I think that if one were to define cultural conservatism in terms of a lifestyle that exhibited low time preference, one could should praxeologically why it would tend to dominate. Or in fact, one does not even attempt to appeal to the low time preference aspect of this, rather, one need only to look at the features with which we choose to define cultural conservatism and trace their consequences in a free society. Which I believe Hoppe has done.
Brainpolice:And furthermore, the field of free market economics has generally proven that arbitrary discrimination is an economically self-damaging policy that tends to slowly be disincentivized through competition over time, particularly in the context of our industrial era. It is inherently only in the more agrarian and less developed areas that discrimination is more sustainable as a policy. Such large-scale discrimination simply does not completely survive industrialization.
Hoppe admits as much, in fact this has no impact of any of his other claims concerning immigration or segregation.
Brainpolice:And this does not necessarily specifically have anything to do with multiculturalism. The state can formalize cultural conservatism just as well.
Well that was entirely my point. Just like its attempts to "increase competition" its attempts to make society more conservative will fail. Simply put anytime the state attempts to coopt an institution it destroys the institution in question. Money and business are two very important example of this, as is, I believe, conservatism.
Brainpolice:The proclaimation that the state is "multicultural" by default is rather grandios and goes against the evidence of the bulk of history.
Leaving this issue aside, since I've never claimed such a thing. The plethora of anti discriminatory rules and regulations most certainly are "multicultural".
Brainpolice:And the state has not "abolished traditional culture". Your claims of this sort are always over the top and unproven.
Abolished? No, it has however done much to erode what might be described as "traditional culture".
Brainpolice: GilesStratton: Brainpolice:Enough with such naturalistic fallacies! Which naturalistic fallacies would these be? Essentially, the entirety of conservative social philosophy is an endless series of naturalistic fallacys from my POV.
I understand what you mean, what I was asking was whether you would mind explicating as to why this is so.