tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7257263697107031621.post4992959065365773282..comments2024-03-28T00:15:06.567-07:00Comments on LiberaLaw: Cultural Roots and Collective Identity in a Libertarian SocietyGary Chartierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687278491211390956noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7257263697107031621.post-21080344906812330712011-03-16T03:03:08.197-07:002011-03-16T03:03:08.197-07:00Acting like non-coercive Big Brother (if you think...<i>Acting like non-coercive Big Brother (if you think non-coercion means non-dangerous, read the history of the term "boycott") will make them dig in their heels at what they will perceive as paternalism, and the change will be delayed.</i><br /><br />A belief that has zero basis in reality should be shunned and ridiculed. It's up to those people to grow up and learn how to think properly. We're talking about grievously wrong theories, and we should act accordingly.Marcel Duboishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05741502563166475139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7257263697107031621.post-51771911599625935542010-10-12T05:07:18.503-07:002010-10-12T05:07:18.503-07:00Gary - I just wanted to note that on re-reading my...Gary - I just wanted to note that on re-reading my comment, it comes off much more critical than I intended. I tend to have "tone" issues on the web, for some reason.<br /><br />nfactor13,<br /><br />First, I think you made my point much better than I did. I don't think that I had refined my position that far, but I agree with how you explained that context dictates the proper response to prejudice. I think that is exactly right.<br /><br />As for your question, I'll take it on its own terms, because I have many, many issues with the issue of IQ. That said, I don't think your example is necessarily racist as opposed to prejudiced. And while I think prejudiced and racist can sometimes be difficult to disentangle, my point was more that prejudice based upon race is very difficult to disentangle from prejudice based upon culture. I think prejudice based upon race is pretty much indefensible (I'm merely leaving the possibility that there is a small defense somewhere; I'm not aware of any, nor do I think they're likely to exist), while I think prejudice based upon culture can be defensible (but not all such prejudice is).<br /><br />Getting back to your hypothetical, I think the analysis requires a) specifics about how these people go about exercising their prejudice. Obviously, the closer the enforcement gets to coercive, the more wrong. Also, I think you would need to consider the context in the manner you described previously, for example, are these prejudiced folks exercising greater privilege due to the fact of past aggression, etc.?<br /><br />I personally would think the whole thing wrong merely because the concept of IQ was involved. But that's me. But I don't think espousing the views are aggressive. What I see as aggressive is somehow, explicitly or implicitly, communicating that another person has lesser innate rights than you do. To me, any such communication is a threat to the allegedly lesser person. At the very least, I don't think it is unreasonable that the "lesser" person perceive it as a threat.quasibillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7257263697107031621.post-72426491157437532042010-10-08T12:21:36.438-07:002010-10-08T12:21:36.438-07:00Gary, I posted a comment but got an error URL afte...Gary, I posted a comment but got an error URL afterwards, so I'll repost later if you didn't get it.<br /><br />@quasibill:<br /><br />Regarding this comment:<br /><br />"I've actually come to believe, after much reflection, that publishing belief in the common form of racism (superior/inferior) is, in itself a coercive act. It is a threat to those labeled "inferior" and should be treated for the aggression it is."<br /><br />If you're right that it's aggression, what is the appropriate response to that aggression? Jail, fine, forced to recant...? Something similar to Holocaust denial/minimization in some parts of Europe?<br /><br />As you mention later, racism and prejudice are often co-mingled and hard to separate in someone's actual views. How would you respond to this view, which is a fairly common way of expressing the racism:<br /><br />1. Whites are genetically superior to blacks when it comes to IQ, even controlling for other factors like income and other environmental factors.<br /><br />2. A country/region's productivity is highly correlated with average IQ.<br /><br />3. Immigration policy should seek to maximize our long-term productivity by keeping out the diluting influence of low-IQ immigrants.<br /><br />Depending on the exact form of the libertarian society, it might be very difficult to enforce any such proposal, but there are voluntary means that can push in that direction.<br /><br />Would someone who espoused such views be committing aggression as you understand it? And if so, how does that balance with the warning about paternalism and the pushback that can occur?Nathan Byrdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15267275486291742633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7257263697107031621.post-89039298969047544442010-10-08T12:08:41.884-07:002010-10-08T12:08:41.884-07:00Gary, just echoing Jock's comment, you've ...Gary, just echoing Jock's comment, you've certainly made it easy for others to find other things to do besides enter the essay contest. :-)<br /><br />I also agree with some of what quasibill said about the blowback of (the perception of) paternalism in opposing certain views and voluntary behavior. I've been thinking how to articulate a similar point in the last couple weeks, and I'm not sure I've got it all worked out quite right, but here's a first try at least.<br /><br />It seems to me that there are many ideologies that are self-defeating, or at least self-retarding. Racism/prejudice is an obvious one, though there are certainly others. But I think the response to such ideologies should be in proportion to the general influence they have at any given time.<br /><br />Let me give a specific example. Contrast the situation faced by the Civil Rights movement in the U.S. where racism was systemic, embedded in not only the culture but the governmental structure and laws, with a Libertopia of the future where you discover that no more than a hundred people in a wide region hold racist views.<br /><br />In the first case, vocal opposition, demonstration, and massive coordination of all those affected is completely reasonable, justified, and also the most effective. The problem is severe, and the cure is radical opposition, in a multitude of forms.<br /><br />In the second case, you have the potential to make the situation far worse if you use the tactics of the first case. You force those racists into a siege mentality where they have even less incentive to change their views. In a statist world, it's far easier for racists to blame others for their economic misfortunes. It's far more difficult to maintain such a view (honestly) in a libertarian society. But if you have people organizing to oppose you because of your enlightened views, once again, the consequences of their views can be blamed on the discrimination they're encountering, rather than their own misguided notions.<br /><br />So my skepticism about using even soft power to oppose such views is inversely proportional to the strength of such views in society at any given moment.<br /><br />I have a feeling I could have said all this in a far shorter space, but I was on a roll. :-) Hopefully that made some sense.Nathan Byrdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15267275486291742633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7257263697107031621.post-46466213728841270202010-10-08T10:48:19.940-07:002010-10-08T10:48:19.940-07:00I liked this a lot Gary.
As a Scot,I can identify...I liked this a lot Gary.<br /><br />As a Scot,I can identify with state oppression to suppress culture.The English government has historically banned kilts and bagpipes and non aggressively tried to suppress our language by teaching english,that scots is inferior and merely a dialect and presenting it as the language of the commoner not the intellectual.Scott Forsterhttp://anarchyisordergovernmentiscivilwar.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7257263697107031621.post-76770175777001813382010-10-07T15:09:31.131-07:002010-10-07T15:09:31.131-07:00While I hesitate to jump back into this debate bec...While I hesitate to jump back into this debate because of past slurs, I'll make some comments.<br /><br />First, overall, good stuff. I agree with the general thrust, and you mostly provide meaningful supporting arguments. However:<br /><br />"Even if it is itself expressed non-violently, this kind of racism can prompt violence."<br /><br />This seems to be problematic on multiple levels. First, I'd like to suggest a revision in terms. Racism is a belief set that claims that different races have different rights (I'm going to deal with these beliefs on their own terms; obviously race is social and not a physical construct). Most racist theories posit superior and inferior sets of rights, but not necessarily all theories do. Some merely hold that different is different, and neither needs to be superior or inferior. I'll argue that regardless of the above distinction, I think racism is per se culturally incompatible with libertarianism. Rights should be applied equally, without regard to status conditions. I've actually come to believe, after much reflection, that publishing belief in the common form of racism (superior/inferior) is, in itself a coercive act. It is a threat to those labeled "inferior" and should be treated for the aggression it is.<br /><br />In contrast, prejudice is a set of beliefs that posits equal rights, but prefers to associate with like-minded people. I state it that way because it is often impossible to dissociate racial prejudice from cultural prejudice. The two often coexist, and in many cases, are categories that are sloppily blended by the prejudiced believer. I argue that mere prejudice isn't incompatible with cultural libertarianism, and in some respects is a bedrock component of a functioning libertarian vision of diversity. As a quick example, take Chinese New Year and its assorted celebrations. Certain collective identities might find the celebrations distasteful, annoying, etc. By allowing these two cultural identities to peacefully segregate themselves, conflicts are avoided peacefully (and note that this is a superior outcome to conflict resolution).<br /><br />Finally, I think the whole argument is flawed in that you are saying that some sorts of peaceful activity inevitably lead to violence. Maybe I've been visiting the wrong places for the past 5 years, but I always thought the libertarian solution to such arguments was - punish the violence, not the peaceful behavior. Drugs, prostitution, etc. are all the same sort of boogeyman.<br /><br />Your argument tends to flow along the same lines as the LRC argument against immigration: "Sure, immigration is itself peaceful, but it leads to all sorts of conflicts and increases in aggression against locals." I've always sided with the folks who say "BS" to that argument, and say "then deal with aggression, but don't punish peaceful people."<br /><br />I don't agree with prejudiced people, and honestly, don't want to live with/near/around them. But I think my stance is independent of libertarianism on a theoretical front, and I believe even non-coercive sanctioning of prejudiced people is counter-productive on a strategic level. As you've noted elsewhere, I think that prejudice will be inherently costly, and over time those who are prejudiced will shed their prejudice voluntarily, of their own accord. Acting like non-coercive Big Brother (if you think non-coercion means non-dangerous, read the history of the term "boycott") will make them dig in their heels at what they will perceive as paternalism, and the change will be delayed.<br /><br />Finally, the fact that current property arrangements are the result of past aggression is a given. I don't think that is very relevant, however, to what would be appropriate in an idealized libertarian vision. It's an issue in "how do we get there from here" instead.quasibillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7257263697107031621.post-7972476008822059602010-10-06T17:56:30.498-07:002010-10-06T17:56:30.498-07:00Well, I think that's put paid to my dilemma as...Well, I think that's put paid to my dilemma as to whether to enter or not :-)Jock Coatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15550558005508328017noreply@blogger.com