Downsides to open borders?

By -

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell10:11 PM

    Gene, you can't be serious? Do you really think this clash of the cultures thing is real?

    I'm honestly not sure how to interpret the data. The first thing that comes to mind is that the "multiculturalism" did do it, but that this is not an essential part of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:27 AM

      What?! Cultures are different. The results of making Sweden multicultural are real. What exactly is "not serious" about admitting this?

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell7:01 AM

      Of course cultures are different. I'd be an idiot if I denied that (I also do not think all cultures or, rather, all cultural practices, are equal). That doesn't necessarily mean that two of them are going to react like water and sodium if they mix together. This idea always seemed like a conservative bogeyman to me. Now, I don't deny that certain mixtures can react badly (think liberal America and Islamic fundamentalist Saudi Arabia), but I don't think is inherent to multiculturalism. I'm also not sure how Sweden made itself multicultural through legislation. (Was it a declaration? A change in certain crime statutes?)

      Delete
    3. Ken B9:48 AM

      "This idea always seemed like a conservative bogeyman to me. "
      So when a particular example crops up -- and we see this problem with attitudes to women in public and rape all over the world now (Gene could have cited Rotherham) -- how do you react to the fact? Not like Keynes it seems.

      Delete
    4. Samson Corwell10:32 PM

      "Not like Keynes it seems."

      Uh, what? My knowledge of economics topics is basic, so I'm probably missing something here.

      Delete
  2. Samson Corwell3:03 PM

    Do you draw a distinction between multiculturalism and diversity? And why do you think multiculturalism leads to destructive results?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah3:17 PM

      Samson, my post was on immigration.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more

Against their will / we were taxing against their will / we were young and we were strong and we were taxing against their will

By -
Never one to allow a mistake to go uncompounded by a glaring error, Bob Murphy digs in deeper . He claims that "Taking money from people against their will is not akin to getting on the treadmill; it is akin to killing people against their will." Bob has introduced a largely irrelevant criterion here with his "against their will." Let us start with killing. (No, no, not killing Bob : we still love him despite his obstinacy.) The justice of a killing does not depend at all on whether the "victim" wants to be killed. If I shoot someone who is attempting to set off a nuclear weapon in Times Square, the fact that I killed him "against his will" does not make my killing immoral. And if a friend who is in despair asks me to shoot him in the head, the fact that he wants me to kill him would not make my action moral. Similarly, in taking money from people, the crucial question is whether you are taking it justly or unjustly, not whether they wan...
Read more