Are there any non-coercive cultural preservation strategies that you would encourage people to try instead of using the state to try to preserve their preferred culture?
Maybe helicopter parenting? I do have a whole story about this - people mistake short-run nurture effects for long-run nurture effects - but it's still puzzling how resilient it is.
1. Poland in 2022 made me realize that increasing a country's population by 15% in a month needn't be a disaster.
2. UAE made me realize that something close to open borders currently exists and is working wonderfully.
3. Multiple trips to places in Europe that allegedly demonstrate the horrors of immigration raised my confidence that the pessimists are innumerate.
4. Seeing unemployed African immigrants in Italy helped me understand the pessimists a bit better, but just amplified my view that Italy's labor market regs are terrible. Africans are doing great in UAE.
Some selection, but also a massive difference in treatment. UAE welcomes foreigners to work, with little government help. Italy, even if it legally allows you to work (unlikely), has crazy labor market regulations that make employing low-skilled foreign workers unprofitable. They'd rather treat people like charity cases that allow them to live productive lives.
Shucks! I missed this, sir! But, to be fair, I can't think of any questions, anyway. Perhaps I don't think aboot culture very much. Or perhaps I am confused as to hwhat counts as culture and hwhat doesn't. Perhaps if I read the book, I would have a lot more questions or objections in the form of questions. 😛
So, I have a slight suggestion: Perhaps you could do these AMAs maybe a fortnight after book launch to allow us time to read the book and think of questions. But, perhaps, there's a good reason you do the AMAs right after launch. (Marketing or something.)
How to technically understand the status of national territory? Is it analogous to private property (but owned by whom?) but then how can the parcels of private property embedded within the territory be understood?
When it is said that Danmark owns Greenland, what does it mean?
The status quo treats national territory as the only "real" private property: Within their borders, countries are entitled to do virtually whatever they want ("sovereignty"), including trample ordinary private property right. Per Mike Huemer's *Problem of Political Authority*, I think the correct view is that ordinary private property rights are the "real" ones, and national territory is fake, because in practice there's no unanimous agreement to cede power to a government.
That said, national territory is a good focal point for avoiding war, and war is terrible beyond belief.
If ordinary private property rights are real ones, then a question posed by Milton Friedman regarding how to define property rights in the air above one's property. Is there any way to define it except through social agreement (which is same as defining it through political process) and this agreement works only over a politically united territory?
"You have no right to enforce your culture on others"
It is not the question of right or wrong. A person is not committing any wrong to walk from one place on the earth to another. But those who stop him are also not doing any wrong.
Similarly, "culture" is standing here for the entire set of customs, mores and laws of a particular people who possess a territory. The State, as a agent of the people, naturally tries to perpetuate itself. It would not be a state if it did not.
So, a people who do not care about their culture do not exist as a people for long. As simple as that and no question about rights or wrongs.
Any person has a natural right to walk and even cross borders and seek asylum. But other people may rightly deny him asylum.
There can be many such things. Denmark asserts its ownership of Greenland. America contests it. Both can be right or at least not wrong. For sovereignty is an assertion which may be accepted or not by others.
While my friends consider me a picky eater, my tastes are amazingly broad by the standards of the 80s. I enjoy Chinese, Japanese (no sushi), Korean, Peruvian, Middle Eastern, Spanish, French, German, Ethiopian, and more, though I usually prefer Americanized to authentic.
I'm influenced by the ancient Greeks, especially Epicurus.
My main issue with this take is that you leave economy to do philosophy. That's right Bryan, you have subjugated culture to something that needs to be figured out by market forces and be subject to them.
Is free market a product of our culture? There's an important question! In that case we're subjecting our culture to its own values and we are in a recursive type of situation! Should our culture contain self contradictory elements, it is bound to lose in this case.
What if culture stands above the free market as a principle that holds moral worth and therefore cannot be traded and put in competition without reversing some kind of moral order of things? Does that enter anywhere in Dr. Caplan's worldview or should the primacy of economics be taken as an absolute a priori before discussion is engaged in?
If the future's an option, then the future. I'm tempted to say "The farther in the future, the better" but I'd probably be more cautious and just go ahead 1000 years in Houston.
Otherwise, the answer is probably just my hometown c.1985. I've got powerful nostalgia.
Why have you not written more vociferously about the ICE activity? Is it because you've been travelling? Do you have plans to discuss it from your unique version of libertarian perspective?
I try not to talk about current events unless I've got something new to say. I stand by my view that immigration laws are unjust, and people have every right to break them. And people enforcing unjust laws are the real criminals.
There's no God from above to determine when that line's been crossed.
For as long as I'm engaged in the activities that were culturally inherited, outside of those that required a community to do, I'm not sure it matters.
For example, the person who insists on cooking jollof rice the exact way that they learned it, and saying the same prayer as when they were younger before bed, needn't concern themselves with whether somebody is doing likewise in a house down the road.
I just think the title doesn't clearly communicate the point I know you'll be trying to make (and I agree with).
Why wasn't the book titled "You have no right to enforce your culture on others"? The title seems deliberately provocative in a way that contradicts your usual emphasis on friendliness.
I'm happy to do so - and probably agree - but I'm still confused on the deliberately inflammatory phrasing. You often remark about taking the common sense interpretation of how people say things, and the common sense interpretation of "You have no right to X" is "X doesn't belong to you", which is kinda strange when it comes to culture.
Having a right to a culture is like having a right to your own data - it is impossible. So I think the title is valid, regardless of Brian's explanation on the first page that he's mentioning.
Since below-replacement fertility is incompatible with a sustainable culture, there's a bit of an "Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" there.
It depends on how long below-replacement fertility continues. I say evolution will save us in the medium term, as anti-natal genes disappear.
Hall's book is great, though of course the NET effect of Westernization is still to greatly enhance the supply of energy. The core West is underperforming, but countries that try to emulate the West are using a lot more energy, not less.
France was the first to hit the demographic transition, so they've had lots of time for their genes to evolve, but that's only made them somewhat better off than other European countries, and they explicitly responded to shortages of births with pro-natal measures. I think Robin Hanson is correct that current extrapolations would predict insular religious groups like the Amish & ultra-Orthodox replacing everyone else.
My takeaway from Hall's book is that cultural change over time isn't always for the better. The west got worse on that front, and we haven't gotten back on the track we could have been on.
"Four years ago, I hatched a plan to publish eight books of my collected blog essays. I sifted through thousands of old blog posts, selected the top 5%, and organized them by theme. There was Labor Econ Versus the World on labor econ, How Evil Are Politicians on demagoguery, Don’t Be a Feminist on wokeness, Voters as Mad Scientists on behavioral political economy, You Will Not Stampede Me on non-conformism, Self-Help Is Like a Vaccine on self-improvement, and Pro-Market and Pro-Business on free-market economics."
Granted, you can't answer this question for You Have No Right to Your Culture, yet. But nevertheless, which of these seven books has had the greatest impact so far?
Liberalism itself and more generally the political culture of the West is a part of Western culture and is not universal. So does "you have no right to your culture" includes liberalism?
Are there any non-coercive cultural preservation strategies that you would encourage people to try instead of using the state to try to preserve their preferred culture?
Yes, marketing! Say it loud, say it proud.
What culture practice do you suspect should be the least likely to survive in the free marketplace of culture/idea but nevertheless is surviving there
Maybe helicopter parenting? I do have a whole story about this - people mistake short-run nurture effects for long-run nurture effects - but it's still puzzling how resilient it is.
Have you ever traveled to a foreign country and it caused a change in your viewpoint on any issue?
Many times. Just a few cases...
1. Poland in 2022 made me realize that increasing a country's population by 15% in a month needn't be a disaster.
2. UAE made me realize that something close to open borders currently exists and is working wonderfully.
3. Multiple trips to places in Europe that allegedly demonstrate the horrors of immigration raised my confidence that the pessimists are innumerate.
4. Seeing unemployed African immigrants in Italy helped me understand the pessimists a bit better, but just amplified my view that Italy's labor market regs are terrible. Africans are doing great in UAE.
5. Seeing Japan made me realize how depressing it is for smart people to do menial jobs. https://www.betonit.ai/p/human-capital-hara-kiri
Africans in UAE are probably highly selected. The Emiratis do not let anybody come over.
Africans in Italy are also selected I suppose but not for the qualities that a host nation might appreciate.
Some selection, but also a massive difference in treatment. UAE welcomes foreigners to work, with little government help. Italy, even if it legally allows you to work (unlikely), has crazy labor market regulations that make employing low-skilled foreign workers unprofitable. They'd rather treat people like charity cases that allow them to live productive lives.
Than, not that.
Thank you! Makes sense in all cases.
Shucks! I missed this, sir! But, to be fair, I can't think of any questions, anyway. Perhaps I don't think aboot culture very much. Or perhaps I am confused as to hwhat counts as culture and hwhat doesn't. Perhaps if I read the book, I would have a lot more questions or objections in the form of questions. 😛
So, I have a slight suggestion: Perhaps you could do these AMAs maybe a fortnight after book launch to allow us time to read the book and think of questions. But, perhaps, there's a good reason you do the AMAs right after launch. (Marketing or something.)
How to technically understand the status of national territory? Is it analogous to private property (but owned by whom?) but then how can the parcels of private property embedded within the territory be understood?
When it is said that Danmark owns Greenland, what does it mean?
The status quo treats national territory as the only "real" private property: Within their borders, countries are entitled to do virtually whatever they want ("sovereignty"), including trample ordinary private property right. Per Mike Huemer's *Problem of Political Authority*, I think the correct view is that ordinary private property rights are the "real" ones, and national territory is fake, because in practice there's no unanimous agreement to cede power to a government.
That said, national territory is a good focal point for avoiding war, and war is terrible beyond belief.
If ordinary private property rights are real ones, then a question posed by Milton Friedman regarding how to define property rights in the air above one's property. Is there any way to define it except through social agreement (which is same as defining it through political process) and this agreement works only over a politically united territory?
"You have no right to enforce your culture on others"
It is not the question of right or wrong. A person is not committing any wrong to walk from one place on the earth to another. But those who stop him are also not doing any wrong.
Similarly, "culture" is standing here for the entire set of customs, mores and laws of a particular people who possess a territory. The State, as a agent of the people, naturally tries to perpetuate itself. It would not be a state if it did not.
So, a people who do not care about their culture do not exist as a people for long. As simple as that and no question about rights or wrongs.
An odd view. If it's not wrong for me to do X, how can it be right to stop me from doing X?
Any person has a natural right to walk and even cross borders and seek asylum. But other people may rightly deny him asylum.
There can be many such things. Denmark asserts its ownership of Greenland. America contests it. Both can be right or at least not wrong. For sovereignty is an assertion which may be accepted or not by others.
Are there any “foreign” practices that you’ve adopted in your own life?
While my friends consider me a picky eater, my tastes are amazingly broad by the standards of the 80s. I enjoy Chinese, Japanese (no sushi), Korean, Peruvian, Middle Eastern, Spanish, French, German, Ethiopian, and more, though I usually prefer Americanized to authentic.
I'm influenced by the ancient Greeks, especially Epicurus.
Reposting from original article:
My main issue with this take is that you leave economy to do philosophy. That's right Bryan, you have subjugated culture to something that needs to be figured out by market forces and be subject to them.
Is free market a product of our culture? There's an important question! In that case we're subjecting our culture to its own values and we are in a recursive type of situation! Should our culture contain self contradictory elements, it is bound to lose in this case.
What if culture stands above the free market as a principle that holds moral worth and therefore cannot be traded and put in competition without reversing some kind of moral order of things? Does that enter anywhere in Dr. Caplan's worldview or should the primacy of economics be taken as an absolute a priori before discussion is engaged in?
If you could also choose a point in time, which country and which date would you most want to travel to?
If the future's an option, then the future. I'm tempted to say "The farther in the future, the better" but I'd probably be more cautious and just go ahead 1000 years in Houston.
Otherwise, the answer is probably just my hometown c.1985. I've got powerful nostalgia.
Why have you not written more vociferously about the ICE activity? Is it because you've been travelling? Do you have plans to discuss it from your unique version of libertarian perspective?
I try not to talk about current events unless I've got something new to say. I stand by my view that immigration laws are unjust, and people have every right to break them. And people enforcing unjust laws are the real criminals.
You've been open about your esoteric interests and the things that make you happy, but what ones have you not discussed?
I know you have a rich set of passions.
For example, I never have reason to mention my weird love for my Fisher Space Pen.
Karaoke? Very fun, especially since my daughter is very musical like me. I enjoy singing even though I'm not good at it.
Perfect answer.
The title seems misguided.
I absolutely have a right to practice my culture, but expectations that my culture predominates would be antithetical to a free society.
If you alone practice your culture, your culture is dead, no?
There's no God from above to determine when that line's been crossed.
For as long as I'm engaged in the activities that were culturally inherited, outside of those that required a community to do, I'm not sure it matters.
For example, the person who insists on cooking jollof rice the exact way that they learned it, and saying the same prayer as when they were younger before bed, needn't concern themselves with whether somebody is doing likewise in a house down the road.
I just think the title doesn't clearly communicate the point I know you'll be trying to make (and I agree with).
Why wasn't the book titled "You have no right to enforce your culture on others"? The title seems deliberately provocative in a way that contradicts your usual emphasis on friendliness.
You may be right, but if you just read the first page you'll see my meaning.
I'm happy to do so - and probably agree - but I'm still confused on the deliberately inflammatory phrasing. You often remark about taking the common sense interpretation of how people say things, and the common sense interpretation of "You have no right to X" is "X doesn't belong to you", which is kinda strange when it comes to culture.
Still, I look forward to reading the title essay!
Having a right to a culture is like having a right to your own data - it is impossible. So I think the title is valid, regardless of Brian's explanation on the first page that he's mentioning.
What do you think of Robin Hanson's writing on cultural drift into maladaptiveness?
I think low fertility is his one strong example. Otherwise, I see functional Western and capitalist culture spreading all over the world.
Since below-replacement fertility is incompatible with a sustainable culture, there's a bit of an "Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" there.
How about J. Storrs Hall's "Where's My Flying Car" on how progress in energy usage stopped in the 1970s? https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/elois-ate-your-flying-carhtml
It depends on how long below-replacement fertility continues. I say evolution will save us in the medium term, as anti-natal genes disappear.
Hall's book is great, though of course the NET effect of Westernization is still to greatly enhance the supply of energy. The core West is underperforming, but countries that try to emulate the West are using a lot more energy, not less.
France was the first to hit the demographic transition, so they've had lots of time for their genes to evolve, but that's only made them somewhat better off than other European countries, and they explicitly responded to shortages of births with pro-natal measures. I think Robin Hanson is correct that current extrapolations would predict insular religious groups like the Amish & ultra-Orthodox replacing everyone else.
My takeaway from Hall's book is that cultural change over time isn't always for the better. The west got worse on that front, and we haven't gotten back on the track we could have been on.
"Four years ago, I hatched a plan to publish eight books of my collected blog essays. I sifted through thousands of old blog posts, selected the top 5%, and organized them by theme. There was Labor Econ Versus the World on labor econ, How Evil Are Politicians on demagoguery, Don’t Be a Feminist on wokeness, Voters as Mad Scientists on behavioral political economy, You Will Not Stampede Me on non-conformism, Self-Help Is Like a Vaccine on self-improvement, and Pro-Market and Pro-Business on free-market economics."
Granted, you can't answer this question for You Have No Right to Your Culture, yet. But nevertheless, which of these seven books has had the greatest impact so far?
*Don't Be a Feminist* sold the most copies and produced the most discussion.
Liberalism itself and more generally the political culture of the West is a part of Western culture and is not universal. So does "you have no right to your culture" includes liberalism?
You have a right to be left alone, but not a right for other people to agree with any philosophy, including liberal philosophy.
Does this "right to be left alone" precede any political philosophy?
There are plenty cultures, even most, that lack this concept of "right to be left alone".
Hindus ban beef wherever they can, Moslems ban criticism of their core tenets.