Do you think that the best cultures win often enough that we should be sanguine about the changes that seem to be happening more rapidly or drastically in our more connected world?
How do you think about culture generally? Macro? Micro? A mix of many levels of cultural practices from many influences? When does it stop making sense to speak of British culture? Or London culture? Or GMU culture?
Do you think the only way to make high levels of immigration culturally acceptable is to effectively bribe natives with benefits and special privileges?
The typical debate being that prospective patent holders might need an incentive in order to have created their innovation, but that same patent will bar anyone else from iterating using their technology for a period. Without the patent, we can have extra gains from iterative innovation, but maybe the gains from the innovation never happen without the incentive in the first place.
Is there a marketing problem with the statement "You have no right to your culture"? David Henderson thinks so and wrote about this recently. This is similar to the debate on "Open Borders" as a slogan.
Is there a distinction between community norms and laws in the extreme versus a more amorphous "culture" of a particular group of people/place?
Is the argument here just a special case of the endless struggle for freedom where most everyone agrees in theory but a large majority rejects it when confronted with marginal opportunities to actually live it out--similar to build, baby, build for thee, NIMBY for me because "we're" special?
Do you think that the best cultures win often enough that we should be sanguine about the changes that seem to be happening more rapidly or drastically in our more connected world?
How would you describe your culture?
How do you think about culture generally? Macro? Micro? A mix of many levels of cultural practices from many influences? When does it stop making sense to speak of British culture? Or London culture? Or GMU culture?
Which American cultural traits do you think are most unproductive/harmful and, if eliminated, would make the biggest positive difference?
Do you think the only way to make high levels of immigration culturally acceptable is to effectively bribe natives with benefits and special privileges?
Is there any parallel between culture and intellectual property? Is there an "ability to iterate" versus an "incentive to innovate" problem?
The typical debate being that prospective patent holders might need an incentive in order to have created their innovation, but that same patent will bar anyone else from iterating using their technology for a period. Without the patent, we can have extra gains from iterative innovation, but maybe the gains from the innovation never happen without the incentive in the first place.
Is there a marketing problem with the statement "You have no right to your culture"? David Henderson thinks so and wrote about this recently. This is similar to the debate on "Open Borders" as a slogan.
Is there a distinction between community norms and laws in the extreme versus a more amorphous "culture" of a particular group of people/place?
Is the argument here just a special case of the endless struggle for freedom where most everyone agrees in theory but a large majority rejects it when confronted with marginal opportunities to actually live it out--similar to build, baby, build for thee, NIMBY for me because "we're" special?
What do you make of the distinction between “deep culture” and “surface culture”, and is it relevant to your argument?
https://schoolrubric.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2020-09-The-Visible-Gateway-4.jpg
Does Europe have more trouble assimilating immigrants, and why? Does that contribute to higher crime rates, and why?