But seriously, as someone who agrees with classical liberal or libertarian positions about 9 times out of ten (which may be a higher proportion than most people who actually identify as classical liberals or libertarians!), the relative blind spot in them is often "the political problem."
By that I don't mean so much the realities of political psychology, including the tendency to identify with groups that, you rightly note, you have long recognized and lamented.
I mean rather the problem of "political structure," of political organization.
The nation state, with its bias towards insiders and tendency to discriminate against outsiders, is not really a product of "group identity." On the other contrary, the (actually quite thin as you note) group identity that tends to grow up within them is largely a product of the nation state.
Now the nation state is not the only form or unit of political organization, not the only way humans have adopted to pursue and protect the common good, but it is now the dominant one (thus "the united nations") and arguably the most successful.
Other political forms like the city and the empire have not, for example, protected the individual and above all property rights that are essential to economic and technical progress as well or as long. And all political forms have a better record than anarchy.
So "the political problem" is that in order for humans to flourish as individuals, they need to be organized politically, life must unfold "within" a political order, and in order for the common good to be well served, they need to be relatively free as individuals.
This is a difficult sweet spot to achieved and it generally has not been achieved. But the modern nation state and in particular states like the US achieve it relatively well.
Now--the rub--how much discrimination or even injustice towards outsiders does the nation state require in order to be a successful form of political organization? Surely not as much as we have seen historically but just as surely, I'd say, "some."
The world state or empire (as it would really be) is of course an alternative, as is the city or even the tribe, but the latter are much more rather than less narrow than the nation, while the former would likely have to be quite tyrannical. As a rule, the larger the political unit and the further the rulers are from the ruled, the more "imperial problems" result (both the EU and the US have some of these today for example, while both being pretty good).
Granted the nation state is the best political form then, or the best available now, at least some things have to be conceded to preserve it and ensure it works well.
Non-open borders is, I think, one of those things.
Non-open need not mean closed, of course, and generally doesn't. Nor have nation states always had much border control; until well into the 20th C most of them didn't.
But in the 21st C, with the realities of mass, global immigration and welfare states (yes, if states like the US were more thoroughly libertarian this might look at least a bit different) can you really have a well-functioning nation state "and" open borders?
The US, if only because of its sheer size, would have as good a shot as any. But some have buckled with much less immigration than would result from open borders, and even the US would struggle in the longer term I think.
This may be lamentable in the sense that we, as well as the people who migrate through them, miss out on the benefits of open borders. But there are plenty of trade-offs in politics as in economics...
The in-group vs out-group axis is a good discussion point.
If “natives” are the in-group and future would-be immigrants are the out-group, then your contention seems to be that there are net “economic” benefits to BOTH groups, by allowing more immigration. I would tend to agree.
But what you seem to ignore is the non-economic effects of the formerly “out-group”, upon arrival. The social costs of immigration do not accrue from immigrants who integrate into the in-group, but rather from immigrants who reap those economic benefits while otherwise remaining an out-group. This is the situation that manifests as minority women still expected to wear burkhas. Or the immigrants who conduct rape and grooming gangs. Or the immigrants who try to enact Sharia Law.
I agree that immigration can be an economic net positive. But societal function is more than just GDP. And you can reap economic benefits of immigration while having some selective process that mitigates the risk of undue social costs.
DON'T dismiss the ECONOMIC ill effects of immigrants' incursions. While these ill effects may not impinge on well-situated elites, they may seriously impinge on HUGE numbers of poorly connected non-elites (underclasses).
What you fail to realize is that having a feeling of belonging to something greater than yourself is fundamental to human happiness. The collapse of institutions that support this belonging is probably a big reason for all the hopeless, depressed people in this world. We have atomized everyone by coming to the conclusion that only stupid rubes are religious or proud of their country or national heritage or family lineage or whatever. I think some (above average) people can be successful and mostly happy in this type of environment, but other people need structure and a sense of place in the world that isn't dependent on personal achievement. I think it's interesting because the same people shooting down all these institutions also have their sites on family and children which Bryan defends.
> We have atomized everyone by coming to the conclusion that only stupid rubes are religious or proud of their country or national heritage or family lineage or whatever
Polish people are often very religious, proud of their country, national heritage and familial lineage. The statistics in all of these axes vastly exceed US's (as are all the Polish people I've known), they also have some of the highest male suicide rates in EU (and highest ratio of male-to-female suicides)
Your criticisms of group identity are easily mapped on to individualism.
The problem with individualism is that self-interest leads to massive amounts of harm toward other people. More Americans die of murder than in war, for example. And that doesn't take into account rape, battery, embezzlement, etc.
Another problem with individualism is that self-interest leads you to discount merit. For example, when people apply for a job, they don't care who the most qualified person is for the job, they just want the job. Typically this means puffing their resume, tailoring answers to what they think an employer wants, etc. Likewise, most product advertising overstates the case for the merit of products because companies are driven by self-interested owners and managers. It's dishonest, it leads to merit not winning in the marketplace, and it prevents people from truly focusing on improving their own merit.
The third major problem with individualism is that it's a shallow love. Few adults even throw birthday parties for themselves; none attend weekly meetings where they announce how great they are to each other. This proves people don't actually like their individuality that much. Indeed, most adults are more apt to throw a birthday party for their kids then for themselves.
Individualism is not only bad, it's shallow. Lamentably, however, (Classical) Liberal politics has drilled a largely inert individualism into Americans.
Bryan position is consistent with his broader libertarian position which downplays the role of shared norms in propagating institutions. The absolute openness of immigration is based on the belief that exposure and mixing are sufficient to produce a well functioning pluralist society with no extra safeguards. His rationalist framework also fits in, with people of all kinds having equal moral worth regardless of nationality, empirical observation in NYC, skeptical view of nationalism that justifies wars and poor economic decisions, and minimalism a libertarian naturally leans towards. However I think Bryan neglects some strategic vulnerabilities a rigorous rationalist probably should address, that is despite the moral upside of the philosophy what is the effect illiberal minority influence and institutional erosion. you can't just introspect or intuit that away. What about addressing instances where multicultural contacts increases division in some European suburbs and the apparent over reliance on anecdotes- this is not really empirical evidence. But then maybe Bryan is not acting as a pure rationalist would and favours his ideological bent, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Well Bryan, what you fail to realize is...:)
But seriously, as someone who agrees with classical liberal or libertarian positions about 9 times out of ten (which may be a higher proportion than most people who actually identify as classical liberals or libertarians!), the relative blind spot in them is often "the political problem."
By that I don't mean so much the realities of political psychology, including the tendency to identify with groups that, you rightly note, you have long recognized and lamented.
I mean rather the problem of "political structure," of political organization.
The nation state, with its bias towards insiders and tendency to discriminate against outsiders, is not really a product of "group identity." On the other contrary, the (actually quite thin as you note) group identity that tends to grow up within them is largely a product of the nation state.
Now the nation state is not the only form or unit of political organization, not the only way humans have adopted to pursue and protect the common good, but it is now the dominant one (thus "the united nations") and arguably the most successful.
Other political forms like the city and the empire have not, for example, protected the individual and above all property rights that are essential to economic and technical progress as well or as long. And all political forms have a better record than anarchy.
So "the political problem" is that in order for humans to flourish as individuals, they need to be organized politically, life must unfold "within" a political order, and in order for the common good to be well served, they need to be relatively free as individuals.
This is a difficult sweet spot to achieved and it generally has not been achieved. But the modern nation state and in particular states like the US achieve it relatively well.
Now--the rub--how much discrimination or even injustice towards outsiders does the nation state require in order to be a successful form of political organization? Surely not as much as we have seen historically but just as surely, I'd say, "some."
The world state or empire (as it would really be) is of course an alternative, as is the city or even the tribe, but the latter are much more rather than less narrow than the nation, while the former would likely have to be quite tyrannical. As a rule, the larger the political unit and the further the rulers are from the ruled, the more "imperial problems" result (both the EU and the US have some of these today for example, while both being pretty good).
Granted the nation state is the best political form then, or the best available now, at least some things have to be conceded to preserve it and ensure it works well.
Non-open borders is, I think, one of those things.
Non-open need not mean closed, of course, and generally doesn't. Nor have nation states always had much border control; until well into the 20th C most of them didn't.
But in the 21st C, with the realities of mass, global immigration and welfare states (yes, if states like the US were more thoroughly libertarian this might look at least a bit different) can you really have a well-functioning nation state "and" open borders?
The US, if only because of its sheer size, would have as good a shot as any. But some have buckled with much less immigration than would result from open borders, and even the US would struggle in the longer term I think.
This may be lamentable in the sense that we, as well as the people who migrate through them, miss out on the benefits of open borders. But there are plenty of trade-offs in politics as in economics...
The in-group vs out-group axis is a good discussion point.
If “natives” are the in-group and future would-be immigrants are the out-group, then your contention seems to be that there are net “economic” benefits to BOTH groups, by allowing more immigration. I would tend to agree.
But what you seem to ignore is the non-economic effects of the formerly “out-group”, upon arrival. The social costs of immigration do not accrue from immigrants who integrate into the in-group, but rather from immigrants who reap those economic benefits while otherwise remaining an out-group. This is the situation that manifests as minority women still expected to wear burkhas. Or the immigrants who conduct rape and grooming gangs. Or the immigrants who try to enact Sharia Law.
I agree that immigration can be an economic net positive. But societal function is more than just GDP. And you can reap economic benefits of immigration while having some selective process that mitigates the risk of undue social costs.
DON'T dismiss the ECONOMIC ill effects of immigrants' incursions. While these ill effects may not impinge on well-situated elites, they may seriously impinge on HUGE numbers of poorly connected non-elites (underclasses).
What you fail to realize is that having a feeling of belonging to something greater than yourself is fundamental to human happiness. The collapse of institutions that support this belonging is probably a big reason for all the hopeless, depressed people in this world. We have atomized everyone by coming to the conclusion that only stupid rubes are religious or proud of their country or national heritage or family lineage or whatever. I think some (above average) people can be successful and mostly happy in this type of environment, but other people need structure and a sense of place in the world that isn't dependent on personal achievement. I think it's interesting because the same people shooting down all these institutions also have their sites on family and children which Bryan defends.
> We have atomized everyone by coming to the conclusion that only stupid rubes are religious or proud of their country or national heritage or family lineage or whatever
Polish people are often very religious, proud of their country, national heritage and familial lineage. The statistics in all of these axes vastly exceed US's (as are all the Polish people I've known), they also have some of the highest male suicide rates in EU (and highest ratio of male-to-female suicides)
Your criticisms of group identity are easily mapped on to individualism.
The problem with individualism is that self-interest leads to massive amounts of harm toward other people. More Americans die of murder than in war, for example. And that doesn't take into account rape, battery, embezzlement, etc.
Another problem with individualism is that self-interest leads you to discount merit. For example, when people apply for a job, they don't care who the most qualified person is for the job, they just want the job. Typically this means puffing their resume, tailoring answers to what they think an employer wants, etc. Likewise, most product advertising overstates the case for the merit of products because companies are driven by self-interested owners and managers. It's dishonest, it leads to merit not winning in the marketplace, and it prevents people from truly focusing on improving their own merit.
The third major problem with individualism is that it's a shallow love. Few adults even throw birthday parties for themselves; none attend weekly meetings where they announce how great they are to each other. This proves people don't actually like their individuality that much. Indeed, most adults are more apt to throw a birthday party for their kids then for themselves.
Individualism is not only bad, it's shallow. Lamentably, however, (Classical) Liberal politics has drilled a largely inert individualism into Americans.
Bryan position is consistent with his broader libertarian position which downplays the role of shared norms in propagating institutions. The absolute openness of immigration is based on the belief that exposure and mixing are sufficient to produce a well functioning pluralist society with no extra safeguards. His rationalist framework also fits in, with people of all kinds having equal moral worth regardless of nationality, empirical observation in NYC, skeptical view of nationalism that justifies wars and poor economic decisions, and minimalism a libertarian naturally leans towards. However I think Bryan neglects some strategic vulnerabilities a rigorous rationalist probably should address, that is despite the moral upside of the philosophy what is the effect illiberal minority influence and institutional erosion. you can't just introspect or intuit that away. What about addressing instances where multicultural contacts increases division in some European suburbs and the apparent over reliance on anecdotes- this is not really empirical evidence. But then maybe Bryan is not acting as a pure rationalist would and favours his ideological bent, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.