site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   21700 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 14, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Are you in favor of open borders as a practical policy matter under our current political system which does include redistribution schemes, birthright citizenship, various employment regulations etc.? The libertarian case for open borders in a legitimate “libertarian state” makes sense to me as ultimate freedom of association, but in current year US it seems to have second-order effects that are detrimental to libertarianism given the voting tendencies of second-gen immigrants and the fact that they end up as beneficiaries of various redistribution schemes. Is it like an accelerationist point of view, where having actual de jure open borders (which seems unlikely to ever happen in reality) would quickly make redistribution schemes untenable? Or is it just that the moral/ideological importance of open borders supersedes the practical considerations for you?

Practical concerns make me more in favor of open immigration, not less in favor. The largest spending item on the federal budget is not welfare, its social security. And Social Security is a pyramid scheme paid for by young. Immigrants tend to be young and looking for work. "economic migrants" is for some reason a dirty word, when without them the federal government would be going insolvent much sooner. One of the largest forms of welfare currently and being pushed by progressives and liberals is free/cheap medical care. The people most in need of medical care are often old, so the native population, not immigrants.

Those two effects alone end up swamping all other fiscal concerns.

There is also good empirical work that voter support for welfare states tends to fall with racial and ethnic diversity. Progressives have realized this and torn out their hair in frustration over all the racism. I see the result and become far less concerned about immigration.

This is kind of what I’m getting at though- right now the status quo is that illegal immigrants have to traverse across Mexico, cross the border, and work jobs where they are paid under the table in shittier conditions than the government allows for its citizens. I and many others have problems with this, but this selects for these hardworking young people you’re referring to. I’m not sure if they end up paying into social security, but I know they don’t draw on it. So point taken there. The legal immigrants are often very smart and conscientious people who largely are a net financial benefit to the government.

But if we were to have de jure open borders, where the rights of citizenship are given to anyone who can scrounge up money for a plane ticket from around the world, you’re going to get a billion people and their old parents following them which would immediately cripple every social program and lead to massive crime and housing shortages. Do you disagree with this? If you’re suggesting some sort of permanent residency program where the immigrants are not ever given a path to citizenship or any entitlements like they have in the Middle East, I actually agree this could potentially work but I don’t consider that open borders, and I rarely see that proposal made explicit.

Regarding your last point about diversity decreasing support for welfare states, I would guess this is because the data is coming from western countries that went from being largely homogenous to having an immigrant underclass very quickly. The data also overwhelmingly shows that second-gen immigrants in the US and Europe vote for pro-welfare parties. This causes a larger share of the majority population to oppose welfare states, but if the previous majority becomes a minority I don’t know why we should expect the immigrants to stop voting for gibs

In general I think people should have the right to work and live anywhere they want. I don't believe voting, receiving government welfare, being a citizen etc is a right. So that is my conception of open borders. I don't really think of open borders as open citizenship for anyone or open welfare.

  1. Yes definitely. As long as membership is voluntary.
  2. It could theoretically exist. Getting voluntary joining from that massive number of people seems a bit prohibitive.

Does it count as voluntary as long as you're allowed to leave the club and its premises at any time for any reason?

With all of your stuff, sure.

What's stopping you from doing that now?

More comments

I don't really think of open borders as open citizenship for anyone or open welfare.

So would you only support open borders if we got rid of open welfare (and birthright citizenship) first?

It would be nice to have a 3-tier citizenship that looked something like:

  1. Full citizen.
  2. Full resident.
  3. Foreigner trying to become citizen.

Technically we have that now. But birthright citizenshp and amnesties mess up how well it works (of course with open borders there's no need for amnesties).

And that doesn't really answer the open welfare question. Would you support open borders before we get rid of open welfare, or would you willing to wait first because of the consequences of getting open borders without getting rid of it first? (And the same question for birthright citizenship).

Wouldn't you be able to shoot down practically any other libertarian reform down on the basis of "Well, in a fully libertarian state this would work, but in ours...", too?

Yes, but if it's true then you could just take this as much a mark against gradual reform as a viable tactic. Liberal democrats often aren't very liberal or democratic when they're busy trying to do away with the king.

In some sense yes, I think “libertarianism” is not a viable political program in a democracy (or maybe at all). But for something like drug legalization which you mentioned below, a lot of the more mainstream arguments for this are that it actually reduces drug use, or makes it safer, or the cost-benefit of enforcement isn’t worth it etc. There’s plenty of arguments that even with our current political program it would be beneficial for various reasons, whether they are correct or not.

But for open borders- I don’t understand what is even meant by this when it is put forth as a policy. If the US were to pass a law tomorrow that literally anyone who wants to live here can show up and be entitled to the benefits of citizenship, we would immediately see millions of immigrants from poor countries around the world show up who are now entitled to welfare, food stamps, healthcare, housing and minimum wage which would become unsustainable immediately. We’re able to mostly handle high levels of illegal immigration now because these people are not entitled to government benefits or subject to minimum wage laws or other labor protections. When people argue for open borders as a policy- do they mean we maintain de jure immigration laws but just completely stop border enforcement and allow anyone who shows up to remain here as illegal immigrants not eligible for our entitlement programs?

Is he talking about a "fully libertarian state"? He brought up redistribution. You could have a full-on command economy without redistribution.

That's what I took "libertarian state" to mean.

Well, can you step me through it? How is a command economy without redistribution a "libertarian state"?

What I was trying to say is in an ideal libertarian state, where the government is just law/contract enforcement and a military or whatever, and does not otherwise redistribute money or interfere in much else - de jure open borders would at least be a possibility. Having actual, de jure, open borders in 2024 America would collapse the government relatively quickly if millions and millions of immigrants showed up and were given welfare, healthcare and other entitlements.

W-what? He mentioned "redistribution schemes, birthright citizenship, various employment regulations etc.?" - but that's besides the point, ie. that there are numerous other libertarian policies that one could presumably oppose on the basis of them happening in a country with redistribution schemes ("Can't legalize drugs since that creates drug addicts who live on state teat!" and so on).

W-what? He mentioned "redistribution schemes, birthright citizenship, various employment regulations etc.?"

I may have misunderstood what the "That's" was referring to, lol.

but that's besides the point, ie. that there are numerous other libertarian policies that one could presumably oppose on the basis of them happening in a country with redistribution schemes ("Can't legalize drugs since that creates drug addicts who live on state teat!" and so on).

Right, but that's beside the point, i.e. are open borders combined with redistribution a good idea or not? If you want to agree with him re: open borders, and then pull the thread more to see if he's consistent, and/or show him other flaws with libertarianism, that's fair game. But not really saying anything, and just poking holes is pretty lame.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats