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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm game. This being all under the caveat that libertarianism is a fairly large ideological tradition and many will disagree with me on specifics, either because they're anarchists or because they have different social views or views on power.
But they are moreso than the West, and it is really all that matters to me.
To understand why, a good guide is the conceptual frame of Hirschman's Exit, Voice and Loyalty. The basics of his view is that members of any human organization faced with the deterioration of the quality of the organization are faced with a dilemma if they want to address this problem. They can either use voice, which is to say that they can use the mechanisms of the organization to internally struggle to improve it. Or they can use exit, which is to say dissolving the relationship between them and the organization.
Libertarianism, in essence, is the ideology that favors exit paired with competition as the mechanism for solving social problems under the name of Freedom of Association. In this sense, libertarians do not care about political rights (voice) as much as liberals or socialists. But they care absolutely about exit rights. They are perfectly happy for organizations to provide services to them that they have no direct input in, as long as their ability to fully divest from such an organization is guaranteed.
Hans-Herman Hoppe is most famous for taking this lens, applying it to government and attempting to build over the years a view of a system of government that would rely on consent and still allow for the preferences of various different human groups to be addressed by free association.
In Democracy: The God that Failed, he excoriates universal suffrage (voice) as a solution to the political problem, much preferring to is the rise of natural elites, who would nevertheless be beholden to natural law. To this end, he envisions a system of "covenant communities" that would be able to exclude members that are undesirable to them. For an example he gives the idea of a village having a sign that reads "no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no homosexuals, drug users, Jews, Muslims, Germans, or Zulus".
This is essentially how international cities function. You have no political rights. Law is applied swiftly and strictly. Undesirables are kicked out. Property rights are strongly guaranteed. Taxes are minimal. And private life is strongly separated from public life.
The west does not function like this. You are encouraged, if not forced to participate in politics. Law is loosely applied if at all. There are laws on the books against divesting yourself from essentially any group. Property rights are heavily conditional. Taxes are high. And the State is immensely interested in spying on and controlling private life.
Everything is more complicated that this in the details, of course, but I hope that I can at least give you a broad feeling as to how a libertarian might see these international cities as havens of freedom compared to, say, the European Union.
More options
Context Copy link