The libertarian view on immigration

[Ondrej]

To me it's irrelevant whether such a discourse is "popular" or "fashionable." I care first whether it's true, and second what it means about ourselves.

If your problem is that the narrative is often one-sided, I agree. But the solution is not to present another one-sided narrative. That is what "the right" does all the time and it only makes all the same mistakes they accuse those on "the left" of making.

If we think there is some good in Christian values, then we need to humbly admit the mistakes of past generations. We need to stop pretending that everything was better before the West abandoned Christian values. It was better only for a tiny minority of wealthy and powerful people, who got their wealth and power by dishonest means.

That is the power and meaning of the narrative. Now let's leave off discussing whether it's fashionable and ask to what extent it is true.

We actually didn't discuss whether it is fashionable. I have mentioned this several times as a reason for people doing things. People just accept and repeat things they pick up from the culture around them. Without knowing whether it is true. And fair enough, one cannot pay attention to everything.

It is admirable to search out the truth but the problem is more subtle still. I assume you are aware of the dihydrogen monoxide "hoax" where water is called by an obscure scientific name and then reported on, truthfully, in the most negative light. The rub is it's all true but somehow false nevertheless because of the incomplete picture. This is the approach critical theory takes, to problematize anything it objects to. Of course some things are absolutely true but if the whole goal is to find the problems, present them prominently and spin a narrative as though this is the full picture, then the observer/listener is gravely misled.

I think this statement indicates you have been clearly misled.

It was better only for a tiny minority of wealthy and powerful people, who got their wealth and power by dishonest means.

Poverty rates are falling everywhere and the rate is accelerating. Child mortality rates are dropping for everyone not just the wealthy elites. Life spans are improving. Our primary problem in the West, especially in America, is that we eat too much food and exercise too little. This is not a good thing but indicates we have, generally speaking, plenty to eat and do not work such physically taxing jobs as in previous generations. Standards of living have been improving for everyone. 100 years ago a car was an ultra luxury item. Today, there's really not a tremendous difference between the most expensive car and the cheapest car. They are both quite reliable, get you from point A to point B, and all things considered both are fairly stylish. Poor people can access the internet increasingly by using cell phones (if they cannot afford a real computer). The list could go on as I'm sure you are well aware.

I have probably mentioned it before but I'll put it here again for several reasons. 1) you mentioned you don't care whether something is popular but want to get at the truth, 2) you have suggested you might be open to the idea, 3) the author is actually a lefty guy. The book is "Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell. As far as my memory serves, he wanted to research why men were able to earn more and warn his daughters how best to navigate a discriminatory work environment. He assumed the "women earn only 70 cents for every dollar a man makes" was a straight forward result of some sort of discrimination. Where did he pick this idea up? It is fashionable. It is also TRUE! At least the 70 cents on the dollar part, but the picture you are led to form because of this narrative is not true at all. Then this picture is used to justify all sorts of actions and condemn as sexist anyone who might question it.

The last sentence gets at another part of the problem. The left is so quick to get rid of opposition through silencing rather than debating the ideas, they position themselves in a precarious position to clearly judge where the truth is. Warren Farrell mentions that he lost many friends. James Lindsay (of the New Discourses podcast, hey look I remembered his name!) mentions that he was rather surprised that the right would have much more discussion and constructive conversations than the left. The left argues that they are fostering an inclusive and tolerant environment but this is not different from removing/silencing dissenting voices. It is intolerance and exclusion. Then they accuse the right of being in an echo chamber because they disagree with what "everyone" knows to be true, i.e. what is fashionable, "the narrative". I think I'm just rambling now. But I think if you read this book and find it convincing it will help reveal what I am talking about regarding "the narrative" and how what you think you know because everyone thinks this, is completely wrong. The good news is this is actually good news.

[Ondrej]

the reason these narratives are told among sensible, thinking people

This statement suggests the recognition of a group of people who, by virtue of their repetition of the proper narrative, have gained a more virtuous status. They are sensible and thinking. Of course one cannot tell the degree of their sensibilities or how much thought they have put into their positions. All one can see is that they repeat the narrative.

This necessarily creates a second group who are at least less sensible and have put less thought into their positions (cast completely into the opposite would be "senseless and unthinking"). One way to tell whether people fall into this category is that they do not repeat the narrative. This too, says nothing about their sensibilities or thought directly but we can nevertheless put them into this category. Since belonging to this category implies senselessness and lack of thought one can safely ignore what these people say.

So, by repeating the narrative one gains a virtuous status and contradicting the narrative renders one senseless.

[Barney]

This statement suggests the recognition of a group of people who, by virtue of their repetition of the proper narrative, have gained a more virtuous status. They are sensible and thinking. Of course one cannot tell the degree of their sensibilities or how much thought they have put into their positions. All one can see is that they repeat the narrative.

This necessarily creates a second group who are at least less sensible and have put less thought into their positions (cast completely into the opposite would be "senseless and unthinking"). One way to tell whether people fall into this category is that they do not repeat the narrative. This too, says nothing about their sensibilities or thought directly but we can nevertheless put them into this category. Since belonging to this category implies senselessness and lack of thought one can safely ignore what these people say.

So, by repeating the narrative one gains a virtuous status and contradicting the narrative renders one senseless.

This is a complete misunderstanding of what I meant. I don't know whether you or I are to blame for that, but there we are. I never meant that all sensible and thinking people have the same narrative, but only that, among all the sensible, thinking people in the world, there are some who take this narrative, and those are the ones who should be engaged with if you disagree.

[Barney]

I assume you are aware of the dihydrogen monoxide "hoax" where water is called by an obscure scientific name and then reported on, truthfully, in the most negative light. The rub is it's all true but somehow false nevertheless because of the incomplete picture.

This is a powerful analogy and certainly applies to a lot of what goes on in public discourse, especially around controversial questions. I'm not sure, however, if we can justifiably blame one side more than the other for this sort of move. Is there any evidence that the left does this more than the right?

This is the approach critical theory takes, to problematize anything it objects to.

This is a little bit of an Ad Hominem problem. To sound a bit like you, there is no such thing as "critical theory" - there are only critical theorists. No doubt some of them paint things in a negative light all the time, just as people on all sides of any argument do. But do all of them, all the time?

I think this statement indicates you have been clearly misled. "It was better only for a tiny minority of wealthy and powerful people, who got their wealth and power by dishonest means."

Poverty rates are falling everywhere and the rate is accelerating. Child mortality rates are dropping for everyone not just the wealthy elites. Life spans are improving. Our primary problem in the West, especially in America, is that we eat too much food and exercise too little. This is not a good thing but indicates we have, generally speaking, plenty to eat and do not work such physically taxing jobs as in previous generations. Standards of living have been improving for everyone. 100 years ago a car was an ultra luxury item. Today, there's really not a tremendous difference between the most expensive car and the cheapest car. They are both quite reliable, get you from point A to point B, and all things considered both are fairly stylish. Poor people can access the internet increasingly by using cell phones (if they cannot afford a real computer). The list could go on as I'm sure you are well aware.

I'm not sure how what you said has anything to do with the sentence of mine you quoted, even if what you say is true (and if it isn't "painting everything in a positive light" and doing the equally misleading opposite to the dihydrogen monoxide hoax). I was referring to events in history, not to how the world is today. For example, the invasion and conquering of South America and the extermination of huge numbers of people groups in the pursuit of gold, or the dishonest and violent means used to push indigenous peoples to the margins of North America. I don't mean to target the Americas - the UK has done comparably unfair things in India and Africa. Doubtless some good things were achieved as well. The story is always a complex mix of good and bad effects, good and bad motives. But that is precisely the point. I want to tell the whole story instead of filtering it for a more simplistic narrative that fits the left or the right.

The book is "Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell. As far as my memory serves, he wanted to research why men were able to earn more and warn his daughters how best to navigate a discriminatory work environment. He assumed the "women earn only 70 cents for every dollar a man makes" was a straight forward result of some sort of discrimination. Where did he pick this idea up? It is fashionable. It is also TRUE! At least the 70 cents on the dollar part, but the picture you are led to form because of this narrative is not true at all. Then this picture is used to justify all sorts of actions and condemn as sexist anyone who might question it.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but I'm already convinced of what the book says, and furthermore I don't know anyone who makes a point of that particular issue - it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. I've only once heard one person bring it up, asking the president of Oxford University what she was doing about the gender pay gap. She replied that she didn't believe there was a gender pay gap and that was the end of it. So for both these reasons I'm not inclined to read the book.

But the fact that you bring it up does raise an important issue. I'm debating on foreign territory most of the time on this forum. This article (and the article it links to) make the point well. I meant us to discuss capitalism in the abstract, as a possible system compared to other possible systems for politics and economics. But somehow things always seem to lead to an America-centric discourse where the left-right divide as it is played out in America is assumed. There, it would be impossibly unlikely for a female University president to say she didn't believe in a gender pay gap - just to pick the most present-to-hand example. But the debates, controversies, etc. in the rest of the world are not always the same as in America. The left-right divide is not always the same. And because of this, "the narrative" is not always the same.

More on conspiracy theories elsewhere.

[Ondrej]

Ugh. It logged me out and I lost the reply. *sigh*