Thinking about "Social Justice" Like an Economist | Bryan Caplan & Richard Hanania
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- Bryan Caplan joins the podcast to talk about his new book Don’t Be a Feminist: Essays on Genuine Justice. The lead essay is written as a letter to his daughter in the hopes that she will reject an ideology that is wrong on the facts and psychologically damaging. Richard asks whether Bryan grants too much to feminists in the first place by treating the relevant issue as whether society treats men better than women.
The book also contains criticism of the political right’s nationalism and immigration restrictionism. Richard asks about some common objections to open immigration, including increased crime and a lowering of national IQ. They close by talking about Bryan’s foray into stand-up comedy, and some of his other hobbies.
Get Bryan's new book here: www.amazon.com...
Subscribe to our TH-cam channel: / @cspi
Follow CSPI on Twitter: / cspicenterorg
Subscribe to the CSPI Podcast: www.cspicenter...
Read our research at www.cspicenter...
I moved from a relatively high crime, über diverse Western city to a very low crime homogeneous Asian city.
I can safely say that anyone who doesn’t really care about living in a high crime city, is ultimately just ignorant of how much better life quality is when violent crime isn’t a factor in day to day existence.
The problem is, if you want to stay in the West, the only low crime alternatives are suburban or rural and expensive.
If the West hadn’t lost it’s mind with progressive policies and thinking, we might still have low crime cities to choose from. But I would hazard a guess that if people choose to stay in high crime cities, it’s probably because they are city people and have no other choice but to persevere with high crime rates.
But if they were given the option of a low crime Western metropolis, in their price range, they would move in a flash.
I agree many would move in a flash but many will continually vote in the same politicians and DAs because I need to stick to my ideology rather than face reality. The fact many would do this which would increase the risk to themselves and their family is disturbing.
When there are a multitude of people who are from , or whose ancestors are from cultures and societies who have not and are not capable of making a civilization like was Made in the USA, in the west and in parts of Asia, as more and more of these people come and multiply, then the inevitable outcome will be a USA more like the cultures and societies of these newcomers. California is a great example of this future civilization. So are many of the major cities in the USA.
@@markward1473 indeed. Post WW2, the dogmatic Western philosophy, mythos and morality has been of empathy, egalitarianism and civil rights.
And the corollary true of what many see as evil. Rules, boundaries and hierarchy.
This ensures that, even if voting for less police, less incarceration, zero carbon policies and more and more socially engineered equality, leads to interracial conflict, high crime, filth, danger, blackouts and a collapsing economy?
A large chunk of the electorate will persistently vote for more of the same because that’s what good people do. Voting for anything else is evil.
We’re about as likely to change that as we are to convince Muslims that Judaism is the truth.
The egalitarian, empathy, civil rights mindset is not really a political thing. They’re voting for their moral and spiritual compass. As such the results are irrelevant.
Case in point, all the Californian refugees fleeing to Texas. Yet these mfs still vote for the same policies that caused them to flee.
Why should you _have_ to pay extra to live in a low-crime area? We could just give that to all our countrymen, at no extra charge, as a natural consequence of having a sane demographic policy.
These arguments strike me as very disingenuous from Bryan. Richard tries but he doesn’t represent the push back you’d get from an actual right winger here.
Living in Sweden, I just don't see it. Immigration has obviously been disastrous for the country and even leftists can see it nowadays. This is one of those issues where no amount of data can make me ignore what I'm seeing with my own eyes.
Richard looks like a silent film era actor
Rich looks like a non bina trasier
Lol. Never expected that.
In a world of Einsteins a robot takes out the trash?
Or they can have the most patient, most chill, least ambitious Einsteins do very well-paid part-time janitorial work.
What’s Caplan’s take on ‘political externalities’ arguments against immigration?
If his position is totally open borders then I don’t think he can characterise as unwarranted risk-aversion concerns about the impact that that might have on the culture and institutions that enable a free society, efficient markets, rule of law, etc. After all, we do know what the state of the countries of origin of immigrant groups is like. Even if we didn’t, the expected disutility of severe political externalities may be large even if their probability is reasonably low, because the costs would be very severe. I think Caplan’s approach of accounting for costs is correct, but I think Caplan underestimates the utility people attach to preserving their cultural identity (people vote for nativist parties over redistributive ones, for example). It’s hard to believe the optimal level of immigration restrictions is zero.
Nationalism is the narcissism of the group. But what evidence is there that we can get rid of it? Sure, kinship bias is hardwired into us. But so is tribalism of some form. I think of Jonathan Haidt’s notion of "loyalty" in moral psychology as sensitivity to the "green beard" signals of intragroup reciprocal altruism. In fact, Hamilton’s Rule may explain elements of ethnocentrism. And even if evolutionary explanations don’t work for some odd reason, there is probably cultural group selection at work - those groups will thrive and dominate which exhibit a high degree on inward cohesion and outward aggression. It seems that some of us are relatively more immune to loyalty cues and strong tribalism - presumably this, too, has some sort of adaptive advantages (say, facilitating intergroup cooperation). But our natural dispositions will tend to bias us, so that those of us who are not naturally sympathetic towards enthusiastic flag-waving tribalism shouldn’t deceive ourselves about the ability of everyone else to do without it. There are also game-theoretic type concerns here: international doves in a world of national hawks are playing a very risky strategy for themselves, and are by no means likely to convert the rest of the world.
J S Mill wrote an essay about patriotism (somewhere in ‘On Representative Government’). As a universalist utilitarian who was committed to treating all human’s interests equally (this universalism is an inheritance from Christianity, not an evolved disposition in most people), he had his reservations about patriotism. Nevertheless, he proved surprisingly pragmatic - and, I think astute - in realising the futility of trying to do away with patriotism. His position was very close to that canvassed by Richard - that it is better to have some unifying identity to attenuate more violent factional identities, and that a sense of national pride can be based around the good conduct of one’s nation, rather than a crass "my country, right or wrong" mentality.
Amazing comment and very well put, thank you very much for this!
“The traditional European culture of 1800s is gone forever”. Hard disagree. Yes, there has been technological advancements. They don’t use horse-drawn carriages and don’t announce executions in town squares, but if you take a closer look, there are a lot of traditions and festivities that are still practiced. Middle-aged lawyers, pharmacists and taxi drivers dress up as folk creatures and march the streets with torches (Joaldunak), participate in human towers (Castell) etc.
I bet Richard's fiction would be cool. Would love to read it.
Hello Bryan
Bryan missed Taleb's point. Risk to the individual is not important as the risk to society, or humanity. When Taleb talks about unpredictable events, he's mostly concerned about systemic risk, not risk to the individual. I remember he said something like: 'There are worse things than your own death, like your death and the death of your lineage. The death of people in your society is also worse, and the worst thing of all is the end of human race'.
Some right winger needs to talk about how women have way higher looks standards for men now then they did in the recent past
I understand that Bryan’s immigration arguments are targeted towards a right-wing audience, and while I applaud his immigration stance, many of his arguments are sickening. The argument for immigration is a ~moral~ argument. People are ends in themselves, not a means to the wider society’s ends. One person is not more valuable than another in any relevant sense because they are more intelligent. This is basic stuff, Mr. Economist.
A country has a duty to its own citizens first before people from other countries. That's the entire point of having a country! Why would I want to be part of a family that doesn't prioritize my needs over those of the kid down the street?
The last German chancellor who made this “moral” argument exacerbated the situation tremendously and is probably regretting it.
@@Avengerie I suspect these people don't regret much because of their moral assuredness they have done the right thing and isolation from the mayhem and negative social cohesion wrought by their policies. Plus many will simply blame locals who will eventually develop an attitude due to the "social enrichment" via third world migration.
"One person is not more valuable than another in any relevant sense because they are more intelligent."
This is one of those things that loads of people believe only because they haven't thought about it seriously for 5 minutes.
@@jodgee2374 A country of course has a duty to its own citizens first, that's true. However that says absolutely nothing about the appropriateness of creating more citizens.