He must have read about the People's State of San Francisco's recentFor example, if you want to smoke crack, I don’t really care. However I’d like people to be able to discriminate aggressively against crack-smokers. In a hypothetical world in which property rights were very strong and strongly enforced, smoking crack and sundry other things would effectively be illegal. They’d also be policed a lot better than they currently are. A lot of things that are currently legal would also probably be effectively illegal.
A truly free world would be a highly-discriminatory and highly-judgmental world.
Regardless, I think that Foseti's opinion flies in the face of observed reality.
Aretae:
Less/no government interference results in economic growth. Economic growth results in rich people. Rich people have different ethics than poor people. One of the ethics that rich people tend to have that poor people don't is the trader/forager ethic of cooperation and tolerance. I'd far sooner expect reactionary/HBD intolerance to be effectively illegal in a free/rich world than to expect that smoking crack would be (effectively) illegal. Wealth changes things.
Posts
5 comments:
Less/no government interference results in economic growth.
Not very often, and then only in a narrow range, with strict criteria, i.e. high intelligence, cooperative, self organizing people, who essentially do government function as volunteer work.
Rich people have different ethics than poor people...I'd far sooner expect reactionary/HBD intolerance to be effectively illegal in a free/rich world...
What you would have here is what you have now: borders. The Rich can afford to have borders, so they can keep their HBD cohort separate from costly Others.
USG spends more time worrying about discrimination than law-breaking. Just look at immigration. Being an illegal immigrant is no problem. Discriminating against illegals will get you in trouble quick.
foseti,
That's because the SWPLs think it's a bigger crime. Given that truth, you do the math on what voluntary society will look like.
Rich people have different ethics than poor people...I'd far sooner expect reactionary/HBD intolerance to be effectively illegal in a free/rich world...
That relies one a single data point - that of the rich democratic West, which shared and developed a single culture as they got rich together. I would be much more convinced if different cultures that got rich independently migrated towards the same set of ethics - without this being because of the diffusion and high relative status of Western culture.
CF,
Comment eaten...trying again.
I think you've got a lot more than a single data point. I think that there's historical data...Roman Consuls (rich) behave interestingly similarly to modern PopTarts. Furthermore, there's the monster cross-cultural bit, along with the Hansonian interpretation.
Post a Comment