Again, pluralism and “everyone being identical” are polar opposites, which should be blatantly obvious. It is homogeneity that is, within the respective association, a case in which everyone is identical in terms a particular trait. A pluralistic association, in contrast, is the exact opposite case. It is when the diversity of traits of people within the association is widened. It is the pro-homogeneity crowd who desire people to be identical within a given territory or organization, not the pluralists.
Of course, such a desire is futile even in the absence of a civil rights bureaucracy because so long as so much as a single person on the margin decides to be inclusive with respect to people who have different traits, decides to associate with them and trade with them, then the whole homogeneity is broken up. So even assuming that a purely homogenous community is achievable, I do not think it is sustainable as such through purely voluntary means. The only way to sustain it as a purely homogenous community would be through institutional segregation, I.E. by coercively prohibiting people from being inclusive with their own property and associating with “undesirables” in general. It’s also unsustainable because more inclusive communities will tend to be more prosperous, hence outcompeting the homogeneity.
It seems you have forgotten the concept of division of labour, which pretty much eliminates such a possibility. The fact that markets weed out racism in employment has nothing to do with everyone being and acting the same. That’s a non sequitur.
Edit: Oh damn, I walked away from the computer for some time and when I came back to finish reading it, replied without refreshing. Turns out that was already answered. Ah well.
Brainpolice’s thesis is that free markets eliminate cultural and racial exclusivity. So what follows is human biouniformity and monoculture. I am grateful to liberty student and Fred Furash for pointing out that this is impossible.
Also, to touch on a point made by Fred, the market does not necessarily eliminate racial discrimination in employment. Anybody who wants to can work toward being a starting tailback in the NFL. But the market process has been to establish it as a 100% black position.
A random thought popped into my head. What if Hans Hermann Hoppe becomes so successful with his anti-immigration crusade that he ends up being deported to Germany in a rabid nativist purge? would be quite ironic.
Anyways, I think you’re in denial if you think natural rights based anarchism (or any sort of anarchism) leaves room for government imposed discrimination. Private property- sure. If we do reach a stateless society in our lifetime I guess we’ll have a chance to see for ourselves whether or not people become addicted to collectivist ideologies of race, nation, religion etc. but I suspect these things will fall faster with the state out of the picture.
Incorrect. What logically follows is a more inclusive and pluralistic social order. You have this entirely backwards. Identicalness does not logically follow from people with different traits associating with eachother, what logically follows is that a given region or organization is constituted by a higher degree of variance among the traits of the people who make them up. Biouniformity and monoculture is what you and other proponents of homogeneity favor, I.E. you desire that within a respective territory or organization everyone be identical in terms of race, culture, religion or other such traits. What I desire is the exact opposite of identicalness: that within a respective territory or organization there is plurality in terms of such traits, or at least that organizations be open to people based on their individual merits irrespective of or rather than superficial group traits.
The thesis isn’t mine, it’s the thesis of laissez-faire economics for a long time. I’m not sure how you can dismiss laissez-faire economics. See Walter Block on this topic, usually in connection with labor economics.
Or a false dichotomy between state-imposed inclusivity and voluntary exclusivity, as if there cannot be voluntary inclusivity and state-imposed exclusively. Both the PC left-liberals and the racialists buy into the false premise, approaching it from different angles. The PC left-liberals favor state-imposed anti-discrimination because they think that a high degree of exclusivity would be or is the natural outcome of a free market. Byzantine seems to agree with them that a high degree of exclusivity would be or is the natural outcome of a free market, but he is actually in favor of it. So instead of defending the free market as a solution to extreme exclusivity as most libertarians to my knowledge would, he defends extreme exclusivity as such in the name of the free market. I happen to find it rather vulgar.
You hit the nail on the head. I think what’s most annoying isn’t people like Byzantine who are straightforward about what they believe, but people who try to tiptoe around the issue gently and agree with the more inclusive version on Monday, but pander to the white nationalists on Thursday and then embarrass themselves when the jig is up. It often paints a bad image of libertarians in general.
Since Hans almost certainly owns real estate in the Nevada he would not be deported under his proposal. This is an other example of the people abuse Hoppe without knowing what he actually stands for.
No. I’m saying that it is unprofitable and unsustainable in a free market. I’m saying that the general tendency in a free market is for extreme exclusivity to be outcompeted, because social cooperation is more productive than social isolation. But beyond the economics and practicality of it, I also find it undesirable and I see the desire for homogeneity to be irrational. Yes, I do think that the degree to which people cling so much to group identities and desire absolute homogeneity is an archiac hangover from the past and that a more mature society will have a tendency to move away from such attitudes.
This is precisely where your thesis fails since being a member of a group gives useful information about an individual. If I were omniscient this would not be necessary but since I need to economise on information costs I use groups as a proxy. Further what if one trait of a particular group is something that I like it would make sense to associate, in general, with members of that group.
What you just said in no way implies any utility to homogeneity. It does not logically follow that only associating with people from a particular identity group is more productive than the alternatives. There is no such uniform group, and the fact that someone has a certain skin color or was raised in a certain culture does not uniformly predetermine their merits as an individual.
I never meant that post to do that. It merely showed that your above argument was incorrect. But if I was to extend that argument I’d say that associating with a particular group would reduce information costs, finding out information about other groups is time consuming and further, about a particular individual from another group could be particularly expensive. Thus an incentive towards territorial homogenity.
You’re using a false pretext. There is no need to find information about “groups”. All you need to analize is the individual in question. Group statistics and/or group identities are entirely irrelevant to it. Your attempt at finding a calculation problem in inclusivity is laughable.
If I want to hire someone, superficial group identity in and of itself is essentially irrelevant. The only information I need to gather is their capability and suitability for the job as an individual and their credentials. I’m commiting economic suicide if I put that to the side in the name of group identity.
It really sickens me that you and Byzantine actually think that inclusive free associations are bad. It’s not just state-imposed inclusivity that you oppose, it’s cultural or racial mixing altogether or in general that you appear to oppose.