A shallow “multiculturalism” tolerates and even celebrates diverse cultural markers, such as clothes, food, music, myths, art, furniture, accents, holidays, and dieties. But it is usually also far less tolerant of diverse cultural
So this is where both ends of the conventional political spectrum disagree with libertarians , and why. They agree with each other that culture cannot/should not be separate from government and forced down the throats of any dissidents, they just disagree what cultural content it should be that we all must swallow.
I don't think it really makes sense to rank empires/civilizations as more or less tolerant of different cultures in general the way you do -- it's really a notion that only makes sense relative to a particular range of cultural variation.
For instance, ancient Rome seems really tolerant relative to the expectations of the ancient world but once you have monotheistic cultures who have really strong prohibitions against worshipping other gods the requirement that you pro-forma worship the emperor as a god goes from no big deal to hugely oppressive.
More generally, many cultures are deeply intolerant of various practices. Our western culture is extremely intolerant of paedophilia and if we were governed by an empire who demanded we not do anything to stop rich men offering our young teen children money for sex they'd likely need force to keep us in line.
I'd argue the appearance of tolerance is really just a particular cultural acceptance of a particular range of variation and it's not at all clear that most cultures aren't in some sense incomparable on such measures .
“Deep multiculturalism” doesn’t sound like the right descriptor for ancient empires. I would instead call it “strategic multiculturalism.” The objective was order, not any deep belief or principle. The Romans, for example, were just as happy commit genocide if they thought that was the best strategic approach to maximize their own power and wealth.
That aside, I like your idea that libertarianism fails because it doesn’t provide a sense of community or common purpose. We need libertarianism plus some other cultural binding force (used to be religion, now just an un-filled void.)
Considering the vast amount of fertility crisis posts on this blog, it's worth to note that pro-natalism is anti-libertarianism, or anti-deep-multiculturalism. It assumes that our (WEIRD) culture is better that other more fertile cultures and therefore special measures need to be taken to preserve it. Conversely, in a libertarian/multicultural view, it doesn't matter whether WEIRD culture dies out and is outpopulated by the fundamentalist/African/Amish/orthodox jew/etc - all cultures are equally important. In fact, this approach embodies competition and survival of the fittest culture, in true libertarian spirit.
The chief purpose of both civilization and any acceptable government is to impose enough commonality that a high-trust society can be maintained. "Deep multiculturalism," because it defeats that purpose, is simply not desirable, ever. Anyone who has observed the recent trend of privileged minority groups engaging in bad behavior designed to take advantage of our trust can plainly see this. Fortunately the problem is self-correcting. Societies that permit barbarians to conquer them will be exterminated and replaced by them, and the world will become civilized again.
Curious what limits, if any, you think should be imposed on people who want to enter into mutually agreed-to forms of log-term coercion. (E.g., what contracts should courts refuse to uphold?)
This is a genuinely tricky question, at least if you:
-don't want the gov to force people to stay in cults that they want to leave (but which they agreed to join when they were over the age of 18)
-want the gov to let people form more legit forms of community life, e.g. entering into marriages that are contractually difficult to exit or allowing them to put themselves under—and be bound by—some kind of religious law. (To give an example that is important for upholding many of the weird utopias.)
There isn't any kind of neutral or abstract test to distinguish a cult from a non-cult, to distinguish acceptable coercion from objectionable coercion. So how do we get around this, in your ideal world? We can bracket qs about popularity; just curious how it's supposed to work—even in principle—when someone wants to leave a marriage that they agreed would be governed by Sharia, Catholic Canon Law, etc., and there might be a real conflict between what that person wants (which is also what normal people in the society think is good) and what they agreed to when they entered the marriage (ie, to be governed by the religious law in question).
So "opposing cultural change, allowing divergent cultures" would be right-wing libertarian according to your grid. But that's also a typical American leftist position!
Let me put it another way to make it clear. "We should respect the diversity of cultures" - obviously leftist, allowing divergent cultures. "We should not allow cultural appropriation" - also leftist, opposing cultural change, saying that people should stick with the culture they were born into. It is also a left-associated position that traditional cultures such as indigenous cultures should be preserved.
The essence of libertarianism is that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. However there are many schools of libertarian thought that have diverged from this substantially, Legalize Pot and Taxation is Theft being but two.
Why hasn't the world become far more libertarian? That question is impossible to answer. By "the world" do we mean all eight billion humans, or only the North Atlantic democracies? The Eight Billion World has indeed become far more libertarian than it was only fifty years ago. How much more libertarian does it have to get?
Robin Hanson: “Later, however, Nozick recanted in part due to seeing that his vision ‘neglected the symbolic importance of an official political concern with issues or problems’”.
Just to be clear, the popular assertion that Nozick “recanted” libertarianism is refuted by this:
FWIW I love the text of this post, but am having a hard time figuring out the chart.
I’m more or less a conventional classical liberal. Where would I fall on this chart? Where would an anarcho-capitalist fall?
On “personal freedoms” axis I’d put myself at about 80; on economic freedom I’d put myself about 90. Does that make me a centrist on your chart?
It’d be really helpful if you described where each prototypical political ideology (e.g. populist, classical liberal, traditional social conservative, today’s “left”, today’s “right”, anarcho-capitalist) would go on your chart - even if it might stretch across a section of the chart rather than be a point or small cluster.
Or is this a simple 2D drawing of what you mean to be a 3D representation?
On Nozick "recanting": Not too long ago, I read something quoting Nozick as saying that he had NOT rejected libertarianism. I wish I could remember where that was.
So this is where both ends of the conventional political spectrum disagree with libertarians , and why. They agree with each other that culture cannot/should not be separate from government and forced down the throats of any dissidents, they just disagree what cultural content it should be that we all must swallow.
I don't think it really makes sense to rank empires/civilizations as more or less tolerant of different cultures in general the way you do -- it's really a notion that only makes sense relative to a particular range of cultural variation.
For instance, ancient Rome seems really tolerant relative to the expectations of the ancient world but once you have monotheistic cultures who have really strong prohibitions against worshipping other gods the requirement that you pro-forma worship the emperor as a god goes from no big deal to hugely oppressive.
More generally, many cultures are deeply intolerant of various practices. Our western culture is extremely intolerant of paedophilia and if we were governed by an empire who demanded we not do anything to stop rich men offering our young teen children money for sex they'd likely need force to keep us in line.
I'd argue the appearance of tolerance is really just a particular cultural acceptance of a particular range of variation and it's not at all clear that most cultures aren't in some sense incomparable on such measures .
“Deep multiculturalism” doesn’t sound like the right descriptor for ancient empires. I would instead call it “strategic multiculturalism.” The objective was order, not any deep belief or principle. The Romans, for example, were just as happy commit genocide if they thought that was the best strategic approach to maximize their own power and wealth.
That aside, I like your idea that libertarianism fails because it doesn’t provide a sense of community or common purpose. We need libertarianism plus some other cultural binding force (used to be religion, now just an un-filled void.)
If the values are dear enough, deep multiculturalism is the Prisoner's Dilemma, not something to be aspired to.
Considering the vast amount of fertility crisis posts on this blog, it's worth to note that pro-natalism is anti-libertarianism, or anti-deep-multiculturalism. It assumes that our (WEIRD) culture is better that other more fertile cultures and therefore special measures need to be taken to preserve it. Conversely, in a libertarian/multicultural view, it doesn't matter whether WEIRD culture dies out and is outpopulated by the fundamentalist/African/Amish/orthodox jew/etc - all cultures are equally important. In fact, this approach embodies competition and survival of the fittest culture, in true libertarian spirit.
> a long serious of moral campaigns, such as re drugs, alcohol, prostitution, and slavery
You left off Mormon polygamy.
Very insightful distinction between the two types of multiculturalism!
Tolerating radically non-libertarian—anti-libertarian—cultures is difficult and dangerous.
The chief purpose of both civilization and any acceptable government is to impose enough commonality that a high-trust society can be maintained. "Deep multiculturalism," because it defeats that purpose, is simply not desirable, ever. Anyone who has observed the recent trend of privileged minority groups engaging in bad behavior designed to take advantage of our trust can plainly see this. Fortunately the problem is self-correcting. Societies that permit barbarians to conquer them will be exterminated and replaced by them, and the world will become civilized again.
Curious what limits, if any, you think should be imposed on people who want to enter into mutually agreed-to forms of log-term coercion. (E.g., what contracts should courts refuse to uphold?)
This is a genuinely tricky question, at least if you:
-don't want the gov to force people to stay in cults that they want to leave (but which they agreed to join when they were over the age of 18)
-want the gov to let people form more legit forms of community life, e.g. entering into marriages that are contractually difficult to exit or allowing them to put themselves under—and be bound by—some kind of religious law. (To give an example that is important for upholding many of the weird utopias.)
There isn't any kind of neutral or abstract test to distinguish a cult from a non-cult, to distinguish acceptable coercion from objectionable coercion. So how do we get around this, in your ideal world? We can bracket qs about popularity; just curious how it's supposed to work—even in principle—when someone wants to leave a marriage that they agreed would be governed by Sharia, Catholic Canon Law, etc., and there might be a real conflict between what that person wants (which is also what normal people in the society think is good) and what they agreed to when they entered the marriage (ie, to be governed by the religious law in question).
Would love for you to comment on Context Missing From Discussions on Slavery, US Slavery and the Civil War
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/the-nuance-and-context-missing-from
And
Paying More to Live Worse is Bidenomics in a Nutshell
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/paying-more-to-live-worse-is-bidenomics
So "opposing cultural change, allowing divergent cultures" would be right-wing libertarian according to your grid. But that's also a typical American leftist position!
Let me put it another way to make it clear. "We should respect the diversity of cultures" - obviously leftist, allowing divergent cultures. "We should not allow cultural appropriation" - also leftist, opposing cultural change, saying that people should stick with the culture they were born into. It is also a left-associated position that traditional cultures such as indigenous cultures should be preserved.
The essence of libertarianism is that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. However there are many schools of libertarian thought that have diverged from this substantially, Legalize Pot and Taxation is Theft being but two.
Why hasn't the world become far more libertarian? That question is impossible to answer. By "the world" do we mean all eight billion humans, or only the North Atlantic democracies? The Eight Billion World has indeed become far more libertarian than it was only fifty years ago. How much more libertarian does it have to get?
Robin Hanson: “Later, however, Nozick recanted in part due to seeing that his vision ‘neglected the symbolic importance of an official political concern with issues or problems’”.
Just to be clear, the popular assertion that Nozick “recanted” libertarianism is refuted by this:
Julian Sanchez: “But, as you’ll see in the interview—and can hear him say to me for yourself—Nozick always thought of himself as a libertarian in a broad sense, right up to his final days, even as his views became somewhat less ‘hardcore.’” https://www.juliansanchez.com/2011/06/21/nozick-libertarianism-and-thought-experiments/
Here is the relevant audio clip: https://www.juliansanchez.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Nozick-StillLib.mp3
FWIW I love the text of this post, but am having a hard time figuring out the chart.
I’m more or less a conventional classical liberal. Where would I fall on this chart? Where would an anarcho-capitalist fall?
On “personal freedoms” axis I’d put myself at about 80; on economic freedom I’d put myself about 90. Does that make me a centrist on your chart?
It’d be really helpful if you described where each prototypical political ideology (e.g. populist, classical liberal, traditional social conservative, today’s “left”, today’s “right”, anarcho-capitalist) would go on your chart - even if it might stretch across a section of the chart rather than be a point or small cluster.
Or is this a simple 2D drawing of what you mean to be a 3D representation?
On Nozick "recanting": Not too long ago, I read something quoting Nozick as saying that he had NOT rejected libertarianism. I wish I could remember where that was.