What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

"Universalism" vs. "Chauvinism" Part II

Continuing from where I left off (see below):

Unfortunately, I think that Will Wilkinson's account of his opponents' position is more caricature than characterization.

To begin with, I doubt whether even the most "chauvinist" of U.S. immigration restrictionists believes that any rule or policy - even a rule or policy of another group - is justified simply because it benefits the group of which he happens to be a member.

It takes, after all, a truly heroic sort of chauvinism to presume to judge the rules and policies of other groups by the standard of whether or not they happen to benefit one's own. Ironically enough, Wilkinson might actually have a case here if he were objecting to Mexican's attitudes towards U.S. immigration policies - for they do, precisely, insist that we adopt policies that benefit themselves at our expense. But all the immigration restrictionists that I know of here in the U.S. consider it perfectly right and proper for other groups to set up rules and policies that benefit themselves and not us, and merely suggest that we do likewise. That is why they like to point out the highly restrictive immigration policies of Mexico: not because they object to those policies, but rather because they think we should imitate them.

So let's give Wilkinson's account of his opponents' position a bit of a tweak: for the chauvinist, if a rule or policy of a particular group benefits the members of that group, then it is justified.

But this is still too strong. Again, I doubt whether even the most "chauvinist" of U.S. immigration restrictionists believes that benefiting Americans is all it takes to justify even an American rule or policy. And here we should note that some of the most prominent opponents of open borders have also been some of the most prominent opponents of the "global war on terror," on the grounds that pursuit of U.S. interests cannot justify international aggression or violations of civil rights. In fact, most U.S. immigration restrictionists would probably be perfectly happy to agree with Wilkinson when he writes that "citizens are under a strict obligation not to harm or violate the rights of non-citizens."

So let's give Wilkinson's account of his opponents' position another tweak: for the chauvinist, if a rule or policy of a particular group benefits the members of that group, then it is pro tanto justified - i.e., to that extent justified, provided that it does not violate anybody's rights.

One might think that "chauvinism" should be made of sterner stuff. One might even think that it is utterly ridiculous and offensive for Wilkinson to call his opponents "chauvinists," since it is only by grotesquely distorting and exaggerating their position that he can even appear to make that label fit.

At any rate, at this point Wilkinson will insist that restrictions on immigration do violate people's rights: "the status quo system, which limits the freedom to travel and cooperation [sic] without benefiting most of those whose freedom is limited, amounts to both a substantive and moral harm; it denies some basic conditions for human flourishing and thereby constitutes a violation of basic rights." So, apparently, travelling on publicly financed U.S. roads, enjoying the protection of publicly financed U.S. law enforcement, sending their children to publicly financed U.S. schools, being treated at public expense in U.S. hospitals, etc., are basic conditions for Mexican flourishing, and therefore basic rights of all Mexicans.

Now this is an extraordinary view. So extraordinary, in fact, that Wilkinson would undoubtedly disavow it, put in those last terms above. And, as a libertarian (more or less) he could reasonably object that he'd like to see the welfare state rolled back. As, indeed, would I. But we libertarians have been complaining about the welfare state since time out of mind - and we can go right on complaining about it 'til kingdom come, for all the good it will do us. Meanwhile, the welfare state only gets bigger. And as long as that remains the case, to grant non-citizens the right to enter the U.S. at will is, precisely, to grant them the right to enjoy the benefits of the American welfare state, mainly at the expense of current American citizens. Has Wilkinson really allowed his Kantian/Rawlsian sympathies to run away with him to such an extent that he is willing to defend that, so long as the benefits to immigrants exceed the costs to natives?

Next up in Part III: nationalism and "universalism."

P.S.: anybody who has checked out the comments on the WW posts to which I linked and found them as interesting as I did will want to read this half-brilliant, half-unhinged screed by commenter "mencius," aka "mencius moldbug," at his intermittently fascinating site, Unqualified Reservations.

Comments (18)

To me, it looks like Wilkinson is saying that basic conditions for human flourishing can only occur in America, which is plainly false. Even if he believes it to be true, what was the point of NAFTA if not to improve conditions in Mexico?

Re: Mencius. Everything he writes is half-brilliant and half-unhinged, which is why I gave up trying to make sense of him. IIRC, under his chosen utopian scheme of formalism, the nation would no longer exist, it would be reduced to city-states that each allowed complete freedom of movement. So I don't know how he manages to avoid universalism within his own system.

We have tribes with tribal attitudes and tribal cultures invading our little corner of the globe; it's an unusual place that is still devoted to merit, individualism, and considerations of individual justice. These are white attitudes and white practices, because Europeans are uniquely non-tribal and have taken this individualist attitude to an extreme degree, but it's being broken down by tribal interlopers who operate by a very different set of rules. So white people are out there weighing candidates, their ideas, and the right and wrong of the situation, while Hispanics and Blacks are asking, "Is this good for our group? Because that is the only question worth asking. Our group is the good, and the good defines our group."

If you don't believe this is accurate, just look at how Hispanics have turned on Hillary after her Hispanic campaign manager, Solis Doyle, quit. Or, for God's sake, look at how even middle class and respectable blacks took OJ's side of things when he was acquitted. After all, he only killed a white woman.

"because Europeans are uniquely non-tribal and have taken this individualist attitude to an extreme degree"

Roach, I'm not disagreeing with the gist of your statement, in fact I think it's fairly accurate. However, as for Europe, Germany was extremely tribal between 1932-45. I think Europe might have good reason to question such tribalist tendencies today.

I haven't read Wilkinson and don't intend to, as I'm familiar with this style of argument from the philosophical literature, where at least the debate is posed, less tendentiously, as between cosmopolitanism and patriotism. (Cosmopolitanism being the view that the fact that someone is your compatriot is never, as such, a good reason to benefit him in any way over another person. Of course I'm quite happy to defend patriotism.) Cosmopolitan arguments can be given on Kantian, Rawlsian, or consequentialist grounds -- however untrue to Kant, Rawls, or Mill they may be -- but in every case they amount to an assertion that impartiality (or perhaps egalitarianism) is either always morally obligatory, or at least obligatory as between one's compatriots and aliens.

While I find all your complaints against Wilkinson's position convincing, Steve, isn't the fundamental problem with his argument that he argues from extremely strong premises to a relatively weak conclusion?

I realize people here won't agree that open borders is a weak conclusion, but I mean weak in the philosopher's sense: far more than that would follow from the argument's premises, were they accepted and consistently applied.

If he really holds this:

"the status quo system, which limits the freedom to travel and cooperation [sic] without benefiting most of those whose freedom is limited, amounts to both a substantive and moral harm; it denies some basic conditions for human flourishing and thereby constitutes a violation of basic rights."

And this:

the welfare gains that would come from even a mild decrease in coercive limits on travel and free association are awesomely huge

Then open borders seems like small beer compared to the other policy commitments he would accept. In the very short term -- the only term typically considered in such arguments -- "awesomely huge" welfare gains would come from the massive confiscation and redistribution of wealth.

DJ - you're stealing my thunder! I was saving that point for the grand climax of part III!

Now all I can do is supply commentary. Sigh.

But, yeah: bingo.

Step2: yeah, Wilkinson seems to attribute all differences in "human flourishing" to institutional differences, while at the same time carrying on as if institutions, both in Mexico and in the U.S., are unchangeable. Which is an odd combination of positions, when you think about it.

As for mencius moldbug, I check in every Thursday. You can usually tell within a paragraph or two whether it's going to be a good ride or a bad trip. But it's always long and strange.

Roach: so what are you suggesting? Do you think the individualist attitude is a good thing, or a bad thing? Do you think Europeans &/or European-Americans ought to stick with individualism, or regress to "tribal attitudes?"

But please do post part three. I'm afraid that one simply cannot argue against Wilkinson's brand of universalism often enough.

Sorry, Steve! I'll do my best to shut up for a while now. I'm not very good at that, though.

Steve, the first two posts have been most excellent. I eagerly await the third.

I'll note that none other than Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who was also a "half-brilliant and half-unhinged" thinker, leveled a devastating quip at cosmopolitanism: the cosmopolitan, said he, is someone who loves humanity in order to avoid having to tolerate his neighbors.

...the cosmopolitan, said he, is someone who loves humanity in order to avoid having to tolerate his neighbors.

Awesome. I hadn't heard that one before. One more arrow for the quiver.

Wasn't Rousseau the chap who bragged that his children (illegitimate) were left at the church door? Sounds like maybe he was speaking of himself when he described the cosmopolitan.

Indeed.

He was a half-lunatic, that one.

Steve and DJ,

Since I've thrown up a couple of comments over on Will's blog (mostly in response to the half-brilliant, half-unhinged comments of Mencius) I thought I'd post here. Everyone seems to be jumping on Will for this sentence:

"the status quo system, which limits the freedom to travel and cooperation [sic] without benefiting most of those whose freedom is limited, amounts to both a substantive and moral harm; it denies some basic conditions for human flourishing and thereby constitutes a violation of basic rights."

I agree that this is poorly worded, but based on Will's libertarian beliefs and his other posts, I think he wants the phrase "status quo system" to mean our current system that protects property rights and individual liberties. Which is why the "welfare gains" that "would come from the massive confiscation and redistribution of wealth" proposed by DJ is not something that Will is arguing for.

What I think he is trying to say is that he thinks the gains in welfare to U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike from allowing businesses to hire foreigners from around the world and especially Mexico (basically treating the labor market no different than we would like to treat the world market for wheat), even though these foreigners come to live in the U.S. and consume our public goods (and pay at least some of our taxes); would be worth the costs to U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike.

In the end, if you assume that private property and the freedom to enter into contracts are good, then it would also be good to allow more immigrants to come into the country. This boils down to an empirical question more than anything else and while I remain unconvinced by the evidence Will presents*, given my own love of private property and free markets, I'm open to the possibility that he may be right.

*Part of the reason I remain unconvinced is that while I love going to the Pilsen neighborhood here in Chicago to eat, I wouldn't want to live there.

Steve,

I like where this is going, and it would be great if you can get a direct response from Will. There's a lot to like about Will, his reasoning, and his overall program. He seems reluctant, however, to engage with any non-caricature form of nationalism. I posted a comment to this effect a few months back never got a response. I'd love to know what he'd make of the following argument:

Denying a poor 3rd world person US citizenship may make him worse off. So too, denying him access to your property makes him worse off. In the second case, the defense you would suggest for the institution of private property seems to be: “yes, but a system of private property, in the main, makes everyone better off.” Ok. But the defender of nationalism will argue that unitary nation states, in the main, make everyone better off. You may think the former claim true and the latter claim false, but that’s by no means obvious, and must be argued.

Indeed, there are many who think that nation states are crucial guarantors of systems of private property. If so, it seems you may find something to like about those national boundaries after all. Again, this may be wrong, but it’s hardly an unusual, unpopular, or unsupportable view. Why do you think it is mistaken?

In the end, if you assume that private property and the freedom to enter into contracts are good, then it would also be good to allow more immigrants to come into the country.

Tell it to ranchers on the border. Ask them how secure they feel their private property is.

Ben A - looks to me like a good question, and I doubt that WW has a good answer to it.

I'm still trying to work up a post on nationalism.

I agree if it was not for Foxy Bingo I would get bored and having nothing to do in the evening.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.