What’s Wrong with the World

Thanks, Steve. I love summaries like this. They put lazy me in the picture. I agree with you on almost every point, which means I (for once) agree with Daniel and Jeff. (Should the flying pig come out of the hanger?)

I even think Daniel's speculation, speculation though it be, about the detriment to our own economy has something going for it. All else doesn't just remain equal. Even if our economy doesn't stall altogether, it's not at all clear that we can just go on being the economic giant that we are and absorbing immigrants of very different cultures from our own, _especially_ given all the welfare stuff in place here, from which they will benefit. I think perhaps the Rawlsish argument doesn't take into consideration the "no Santa Claus" principle, or the principle that if you keep poking the goose that lays the golden eggs she may well start laying fewer eggs, or something like that. The economic powerhouse that is the U.S. is just supposed to remain unchanged while all these other changes go on, thus churning out benefits for the least advantaged of the entire earth. Prima facie this seems implausible to me even if nothing as drastic as economic collapse is in the cards.

There is no serious and generally accepted "rational argument" for discarding one's local obligations in favor of "the least well-off" of the world.

The principles of solidarity and subsidiarity are being mixed in the broader debate. Simply because one isn't a member of my clan doesn't mean that I can't recognize hunger or a desire to provide for one's children. Being able to recognize need does not give one warrant to do whatever one pleases. I don't have a problem with either concepts. I do find it ironic that those who speak of serving our own will often bring up what the Mexican government needs to do. I don't recall off hand Maximos and Mr. Larison doing this. I don't want to be accused of bringing strawmen into the discussion, but unfortunately much straw has already been burnt in the whole debate.

I think my own view is well known enough, but I hope this contribution can hopefully steer the points of debate into a more fruitful direction.

There's just a bunch of Kantian and post-Kantian and pseudo-Kantian clap-trap that nobody really believes.

Part of the beauty of universalizing positive obligations in this way is that treating everything as morally equivalent to everything else allows us to pay especial attention to the things we think other people should be doing. That creates a nice distraction from the particular positive obligations we each actually have, which if we took them seriously might actually place real demands on us; and we can't have that. If there are starving kids in Africa then the spouse we divorced, the kids whose lives we ruined, the parents we ignore and refuse to care for, the grandchildren we abandon to their fate so we can pursue the golf-club retirement to which we feel entitled, the homeless man in our own town who we walk by and ignore -- all of these can be made so much less significant as simply a few random little not-so-bad circumstances in a world filled with bad circumstances experienced by billions of people to each and every one of whom we have exactly equivalent positive obligations.

A big part of the market appeal of this universalizing claptrap is the moral reality-distortion field it constructs around narcissism, it seems to me. Pay no attention to the particular responsibilities behind the curtain: they might actually require some sacrifice from us, from me for God's sake, rather than requiring sacrifice by the ever-amorphous "society," by which we mean people other than us.

It can't be admitted that the particular people in our lives, and the particular communities to which we belong, have a special claim to our positive efforts: that we have a duty to them which cannot be excused or in the least mitigated or diffused by the existence of starving children half way around the world all of whom would love to live here. Because if that were admitted it might have been wrong to get the divorce, to abandon the parents because they are a grouchy pain in the a**, to let my homeless neighbor go without food today, to let the grandchildren go to Hell because by God it is My Turn [tm] at the slop trough and I'm tired.

Many negative obligations are universalizable: there are certain behaviors which we simply should never choose. All positive behavioral obligations are particular. So if we can universalize positive obligations we can make them disappear: and what's not to like about that?

But lots of liberal-type people who accept universal obligations and such actually go to a lot of very weird trouble. For example, think of all the people who force themselves to bike to work or to buy carbon credits or something because they feel guilty about the environment. So _some_ sacrifices they are willing to make. Sacrifices which to me seem silly, I admit frankly, but it can't be _comfortable_ to do all that biking, and the carbon credits do cost money. So what's the deal?

I suppose Wilkinson, as a libertarian, doesn't buy carbon credits. But still, I guess my point is that we all choose our sacrifices, and those who deny particular, home-town obligations do sometimes choose theirs. How do they pick? I don't know. I _guess_, by ideology.

So _some_ sacrifices they are willing to make.

You can't fool mother nature though. The gods always demand a fatted calf, and if we avoid sacrificing what is objectively required of us our consciences will haunt us into sacrificing something. Part of the point is that particular obligations are natural, and there isn't any fooling nature in the long run.

Part of the beauty of universalizing positive obligations in this way is that treating everything as morally equivalent to everything else allows us to pay especial attention to the things we think other people should be doing. That creates a nice distraction from the particular positive obligations we each actually have, which if we took them seriously might actually place real demands on us; and we can't have that

I think there is a lot of truth to this. Well put.

My general perception is the Left thinks it is more important to hold the "right" positions, then it is to have good character. This is why the Left can brand anyone that is opposed to government welfare as someone who does not care about poor people, no matter how much charity this person may give. I think it may be a problem with the "change the world" mentality, when we should be focusing on changing ourselves. There are some lyrics to a song that none of you have ever heard it that goes "If i want to change the world, it's gotta start with me..." that I think illustrates what I am getting at.

The disloyalism of mass immigrationism is not a self-indulgent quest for escape from local responsibility. It is known and relished by such disloyal types that enough immigration of a poor and hostile-enough kind would do huge damage locally. The libertarian hates the idea that the nation can command loyalty to fellow citizens over against the foreigner in several circumstances. The right is not enraged by this power, but takes it for granted. There is dishonest, treacherous evasion in the you're just selfish, no YOU are, operation going on here. Politics is the ethics of aggression, it is not about preaching charity. The moral stateless person is not known to be ideal or better than those who are loyal to fellow nationals over the foreigner.

"As for the possibility that "the costs of absorbing all these people...could weaken or stall" the economy, I'm no economist, but those who are just don't seem to be losing much sleep over it."

Is there an argument somewhere?

Do you get sleep reports from all economists or from WSJ subscribers only?

Could you name one economist, paid corporate whores excluded, who specializes in immigration issues AND thinks that unlimited immigration is just cool?

Part of the beauty of universalizing positive obligations in this way is that treating everything as morally equivalent to everything else allows us to pay especial attention to the things we think other people should be doing.

Wonderful polemic Zippy. Thanks for elevating the discourse. Those that believe our immigration policies are unjust are just leeches upon society wanting others to provide what they are unnwilling to provide. And this is so different from the contrasting argument - people opposed to immigration reform are a bunch of racists who are unwilling to look with mercy upon the plight of a brother - how?

Wonderful polemic Zippy. Thanks for elevating the discourse.

It would be great to actually discuss the substantive point of whether or not positive obligations can be universalized in this way, since that is in fact what (or part of what) underlies the discussion - quite explicitly.

Negative behavioral obligations are universalizable at least in principle, because it is always possible to face death rather than do wrong. Positive behavioral obligations are not universalizable, because we are not omnipotent in the positive sense of being able to carry out some putative universal positive behavioral norm. To attempt to universalize positive obligations, to abolish their particularity, is in fact to abolish them.

The popularity of anti-particularist Kantian and pseudo-Kantian universalism in the academy w.r.t. positive obligations is something which (as unfounded in intellect) warrants sociological explanation, as well, as Steve points out.

This is a substantive point (really two substantive points) which quite directly pertain to the anti-particularist polemic engaged in by Wilkinson. It is not something which rules out disagreement about particular policies w.r.t immigration in general (few principles are capable of simply ruling out discussion in general, especially discussion pertaining to positive obligations); but it quite directly addresses the specific anti-particularist position staked out by Wilkinson.

It was indeed a wonderful polemic, Mr. Forrest, though based on your summary I have some doubt that you understood it.

Zippy's argument is that positive obligations attach only to the particular; and that only negative obligations can be universalized. His polemic was that many people universalize positive obligations in order to sooth their consciences, which are aching from the real obligations they have shirked.

Where this "leeches" notion comes from I have no idea.

His polemic was that many people universalize positive obligations in order to sooth their consciences, which are aching from the real obligations they have shirked.

Yes, and I was also addressing (this was the specific point I was addressing) Steve's observation about the popularity (unfounded in rational argument) of moral "theories" (styles, perhaps?) universalizing positive obligation in that bastion of personal moral uprightness, the modern academy.

To be quite explicit, there are certainly people who disagree with me about immigration who are not living under the protection of a Kantian moral force-field which shields them from the personal obligations they have shirked. I would never suggest that there aren't. My point was far more general than immigration. I was discussing the nature of positive obligation and the popularity of a certain "style" of viewing positive obligation in the academy.

And it seems odd to worry about immigrants being "exploited" in the U.S., given that they presumably wouldn't come here and stay here unless they preferred it to conditions at home.

I don't think you can simply assume that they are not exploited because they otherwise would leave. Even if it would be worse off at home, that does not mean you cannot exploit them - in fact, that is precisely why you can exploit them. Because it would be worse off for them at home, you can get them to work here for far less than you would have to pay a "native". That seems the very definition of exploitation.

"Because it would be worse off for them at home, you can get them to work here for far less than you would have to pay a "native"."

Actually, I tried to use this point on another thread as an argument that raising minimum wage would, if anything, encourage more illegal immigrant employment, and everybody tried to tell me that employers love illegals so much more than natives that they pay them more than the statutory minimum. I don't recall anyone's saying in so many words that they pay them more than the natives, but the implication seemed to be that they might well be willing to, so great is the preference for "subservient"-style Mexicans.

Many illegals here in SE PA are paid more than the statutory minimum, particularly in construction and landscaping - but still less than qualified natives would command. And yes, that perception of "subservience" is influential, as I heard from many businessmen growing up that Mexicans and other Latin Americans were greatly to be preferred over "shiftless, angry" blacks. It was the sort of thing that shocks the ears of a ten-year old; it still holds the power to shock, albeit for profounder reasons.

To the extent that Mr. Wilkenson is a libertarian might he reconcile both the obligation and degree of same to others against the economic primacy & personal obligations of the individual, purely as a libertarian position of course.

Even if we assume that all illegal immigrants come here to work, an assumption that seems to be losing some force, we discard the contractualism concept, the body of law, under which people, Americans, live, operate and work, in favor of a blind eye towards illegality and the undercutting of an existing work force. Not a very moral position.

But if there is a Gresham's Law for a finite workforce as to skills, which point we passed some time ago, and as there exists an already considerable demand for our public largess, then more so the libertarian & individualist consideration enters into the equation. Apart from historic and existing levels of government support, how much sacrifice and cost do we attach to the prevailing body of citizens to their loss?

Put another way, how much obligation do we have to people who shouldn't be here in the first place?

To anticipate at least one response, to legalize, that is to de facto abandon our borders, only elevates and protects the wrong.

Borders envelop not only a territory and it's population, they also contain the laws and procedures that protect such liberties as still we have left. As I have always had a problem with government as soup kitchen, my enthusiasm for taking on the world in one great, big, mushy, altruistic embrace is severely limited.

But I'll never stop others from trying, on their own naturally.

I keep seeing at this site assertions that (virtually) unlimited immigration does not harm our economy.

Why not cite some serious economic work that presumes to proof that assertion.
Without such proof those assertions should be omitted.

What? I thought several of us had questioned that very proposition (that open borders doesn't harm our own economy) in this very thread.??

And yes, that perception of "subservience" is influential, as I heard from many businessmen growing up that Mexicans and other Latin Americans were greatly to be preferred over "shiftless, angry" blacks.

The thing is, that is probably, you know, actually true. At least inasmuch as any stereotype is true, which is to say, a great deal more true than makes most modern people comfortable, and true enough on a statistical basis to make a concrete difference to the bottom line. Part of what drives the corporate affection for illegals (that is, for illegal Mexicans) is that they are in fact, a great majority of the time, more pliable and productive than, uh, natives.

And of course this feeds on itself. The, uh, natives are much less likely to improve their own lot in the face of more compliant and less expensive competition. If marginal improvement in attitude on the part of any particular denizen of the Hood doesn't make the difference between employment and unemployment on the margins, then what we have is a cultural barrier resisting black self-improvement. Illegal immigration represents a failure on the part of America to invest in her own disadvantaged blacks.

"Jobs Americans won't do" is code for "we won't have to try to work with blacks, who have a bad attitude".

Ah, politics and bedfellows.

But I can't help noting the following story, which has probably been repeated again and again: There was a program for helping underprivileged kids in my town and finding those that liked mathematics. I forget if it started with a summer camp program or what. One teenaged black girl was especially talented, and the teacher had high hopes for her. But she dropped out or didn't come back to the continuation or something like that. He ran into her somewhere or other and asked her why. She said she couldn't stand the teasing from the other kids for "acting white." The crabs in the bucket pulling down any that try to pull themselves out are doing a great job of keeping things bad in the 'hood.

The crabs in the bucket pulling down any that try to pull themselves out are doing a great job of keeping things bad in the 'hood.

True. Illegal Mexican immigration isn't the only barrier to black self-improvement. But it is a barrier to black self-improvement, and a much more significant one than I think many people are comfortable admitting.

Again, "jobs Americans won't do" is code for "I won't have to try to hire blacks". For one thing, to hire a black from the Hood you have to pay enough to overcome the crab-bucket effect. For another, once you've paid the premium what you get (on average, of course) is an unreliable worker with a bad attitude instead of a reliable worker with a great attitude. So it is better for the bottom line to hire illegal Mexicans.

When paleos talk about natives to whom we have first duty over foreigners in a context of Mexican illegal immigration, they aren't talking about an engineer gringo losing his job. Though they may not realize it, they are talking about American blacks. American blacks are (for the most part) the alternative native workforce - a more difficult workforce to deal with by far than illegal Mexicans, for a whole variety of reasons - that is being displaced by illegal immigration.

"When paleos talk about natives to whom we have first duty over foreigners in a context of Mexican illegal immigration, they aren't talking about an engineer gringo losing his job. Though they may not realize it, they are talking about American blacks."

Any population employment study finds millions and millions of whites with high or less than high school education employed at min or slightly above min wages. In fact their number very well could be larger than similarly educated blacks because there 10 times as many whites as blacks.

So obviously uneducated illegals almost as much threat to these whites as to the blacks.

I don't read idiot paleos, but intelligent paleos I do read are keenly aware about displacing blacks by illegals.