Yes, I meant variety.
I don't agree on formation of groups as a reaction to a dominant group. The phenomena of coalescing is so ubiquitous in nature that I find it hard not to accept in social settings.
Multiculturalism can exist just fine as long as the individual cultures accept living in an intersection world. In my fields, I see deer and rabbits sharing my blueberries without hassles. Its almost as though they don't interact, although they share the same food source. Provided their resources are adequate, there are no difficulties between these groups. Perhaps a better example would be the fish in my river vs. the deer or rabbits. Quite orthogonal, although sharing space. For humans its a bit harder, since we are used to dominating everything, and have come to consider this necessary for culture. The gay marriage issue would be a nice example of how many people don't consider it possible to live in close contact with another culture. If one culture promotes equality for women, but another culture promotes a strict Patriarchal system, its easy to see conflict. If you are an animal lover, but your asian neighbor prepares his evening dog meal by slowly beating a dog in sack to death in his front yard, how do you handle multiculturalism? It can get more nuanced: In my town, farm butchering of animals is common amongst whites, but the town had a flap about Hispanics butchering animals in their yards within town. Was it just racism?
Indeed. The question is how far you take it. Obviously we have to have rules of the road, for example. It really doesn't matter if people drive on the left or the right but it's unsafe to mix the two. So we pick a side and everyone adheres. But do we really need laws about how many and what kind of tchotchkes people put on their lawns? With a collectivist mentality creating a law is the default. It's automatic. The only question becomes what process to use to create the law and what its particulars would be. There's an assumption that some kind of regulation of tchotchkes is expected. It's a mindset that inevitably expands it's scope. It's addictive. A libertarian mentality automatically goes to letting people do their own thing unless there's some important damage to other individuals in leaving it unregulated. And if it needs to be regulated, it should be regulated at the lowest possible level. If a subdivision wants to outlaw lawn gnomes, then fine. But restricting lawn ornaments at the federal level is authoritarian to the max.
Actually, you and I are in complete agreement here. You have an adaptable and functional view of being a libertarian. That can always work, no matter what the population density. Perhaps more libertarians share your views, and I just am not aware. I'm more used to the Ayn Rand style, which is protection of life and property, but the poor should starve with integrity.
If free speech is a good thing, then why not apply that to economic activities and property? What is the there about being able to say what you think but not being able to put gnomes on your lawn if you like gnomes?
It can be provided one accounts for the impact on others. You are pragmatic enough that your approach would work. What I find in our society is that we don't count the cost very well with many economic and property issues. To a certain degree, we individualize reward, while socializing risk. Bankruptcy laws are a good economic example of that. A heavily progressive tax rate would be a mitigating opposite to bankruptcy, but by and large we place a collective floor under economic risk, while leaving the reward side largely individualistic. This is even more true in property use/environmental issues.
One could argue the same is true of freedom of expression, and in fact many do argue that way especially wrt to sexual issues. But if you take the view that you are willing to implement the minimal set of rules needed, that always seems to cover things.
There are issues of localization of rules vs. the uniting effect of country wide rules, but thats another issue. It is nice that if I know how to live legally in Oregon, I can most likely get along fine in New York as well. If you have pot possession as legal in one place but a capitol crime in another, it posses some issues, to take a recent international example. |
