Do you not have a family ? Do you not preference your family members over others ? Even sharing your income or wealth or doing simple favours for them is preferencing them. Accepting fellow citizens as a lesser category of family is normal and in no way entails thinking of those outside of that "family" as lesser.
I love my family members but do not delude myself that they are better than those outside my family. I doubt anyone does. So the criticism that these types of relationships lead to othering and supremacy thinking rings hollow. It sounds more like you have an aesthetic preference based on your individualistic / libertarian principals than any other real concerns.
As far as universal globalism, it is not sustainable for the West, and in particular the US. Or rather it cannot be accomplished in the long term and lead to a high standard of living for Americans. As an example, the US imports tons of goods and services. It has very little of value to offer to say China which can produce almost everything it needs internally other than raw materials which it is locking down globally (think Africa, Siberia).
Fast forward 20 years and look at what the US's value proposition will be to the other nations of the world. Facebook? Twitter? Tech services? Entertainment? Luxury goods? Seriously? These will be overtaken by China and several other countries. Comparative advantage doesn't function when one has no absolute advantage in anything, and long term negative balance of payments with the world is not sustainable if you want to prosper.
The US is going to need to understand its internal consumption requirements and figure out alternatives to global trade in procuring these. AI may help or exacerbate the situation, but regardless the US should figure out long term how to produce everything it needs internally, even if global trade can still be utilized for some portion of it. This may require a shift away from the proliferation of useless services currently included in the domestic economy, and a reduction of the vast amount of leisure time some people currently enjoy.
One might argue that if this works for the US standalone surely it works better on a global scale. Perhaps one day it will, but a look across the globe tells you where the standard of living will average out, and it will be far below the current standard of the US middle class, and this will come to pass in the US, if we implement the Open Society.
Regarding your first point, I did say “no one lives their life without relying on others and no one should.” Of course, I value my family more than I value others. I choose those relationships.
Regarding your second point, I think you’re more or less right about what would happen—in the midterm. Yes, other countries would outproduce the US—for a while. Then, though, the standard benefits of trade with redound to everyone—the standard of living in the US would (once again) increase. So, how bad is it that I am willing to accept what you point to as problems? I don’t think it’s very bad at all. Indeed, part of my point is that a desire to promote the well-being of co-nationals just because they are co-nationals at the expense of poor people in other countries is the less acceptable view.
On our first point, did I understand you correctly and that you are saying you choose your family relationships ? No one chooses their family. Perhaps you are lucky and all of the family members you have, you would have chosen anyway. That would be a great deal of luck (for which someone might say that is an unearned advantage which should be equalized).
On our second point, I think you are saying that once we have deconstructed the West (or the US) and the standard of living has fallen off the charts, and there has been a revolt or a rebellion or a revolution or just plenty of social strife and unrest, then we will begin to rise again. By that point there will be nowhere to go but up. Not something I am interested in quite frankly.
As far as favouring poor people in other countries over less poor people in our countries, well why don't we just go a step further and promote their wellbeing even above our families because when you come to think of it, there is no reason we need to do otherwise, and our families presumably are more off than those poor people in other countries. And why stop there, let's one up Peter Singer and favour them more even more than ourselves. We can give them our jobs as well since we care so much about them.
Having lived in other countries where there is real poverty, not phony US poverty, you have no idea what living in a country where that is close to you. Not nice.
I have no desire to stop people or myself from killing and eating animals, I think that is a misguided endeavour. Similarly I feel no desire to particularly help individuals in other countries who have less than I do, or than my compatriates do. Again I think it is a misguided endeavour and a symptom of toxic empathy which is going around the West these days.
End of the day, it sounds like you just don't like your political opponents in the US and are rationalizing your preference to give their jobs away and reduce their standard of living. If you live in the US, I suppose I find that a little understandable since the US does have some groups (I dislike the concept of groups and referring to groups but it's convenient under the circumstances) with some odd views. Maybe move to Canada where I am located and you might find your fellow citizens more palatable.
I think my views are much more moderate than those you attribute to me.
On the first point, I agree with the obvious claim that no one chose their initial family. We are born into them and could not have chosen them. My point is that adults can (and some do) choose their families. If they wish they can choose to end relationships with their family of origin. Or they could choose to sustain them. And they choose their spouse and whether or not to have children.
On the second point, I’ve seen real poverty and I’ve been shocked at how many smart, kind, and interesting people there are in the world—in all sorts of places, both here at home and abroad. I do not think, though, that the standard of living in the US would “fall off the charts” leaving the masses in the sort of real poverty we see elsewhere. It would decrease. Choosing to promote the well-being of compatriots over others just because they are compatriots needs a moral defense and I don’t see any that work. Similarly, I should say, choosing to promote the well-being of people in other countries over those here needs moral defense and so far as I can tell, there is such IF (but really only if) those others are suffering; once they are not, attempts to defend promoting their well-being are no more sound, in my view, than attempts to promote the well-being of compatriots. (If my compatriots were suffering, on my view, defense of promoting their well-being over that of others who are not suffering would work. It’s suffering that demands a moral response, not location. Thinking location gives moral priority has always struck me as odd, though obviously popular.)
Thank you for the dialogue. I will add three things -
One, a significant impact of globalization has been the rise of China which has been using the fruits of their Western sponsorship to build a war machine to use against us. This was a total mismanagement of China engagement. No one in positions of power thought this would happen. Everyone involved in the process thought China would fold in to the liberal mainstream. From my perspective, this needs to be added in to the moral calculus. China's "system" is immoral and to allow or promote an arrangement that could potentially see the Chinese "system" overtake our liberal democratic values is iteself immoral. Like it or not, China views this as a game between countries and are looking out for the greater glory of China and surely not looking at whether the citizens of other countries are suffering or not.
Two, using Western standards of suffering to judge those in other countries makes this self fulfilling. Life in the (not so) distant past would also have been viewed as suffering by the standards of our soft-to-the-core Western society. But even then people lived their lives and loved their loves. Humans are remarkably adaptable. So who are we to judge someone somewhere else to be suffering? And surely, we cannot mean that the inequality of the situation is in itself suffering (enough of that nonsense).
Three, I take great pleasure in helping those people geographically around me. I am a big believer in grass roots local actions. Forget the large planned programs to help classes of people - they are full of unintended consequences. What we need is local (geographical) kindness and actions. Help the person on the street looking for a handout, or the single mother with her next rent cheque. I do feel a sense of obligation to people who are close to me geographically and I'll be damned if I'm going to give that one up. I think this is likely hard wired (for me at least) perhaps through adaptive evolutionary processes. I'm not in the least bit interested in turning this off, which for me would be immoral. I do note some contemporary writers apologizing for preferencing their own children (sending them to private schools) as this is somehow immoral. If this is the current progressive view then they are building a ship I have no interest in boarding. This is anti-human.
Bottom line I see no reason any of us should think that globalization allowing the economic betterment of the citizens of other countries is somehow more moral than other choices we might make. You do not have to equalize across society nor across the world.
I agree with much of what you say here, so just a few points of contention.
With regard to your 1: it's not in China's interest to engage in literal war with us, so I doubt that will happen. If you mean economic "war," I'm less concerned--as per the original post.
With regard to your 2: I think you ask a question here than is tougher than some might think. I admit I assumed we could make reasonable judgments about real suffering, wherever it is. I believe that and think most people do, but I admit defending the claim would take more work.
Regarding your 3: The beautiful thing about a libertarian world is that you would be free to continue those (valuable) activities. I also engage in such and encourage others to do so. At the same time, in a libertarian world, no one forces you to. Unfortunately, in the world we live in we are forced to. For one simple example: import tariffs have this affect of coercing people to buy products made by co-nationals instead of those made elsewhere. Your school example is another (why force people to go to government school?). The list is extensive. And wrong.
My conclusion remains (though I get that you don't agree): forcibly interfering with the betterment of others to help those closer to us is a mistake. Choosing to help those you choose to be in relationship with is not.
China's share of global surplus is I'm guessing 90% - they are funding the deficits of most major western countries. Run this out 20 years and they will own most things - property, stock markets, global debt. They will be the rentiers. It is on this basis that their "system" will ascend, and not by having an actual war with the west (although having a war machine enables them to do many things they could not otherwise accomplish. We are fools if we think the current economic trajectory doesn't end badly for the west save for those elite princes in each country so chosen by China to run their affairs.
Do you not have a family ? Do you not preference your family members over others ? Even sharing your income or wealth or doing simple favours for them is preferencing them. Accepting fellow citizens as a lesser category of family is normal and in no way entails thinking of those outside of that "family" as lesser.
I love my family members but do not delude myself that they are better than those outside my family. I doubt anyone does. So the criticism that these types of relationships lead to othering and supremacy thinking rings hollow. It sounds more like you have an aesthetic preference based on your individualistic / libertarian principals than any other real concerns.
As far as universal globalism, it is not sustainable for the West, and in particular the US. Or rather it cannot be accomplished in the long term and lead to a high standard of living for Americans. As an example, the US imports tons of goods and services. It has very little of value to offer to say China which can produce almost everything it needs internally other than raw materials which it is locking down globally (think Africa, Siberia).
Fast forward 20 years and look at what the US's value proposition will be to the other nations of the world. Facebook? Twitter? Tech services? Entertainment? Luxury goods? Seriously? These will be overtaken by China and several other countries. Comparative advantage doesn't function when one has no absolute advantage in anything, and long term negative balance of payments with the world is not sustainable if you want to prosper.
The US is going to need to understand its internal consumption requirements and figure out alternatives to global trade in procuring these. AI may help or exacerbate the situation, but regardless the US should figure out long term how to produce everything it needs internally, even if global trade can still be utilized for some portion of it. This may require a shift away from the proliferation of useless services currently included in the domestic economy, and a reduction of the vast amount of leisure time some people currently enjoy.
One might argue that if this works for the US standalone surely it works better on a global scale. Perhaps one day it will, but a look across the globe tells you where the standard of living will average out, and it will be far below the current standard of the US middle class, and this will come to pass in the US, if we implement the Open Society.
Regarding your first point, I did say “no one lives their life without relying on others and no one should.” Of course, I value my family more than I value others. I choose those relationships.
Regarding your second point, I think you’re more or less right about what would happen—in the midterm. Yes, other countries would outproduce the US—for a while. Then, though, the standard benefits of trade with redound to everyone—the standard of living in the US would (once again) increase. So, how bad is it that I am willing to accept what you point to as problems? I don’t think it’s very bad at all. Indeed, part of my point is that a desire to promote the well-being of co-nationals just because they are co-nationals at the expense of poor people in other countries is the less acceptable view.
On our first point, did I understand you correctly and that you are saying you choose your family relationships ? No one chooses their family. Perhaps you are lucky and all of the family members you have, you would have chosen anyway. That would be a great deal of luck (for which someone might say that is an unearned advantage which should be equalized).
On our second point, I think you are saying that once we have deconstructed the West (or the US) and the standard of living has fallen off the charts, and there has been a revolt or a rebellion or a revolution or just plenty of social strife and unrest, then we will begin to rise again. By that point there will be nowhere to go but up. Not something I am interested in quite frankly.
As far as favouring poor people in other countries over less poor people in our countries, well why don't we just go a step further and promote their wellbeing even above our families because when you come to think of it, there is no reason we need to do otherwise, and our families presumably are more off than those poor people in other countries. And why stop there, let's one up Peter Singer and favour them more even more than ourselves. We can give them our jobs as well since we care so much about them.
Having lived in other countries where there is real poverty, not phony US poverty, you have no idea what living in a country where that is close to you. Not nice.
I have no desire to stop people or myself from killing and eating animals, I think that is a misguided endeavour. Similarly I feel no desire to particularly help individuals in other countries who have less than I do, or than my compatriates do. Again I think it is a misguided endeavour and a symptom of toxic empathy which is going around the West these days.
End of the day, it sounds like you just don't like your political opponents in the US and are rationalizing your preference to give their jobs away and reduce their standard of living. If you live in the US, I suppose I find that a little understandable since the US does have some groups (I dislike the concept of groups and referring to groups but it's convenient under the circumstances) with some odd views. Maybe move to Canada where I am located and you might find your fellow citizens more palatable.
I think my views are much more moderate than those you attribute to me.
On the first point, I agree with the obvious claim that no one chose their initial family. We are born into them and could not have chosen them. My point is that adults can (and some do) choose their families. If they wish they can choose to end relationships with their family of origin. Or they could choose to sustain them. And they choose their spouse and whether or not to have children.
On the second point, I’ve seen real poverty and I’ve been shocked at how many smart, kind, and interesting people there are in the world—in all sorts of places, both here at home and abroad. I do not think, though, that the standard of living in the US would “fall off the charts” leaving the masses in the sort of real poverty we see elsewhere. It would decrease. Choosing to promote the well-being of compatriots over others just because they are compatriots needs a moral defense and I don’t see any that work. Similarly, I should say, choosing to promote the well-being of people in other countries over those here needs moral defense and so far as I can tell, there is such IF (but really only if) those others are suffering; once they are not, attempts to defend promoting their well-being are no more sound, in my view, than attempts to promote the well-being of compatriots. (If my compatriots were suffering, on my view, defense of promoting their well-being over that of others who are not suffering would work. It’s suffering that demands a moral response, not location. Thinking location gives moral priority has always struck me as odd, though obviously popular.)
Thanks for the dialogue!
Thank you for the dialogue. I will add three things -
One, a significant impact of globalization has been the rise of China which has been using the fruits of their Western sponsorship to build a war machine to use against us. This was a total mismanagement of China engagement. No one in positions of power thought this would happen. Everyone involved in the process thought China would fold in to the liberal mainstream. From my perspective, this needs to be added in to the moral calculus. China's "system" is immoral and to allow or promote an arrangement that could potentially see the Chinese "system" overtake our liberal democratic values is iteself immoral. Like it or not, China views this as a game between countries and are looking out for the greater glory of China and surely not looking at whether the citizens of other countries are suffering or not.
Two, using Western standards of suffering to judge those in other countries makes this self fulfilling. Life in the (not so) distant past would also have been viewed as suffering by the standards of our soft-to-the-core Western society. But even then people lived their lives and loved their loves. Humans are remarkably adaptable. So who are we to judge someone somewhere else to be suffering? And surely, we cannot mean that the inequality of the situation is in itself suffering (enough of that nonsense).
Three, I take great pleasure in helping those people geographically around me. I am a big believer in grass roots local actions. Forget the large planned programs to help classes of people - they are full of unintended consequences. What we need is local (geographical) kindness and actions. Help the person on the street looking for a handout, or the single mother with her next rent cheque. I do feel a sense of obligation to people who are close to me geographically and I'll be damned if I'm going to give that one up. I think this is likely hard wired (for me at least) perhaps through adaptive evolutionary processes. I'm not in the least bit interested in turning this off, which for me would be immoral. I do note some contemporary writers apologizing for preferencing their own children (sending them to private schools) as this is somehow immoral. If this is the current progressive view then they are building a ship I have no interest in boarding. This is anti-human.
Bottom line I see no reason any of us should think that globalization allowing the economic betterment of the citizens of other countries is somehow more moral than other choices we might make. You do not have to equalize across society nor across the world.
I agree with much of what you say here, so just a few points of contention.
With regard to your 1: it's not in China's interest to engage in literal war with us, so I doubt that will happen. If you mean economic "war," I'm less concerned--as per the original post.
With regard to your 2: I think you ask a question here than is tougher than some might think. I admit I assumed we could make reasonable judgments about real suffering, wherever it is. I believe that and think most people do, but I admit defending the claim would take more work.
Regarding your 3: The beautiful thing about a libertarian world is that you would be free to continue those (valuable) activities. I also engage in such and encourage others to do so. At the same time, in a libertarian world, no one forces you to. Unfortunately, in the world we live in we are forced to. For one simple example: import tariffs have this affect of coercing people to buy products made by co-nationals instead of those made elsewhere. Your school example is another (why force people to go to government school?). The list is extensive. And wrong.
My conclusion remains (though I get that you don't agree): forcibly interfering with the betterment of others to help those closer to us is a mistake. Choosing to help those you choose to be in relationship with is not.
China's share of global surplus is I'm guessing 90% - they are funding the deficits of most major western countries. Run this out 20 years and they will own most things - property, stock markets, global debt. They will be the rentiers. It is on this basis that their "system" will ascend, and not by having an actual war with the west (although having a war machine enables them to do many things they could not otherwise accomplish. We are fools if we think the current economic trajectory doesn't end badly for the west save for those elite princes in each country so chosen by China to run their affairs.