From: pas@anchor.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Theory and Social Tolerance
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 20:00:50 GMT

sh: Steve Hendricks
ps: Paul Sand

sh: Your point is well taken from a libertarian standpoint since there
    does not appear to be any serious commitment to cultural diversity
    as a goal. Nonetheless, I would argue that a society with liberty
    and without diversity is a contradiction in terms. Freedom to be
    like everyone else sounds Orwellian. So shall we agree that whether
    diversity is a goal or simply a side effect it is an essential
    characteristic of a libertarian utopia?

Two caveats: (1) One of the more durable (and sensible) libertarian
cliches is ``Utopia is not an option.'' (Jim Brownfield also points
this out.) So when one talks about `libertarian utopia' one should
understand it to be well short of the Pollyannish perfection of
traditional utopians.

More importantly: (2) Diversity is an even more troubling term. Steve's
posting implies it's basically a binary thing:  either a society is
diverse, or it's not. But surely that's *not* the case: diversity can
be (often only vaguely) measured with respect to myriads of social
characteristics, those characteristics differing widely in importance
and desirability.

So: can I agree that diversity is `an essential characteristic of a
libertarian utopia'? In some senses, certainly; in others, certainly
not. `Diversity,' unqualified, is an inherently ambiguous term, and
(unfortunately) Steve's argument wallows in this ambiguity deeply in
what follows.

sh: If that is so, however, I fail to see how typical libertarian
    positions on education, housing, employment, and public
    accomodations support such goals. Worse than that, they seem
    designed positively to undermine them. Rather than promoting
    tolerance and cultural diversity, they appear designed to support
    group isolation, intolerance, and ultimately to promote "group
    think" rather than individualism.

sh: Take education policy as one example. I assume that the typical
    libertarian position is that religious, cultural, ethnic, and
    political groups should be encouraged (not just allowed) through
    public policy to form their own schools. [...]

ps: Strawman. Heard him rustling a mile away.

ps: For someone who claims to speak about `typical libertarian
    positions', Mr. Hendricks jumps off the track here surprisingly
    early. He apparently can't conceive that public policy toward ethnic
    (etc.) schooling might well be neutral, i.e., neither encouraging
    nor discouraging. I fancy that such neutrality *is* the typical
    libertarian position; I doubt that Mr. Hendricks can show otherwise.

sh: My reference to encouragement was meant to distinguish a libertarian
    position from current public policy where groups are "allowed" to
    form their own schools with few restrictions. I would call that a
    relatively "neutral" policy toward schooling, with the obvious
    caveat that pure race-based selection of students is prohibited.

sh: If you argue that the current state of affairs approximates a
    libertarian position, I suppose we have no argument, but that was
    not my impression. If your position is that prohibition of racial
    selection as a basis for organizing a school is an intolerable
    restriction on liberty, I suppose we're simply arguing about
    segregation. But that is not what I took the libertarian position to
    be.

Obviously the current situation where government schools enjoy
competitive and regulatory advantages over voluntarily-organized
schools is not neutral; the system is designed so that there are strong
incentives for most people to choose government schools.

sh: Rather, I assumed a "typical libertarian position" (no disrespect or
    oversimplification intended) would be one where public policy
    reduced/eliminated support of public schools (through making support
    of public education voluntary or outright elimination of the public
    system) in favor of support for other (privately financed) forms of
    education. If that is not the position you support, my apologies,
    but I don't think it's inaccurate to characterise it as a
    libertarian view.

sh: Assuming it *is* accurate (for the sake of argument), I hardly think
    it is an example of "neutrality." [...]

It seems more or less accurate.  Obviously, we may be operating off
different definitions of what a public policy with respect to ethnic
(etc.) schooling might look like to be deemed neutral. This scenario
is closer to what I consider neutral.

sh: True, I wouldn't expect libertarians to "require" schools to be
    organized around shared religious, cultural, ethnic, political or
    class groupings. But is it your position that if such legislation
    were passed that schools would be organized around commitment to
    cultural diversity? Frankly, that seems incredibly naive. [...]

The safest bet is that schools would be tend to be more organized
around the needs and wishes of their clientele, rather than the
dictates of the state. (I don't know--or care, particularly--how often
that would include a `commitment to cultural diversity'. It's far from
obvious that schools with such commitments would be absent.)

sh: The most common result, I think we can agree, would be that schools
    would reflect the same social and cultural cleavages we see in
    present day society.

Erm, OK, `cultural diversity' is a Good Thing, `cultural cleavage' is a
Bad Thing. Gotta keep up with the jargon... But basically, I think
Steve (a) overestimates the extent to which government schooling can
(or, historically, does) work against such `cleavages' and (b) neglects
any possibility that market forces and voluntary action can (and,
historically, do) work to reduce such friction.

sh: So is the libertarian policy "neutral?" Formally perhaps, just as
    public policy forbids both the rich and poor from sleeping in the
    park. But the effect is hardly neutral, and it is the effect of
    public policy that is the basis for determining its "neutrality."

It's a little bit question-begging for Steve to declare *the* basis for
determining the neutrality of public policy. Clearly, libertarian
public policy is *not* neutral with respect to people's basic rights of
life, liberty, and property; equally as clearly, it *is* neutral as to
how (given those constraints) individuals use that liberty to run their
lives. It's the latter context in which I used the term. Now can we
move on?

sh: Does anyone seriously believe that segregating children into such
    group-based training academies will lead to more tolerance for
    cultural diversity and individualist values? There is certainly
    little evidence for such a hope and plenty of evidence to the
    contrary.

ps: No doubt. But, on the other hand, there's little evidence to support
    the notion that such would arise as a result of libertarian policy,
    and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

sh: You'll have to show me, I'm afraid. As far as I can tell you've
    simply asserted that libertarian policy is "neutral" as far as
    promoting tolerance is concerned. What is the evidence to the
    contrary you have in mind?

I observe that, at least here in the USA, the state is more or less
neutral--in the context discussed above--about which church (if any) I
attend; about my choices of *higher* education; about what (or how
much) I read; about the entertainment I select; the investments (if
any) I select; about which charitable organizations (if any) I donate
to; about my political affiliations (if any); about my choice of
career; and on, and on.  (Would-be quibblers: please note that `more or
less' above.)

I dare say, in the hypothetical case that the state was *less* neutral
in any of the above matters, that *precisely* the same gloom-and-doom
scenarios would be put forth against libertarian proposals for
reform. (And in fact, every advance of liberty has been opposed,
historically, by the power-hungry social-engineering reactionaries of
all political persuasions using such arguments.)

In short, the evidence is all around:  by and large liberty works, and
it does so without tearing the social fabric in important ways.
(However, despite Steve's assertions, it also enhances social mobility
and tends to break down old class barriers; this is why it gets a lot
of bad press from both left and right.)

sh: Libertarian policies in housing, employment, and public
    accomodations would seem to lead in the same direction; toward
    isolation of like-minded groups and an inevitable reduction in
    experience with diversity and therefore less commitment to
    individual rights.

ps: Discounting for the moment the likelihood that Mr. Hendricks has
    similarly flawed notions of libertarian policy in these areas: I was
    unaware that `experience with diversity' had such a cause-and-effect
    relationship with `commitment to individual rights.' Where's the
    evidence for that?

sh: No problem. The concept of individual rights is meaningless if there
    are no conflicts between individuals. I'm simply asserting the
    pedestrian notion (found in the Federalist Papers among other
    places) that support for indvidual rights is necessary in, and stems
    from experience with conflicts over values. Those who live their
    lives surrounded by people who share their world view are unlikely
    to believe that other world views deserve a hearing. The common term
    for such a person is "parochial."

Well, I'm as parochial as they come, but I still manage to put forth
a libertarian facade...

As noted above, the ambiguous use of the `diversity' buzzword causes
the problem here; certainly an individuated diversity of values, goals,
and talents among a population is not the same thing as `cultural
diversity' alluded to above. Conflicts between individuals (or between
individuals and the state) requiring the clear demarcation of
individual rights are more likely a result of the former, not the
latter.

sh: I suppose one might argue that this is a risk that must be borne to
    promote individual choice. But at the same time, libertarians would
    agree, I believe, that commitment to individualism and social
    tolerance are essential to a libertarian utopia. So how do you
    propose that that such values be promoted as libertarian policies
    are implemented? Am I missing something?

ps: Yes. [And thanks for the straight line.] At best, Mr. Hendricks
    makes a rather old argument that a libertarian polity contains the
    seeds of its own destruction: that given individual liberty, society
    will necessarily develop in such a way that individual liberty is
    destroyed.

sh: Yeah, I agree the argument is hardly novel. Its "age," however, is
    irrelevant to its validity. But you're incorrect in asserting that
    my argument was deterministic. I never said that "given individual
    liberty, society will necessarily develop in such a way that
    individual liberty is destroyed." What I said was that libertarian
    policy prescriptions undermine values that it requires citizens to
    have in order for a libertarian society to be a civil society.

I think Steve has to be as ambiguous about the word `values' as he is
about `diversity' in order for this to be argued.

sh: You've indicated that cultural diversity is not that important to
    you, compared to an overriding concern with individual liberty. Fair
    enough, but I don't see how liberty is very important in a society
    of like-minded individuals. It is after all only the freedom to
    disagree that is real freedom, so diversity is what makes liberty
    worthwhile.

On the contrary: a society of `like-minded individuals' is a utopian
fantasy. In the real world, it's diversity (in this sense of
conflicting goals and values) that makes liberty and defense of basic
rights *necessary*, not simply worthwhile. (But please note that this
is yet *another* use of the `diversity' buzzword, not comparable with
previous use.)

sh: You've asserted that libertarian policy is "neutral" as far as
    education policy is concerned. But your "neutrality" is the sort
    often preached by libertarians, purely formal without reference to
    its effects. You've asserted that libertarian policy would not
    result in the conditions I described, but gave no evidence to
    support the assertion.

I've responded to this above.

sh: Finally, you've indicated there is no relationship between cultural
    diversity and commitment to individual rights. Try reading James
    Madison.

If Madison discussed cultural diversity, it's news to me...  Perhaps
this is a reference to Madison's discussion of `faction' in Federalist
X? If so, it's yet *another* use of the diversity buzzword (to no
good purpose, since `faction' is perfectly swell). 

In any case, it's simply false to say that I claimed there was `no
relationship.'
-- 
-- Paul A. Sand           | What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the sound of
-- Univ. of New Hampshire | a wall that people have stopped banging their
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu     | heads against? (Larry Wall, comp.unix.shell)
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:3841 misc.legal:16376