Opinion: Multiculturalism is prerequisite to a libertarian society

[TheWhat?]

To determine that this is true, all we need to do is examine the consequences of its antithetical counterpart: monoculturalism. In a non-homogenous society, to force all cultures into some amalgamation thereof is to necessarily limit freedom of association and the autonomy of distinct cultural groups. Therefore, multiculturalism is prerequisite to a libertarian society which must necessarily value liberty, autonomy and freedom of association.

It doesn't matter if you identify as christian, atheist, catholic, as a racial minority, gay or straight, monoculturalism forces all citizens to accept cultural norms that they may not agree with, and also opposes the freedom to identify with the cultural groups that they would otherwise choose. It's like an attempt to force a room full of diverse individuals to all come to an agreement about absolutely everything related to culture, which of course is painfully implausible, leading to endless "culture wars," because everyone in that room should have rights that deserve to be respected.

 

[Abaxvahl]

To determine that this is true, all we need to do is examine the consequences of its antithetical counterpart: monoculturalism. In a non-homogenous society, to force all cultures into some amalgamation thereof is to necessarily limit freedom of association and the autonomy of distinct cultural groups. Therefore, multiculturalism is prerequisite to a libertarian society which must necessarily value liberty, autonomy and freedom of association.

It doesn't matter if you identify as christian, atheist, catholic, as a racial minority, gay or straight, monoculturalism forces all citizens to accept cultural norms that they may not agree with, and also opposes the freedom to identify with the cultural groups that they would otherwise choose. It's like an attempt to force a room full of diverse individuals to all come to an agreement about absolutely everything related to culture, which of course is painfully implausible, leading to endless "culture wars," because everyone in that room should have rights that deserve to be respected.

I don't see how multiculturalism does not do the same by forcing you to tolerate what you find intolerable in other spheres, and not only this but close by. I also don't see how this won't just form into a new culture anyway. The reason why there are "culture wars" is because people don't, won't, and can't agree about a multitude of things, and a lot of it is intolerable to them (for instance to me those who support abortion are supports or murder, those who do it are murderers, and nothing can change this, it is a difference of worldview and I do not tolerate or accept them at all).

 

[TheWhat?]

I don't see how multiculturalism does not do the same by forcing you to tolerate what you find intolerable in other spheres, and not only this but close by.

Multiculturalism need not be perfect nor fix all problems to be better than a worse solution.

Culture embodies norms and values. Arguably, we're facing a lot of intolerable problems because of cultural fallout, and we're facing cultural fallout because we failed to protect culture, which is the explicit goal of a "melting pot" ideology. We destroy values because it's good for business to get people away from traditions and heritage and package them up into economic units in a mobile society.

I also don't see how this won't just form into a new culture anyway.

Culture always changes, and we are forming a new culture: one that embodies norms which are intolerable to ourselves for a variety of reasons.

The reason why there are "culture wars" is because people don't, won't, and can't agree about a multitude of things, and a lot of it is intolerable to them (for instance to me those who support abortion are supports or murder, those who do it are murderers, and nothing can change this, it is a difference of worldview and I do not tolerate or accept them at all).

If you don't like the shoes you're wearing, shooting yourself in the foot wouldn't be a great solution.

 

[Albion]

To determine that this is true, all we need to do is examine the consequences of its antithetical counterpart: monoculturalism. In a non-homogenous society, to force all cultures into some amalgamation thereof is to necessarily limit freedom of association and the autonomy of distinct cultural groups. Therefore, multiculturalism is prerequisite to a libertarian society which must necessarily value liberty, autonomy and freedom of association.

Your argument might be persuasive if the state required people to conform, but that isn't inherent in a society simply because it's what you've referred to as monocultural.

It doesn't matter if you identify as christian, atheist, catholic, as a racial minority, gay or straight, monoculturalism forces all citizens to accept cultural norms that they may not agree with, and also opposes the freedom to identify with the cultural groups that they would otherwise choose.

 

[TheWhat?]

Your argument might be persuasive if the state required people to conform, but that isn't inherent in a society simply because it's what you've referred to as monocultural.

It's rendered to be by limiting the autonomy of local government. America was libertarian. States had greater autonomy, thus we could have, by freedom of association, greater liberty to choose how we live by our locale of residence. This changed dramatically after the civil war. Note that our "melting pot" ideology was not so clarified until later.

Granted, America did this to itself by inconsistently implementing the thought of classical liberalism which values liberty, by allowing the ownership of slaves.

 

[Albion]

It's rendered to be by limiting the autonomy local government. America was libertarian. States had greater autonomy, thus we could have, by freedom of association, greater liberty to choose how we live by our locale of residence. This changed dramatically after the civil war. Note that our "melting pot" ideology was not so clarified until later.

We could assess the history of the USA with respect to this issue, but your post simply discussed your view of multicultural societies.

 

[TheWhat?]

We could assess the history of the USA with respect to this issue, but your post simply discussed your view of multicultural societies.

Right, the OP is centered on ideology. My previous response elucidates details on how that ideology can be and was to some degree implemented, and how it's changed.

 

[Albion]

Yes, but it's just about impossible to make your case (which I already doubt) on the basis of American history.

I'd hope that you'd go back to contending with the theory of how any monocultural society has to function and what this might have to do with libertarian ideals, if anything.

 

[TheWhat?]

Yes, but it's just about impossible to make your case (which I already doubt) on the basis of American history.

You stated:

Your argument might be persuasive if the state required people to conform, but that isn't inherent in a society simply because it's what you've referred to as monocultural.

My response was, in different words, that we are in effect required by the state to conform, and this is accomplished by limiting the autonomy of local government.

I'd hope that you'd go back to contending with the theory of how any monocultural society has to function and what this might have to do with libertarian ideals, if anything.

The argument is that, by definition, monoculturalism must necessarily contradict libertarian ideals.

 

[Albion]

You stated:



My response was, in different words, that we are in effect required by the state to conform, and this is accomplished by limiting the autonomy of local government.

I appreciate the clarification, but I don't agree with the idea that conformity is promoted simply because there is a federal form of government. If anything, it would seem to go the other way.

The argument is that, by definition, monoculturalism must necessarily contradict libertarian ideals.

Now wait. Earlier you said that "to force all cultures into some amalgamation is to necessarily limit freedom." But while we might all, libertarians included, agree with that statement as it stands, your argument seems to be that monoculturalism by the definition of the word does the same thing.

 

[Bradskii]

To determine that this is true, all we need to do is examine the consequences of its antithetical counterpart: monoculturalism. In a non-homogenous society, to force all cultures into some amalgamation thereof is to necessarily limit freedom of association and the autonomy of distinct cultural groups. Therefore, multiculturalism is prerequisite to a libertarian society which must necessarily value liberty, autonomy and freedom of association.

It doesn't matter if you identify as christian, atheist, catholic, as a racial minority, gay or straight, monoculturalism forces all citizens to accept cultural norms that they may not agree with, and also opposes the freedom to identify with the cultural groups that they would otherwise choose. It's like an attempt to force a room full of diverse individuals to all come to an agreement about absolutely everything related to culture, which of course is painfully implausible, leading to endless "culture wars," because everyone in that room should have rights that deserve to be respected.

I think that a better way of putting it is to say that's it's simply the natural outcome of a liberal society.

 

[TheWhat?]

I think that a better way of putting it is to say that's it's simply the natural outcome of a liberal society.

Well, firstly, what do we mean by "liberal" anyways? Here it isn't anything close to classical liberalism, which should include left and right in America, though I'd argue it doesn't anymore. Disambiguation from "liberal" is why libertarians donned the term here in America at least. Apologies if that's obvious, I'm just used to there being a huge communication gap across national borders.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, firstly, what do we mean by "liberal" anyways? Here it isn't anything close to classical liberalism, which should include left and right in America, though I'd argue it doesn't anymore. Disambiguation from "liberal" is why libertarians donned the term here in America at least. Apologies if that's obvious, I'm just used to there being a huge communication gap across national borders.

I think you've picked it. I say 'liberal', you might say 'libertarian'. I mean social liberal v neo classical liberal. Liberal in my sense being more a social position than a political one.

But I'd agree that it's as confusing as anything. The party in government down here is the Liberals. Who are conservative in their policies. And who tend towards more government control. Whereas libertarians...well, it's confusing.

 

[Estrid]

I don't see how multiculturalism does not do the same by forcing you to tolerate what you find intolerable in other spheres, and not only this but close by. I also don't see how this won't just form into a new culture anyway. The reason why there are "culture wars" is because people don't, won't, and can't agree about a multitude of things, and a lot of it is intolerable to them (for instance to me those who support abortion are supports or murder, those who do it are murderers, and nothing can change this, it is a difference of worldview and I do not tolerate or accept them at all).

Pretty soon people decide to do something about an intolerable situation.

 

[Percivale]

There could be a monocultural libertarian society if it was pretty isolated, but for the United States anyway liberty will correlate with multiculturalism.
One way multiculturalism promotes libertarianism is that if there are several groups and none have a majority, then none can force their views on the rest and so instead each group will want to agree with the rest to respect each other's freedom.