“Lack of state-enforced preferences does not “destroy” culture.”

It certainly does. Let’s say that Iceland, for example, was suddenly forced to abandon its zero-immigration policy. The island, which has a thousand-year-old culture and is ethnically homogenous, suddenly finds it population (275,000) swamped by a half-million immigrants from developing nations. Iceland would cease to be Iceland, and its culture –one of tolerance, prosperity, shared history and yes, ethnicity — would be destroyed.

The obvious solution? Iceland should not allow immigration, as it does not. In other words, Iceland needs to have a government policy that favors its ethnic groups — Icelanders — over all others, and places value on Icelandic culture and ethnicity.

Those nations that have experimented with mass immigration from the third world — like Holland, as we hear in the news this week — would not find your arguments convincing.

Yes.

As long as it does not turn destrcutive, which it doesn’t have to, why is this bad?

Show me a government policy which gives preference to one ethnic group over another and I will show you a policy which is destructive and bad. You cannot have a state which claims to recognize that “all men are created equal,” and then proceed to treat men unequally.

Should an Italian not take pride in his country’s history, culture, language, etc.?

There is a difference between taking pride in one’s culture and excluding people who do not share the same culture. Further, I think it’s kind of silly to take pride in something you have absolutely no control over.

Destruction of every culture in the world — which is where your point of view leads eventually — seems a high price to pay.

Lack of state-enforced preferences does not “destroy” culture.

“Insofar as Mayans, Jews, Turks, Ibo, Danes, Dutchmen, Japanese, Koreans, Uzbeks implement policies which prefer members of their own ethnic group to other ethnic groups, they are wrong.”

Interesting — so you would deny the right of, say, South Koreans, to keep non-Koreans from emigrating to Seoul? You deny the right of Turks to implement governmental policies designed to keep jobs in Turkey? You seem to be denying the very right of the ethnically-based nation state to exist. Is that correct?

Ethnic bonds have the potential to be destructive. In the past they have led to violence and oppression of other groups. But when they are only positive, I do not see your objection to them, since most people around the world see identity and culture as a vital part of their essence as a human being. As long as it does not turn destrcutive, which it doesn’t have to, why is this bad? Should an Italian not take pride in his country’s history, culture, language, etc.? An Iranian? A Japanese? Destruction of every culture in the world — which is where your point of view leads eventually — seems a high price to pay.

No, it isn’t like that at all. Humans share more in common with each other than they do with squirrels. But blacks and whites do not share more in common with members of their own groups than they do with each other.

You young people! Think you can just say the word “racism” and the argument ends in your favor. My argument is not made only by “white nationalists” — Mayans, Jews, Turks, Ibo, Danes, Dutchmen, Japanese, Koreans, Uzbeks and everyone else in the world feels altruistic towards members of their own group in ways they do not towards members of other groups. Why do you single out “white nationalists” for pathologization of their natural human feelings of kinship, when such kinship is held to be normal and natural for every other group in the world?

Insofar as Mayans, Jews, Turks, Ibo, Danes, Dutchmen, Japanese, Koreans, Uzbeks implement policies which prefer members of their own ethnic group to other ethnic groups, they are wrong. But I’m not arguing with these people; I’m arguing with you.

I’m not a huge fan of dividing the world between “usses” and “thems”, but again, I don’t see the logic behind you calling them “morally arbitrary”. As I’ve explained, there are solid reasons, both biological and cultural, why A Sri Lankan, if he has a choice, will keep 100 jobs in Sri Lanka, and why an American, if he has a choice, will keep those 100 jobs in America.

These are not moral explanations. They explain our behavior, but they do not justify it.

“Blacks and whites share more in common between groups than within groups. That is, there are more intragroup differences than intergroup differences.”

Well, that’s like saying a human and a squirrel each have two eyes, two ears, and a mouth, so they must be the same. Surely the things that make humans similar greatly outweigh the things that make us different. But it doesn’t mean it’s irrational for a human to notice and value those differences.

Micha writes:

“Regardless, it seems to me that your argument, as you seem to admit, if not explicitly, is identical to the arguments made by white nationalists and other racial separatists. Landsburg’s point stands.”

You young people! Think you can just say the word “racism” and the argument ends in your favor. My argument is not made only by “white nationalists” — Mayans, Jews, Turks, Ibo, Danes, Dutchmen, Japanese, Koreans, Uzbeks and everyone else in the world feels altruistic towards members of their own group in ways they do not towards members of other groups. Why do you single out “white nationalists” for pathologization of their natural human feelings of kinship, when such kinship is held to be normal and natural for every other group in the world?

Micha writes:

“Mexico and Canada are not “far-off lands.” Further, just because we can understand why some people divide the world into “Us” and “Them” does not mean these categories are justified. They remain morally arbitrary.”

Well, fine, then take Vietnam and Sri Lanka. That’s just a semantic quibble.

I’m not a huge fan of dividing the world between “usses” and “thems”, but again, I don’t see the logic behind you calling them “morally arbitrary”. As I’ve explained, there are solid reasons, both biological and cultural, why A Sri Lankan, if he has a choice, will keep 100 jobs in Sri Lanka, and why an American, if he has a choice, will keep those 100 jobs in America.

Blacks and whites share more in common between groups than within groups. That is, there are more intragroup differences than intergroup differences.

Regardless, it seems to me that your argument, as you seem to admit, if not explicitly, is identical to the arguments made by white nationalists and other racial separatists. Landsburg’s point stands.

If you can understand why a person would prefer the interests of one’s own immediate family (biological)

Race is not discrete biological category.

I do not understand why you can’t make the leap to seeing why a person would prefer the interests of one’s own countrymen (biological and shared values and experiences — less so than with an immediate family member or friend, but still significant, and certainly not “arbitrary,” as you put it) over people from a far-off land.

Mexico and Canada are not “far-off lands.” Further, just because we can understand why some people divide the world into “Us” and “Them” does not mean these categories are justified. They remain morally arbitrary.

“I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say it is morally bankrupt, but it is definitely arbitrary and inconsistent. I can understand preferring the interests of oneself, one’s family, one’s group of friends and acquaintances, and one’s community relative to a total stranger living elsewhere. But when we get to much larger groups like states, let alone the U.S. in its entirety, I see no rational reason to give preference to someone simply because they live in the same country you do.”

Ethnic feelings of altruism go far beyond one’s immediate family. Humans share a significant percent of our genes (around 10% in most cases) with those in our own ethnic group, which is about the same amount as a person shares with, say, a great-grandson.

If you can understand why a person would prefer the interests of one’s own immediate family (biological) and one’s own friends and community (shared values and experiences), then I do not understand why you can’t make the leap to seeing why a person would prefer the interests of one’s own countrymen (biological and shared values and experiences — less so than with an immediate family member or friend, but still significant, and certainly not “arbitrary,” as you put it) over people from a far-off land.

I read Steve Landsburg’s reasons for voting for Bush a few nights ago. He is one of only five Slate staff members surveyed that is casting his ballot for the incumbent this coming Tuesday. In his statement he certainly didn’t…

Being a competitive shooter, I hang out with a lot of Republicans (*sigh*). Whenever anyone mentions foreign trade or imported goods, the change in their demeanor is palpable. To them, imported goods are quite literally evil.

I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say it is morally bankrupt, but it is definitely arbitrary and inconsistent. I can understand preferring the interests of oneself, one’s family, one’s group of friends and acquaintances, and one’s community relative to a total stranger living elsewhere. But when we get to much larger groups like states, let alone the U.S. in its entirety, I see no rational reason to give preference to someone simply because they live in the same country you do.

Whether or not evolutionary psychology actually shows that this is deeply ingrained in us, to say that we should act in accordance with this desire would violate the naturalist fallacy. We have instinctual urges to do all sorts of things that aren’t in our interests to do given the present level of human advancement: have sex with as many people as possible, kill those who threaten or compete with us, eat lots of sugar and fat, etc.

I don’t think we’re talking so much about national pride as we are about geographic alliance. I don’t think it’s improper that I might rather see those close to me prosper more than those farther away, especially since much economic activity is constrained by proximity. Is it morally bankrupt to provide aid to a domestic disaster relief program (hurricanes, just to pull an example) if there are more dire disaster relief needs abroad?

Noah, I don’t think that many here are disagreeing with the idea that protectionism is bad…we’re just saying that one can advocate protectionism with good intentions for the American people, and without being xenophobic.

Ms. Dani, I’m not sure I understand your comment about damned if you do/damned if you don’t. I guess I’m not seeing a lot of damned if you do. Surely, this talk of protectionism doesn’t have involve caring for the people of other nations, but with maximum economic advantage.

And I don’t know where you people get the idea that the purpose of the U.S. government is to promote the “good” of the American people, let individual rights and the rest of the world be damned. This is an especially ridiculous argument coming from conservatives, who rightly object when modern liberals grossly misinterpret the General Welfare clause of the Constituion.

Who was it who once said, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none”? Ah, fuck it, it was probably just some leftist wacko who didn’t put enough emphasis on “racial and ethnic pride.”

Why anyone would be proud of something they were born with and have absolutely no control over is beyond me.

It’s perfectly natural — and universal — to have altruistic, positive feelings towards those of your own ethnic group. It’s not “racist”, so long as you’re not promoting actually doing harm to another group. If you’re just looking out for those with whom you share a common ethnicity, then again, it’s natural, healthy, and universally felt.

It’s called evolutionary biology, Micha and Steve, and it’s very, very strongly embedded in humans, whether you like it or not. You seek to pathologize a totally normal, natural, and healthy feeling in humans.

Like many, probably most economists, I generally do not support protectionist measures. But I don’t share economist Steven Landsburg’s take

That said, the government is obliged to help Americans first (and arguably only). It represents Americans and has a duty to those it represents.

However – and this is a big however – sometimes, such as in the case of free trade, it benefits “Americans” more to do something that also benefits members of other countries even while it hurts some Americans at the same time. (i.e. outsourcing jobs for cheaper products and streamlining our markets)

The question of what “benefits Americans” is very debatable, but that should be the confines of the public policy debate.