Here's another controversial historical take: Maybe the fact that hundreds of millions of people want to move from the Third World to the First World could mean that colonialism ended a bit too soon and that Third Worlders would have been better off with a more delayed decolonization? That way, they could have become wealthier and been more educated in things like liberal democracy at the time that they would have actually acquired their independence.
History What are some of your most contraversial takes on history?
- Thread starter Winston Bush
- Start date
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
That is actually not that uncommon as an idea.
A lot of conservative writers from Burnham to Fukuyama have raised similar concerns.
Burnham in particular was very unhappy how the liberals and their third world oligarchic buddies forced the issue.
Although the third world potentates are the ones that got the most out of the scam.
Check out his book "Suicide of the West"
Doomsought
Well-known member
There are even people in former colonies who beleive that independence was bad for their nation, and want to return the the empires they used to part of.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
Yeah, but that is probably internalised white racism and myhsoggyknee.
What's Burnham's first name?
Yeah, some open borders libertarians, such as Bryan Caplan, are even advocating having open borders and creating a hereditary caste system here in the West (no voting rights or social safety net access for the migrants and their descendants for an indefinite number of generations) as a superior alternative to the current status quo. The problem, of course, is that people generally don't tend to like being an inferior hereditary caste forever; so, it seems like a recipe for eventual large-scale social unrest, civil war(s), and even revolution(s)!
But Yeah, it definitely is quite funny how people like Bryan Caplan are advocating in favor of recreating the colonial structure but only here in the West. The problem with their logic, of course, is that Westerners will have nowhere to flee to once Third Worlders will take over their countries. At least if Westerners are invited to rule over Third World countries again, Westerners will still be able to flee to their own countries if Third Worlders will ever want to kick them out of the Third World. Thus, ironically, a more humane return to traditional colonialism would obviously be a superior alternative to open borders plus a hereditary caste system here in the West from a Western point of view.
Simonbob
Well-known member
Why not libertarians?
Simonbob
Well-known member
That violates the most basic elements of being a Libertarian. As such, whatever they call themselves, they're not Libertarians.
Libertarians, at the base of their "Theory", is about an indivduals actions, and owning the results, good and bad. The moment they start thinking about groups, and treating them collectively, they're not Libertarians.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
the thing is people will abandon their principles the moment it profits them the biggest majority of people say, "Rules for thee not for me." Why take responsibility for your own actions when you can place that responsibility of the group. You can take credit for the work other people did, while avoiding blame for your own mistakes
Simonbob
Well-known member
Still not Libertarians. Just lying.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
The Bryan Caplans of this world, I'm guessing, will argue from Libertarian premises for decidedly non-Libertarian outcomes. While, I suspect, laughing behind their hands at you naive Libertarians.
That being said, it's unrealistic to refuse to acknowledge "groups" - that's ignoring a basic factor of human behavior. It is normal and natural for the wellbeing of members of your own close family, for example, to matter more to you than that of complete strangers.
Simonbob
Well-known member
Former.
Colonisation created modern states with artifical borders,without elites able to rule them and with tribes instead of nations.It must end bad.
They should either do not colonize,or create nations there.At least - elites capable of ruling,not sergeants making putch after putch.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
IMO the new states might have worked if not for the world wars.
It is not that hard to brainwash a few tribals into a cohesive state if you have advanced tech and something to glue the society together, namely religion and civic consciousness.
Given a few more generations of assimilation and better treatment of the locals, and the prohibition and rolling back of the type of oligarchic Crony capitalist policies that left much of say, Vietnam's land left in the hands of French colonists, a lot of countries in Africa for example could have become far more heavily integrated into the Metropolis's culture and political system.
The caste system? Really, Simonbob has the right idea:
It's fine to think about a group, tbc, as long as the group is consensually and explicitly entered into, like a corporation, or even *gasp* a marxist run collective that's consensually entered into (which is why marxist complaints fall flat: people could do marxism if they wanted to, the issue is they want to force other people into it). But when you start forcing people into a group (see: castes), then you got an issue.
Most libertarians also believe in this. I'd say all, but the ideology doesn't demand it, followers just tend to, as they don't believe in a delusional "greater good" shit. They care instead about individual good to people who matter to them.
Agent23
Ни шагу назад!
A lot of linertarians have, IMHO gone full "Mug GDP" cult, and they are willing to disregard the fact that said GDP growth is financed by rampant deficit spending, money printing, malinvestment in bubble green tech forced by government dictate, and the importation of large numbers of low productivity, groupthink oriented democrat voters that cost the government more money.
I think Caplan joined that cult.
Measuring things by "muh GDP" sounds rather like "delusional greater good shit" to me.
Doomsought
Well-known member
The problem with GDP is that it includes services. Services do not create wealth, they redistribute it.