Landsburgism: The Nadir of Economic Man

Posted by DissidentMan on April 14, 2005, 02:19 PM | #

The behaviour that landsburg would like to see, is simply a logical consequence of the bogus morality that already dominates public discourse. For years now, the newspapers, TV’s etc. have hammered home the idea that “racial discrimination” is immoral (but only if the beneficiaries are white). Certainly, “national discrimination” (i.e. protectionism) is a form of “racial discrimination” in a broad sense, because nation and race are dependent variables, which is something that Landsburg is implicitly acknowledging in his interview, (although he doubtless wishes for a world in which nation and race are independent).

Posted by ben tillman on April 14, 2005, 07:25 PM | #

In one case they’re people who share your nationality. In the other case, they’re people who share your race. Why is one a legitimate difference to discriminate and the other not?

Is Landsburg sure he wants to argue it that way?  He may not change opinion in the direction he wants to….

We may ask Landsburg:  why is it legitimate to discriminate in favor of one’s own children? 

Or better still:  why is it legitimate to discriminate in favor of ONESELF?

Where do those paychecks from the U. of Rochester go?  I assure you Assoc. Prof. Landsburg has never shared his resources with me! 

Landsburg presents this as a moral issue, and it is.  The linchpin of morality, however, is *reciprocity*.  The reason it is morally RIGHT, and indeed morally OBLIGATORY, to discriminate in favor of oneself, one’s children, one’s extended family, one’s local community, one’s nation, one’s race, one’s allies outside the race (or even outside the species), etc., is that the individuals and groups to whom Landsburg proposes the goyim sacrifice themselves are in fact discriminating in favor of themselves.

From an economic perspective, this principle of reciprocity is the most efficient way that things can be structured.  Each economic agent must look out for himself because the agent is the best judge of what he needs to keep himself going so as to be able to make his contribution to the economy.

From the perspective of evolutionary biology, reciprocal morality must be accepted because it is obviously maladaptive for one to accept a “moral system” that embodies a double standard that discriminates against oneself.  Because it is maladaptive to do so, those who manage not to do so will outcompete those who do (ceteris paribus), and thus there will always be organisms that pursue their self-interest by exploiting the double standard in their favor.  Landsburg’s tribe is Exhibit A.

There is simply no escaping the principle of reciprocity.  And this is one of the strengths of Salter’s book.  He is not an enthralling writer, nor is he much of a political philosopher, but his moral compass is accurate.  His proposal of “universal nationalism” is unassailable.

Posted by Effra on April 15, 2005, 06:55 AM | #

Gibson did quite a good job on Landsburg, but he could have asked ‘Is it fair to discriminate in favour of your own kith and kin, or your neighbours, against total strangers? If that kind of favouritism is OK, why is it so wrong to discriminate on behalf of your fellow countrymen (a wider definition of neighbourliness) or other members of your race (a wider definition of family)? Leaving aside pragmatic free-trade arguments, professor, does your idea of fairness leave any room for special preferences at all?’

That would be Peter Singer’s cue to chime in ‘What about the animals, you disgusting speciesist?’

Posted by John S Bolton on April 15, 2005, 01:06 PM | #

It also leaves out of account the fact that we are obliged to be loyal to our fellow citizens who are attacked by foreigners; a nation has to mean at least that much. Some interpretations of free trade would allow such aggression by foreigners against our fellow citizens.  Free trade in stolen goods is not a case of freedom, but the opposite. More generally, free competition is not an absolute universal. Our loyalty to fellow citizens, as when immigrants attack them by going on net public subsidy, must take first place, far above any wish for free competition, such as would include the questionable kinds.

Posted by John S Bolton on April 15, 2005, 01:15 PM | #

Further; there are some pawprints of the castroite new left on that scholars’ botched imitation of rational disputation. The attempt to say that only some violent racists could be against some indefensible policy, indicates by its irrational smearing approach that no real argument is available to the advocate of , in this case, free trade without the necessary caveats. The pattern is diagnostic of today’s academic level; racialize, smear, threaten violence, and hope that no one will say that this means that reason and moral philosophy cannot support the position for which you can offer no serious argument.

Posted by DissidentMan on April 15, 2005, 02:20 PM | #

That would be Peter Singer’s cue to chime in ‘What about the animals, you disgusting speciesist?’

In spite of what some fringe elements on the left have to say about speciesism, doctrinaire leftism is actually thoroughly humanocentric (hence specisist). Leftists believe that humans are exempt from evolutionary law and exist on some sort of flat evolutionary plateau. Therefore, Landsburg might conceivably be proud of his humanocentrism were the subject brought up. Population growth through continual immigration (“controlled” or not) will certainly have adverse consequences for wild animals.  I’m squishy enough to actually believe that wild animals and wild places have a place in the western world, but the likes of landsburg would have them squeezed out.