Diversity is a Regular (Not a Sacred) Cow

Here’s something that’s probably true: no two people experience the world the same way, and members of groups of races, genders, and sexual orientations are more likely to experience the world more similarly to each other than to members of other groups. Although it’s certainly debatable, let’s call this a fact and name it the ID Principle.

Based on my understanding of what today’s postmodernists believe, I imagine that they would accept the ID Principle enthusiastically.

By “today’s postmodernists,” I mean the individuals who are preoccupied with identity politics. This includes two opposing groups of activists. One group has their mind set on deconstructing institutions of power that are dominated by certain identities, especially straight, white men. They abhor the supposed over-representation of straight, white men in politics and the corporate world most fervently. Members of this group are often referred to as Social Justice Warriors.

White Nationalists and their ilk share the SJW philosophy, but are fighting for the other team. They see the diversification of “their” institutions as a threat and would prefer to keep them in the hands of individuals who share their identity.

While these groups appear to be diametrically opposed, they are actually one in the same. Both have a strong belief in collective identity and want some to dominate others. It’s obvious that they believe experience and identity are intertwined.

The difference between these two groups and me is that I don’t think the ID Principle is important or interesting. While White Nationalists and SJWs found their worldviews on the existence of collective identity, I list it near the bottom of things that matter to me. It is far more important that individuals raised in rigid, isolated communities still have the potential to break away from local norms and accomplish unique and extraordinary feats. That dissent and apostasy exist everywhere inspires me far more than that the masses are often frozen in a rut of groupthink.

This brings me to a paradigm that many powerful, modern-day institutions world refuse to entertain divergence from at all: is diversity a good thing?

From Silicon Valley to nearly every college campus in America, diversity and inclusion are presumed to be necessities in the creation of a positive and virtuous environment. Heads of departments tasked with pursuing greater diversity and inclusion are regularly paid six-figure salaries, illustrating how highly they value diversity

Former Google engineer James Damore famously challenged the methods used by diversity promoters in his workplace while simultaneously voicing support for diversity in general. He was subsequently fired in a high-profile manner. This too makes it obvious how dearly the pursuit of diversity is worshiped at Google and other powerful and influential establishments.

Rather than address the broad topic of whether diversity is good in general, I will aim my inquiry at a more precise target and try to think my way to the end of it: Does racial diversity have any inherent economic benefits? And when I say racial, I mean White, Black, Asian, and what have you. I don’t mean culture, religion, or anything else that is a result of our environments and societies. I’m talking about the fictional genetic groups that we are foolishly lumped into.

My short answer to this question is yes, racial diversity has inherent economic benefits.

Imagine the garment industry in a racially homogenous society. As an American living in Thailand, I have experienced something like this up close. When shopping for clothes, I rarely find anything that fits. An extra-large t-shirt in Thailand fits me like a medium back home. The selection of shoes I have to choose from is extremely limited as well although my size-11 feet don’t appear to be particularly gigantic. Boxer-briefs in my size are nowhere to be found, and it took me several weeks to procure a motorbike helmet that I could fit around my noggin.

Because of this, I wait for my annual trips to the US to do the bulk of my clothes shopping. The Thai baht I earn are converted into dollars, and those dollars return to America.

But what if there were a larger number of White and Black people here in Thailand? I imagine that one or more of several interesting things might happen:

  • A local manufacturer could notice opportunity in the marketplace and begin to make larger sizes available
  • Retailers could decide to import larger clothes from abroad and sell them locally
  • White and Black residents could start their own clothing lines

Any or all of these occurrences would bring about economic benefits:

  • More currency would be spent in Thailand
  • Thailand would become more attractive to foreign investors and visitors
  • Greater production of clothing, especially larger clothing, means merchants sell more materials used to make clothing and more jobs are subsequently created
  • A diversified supply means a more robust supply
  • The presence of new kinds of clothing can inspire innovation

The same story could be told in other major industries such as medicine.

I grow out my mustache every “Movember.” As a school teacher, I see it as a fun way to raise awareness for men’s health issues like testicular cancer. After I bit of research prior to one Movember in Thailand, I found that testicular cancer is far rarer among Asian and Black men than White men.

This likely means that Thai hospitals are less prepared to deal with testicular cancer patients than those in the US or Europe. With greater racial diversity, doctors and hospitals would probably be better prepared to deal with ailments that occur in different levels of frequency among the races. This would also benefit the individuals who suffer from health issues that are uncommon among their racial groups. Further positive effects could be accidental discoveries made when experimenting with medicines to treat a more diverse array of illnesses. Many medicines and other products are invented this way.

If my hypotheses are correct, racial diversity has real and inherent economic benefits.

SJW obsession with diversity ignores the actual benefits that diversity could bring about and instead focuses on belligerent social change. It is ironic that their crusade for diversity is for such petty ends when it could be pursued reasonably. And by pursuing diversity with hostile intentions, White Nationalist groups are better able to legitimize their claims that their race is under attack.

These same SJWs also promote a concept called intersectionality which argues that being in more than one minority group simultaneously (such as a black female or a homosexual immigrant) results in increased oppression and discrimination, which must be recognized.

I wish these SJWs would take their logic to its most extreme conclusion and realize that each individual belongs to infinite minority groups and is oppressed and discriminated against constantly as a result. If they realize that each of us is fighting a unique and arduous battle in the game of life, maybe they’ll notice that they are no better than the White Nationalists they hate, and maybe we’ll all learn to get along.

***

If you enjoyed this post, please follow me at www.howtocureyourliberalism.com. Also check out my podcast on iTunes  and like my Facebook page.

Diversity is a Regular (Not a Sacred) Cow

The Trump behind the Curtain

The big reveal at the end of The Wizard of Oz is that there is no Wizard of Oz. Behind the curtain, there is only a man, and a humbug of a man at that.

It seems to me that President Trump, whether intentionally or not, is revealing a very Libertarian truth: that the government, particularly the federal government, doesn’t matter as much as some would have us believe.

The first evidence I can present to you is that, despite the federal government recently being shut down for three days, just about everything in America and the world bumbled along as charmingly and imperfectly as it always does. To be fair, the federal government being “shut down” is far less serious than it sounds. Only non-essential government functions are suspended, an admission of lack of necessity I wish more people would catch on to. Either way, everything was fine. The markets didn’t even react.

Another example is the Paris Climate Accord. As Syria and Nicaragua have officially joined the agreement, the United States is now the lone nation in the world to be absent after President Trump’s reneging of US participation. And have the doomsday predictions of Climate Alarmists come to fruition? Not even close.

In fact, the United States of America is the world leader in carbon emissions reductions. Thanks to the magic of the free market, the dawn of hydraulic fracturing has shifted the US energy sector away from coal and towards cleaner and more efficient natural gas production and usage.

What’s more is that a new, landmark study suggests that the Armageddon narrative surrounding Climate Change is verifiably incorrect. While Global Warming is certainly occurring and has the potential to cause harm, there is no scientific evidence that the end of the world is upon us (I have made it clear that this is my position on Global Warming many, many times).

But there’s more. Just as Toto exposed the man behind the curtain, Trump has revealed the man behind the net… net neutrality, that is.

It was really only a few weeks ago that FCC head Ajit Pai was worrying about protestors ringing his and his family’s necks for undoing Obama-era internet regulations. We were told that this was the end of the internet as we know it, and, well, a whole lot more bologna than that. But has anything changed? Or is everything bumbling along as it always does?

Did the Dakota Access Pipeline kill you? Are the tax cuts bringing the global economy to its knees? Are Title IX reforms allowing rape to flourish on college campuses?

Donald Trump may have Libertarians and other limited-government proponents like me excited about the aforementioned deregulations, but the president is no laissez-faire hero. The worst of what the president has done is just that: what he has done, not what he has undone.

Putting in place sanctions on Russia, North Korea, and reauthorizing sanctions on Cuba make the world a poorer and more dangerous place. His immigration restrictions are both inhumane and futile, and will wind up being a cost without a benefit. His support for increased military funding is completely unnecessary and will only lead to long-term financial woes. And his recent decision to place tariffs on imported washing machines and solar panels excuses US manufacturers for making inferior products and will force American consumers to foot the bill.

The bottom line is that non-Libertarians, especially those on the progressive side of the political spectrum, need to start taking a more measured and skeptical approach to government, particularly the US federal government.

How much of this $4 trillion behemoth do we really need?

I do not hate President Trump the way many left-wingers, Conservatives, and my fellow Libertarians do. This is probably because I feel that he is no worse or probably even a bit of a step up from the Wicked Witches of Texas and Hawaii who came before him. But even on his best days, I can see as clear as day that Trump is not leading us down the yellow brick road that will take us home.

To those of you most enraged by our president’s behavior and ethics, please reconsider using Trump as the center of your political paradigm. He’s nothing more than a symptom of the real disease: big government.

(And, no, I’m not sorry about all these hacky Wizard of Oz references.)

***

If you enjoyed this post, please follow me at www.howtocureyourliberalism.com. Also check out my podcast on iTunes  and like my Facebook page.

The Trump behind the Curtain