There is a raging debate over open borders and its twin, multiculturalism. Devout libertarians love open borders (see for example my favorite economist over at Cafe Hayek). Professional politicians and some big-industry types love open borders (see for example this UK article). For libertarians the argument revolves around “freedom”–but only the freedoms of certain people. For the professional politicians and big-industry types the argument revolves around economic expansion–but only of the type they can envision.
Let me approach these twin issues from an expanding viewpoint of personal freedom.
You live in a house and want to throw a small party: you will invite one other person. Should you be allowed to exclude anyone you want to exclude for whatever reason you want to exclude them? I think the answer is clearly yes. If you happen to be Chinese and you do not invite a specific White person, you are not a racist, not a caucasian-phobe, not intolerant. You just prefer a certain person to be in your house over that specific White person. You should not be required by law to admit a random person to your house.
Okay, you live in a house and want to invite a few dozen people to a party. If you happen to be Black and all the people you invite are also Black, does that mean you are a racist, White-hating, intolerant person? No, you just prefer the company of people whom you can relate to. You should not be required by law to host a multi-cultural party.
Okay, you start a small business and want to hire several people to help you. Should you be allowed to include whomever you want for whatever reason you want, even though that means you are going to exclude a whole lot of people for random and maybe even irrelevant reasons? I think the answer is obvious. You are going to spend a lot more time with these people than you would if you were just throwing a one-time party at your house. In fact this is like a continuous, long-term party.
I know I have just lost a lot of people here. We’ve been brow-beaten by professional politicians to think that business owners are always evil. But on the way to another point I am making in this post I want you to see that being a business owner is like throwing a large party in your house (except with an expanded purpose, but I’ll get to that in a different post).
Now, think about your neighbors. If you live in the city, should your neighborhood be allowed to exclude people who want to pour dirt in their front porches and grow crops there; or people who want to hang their laundry from ropes in their windows; or people who tell you right up from that in their culture the smell of fish inside and outside the house is considered a luxury? Or if you live in the country should you be allowed to exclude people who want to subdivide their own property and build high-rise condominiums and a thousand-seat opera house?
The point of all these stories is that people tend to congregate among people like themselves and they will take active steps to ensure that they do so. This could be considered a principle of human nature (see some other observations about fundamental principles of human nature in two other posts here and here). Government coercion cannot beat this trait out of us. Even liberal New Yorkers who profess a profound belief in diversity (I’d call it a religious belief) hate to be around people who disagree with them!
Freedom of association actually leads to gated communities and zoning laws, not unlimited diversity. Hence gays flock to San Francisco and Provincetown, while simple people congregate in the hollers of the Appalachian Mountains. There is comfort and trust in being able to identify with your neighbors and coworkers, and that leads to peacefulness and productivity. Intellectuals and idiots cannot use the coercion of laws to entice a different reaction out of human beings.
Here is my final question of this post: Should a people with a common heritage and mono-culture be permitted the right to take actions to protect those things they hold dear, or should people outside those closed communities be permitted the right to coerce the mono-culture into opening their houses and yielding to multiculturalism?
If you are a business owner in the USA, the answer has already been dictated to you: Your company’s employee roster had better reflect racial and ethnic diversity or you may be subjected to legal sanctions.
But racial and ethnic diversity can be muted by something more powerful…a fact that progressives have long ago discovered and which you should learn as well.
To be continued….