I liked this defense of free movement against the "threat" of cultural change by @donovanchoy at @libertarianism very much. From the impossibility of genuine preservation (left) to the defense of openness in the Kukathas invocation (right). 1/3 libertarianism.org/articles/cultu…
I've been dusting off some of my old open borders writings preparing for a new essay. This is very much in the spirit of what I was trying to write here: 2/3 openborders.info/blog/the-illus…
I was vibing along to the @donovanchoy piece when I was thrown out of my reverie by my old open borders nemesis: "keyhole solutions." The juxtaposition w/ Kukathas is interesting given his concern for the extent of control *over natives* that immigration restriction brings. 3/4
I once argued that keyhole sol'ns enable exploitation. I didn't think much then about how keyhole sol'ns increase gov't control. Kukathas points to difficulty of distinguishing migrants/natives & their close ties. Such regimes must impact natives too. 4/4 openborders.info/blog/the-open-…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I want to describe a phenomenon that partially explains the stickiness of hostility toward and misinformation about the whole suite of social justice concepts. Here's a THREAD from personal experience.
As a youngster in the late 90s/early 00s I read a lot of folks who would go on to become the "IDW". Dawkins, Shermer, Harris, Pinker, etc. This was my introduction to "intellectual" fare. I have no regrets about this, but it built a certain ideological momentum. 2/
Dawkins, to take one example, was a legit scientist—the Selfish Gene was one of the first "big books" that I read and it was excellent—who wrote beautifully, stoked my nascent atheism, and had some apparent authority both in his field and generally as a public intellectual. 3/
At first I thought this must have been a stirring community defense of the Adam Smith statue against removal. But, even better, it was a successful direct collective action against UK Immigration Enforcement's attempt to remove immigrants. Most impressive, Glasgow!!
What a curiously strongly worded tweet. Who are the good counter-examples? Adam Smith obviously. Condorcet, Lafayette, de Staël, Constant, Say. Does Paine count as a liberal? Who else?
Anyway I'm all in favor of dunking on liberals where they go wrong. Many liberals did defend slavery! Also imperialism, patriarchy, etc. But one of the more interesting things about reading the early liberals is how it was often *later* liberals who flubbed these issues.
.@HelenaRosenblat's Lost History of Liberalism and @Jennife31863712's Turn to Empire provide good material for the view that later liberals, partly due to gaining some actual power, lost their way on—from the perspective of we moderns—some crucial issues.
This is the greatest Star Wars thread of all time. @imaginmatrix reconceives the conflict as btwn the Council & Anakin over Anakin & Padmé's marriage and Anakin's revolutionary politics. Anakin is far more interesting on this telling.
In this thread I try to write a better ending for Rise of Skywalker. I still object to reintroducing Palpatine—more radical would've been *no* big baddie, but a reckoning with the Social Question—but if you gotta keep Palps, let Ben live & Rey go Dark.
It's no surprise I love both Star Wars and the #WheelOfTime: they have deep thematic resonances. In this thread I explore some of these. Happy #MayThe4th! cc #TwitterOfTime for this one.
My latest at @liberalcurrents expands my thoughts on the English and Kalla "Racial Equality Frames" study and the way liberal moderates seized on its results to counsel tip-toeing around racial justice. This is a mistake. THREAD liberalcurrents.com/scorched-earth…
.@mattyglesias's penchant for left-punching is irritating, but he's indispensable on issues very important to me: liberal housing/zoning reform & expanding freedom of movement. See @matthewdownhour's deservedly glowing review of One Billion Americans. 3/n liberalcurrents.com/liberalism-and…
I keep coming across this and I worry it's the latest iteration of "Let's not talk about race," which has historically given cover for ... not addressing racial inequality.
I'm in no position to question the research quality, and I don't. And yet here is a short THREAD.
The paper presents a racial justice framing for a handful of issues and compares their support against these framings: race-neutral, class, and racial justice + class.
So far so good, but what if in the real world there *is no such thing as a race-neutral framing?* 2/6
Suppose Democrats align to "stop making it all about race" as my white mother used to say. Well, Republicans *will* make it about race, by deploying either the dog whistle rhetoric of "welfare queens," "super predators," etc or the overt racism Trump dusted off. 3/6