It is hard for a person to affirm his conviction to freedom until his belief has been challenged and then came out unconvinced of any need to silent dissenting others. It is based on this premise that I celebrate diversity.
My celebration of diversity must not be construed as an advocate for multiculturalism, where the state embarks on active policy encouraging diversity. The policy of active promotion of multicultural society goes against organic processes, which is closely associated to the idea of spontaneous order.
A peaceful multicultural society needs to have tolerance embedded in it and it is highly likely that more often than not, only organic processes are capable of bringing about tolerance of differences organically. In contrast, multiculturalism inorganically introduces or enforces multicultural idea into a society that may or not may be ready for diverse society or even a change in the makeup of the society. There is an element of coercion in multiculturalism.
Inorganic processes are applied to hasten processes. The high rate of change however gives individuals little opportunity to adapt. With multiculturalism, it is a guaranteed fact that there will be individuals rebelling against it. When that happened, a multicultural society resulting from multiculturalism will face challenges which including excessive xenophobia.
Nobody with liberty in his mind has the right to change a society from the top, forcing individuals to in live an environment he does not wish to be in. Any change can only be real and sustainable if it comes from the bottom in which the individuals themselves introduce the change. Organic change contrary to inorganic one allows adaptation and evolution of outlook and attitude though admittedly, the changes come only painfully slow.
For this reason, policy of multiculturalism has to be rejected.
It has to be understood that the term “multicultural society” describes the state of a society while “multiculturalism” is a set of policies encouraging the inorganic creation of multicultural society. Moreover, multicultural society can exist without multiculturalism through organic processes.
Therefore, my rejection of multiculturalism does not translate into rejection of multicultural society. Indeed, I cherish multicultural society for the diversity it brings.
To a large extent, individuals are shaped by experience. Each experience gives rise to unique worldviews which in turn affect a person’s thoughts and actions.
A diverse society is exactly diverse because of each member of the society underwent different path to reach wherever they are at the moment. This naturally gives rise to difference in opinion.
For those professing belief in liberty, a multicultural society or more generally a diverse society offers an opportunity to challenge one’s belief in liberty. It offers an opportunity to prove one’s conviction in liberty. It is only in a diverse society, especially in a realm of intellectual diversity, opinion allergic to each other could exist and advocated for with high intensity and frequency. Such society is the perfect environment for training in freedom.
A true believer of liberty would not initiate any kind of coercion to silent the others due to difference in opinion, even in the heat of an argument. Until one passes that test, a person can never truly discover whether the person believes in liberty.
4 replies on “[1750] Of a diverse society is a training ground for liberty”
Dear veon szu,
No, I don’t support state-backed affirmative action.
“Nobody with liberty in his mind has the right to change a society from the top, forcing individuals to in live an environment he does not wish to be in. Any change can only be real and sustainable if it comes from the bottom in which the individuals themselves introduce the change. Organic change contrary to inorganic one allows adaptation and evolution of outlook and attitude though admittedly, the changes come only painfully slow.
For this reason, policy of multiculturalism has to be rejected” you argued.
Based on the above statement, can I safely assume that you do not agree with any form of social engineering? How about affirmative action that not necessary confine to political and economic fields, but also cultural?
Education system has always been seen as a tool to achieve national unity (languages, culture etc). would be your view on this?
Pardon for posing so many questions and hope that you won’t find this a burden. I just eager to explore the above issues from the perspectives that you put forward in your posting above.
Thanks.
I’m just saying that theories/beliefs need to be backed up with experience/reputation. I’ve seen a lot of people professing liberty but when a situation calls for a decision, liberty was not even in their consideration. Experience/reputation is likely the only way to filter “on paper” libertarians from true libertarians.
Answering your question, I don’t see how this directly relates to morality and freedom. In any case, the non-aggression axiom should do the trick.
Finally, I just want to clarify not resorting to coercion silent to others’ opinion does not mean no criticism or succumbing to others coercive force on us or agreeing to it. In no way I’m suggesting that negative rights need to be sacrificed.
Well, by your standards I make a poor libertarian. How do you reconcile morality and freedom (when different people subscribe to different moral standards), and the need for the rule of law and its enforcement?
The problem again comes down to MAN himself.