Where racist prejudices grow from and what liberals should actually pay attention to

Voluntarist, Bitarch

There is one fact: the vast majority of people do not commit and take no part in violent crime. Despite the prejudices that some people hold toward representatives of other ethnic and linguistic groups, peoples, races, sexual and other minorities, it is pointless to argue with this fact even in their case. However, why do such prejudices arise in the first place, who is to blame for them, and whom should liberals seeking to eradicate them focus on first?

The proportion of people involved in violent crime is very small relative to society as a whole, but through their actions, they cause a great deal of harm and thereby attract an enormous amount of attention. With such behavior, a minority of violent offenders ruins the reputation of entire groups of people to which they themselves belong, in the eyes of representatives of other groups and society in general. Therefore, liberals dreaming of building a harmonious multicultural society should first and foremost pay attention to these violent offenders, since their presence only creates problems and hinders the achievement of an open, tolerant society with a normal attitude toward the peaceful representatives of minorities, who constitute the vast majority among them. Mere accusations of others of racism and other vices can do little to help them in reality, as long as the real root of the problem they wish to solve is simply ignored.

In considering this problem, we cannot do without an understanding of the theory of the violence inhibition mechanism, according to which individuals capable of committing violent attacks simply suffer from a disorder that prevents them from experiencing aversion and resistance to causing harm to other people. Of course, such a disorder requires the development and application of an effective therapy that restores inhibitory control over aggression. But until such therapy exists, it is at least worth separating violent individuals from everyone else. For example, societies that freely accept migrants should, both for their own good and for the good of the majority of the migrants themselves, test them for malfunctions in the violence inhibitor and the capacity to commit violence, and not admit that smaller portion of them in whom such issues are discovered.

There are no “bad peoples,” “criminal peoples,” “violent peoples,” or other such nonsense that can be heard from people with racist views. But in any people, unfortunately, a minority of people capable of easily committing violence is still present in one quantity or another. And it is this minority that attracts the most attention and most severely damages the reputation of their own peoples. Therefore, liberals should begin to solve the problem of prejudice toward minorities precisely with them. And, of course, it would also be helpful to communicate to everyone the fact that the vast majority of people do not commit violence and that the problem lies only in a small number of violent offenders.

Liberal Archipelago

In my favorite Hyde Park Library, a book was recently uploaded that few people are likely to read, if only because of the disgusting format (a scan of a paper book) and its massive size (nearly five hundred pages). I am talking about “Liberal Archipelago” by Chandran Kukathas. However, you will surely have enough patience to read the book’s preface written by Vadim Novikov.

I won’t lie, I also only managed to get through the preface and skimmed the rest of the book, mainly to make sure that it was at least written in a digestible style. Yes, the style is fine; it’s readable.

What is interesting about the ideas presented by Kukathas? He analyzes liberal notions of justice (Rawls’ veil of ignorance principle and the like) and concludes that while this is all theoretically very attractive, in practice, it will still be impossible to impose uniform concepts on people. And it shouldn’t be done. According to Kukathas, the most critical basic freedom is the freedom to exit a community. The most critical liberal virtue is tolerance. If you truly and sincerely believe that your ethical principles are the best, prove it through peaceful competition rather than imposing them by force.

This refers back to my recent post about the US Civil War. Yes, slavery offends the sense of justice. But the attempt to rid the Southern states of slavery through laws passed in Congress led to secession, secession led to war, and as a result, no one escaped unscathed.

Kukathas concludes that a society consistent with liberal principles would be one where the question of power is resolved by a social contract, but where this contract is entered into by each specific person within each specific community they belong to and from which they can freely exit. This is the same idea of contractual jurisdictions frequently discussed by libertarians. So, if you need more arguments in their favor—you know what else is worth reading.