On Multiculturalism

Throughout Europe, multiculturalism is taking a rattling. Some on the far-right are stating attempts at multiculturalism 'have failed' while even those on the left push for harder restraints on immigration. Citizens of western nations speak in hushed tones of the foreign cultures that they see taking taking hold and becoming increasingly vocal in their countries.

It's a perfectly human reaction to fear the unfamiliar, and certainly not irrational. The problem comes when we turn to the wrong source to learn about a culture, and we start to see it through prejudiced eyes. Or worse still, a refusal to learn whatsoever, perhaps the most irrational response. What citizens should do is learn about a foreign culture straight from a source- two things may then happen.

We may draw comparisons with our own cultural values and decide there are more points and values we agree with and disagree. But we may decide there are major points of a foreign culture we not only disagree with but entirely deplore, and it would be foolish to ignore such practises for the sake of tolerance.

What about the BNP in Britain then? They promote fear through their notion of an 'Islamafication' of Britain, sharia law is certainly at odds with British values and greatly objectionable.  It's important to note that their scaremonger campaign takes place in areas of the country where ethnic diversity and multiculturalism is almost non-existent. The mere presence of BNP leaders in more multicultural areas such as London resulted in a hail of eggs thrown in their direction.

But what about the closed immigrant, who moves from their homeland to a new nation, but is unenthusiastic about learning about or adapting this new culture? Refusing to learn the local language, living within a closed community with only others from the same culture, that is an inexcusable lifestyle.

Immigrants should embrace citizenship (here in Canada they vote dis-proportionately highly, setting a needed example) and it really shouldn't mean compromising their native culture. In the few areas of life where civic virtues and native virtues conflict, for reasons of social solidarity national citizenship should always take priority.
I've seen and experienced multiculturalism enrich nations, and I think the typical citizen embraces a multitude of cultures and finds nothing wrong only to the point where they feel their own culture is at stake. That fear should be denied basis.

Essay on Equality

Only the most prudent monetarist or libertarian could possibly claim that inequality as a positive impact on society. Even those who give way to the clear effects of inequality on society still argue that it does not make economic or moral sense for government and institutions to favour the less well off in a society.

Basic traditional arguments call for logical utility, for instance. The poor need the resources more, and what is a little loss for a millionaire is a huge gain for someone on a  low income level. 

Egalitarians argue in the name of a hypothetical social contract, that starting from an original position of equality form behind a veil of ignorance, human beings would want to be born into as equal a society as possible. The sole purpose of inequality here would be to provide incentives, and for incentives alone. 

Michael Sandel, in the name of a more Aristotelian communitarianism, argues that inequality undermines public services as those who do not use them are less willing to pay for them, and undermines the public solidarity that is necessary for democracy to properly function. As citizens live increasingly separate lives, in separate gated communities, we lose a sense of shared citizenship. Another role of public services, for Sandel, is not so that they may be left to those who have no alternative, but to bring citizens out of gated communities and separate lives into common spaces.

The Spirit Level

This argument was strengthened by the book, The Spirit Level. It's become a sort of left-wing pro-equality bible. The book examines trends among nations with greater and lesser equality levels (regardless of their overall wealth) in relation to social trends such as suicide rates, teenage pregnancy, happiness, crime rates, even mental health, and links them all to how equal the society is. 

Naturally the claims of the book were met with immediate right-wing protests, many saying the links are ill-supported, that mistakes have been made, no-one has yet had the nerve to call it a lie. I have read the book, it is very professionally and academically written and leaves little room for argument for those who have read it. The true clincher of the book is it's notion the greater equality even socially helps the better off in a society, not just the less fortunate.

Besides, pro-market campaigners have yet to come out with a book or study that links inequality to social good. That would impress me.

Meritocracy

Some economic commentators who favour more equality are still today proposing meritocratic options, a society that helps those less well of, while not 'penalising or restricting' the wealth or income in any way of those who are top earners. They turn a blind eye to Britain, whose New Labour government had eleven years of prosperity (before the crash) to practise economic meritocracy at it's fullest; helping those at the lowest incomes while keeping top tax brackets disproportionately low. 

This failed in two regards; firstly, income inequality did rise during the decade, not fall. Second, the academic John Curtis conducted studies showing the proportion of people supporting government redistribution fell from half the population to less than a third of the population, and that the nation overall was less sympathetic to those on welfare.

Conclusion


There really is no justifiable reason for tax brackets for the top 2% of earners to be less than the bottom 20%. Some argue in the name of savings and investment. Investment dragons know better how to spend and invest their savings than do politicians. They argue that those possessing that much money by nature possess the very resources they need to dodge taxes. The second argument is perhaps the greatest. Extensive lobbying and everyday corruption among politicians are well publicised. But even the sheer scale of some of the money invested towards bribes and lobbying by private interest groups particularly in the USA.  It's hard to argue that there is no limit to what an individual should be allowed to make, particularly in a time of deficits and a private sector that failing to fill the gap left by the public sector cuts.

When asked in a magazine poll, 19% of Americans said they were in the top 1% of earners. Incidentally, in a separate poll, 81% of Americans said the would support raising taxes on the top 1% bracket.