4 ms·

I expect there to continue to be multi-ethnic cities and neighborhoods within cities, which is a fairly common occurrence throughout history, particular in capi

I expect there to continue to be multi-ethnic cities and neighborhoods within cities, which is a fairly common occurrence throughout history, particular in capital cities of empires, which is what I would describe New York as. There is no doubt that some people (particularly smart people) highly value the diversity and cosmopolitanism that cities of this form provide. On the other hand, people who value high social trust and stronger social identity would probably prefer to living in more homogenous (and less urban) environments. It seems to me like the american continent, anyway, is large enough to give everyone what they would like, without either interfering with one another politically.

geofft 9y ago
I am getting the sense that you're saying that New York City is primarily a city of smart people who value cosmopolitanism and not of people who value high social trust and strong social identity. That might be the stereotype of certain parts of Manhattan (especially of people who - and I admit I'm one of them - have voluntarily moved to the city for work), but that's not the majority of New York City at all. Come and visit Harlem or Crown Heights or Flushing. Come and walk through the parts of Brooklyn with storefront signage in Hebrew and not English. Come and take a taxi and talk to the driver about social trust or social identity. Come and talk to people who have had family living here for generations. The evidence, as far as I can tell, is that multiculturalism is a perfectly stable approach, and people who say that we need cultural isolation are only saying that because of belief and not evidence. Of course the continent is big enough to support giving people what they want, whether or not they're rational to want it. But to the original topic of how to prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak, I don't think there's any reason to believe that dividing people by race to force an alliance of each race's strong and weak is going to be successful, or that avoiding multiculturalism is going to be necessary.
- quantumofmalice 9y ago
  Well, the neighborhoods you are discussing, which do have higher social trust, do have a strong ethnic identity, so I think that this may reinforce my point rather than hurt it. I must admit that I have a more pastoral and conflict-adverse personality, so the idea of New York as an ideal is difficult for me to comprehend. I'm OK with that: there are obviously many people to whom this idea is obvious as well. My long term conclusion is we should allow these types of folks to separate and establish different political units that satisfy these needs: some of these could be relatively ethnically homogeneous, some less so. I would expect, but am willing to admit this is speculation, that you would find higher trust and cross-class identity in the more homogeneous political units. I appreciate you taking the time to thoughtfully reply to my comments.
  - geofft 9y ago
    > I must admit that I have a more pastoral and conflict-adverse personality, so the idea of New York as an ideal is difficult for me to comprehend. I still don't get this. I don't think that NYC is a high-conflict place at all. I'm not sure I'd quite call it "pastoral," really, but the outer boroughs are much closer to medium-sized cities in the rest of the US than to Manhattan - houses with yards and garages, strip malls with large parking lots, etc. Sure, there are areas where you're surrounded by skyscrapers and enough bright lights to ensure the city never sleeps. But that's a pretty small part of the residential population of NYC. Or in other words, I think you'd be perfectly happy living here, given the preferences you've expressed, as long as you didn't live in Manhattan (and not wanting to live in Manhattan far from unusual!). If you find that merely being in a subway car or in line at a store with someone of a different race/culture uncomfortable, maybe NYC isn't the place for you, but I have no reason to believe from your comments that you're that sort of person. (And you might still prefer rural areas where there are acres of land between you and your closest neighbor - which is fine! I'm not saying that we should cover the world in New York Cities. I'm just saying that it's empirical evidence that multiculturalism is stable, and not just for people who voluntarily choose in adulthood to move to a dense cosmopolitan city.) I think you're right that there is a lot more informal, self-directed ethnic/cultural affinity than I was selling. But none of that has any level of structure that gets anywhere close to ethno-nationalism, with independent political entities and representation and policy between the ethnic enclaves. There are things like Hatzolah, yes, but there is one NYPD for all neighborhoods. There's one housing policy (and one affordable housing lottery). There's one minimum wage. There's one policy on how much to cooperate with ICE. And so forth. And there's one set of elections for influencing those things. (I would actually argue that there isn't enough political autonomy for the boroughs, but for the reason that smaller political entities are less prone to corruption and more likely to give opportunities for meaningful representation, not because different boroughs have independent and distinct cultures that require different political goals. I don't think we should have, say, two different police departments in Crown Heights for the black and Jewish communities, but I do think the police department in Crown Heights should be a smaller entity - with a smaller budget and smaller political influence - than the NYPD as it is today, possibly a Brooklyn Police Department, possibly even smaller. So I'd agree with your point above regarding size/scale, but I don't think that division on cultural or ethnic grounds is required.) I'd believe the argument that NYC doesn't offer evidence that people will voluntarily give up ethnic/cultural identities as a way of living day-to-day. But I think it does offer strong evidence that people with these separate identities can be happy, successful, and peaceful with a single government.

geofft 9y ago

I am getting the sense that you're saying that New York City is primarily a city of smart people who value cosmopolitanism and not of people who value high social trust and strong social identity. That might be the stereotype of certain parts of Manhattan (especially of people who - and I admit I'm one of them - have voluntarily moved to the city for work), but that's not the majority of New York City at all. Come and visit Harlem or Crown Heights or Flushing. Come and walk through the parts of Brooklyn with storefront signage in Hebrew and not English. Come and take a taxi and talk to the driver about social trust or social identity. Come and talk to people who have had family living here for generations. The evidence, as far as I can tell, is that multiculturalism is a perfectly stable approach, and people who say that we need cultural isolation are only saying that because of belief and not evidence. Of course the continent is big enough to support giving people what they want, whether or not they're rational to want it. But to the original topic of how to prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak, I don't think there's any reason to believe that dividing people by race to force an alliance of each race's strong and weak is going to be successful, or that avoiding multiculturalism is going to be necessary.

quantumofmalice 9y ago
Well, the neighborhoods you are discussing, which do have higher social trust, do have a strong ethnic identity, so I think that this may reinforce my point rather than hurt it. I must admit that I have a more pastoral and conflict-adverse personality, so the idea of New York as an ideal is difficult for me to comprehend. I'm OK with that: there are obviously many people to whom this idea is obvious as well. My long term conclusion is we should allow these types of folks to separate and establish different political units that satisfy these needs: some of these could be relatively ethnically homogeneous, some less so. I would expect, but am willing to admit this is speculation, that you would find higher trust and cross-class identity in the more homogeneous political units. I appreciate you taking the time to thoughtfully reply to my comments.
- geofft 9y ago
  > I must admit that I have a more pastoral and conflict-adverse personality, so the idea of New York as an ideal is difficult for me to comprehend. I still don't get this. I don't think that NYC is a high-conflict place at all. I'm not sure I'd quite call it "pastoral," really, but the outer boroughs are much closer to medium-sized cities in the rest of the US than to Manhattan - houses with yards and garages, strip malls with large parking lots, etc. Sure, there are areas where you're surrounded by skyscrapers and enough bright lights to ensure the city never sleeps. But that's a pretty small part of the residential population of NYC. Or in other words, I think you'd be perfectly happy living here, given the preferences you've expressed, as long as you didn't live in Manhattan (and not wanting to live in Manhattan far from unusual!). If you find that merely being in a subway car or in line at a store with someone of a different race/culture uncomfortable, maybe NYC isn't the place for you, but I have no reason to believe from your comments that you're that sort of person. (And you might still prefer rural areas where there are acres of land between you and your closest neighbor - which is fine! I'm not saying that we should cover the world in New York Cities. I'm just saying that it's empirical evidence that multiculturalism is stable, and not just for people who voluntarily choose in adulthood to move to a dense cosmopolitan city.) I think you're right that there is a lot more informal, self-directed ethnic/cultural affinity than I was selling. But none of that has any level of structure that gets anywhere close to ethno-nationalism, with independent political entities and representation and policy between the ethnic enclaves. There are things like Hatzolah, yes, but there is one NYPD for all neighborhoods. There's one housing policy (and one affordable housing lottery). There's one minimum wage. There's one policy on how much to cooperate with ICE. And so forth. And there's one set of elections for influencing those things. (I would actually argue that there isn't enough political autonomy for the boroughs, but for the reason that smaller political entities are less prone to corruption and more likely to give opportunities for meaningful representation, not because different boroughs have independent and distinct cultures that require different political goals. I don't think we should have, say, two different police departments in Crown Heights for the black and Jewish communities, but I do think the police department in Crown Heights should be a smaller entity - with a smaller budget and smaller political influence - than the NYPD as it is today, possibly a Brooklyn Police Department, possibly even smaller. So I'd agree with your point above regarding size/scale, but I don't think that division on cultural or ethnic grounds is required.) I'd believe the argument that NYC doesn't offer evidence that people will voluntarily give up ethnic/cultural identities as a way of living day-to-day. But I think it does offer strong evidence that people with these separate identities can be happy, successful, and peaceful with a single government.