FAIR Perspectives Ep. 28 - Anarchism, Feminism, and Open Borders w/ Bryan Caplan

#beingprohuman #fairperspectives #bryancaplan #feminism #equality #angeleduardo #melissachen #womenempowerment #men #anarchy #liberal #socialism
Today, we speak with Bryan Caplan. Bryan is an American economist at George Mason University, and the New York Times best selling author of many books, including The Myth of The Rational Voter, Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids, The Case Against Education, Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration, and most recently, Don't Be A Feminist. He's also the editor in chief writer for the blog Bet On It and has published in the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and many more publications. In this episode, we discuss anarcho capitalism, and how we will work in our society. Bryan's book, Don't Be A Feminist, the advantages and disadvantages of being a man versus being a woman, Bryan's argument for open borders, the burden of immigration on the welfare state, and much more.
Join the pro-human movement at FairForAll.org/JoinUs & follow us on social media!
Twitter: / fairforall_org
Facebook: / foundation-a. .
Instagram: / fairforall_. .
LinkedIn: / foun. .
Listen to the podcast on:
Apple: apple.co/3us7tOm
Spotify: spoti.fi/3J6NCrM
Website: fairperspective...
Follow Bryan Caplan on:
Twitter: / bryan_caplan
Website: www.bcaplan.com/
Substack: betonit.substa...
The Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism (FAIR) is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, and promoting a common culture based on fairness, understanding and humanity.

[@laaneychoonz1330]

Excellent interview. I really enjoy Professor Caplan branching out and using a reasoned, quantified and logical economist view on many of these pertinent issues of our time. Keep it up!

[@JasonArentz]

Excellent! One of your best.

[@phleschbubble]

With regards to gender inequality and feminism, there are two very important issues that you didn't really fully delve into: Firstly, probably the biggest advantage that women have is that we are all far more concerned about the safety and well being of women compared to that of men. The flipside of this coin is that we all have an empathy gap against men - we really don't care about men's safety and well being. This is a *systemic* gender inequality which is so much a part of the fabric of society that we can't even see it clearly - we just take it for granted. It not only affects our views about men as a whole, it deeply affects the lives of men on an individual basis, and like how men and women treat each other within romantic relationships, and how we raise our own children. Boys are raised to be emotionally stoic, independent, competitive, risk-taking, and are more likely to be harshly punished, and there are both costs and benefits to being raised this way. It doesn't take much imagination to see how, for example, this is why men are 4x more likely to commit suicide. Hypocritically, feminism is exploiting this patriarchal, chivalrous, benevolent sexism - especially from men. Few things make a man feel more manly than coming to the aid of a damsel in distress. The louder that feminists cry "victim!", the more it elicits this benevolent sexism towards women in all of us, which allows feminists to get away with wildly exaggerated claims about women's victimhood, like the false, but generally held belief that 1 in 5 women will be raped. The flipside of this is that many of these claims are simultaneously unfairly vilifying men - which makes us care *even less* about men's safety and well being - why should we care about men if 1 in 5 of them is a rapist, who is earning more than women for the same work, and trying to take about their abortion rights? So not only is feminism actually *exploiting* aspects of patriarchy, it is also making us *less* empathic towards men, which is pretty fucked up, IMO. That's a major conflict of interest. The other thing is that we can't talk about differences between men's and women's success and status in society without taking a broader view of what success and status are, and why we have social hierarchies in the first place. Originally it really was only men who climbed social hierarchies (and women who rode their backs), and that is because the fundamental purpose of social hierarchies is to measure a man's ability to be an effective provider and protector of a woman, and her children. If women were indifferent to a man's status, then no man would ever feel the need to seek greater status. But the reality is that men's status hierarchies are largely designed by, and heavily curated by, women themselves, and always have been. We are a sexually selective species and women are the primary selectors - men have to navigate the obstacle courses that women design, or else they are "incels", which means that they are essentially irrelevant to society. If women are the "sex objects" of men's desires, then men are "success objects" of women's desires. So the fundamental purpose of men trying to achieve greater status is to improve his chances at finding a mate, or finding a higher quality mate. But even though women are now climbing these status hierarchies independent of men, they're still almost always seeking men who are at least at the same status level, or greater. Since women can now improve their statuses independent of men, and many are doing so, that means that the pool of eligible men for them is increasingly diminishing - especially since nearly 2/3rds of uni graduates are now women. It will be "interesting" to see how our society solves these problems. I see a lot of frozen eggs that will remain unthawed.

[@annarboriter]

Just write: #gynocentrism

[@dgh5760]

Life isn't now nor ever will be "fair" in the estimation of all people. And so what? We all have disadvantages and advantages and there will never be equality in opportunities or outcomes. Trying to achieve that is a waste of time and is not worth consideration. We are all dealt a different hand and it is up to us to make the best of the hand we are dealt. And we need to have supports to some degree to make sure no one is starving or unhoused through no fault of their own. Other than that, we need to be accepting of the differences between all of us.

[@nonmagicmike723]

Both men and women have their own sets of privileges; it's just that the female ones are rarely talked about. Just to give you an example. When I put an ad looking for a roommate a few years back, I got a number of responses, and, in them, the women always say, "I'm female" while the men never bring up their gender. Why? Because the women know being female advantages them in their search and the men know being male disadvantages them.

[@nonmagicmike723]

@L Alexander Because men have a reputation for being louder and messier than females in their living habits. They're also more likely to smoke and drink, as well as leave bad odors behind them. Doesn't mean dudes don't stand a chance. Guys who want someone to hang out with are better off with a man as a roommate, while those who just want a nearly invisible co-dweller that doesn't smell bad are better off with a female. For the record, I eventually took a guy, but that's only because he offered to pay more.

[@jonaskoelker]

@lalexander1144 it shouldn't but does.

[@basedmathh]

The hosts point on Singapore didn't seem very well thought out, 'it has industrial policy therefore that's how free markets work'...that or they work in spite of that. That's like saying farms didn't exist before the USDA subsidized corn.

[@johnwatts8346]

a woman simply cannot ever be neil armstrong or henry ford or mick jagger etc, but getting to be his wife is a lot better deal in life than 95+% of men ever get, if we have 'even the playing field' for you, then youre NOT 'competing equally' at all are you- youre using the golf handicap system, which is never used in real deal competitive golf, but is only used at f around / social / club level.

[@John_Smith_86]

Yea, so shouldn't you ONLY accept Asian and European immigrants then? There is a clear upside to rejecting all other immigrants on that basis

[@vinylrebellion]

With open borders, how would it function if 50 million Chinese citizens wanted to escape CCP. If you go too far to the point where immigrants don't share Liberal democratic norms, and become the majority, is that desirable result. Maybe this extreme and unrealistic, but it could certainly happen to smaller countries that moved to open borders and became overwhelmed. Ps nothing against Chinese, they just are a population that is large enough to overtake a smaller population. Eg new Zealand, Sweden, etc

[@CrazyHermitVizard]

Yeah but how should a currency or money supply work in anarcho capitalism?

[@annarboriter]

Your corporate overlords do not appreciate your doubts nor questions

[@dgh5760]

Sure people can make more money doing the same thing in a richer country but their cost of living is also proportionately higher so they are in fact not much further ahead in that regard. What they will have however is more opportunities to advance their income prospects doing other things and access to more resources and options.

[@andrewvincent9739]

Even if you are doing the same job you still come out ahead. The productivity gains from moving are greater than the increased cost of living. A barber in the US lives a much better life (materially at least) than a barber in Haiti

[@indef2def]

If you've won all of your "tax on bullshit" bets, Bryan, it means you're not nearly betting enough, passing up lots of money with very good (though not extreme) odds.

[@nonmagicmike723]

The biggest problem with open borders is that immigrants won't be waiting to secure a rent from a willing landlord or a job from a willing employer in order to come. Those from the poorest countries will be just fine living in the streets so long as it's in the US of A. And if our local governments have shown one thing, it's that they don't have the stomach to kick the bums out en masse from their streets, much less lock them up for unlawful encampment.

[@youngKOkid1]

If that’s actually true, it’s not a problem with open borders but local governments not doing their job.

[@nonmagicmike723]

@@youngKOkid1 Local governments not doing their job makes open borders problematic and not feasible. Also, local governments are often the reflection of their own constituents. Most people just don't have the heart to vote for governments that either imprison or expel their city's bums on any massive scale. They find it too harsh. Which is why most major cities are overrun by the homeless.

[@youngKOkid1]

@@nonmagicmike723 if people don’t want to vote to clean up their streets, you can’t really call it a problem because that’s what they prefer. The problem is if local governments don’t do their job. Your original complaint wasn’t that immigrants would loiter on ppls’ front yards, and they’d be unwilling to chase them away.

[@nonmagicmike723]

@@youngKOkid1 People's preference isn't for their cities to be overrun with the homeless. They just find the solution too harsh to implement; doesn't mean they don't think it's a problem. Their preference would be that there are fewer homeless people around. And open borders would make matters worse. Okay, local governments fail at their job. With that state of affairs in mind, how is open borders not going to make the situation worse?

[@youngKOkid1]

@@nonmagicmike723 it’s hard to know what peoples’ preferences are unless they are revealed in some way through their actions like purchases or voting. I think your concern is probably truer in places where people are more sympathetic to immigrants (e.g. liberal cities), but in more conservative areas, citizens would have no problem deputizing the police to keep government areas free of vagrants. Your objection is one specific case of a broader objection that immigrants would overrun government services (in this case streets, sideways, parks, etc.). I don’t think this is an immigrant problem, but a government problem so it seems really strange to “solve” the problem by restricting immigration instead of focusing on the root cause. I also think your concern is probably overblown in practice; Poland’s population increased by 10% in a month due to refugees fleeing from Ukraine, and, according to Bryan Caplan’s first hand account, you’d never know it walking through Polish cities.

[@anarchic_ramblings]

If you think about it for more than a few seconds, it's clear that it wouldn't be very (or at all) harmful to not have driver licensing. You might say 'but people who don't know how to drive will be on the road'. But that's already the case: they're called learners. As for punishing drunk drivers etc., prohibiting someone from driving doesn't require a licensing system. As for people driving sensibly, good etiquette is mainly down to self-interest. Nobody wants to crash. Moreover, reduction in collisions etc. is largely a matter of how the roads are engineered. Crashes occur more often in India than Germany because the roads in Germany are better designed, made and constructed. Private property and free enterprise tends to produce better designed, made and maintained things than government monopolies, so it stands to reason that getting the government out of the roads business is a good idea. Hopefully India will read this comment :P

[@anarchic_ramblings]

"nobody would go as far as transferring their money..." They would. That's how cults work.

[@johnwatts8346]

bryan is cool and really bright obviously and speaks much sense, but open borders is madness imo.