#4
Post
by Fox3WheresMyBanana » Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:20 pm
The answer to both tyrant and the wifebeater problem depends entirely on a group's attitudes to both values and criminal acts. These are largely founded in cultural, religious and familial traditions. For example a 'wifebeater' in an islamic country may be doing what his religion requires him to do.
Where groups share these attitudes, nations formed of those groups can be stable, and where nations share these values, supernational groups can be stable.
The problem for the humanity at the moment is that groups within nations, and especially within supernational groups, do NOT share these attitudes. Worse than that, they pretend they do.
I read somewhere a long time ago that societies can only function when 97%+ are basically law-abiding, owing to the inability of the justice system to cope effectively with more than 3% criminality. More recent research shows this fits very well with the percentage of immigrants from disparate cultures. More than 3% guarantees trouble, whether that is 3% on a local or national basis. The response of western countries, Governments in particular, has been to pretend the criminality is not so rather than take action. There were over 5,000 cases of FGM in the UK last year, and zero prosecutions.
As Alison points out, stability can be maintained in countries with disparate cultures by a more, shall we say, vigorous justice system, and nothing a committee does can be described as vigorous, so a sole leader tends to emerge. As Sweden, Belgium etc are discovering, a bureaucratic democracy cannot handle holding disparate cultures together.
I should point out that I regard disparate cultures and multiculturalism separately. I would say disparate cultures are those with major differences in major values, and multiculturalism is a grouping of cultures that do not differ on these main points. For example, Sikhs and Christians can co-exist peacefully, whereas shia and sunni cannot. Unfortunately, the term multiculturalism is generally applied to both these situations, in the vain hope that pretending there isn't a problem will make it go away.
Historically, many groups that did not live peacefully together are now able to, such as Protestants and Catholics, but universally this is because one or all groups have changed their attitudes. Every modern Christian's attitudes would have made them a heretic 500 years ago, but none of them expect the Spanish Inquisition today. Also historically, this has not happened without one or all of the groups having the sh!t kicked out of them.
The solution to the problem cannot be found in mass migration without cultural change. For example, simply sticking a bunch of Somali muslims in a Protestant American city just causes trouble, and there is no fixing it, and pretending there is just makes things worse faster. Getting the Somalis to take an oath is pointless in a culture where lying to promote the faith is acceptable. Furthermore, every muslim who took the oath and meant it would no longer be a muslim in the eyes of the rest of the faith. This can be seen with the Ahmadiyya. If a group can be spread out, then there exists the possibility that they may change their attitudes peacefully in time without significant trouble occurring. However, both self-ghettoization for cultural reasons and that which arises from economic reasons mean this is isn't happening in the modern world.
With all that said, if you want a peaceful, just (by UN standards) nation, then you need multiculturalism - groups which agree on major values and justice systems. If you want a peaceful nation with disparate cultures, it can't be just (by UN standards) and tends to end up with a tyrant.* And if you get rid of that tyrant, you end up with a "failed nation".
As already hinted at, the UN doesn't hold its members to their oaths, so it is already a "failed supernational group", as is the EU. And logically therefore, globalisation is a guaranteed nightmare. To conclude, no nation should admit immigrants without common cultural values (and that means meaning it, not just saying it), and a whole bunch of nations will not have peace and justice until the groups within them share values. Thus far in human history, that has not been achieved without major warfare and ethnic migration, whether enforced (violently or otherwise) or voluntary, or by eliminating the disparate culture (typically by enforced schooling of children, such as in Canada and Australia).
*Of course, tyrants can also arise in multicultural nations, for different reasons.
