Pluralism versus Homogeneity

China, India and Japan are flying to the moon. These Asian countries are doing it all on their own. Homebred and homegrown talents to drive their space programmes. And the Russians have been doing it all along. On the other hand there is this great mixed pot called America with talents from all over the world. At the moment, plurality of talents is leading the competition by a nose, taking the Russians into the picture. Would we see a homogeneous country, depending on their own talents, outdoing a plural society made up of the best brains from all over the world? It is a new kind of experiment on the world stage. What if it eventually proves that home grown talents can do it on their own without foreign talents?


Matilah_Singapura said...

This is another of redbean's posts which begins and ends with the same false premise.

False premise: "Pluralism" vs(??) "Homogeneity" redebean is assuming that somehow these ideas are "opposite" and cannot co-exist.

Then more false premises follow:
> China, India and Japan are flying to the moon. [...] [T}he Russians have been doing it all along. <

Any dumb-ass state can have a space program. All you do is TAX the population and divert the money into "national status" projects like space programs.

I'd sooner see the population of a cuntry be free people, with a small or no government (therefore very small or NO taxes), so that the people of that particular land can peacefully go about their individual business FREELY.

The building of concert halls, adventures in space, excellence in Olympic sports are all best left to the private sector so that the hardworking people get to keep the money they earn, to dispose or save it as the choose for themselves.

America achieved great economic success because in the early days they had probably the freest, most open borders in the world: anyone who dreamed "The Great American Dream" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was allowed to come to America.

In many ways, the current immigration policy (essentially a "hands-off" policy) of the S'pore govt is similar to the early American experience. ANYONE (non-criminal) who wants to better his life or to seize opportunity is WELCOME TO COME TO SINGAPORE.

This is how it ought to be: Free and Open borders, and a solid rule of law which protects contracts and private property.

And when people are left alone to mind their own business and associate with each other voluntarily, over the long term the population of that country becomes truly pluralistic and homogeneous.

Anonymous said...

You're blind to the homogeneity within liberal, Western societies coz you probably haven't lived there for extended periods of time.

So much for healthy pluralism.

btw redbean, not entirely relevant but you should read this: http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_buffalo_ny.html

I'm an ignoramus when it comes to economics - but I thought markets usually underprovide public goods?

There are benefits to privatization - but aren't most Singaporean state enterprises run like private corporations anyway?

I'm not fond of the idea of privatizing natural monopolies (say, postal system, water and electricity services) because where dost competition cometh from? These are basic necessities and you'd take them whatever the price.

As for privatization of education and health services, there's always the danger of promoting profits over people. There might be greater efficiency and cheaper costs - but this would only be made exclusive to the rich. What about the poor, then?

redbean said...

my theme is that a homogeneous people or country could also be as dynamic as a plural mixed pot like America. Of course America is not a perfect plural society and so are China, India and Japan perfectly homogeneous. It is just a comparison of two relatively systems. One is self subsistence and organic growth. the other is globalisation and influx of foreign talents.

the points raised about market efficiency and any country can have a space program with the dole are different issues.

globalisation and the american experience say that you need foreign talents to excel. and singapore is following that formula which i agree is necessary given the limited headcounts. the opposing notion is that countries can develop their own indigeneous talents to excel as well. and this self sufficiency theory was a failure in the past communist regimes of the soviet union and prc.

the difference now is not that one is more plural but an open economy runs on capitalist principles.

Anonymous said...

> the difference now is not that
> one is more plural but an open
> economy runs on capitalist
> principles.

And capitalism works. One of the greatest inventions of humankind.

Lost4ever said...

its case of check & balance.

1. take the case of our MP and our government, no check & balance, so super talents milked the people until we all dired up.

2. look at education, one minister trying to our do the previous, one principal trying to out do the other, results==> students in SHIT HOLE.

3. look at foreign talents, how many actual talents, how many here for a good ride??

4. look at why US works, by Mexico & Brazil did not? All pluralism in practice, all independence form European power, all in GOD we trust.
Biggest differece:
a. US exterminate all the Amercian Indians, Mexico & Brazil live with them.
b. US followed Britain into the Industrial relvolution, Mexico & Brazil did not until the late 20th century.

so perhaps the statement is BS. Every state or society takes what's best, there is no best choice. Too much of each will be counter productive.

Let the TOP Talents decide, layman like us just observe.

redbean said...

every state or society will work towards its own destruction. that is how it has been all the time.