The counterculture of the United States took the Western world by storm in the late 1960s. It was a cultural progression against the political and social establishment that emulated bohemianism. The movement achieved common goals underlying issues interpreted in a unique way. It was during this time that the unconventional lifestyle that had taken root long before Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock ’69 finally became orthodox.
Alexander Robak | Canada
Following the conclusion of the Vietnam war and other military conflicts in South-East Asia, many refugees fled from their war-torn nations, and eventually settled in western countries such as the United States and Canada. These mass migrations reached their peak during the late 1970s but continued on through the 1980s. These refugees came to be known as “Vietnamese boat people” due to the fact that they fled their native country on boats and rafts. Following their departure from Vietnam by sea, hundreds of thousands of migrants were put into refugee resettlement camps in other South-East Asian countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Philippines, and Hong Kong. Once in these camps, the refugees then dispersed into developed Western nations such as the United States, Australia, and Canada for permanent resettlement. The ways in which these refugees were resettled into Canada and other western nations were extremely successful and should be used as a template for resettling refugees in the future.
In Canada, the main method that was used to resettle migrant families following the Vietnam war was to set up a program of host families. With this program in place, Canadian households were able to voluntarily sponsor refugee families coming to Canada, and allow them to live in their household for a certain time. What resulted from this program was a grace period that allowed settling refugees to adapt to the Canadian style of life with their host families helping them, after which they would be put into Canadian society to thrive on their own. This grace period system was effective at allowing new Canadians to adjust to a way of life that is founded on the ideas of tolerance, respect, and freedom. This is in contrast to the country that they were fleeing, which was ruled by an authoritarian communist government that did nothing but crush these principles in favor of conformity and collectivism.
Before continuing with this analysis of a mass migration into Canada, it is essential that the principles that Canada was founded upon are understood. These four principles are freedom, equality, tolerance, and respect. It is important that when introducing a group of migrants into Canadian society, the forces responsible for this migration are absolutely sure that this group of migrants is able and willing to comply with this standard set of values. Not only are these the values that have made Canada what it is today, but these are the values that differentiate the western world from the rest of the world. This mindset is not a modern idea and has existed since the beginnings of mass migration on a global scale. We can and should use this system as a sober second thought when considering mass migration into the western world from non-western nations. When the government of Canada accepted 50,000 Vietnamese refugees into Canada following the Vietnam war, those responsible were aware that these migrants were willing and able to comply with Canadian values.
It is crucial to the analysis of this migration that some background information on the cause of this refugee crisis is given. To summarize, the North Vietnamese communist forces were able to overtake the southern portion of the country in a bloody war that lasted from 1955 to 1975. The Northern communists were supported by the Soviet Union, and many Eastern Bloc countries including Czechoslovakia, Poland, and East Germany. On the opposing side, the Capitalist southern government was supported by superpowers such as the United States, Canada, and Australia. The explicit or covert involvement of major world powers means that this war was a proxy war. Both sides were supported by opposing superpowers fighting over control of an area. The war ended with the fall of Saigon in 1975 to the communist forces of Ho Chi Minh. What resulted was the continued persecution of capitalists and dissidents to the new authoritarian government. Many of those who fled Vietnam to escape persecution were South Vietnamese capitalists, who believed in the principles of freedom, equality, tolerance, and respect.
The Vietnamese people brought a factor to Canadian society that was extremely important and beneficial to the society at large. This factor was their entrepreneurship. Following the integration of these refugees into Canada, many of them set up their own small businesses, which were important to the growth of the Canadian economy. It was in this instance that the Vietnamese people’s entrepreneurial spirit showed us that they were important to Canada as a whole, and were worthy Canadians.
Upon the arrival of these refugees into Canada, they were generally well respected among Canadians for their hard-working attitude and willingness to integrate into Canadian society. A big part of the settlement of these refugees into Canada was their ability to maintain traditional Vietnamese culture, while also adopting the culture of their new home. In contrast to many refugee groups in the modern era, these Vietnamese migrants did not demand that Canadian society make accommodations for them and their culture. Rather, they were thankful that Canadians had allowed them to take refuge in their country. This was a very important factor concerning the settlement of these refugees into Canada.
Another part of the settlement of these refugees into their new home was the fact that they were only brought in if Canada was able to support them. These refugees were dependent on the goodwill of the Canadian people to support them, as they migrated into a completely unfamiliar land. The system created helped Vietnamese migrants to settle in Canada and be financially and socially secure.
The Vietnamese were successfully brought into a society in which they had no experience, and within a short span of time, had become productive members of society. This can be compared to the modern Syrian refugee crisis, where many were pushed out of their country out of fear of persecution during a civil war. However, the government handled this refugee crisis completely differently from the one that proved to be successful in the past. Rather than allowing Canadian families to sponsor refugee families, the Canadian government brought in more refugees than could be handled, and as a result, they were not properly assimilated into Canadian society. As a result of this mismanagement, rather than having a support system that integrates refugees into Canada, these refugees were simply put into the whole of Canadian society and expected to prosper on their own. The exact opposite has happened. The unemployment rate for Syrian refugees is astronomically high in comparison to the rest of Canada, and many of them wish for Canada to conform to their culture, rather than the other way around. In the case of the Vietnamese refugees, they were thankful to the Canadian people for supporting them in a time of need and were willing to conform to Canadian culture, customs, and values if need be, while also maintaining their own heritage. It is entirely debatable whether or not the same can be said for the Syrian refugee crisis.
It can be seen that the Vietnamese people who took refuge in Canada, fleeing communist persecution were properly integrated into Canadian society in a way that proved to be beneficial to all parties involved. The support system of using Canadian families to sponsor Vietnamese refugee families proved to be a great system that allowed refugee families to integrate into Canadian society at large, before being put into the country to survive on their own, with no support whatsoever. Seeing as this system has proved itself to be a more than adequate method of integrating refugees from a war-torn country into Canadian society,t is crucial that this system is used in the future to properly integrate refugees, rather than through mismanagement and supporting more than can be handled.
71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.
By Craig Axford
“You may choose to confess or remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time. Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do the time. If you both confess I get two convictions, but I’ll see to it that you both get early parole. If you both remain silent, I’ll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges. If you wish to confess, you must leave a note with the jailer before my return tomorrow morning.” ~ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
In January of this year, I wrote an article entitled Human Beings Are Wired For Morality. Some who responded to that article took it as a deterministic argument for a kind of innate moral sense programmed into us by our genes, while others treated it as evidence for a supreme being. It wasn’t intended as either.
Cooperation has been and continues to be fundamental to our success as a species. From social bonds like friendships that involve two or more people to societies with thousands or even millions of members acting together to forge and maintain entire civilizations, cooperation is key.
While undoubtedly genetics does play a role in the emergence of and subsequent sophistication of our social relationships, the word “wired” in my January article was meant as a metaphor rather than as a technical description of what’s actually going on within our brains. Both genes and the environment will necessarily drive the evolution of social tendencies in any creature, but the moral sense that arises with these tendencies is merely an inevitable byproduct of them.
The word social, therefore, should be taken as being synonymous with cooperation and all the moral baggage it brings with it. Whether we are talking about a tribe getting ready to go to war, a gang planning the robbery of a convenience store, a family, or a government formulating and implementing policy, cooperation, for better or for worse, lies at the root of all of it.
Likewise, the conundrum commonly known as the prisoner’s dilemma reflects our penchant for forming cooperative relationships and the inevitable trade-offs they demand from us. Though the dilemma is set in a jail and involves two individuals arrested on suspicion of a crime, the moral challenge it describes really has nothing to do with what the prisoners in the thought experiment are accused of doing. That always remains unsaid. It involves questions of trust, self-interest, loyalty, and betrayal. In other words, this at first seemingly simple problem actually goes to the heart of what it means to be human.
As of this writing, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page for the prisoner’s dilemma lists 20 major permutations that have been developed since “Puzzles with the structure of the prisoner’s dilemma were devised and discussed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher in 1950, as part of the Rand Corporation’s investigations into game theory.” The Rand Corporation’s interest in game theory was motivated by the emerging potential for a global nuclear war.
As the description provided at the opening of this article states, the dilemma arises because there’s an inherent tension between the options being given to the prisoners in the thought experiment. Each suspect has the option of selling out the other in exchange for the possibility of going free. If one suspect squeals and the other remains silent, it’s the silent partner that will do hard time. If each of them rats out the other, they’ll both face punishment but with a chance for early parole. If neither says a word then the prosecutor’s lack of strong evidence means they’ll get a short sentence on a minor firearms possession charge.
At first glance, pointing the finger at the other guy is the best choice, until one realizes the other guy may very well be thinking the same thing. If so, both prisoners face a longer sentence than they would if they both just kept their mouth shut. But maybe prisoner A thinks prisoner B is loyal to a fault, and so selling out B isn’t so risky for A. Clearly, even in such a relatively straightforward case as this, each prisoner requires a theory of mind — a capacity to imagine what the other prisoner may be thinking and why he may be thinking it — to have the best chance at navigating the choices the problem presents to the most desirable outcome, at least if we assume each prisoner’s interests extend no further than gaining their freedom.
Whether we find it relatively easy or difficult to come up with a solution to the original 1950 prisoner’s dilemma, the truly important problems that life confronts us with are rarely so sharply defined. That’s why game theorists have developed so many permutations of it since. Each has been applied to a variety of problems ranging from complex social interactions to evolutionary biology in an effort to determine the best strategies in every case. In the process, additional variables have been added to facilitate a more accurate accounting of reality.
For social scientists, one issue they confront with any version of the dilemma is the problem of salience. How people, and to at least some degree other social creatures as well, evaluate the importance of their relationships with others is a variable that eludes easy quantification. Loyalty, for example, might be a cherished virtue to one or both of the prisoners, but how important will also depend a great deal upon the strength of the connection between the two prisoners confronting the dilemma. Prisoner A may be more loyal than your average person under any circumstance, but much more so if prisoner B is a close friend or relative.
This brings us to the fact that most social interactions actually defy simple algorithmic assessment. To put it another way, dilemmas don’t occur in a vacuum the way the prisoner’s dilemma, in all its forms, could mistakenly lead us to believe. Prisoner B’s thinking isn’t just informed by her relationship with prisoner A. She might not even particularly like prisoner A. But someone she does have a meaningful relationship with may be particularly fond of prisoner A, causing her to think more carefully about any action that would directly impact prisoner A than pure rational self-interest alone would normally trigger.
Indeed, we’ll never find just two prisoners in the room even if they’re the only people we can see. Our social networks go far beyond our particular friendships, mate choices, business partnerships, etc. They exist in a contextual stew that includes variables ranging from our own individual values and goals to how we think our actions will be perceived by others when they learn of our choice. Maybe I know the other prisoner well enough to feel certain he would never snitch on me. In addition, I may not give a fig about him and couldn’t care less if he spent the rest of his life in prison. But I also have my reputation to think about and people whose opinion matters to me will know I took advantage of the other prisoner’s sense of loyalty so that I could go free. No matter how robust the models that scientists and philosophers come up with are, plugging each of these personal considerations into them is impossible because they aren’t precisely the same for any two people.
That said, a social scientist would at this point probably remind us that the word social is used to describe their work for a reason. What the models are designed to do is find the best strategies on average for coping with life’s real dilemmas. Thought experiments like the prisoner’s dilemma are merely means to that end.
These models typically assume sufficiently large populations and run their simulations over multiple generations to test every possible outcome and determine which strategy wins out eventually. Even the winning strategy will produce a number of individual losers, but it will produce relatively fewer of them than the alternatives. The particulars that complicate each individual’s experience of the actual or proxy dilemmas being modeled dance around the average outcomes produced like guests at an outdoor wedding reception whirling around the pole at the center of the tent set up for the evening’s festivities.
In their recent documentary on the Vietnam War, the filmmakers Ken Burns and Lynn Novik spent a good deal of time discussing the United States Government’s focus on the number of North Vietnamese and Viet Cong killed and the ratio of enemy fatalities to American deaths in any given period. This emphasis on the body count incentivized brutality, often leading US commanders to order their soldiers to take out villages or to engage any human they encountered in particular parts of the country without first determining whether their targets were combatants. It also resulted in a number of Vietnamese casualties being counted as combatants after the fact when in truth they were not.
In episode 4 of the 10-part documentary, an army adviser observes wistfully, “If you can’t count what’s important, then you make what you can count important.” In the case of the Vietnam War, linear quantitative thinking not only had the tragic effect of needlessly maximizing the death toll but blinded military and other government officials to the historical and cultural context in which they were doing it. The consequence of using the wrong metric to measure America’s “progress” — or perhaps the assumption that a right metric could even be found in the first place — prolonged the Vietnam conflict and made US success even less likely than it was to begin with.
The Vietnam War is a stark and tragic reminder of what can happen when we substitute formulas and quantification for reality. Both the physical and social sciences necessarily rely upon these tools to clarify the problems they are attempting to address, but when we mistake our charts and graphs for the thing they are describing we are mistaking the map for the terrain. Models are an extremely valuable means for narrowing the gaps in our knowledge, but they will never close them. Knowledge is asymptotic.
Mistaking our maps for the territories they describe is particularly problematic in the context of the social sciences. Among other errors, it leads us to adopt simplistic essentialist views of human nature that have so far consistently missed the mark. This historic and ongoing failure of essentialism to successfully reduce the human condition to any single quantifiable trait or distinct set of traits has led many thinkers to the opposite and even more mistaken view that we are blank slates.
In their recent article There’s No Philosophy of Life Without a Theory of Human Nature, the philosophers Skye C Cleary and Massimo Pigliucci remind us that the elusive nature of the human condition is not an argument for seeing ourselves as blank slates as many would have it. They conclude:
If we were truly tabulae rasae, why would we prefer certain things to others? What could possibly urge us to seek meaning, to build relationships with other people, to strive to improve ourselves and the world we live in? We do all that because we are a particular kind of intelligent social animal, just as the Stoics thought. And we do it within the broad constraints imposed by our (biological as well as contingent) facticity, as the existentialists maintained. There is no single path to a flourishing human life, but there are also many really bad ones. The choice is ours, within the limits imposed by human nature.
The prisoner’s dilemma, in all its present and no doubt future permutations, is a useful tool for thinking about the choices we face “within the limits imposed by human nature.” It invites us to consider the difficult decisions life presents us with within the context of our self-interest, our social relationships with others, and our biological constraints. Over the years it has provided us with models that have been used to improve our understanding of how cooperation likely emerged as well as insights into our own personal and collective biases.
However, like all models, its capacity to enlighten will forever be limited because our own complexity and that of the environment in which we live is not only too vast to ultimately grasp in its entirety but too fluid. The process of acquiring an understanding of the social and physical world we inhabit changes the very nature of that world. It is the ambiguity inherent in the dilemma itself that ultimately rests at the heart of our reality. Progress depends not upon resolving that ambiguity, but wrestling with it.
To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.
Follow Craig on Twitter or read him on Medium.com
Other stories that you may enjoy:
The fight over Anthony Kennedy’s replacement represents everything that’s wrong with the judicial nominating processmedium.com
We’ve reached an inflection point. It’s time to decide where you standmedium.com
The liberty movement today does not have many elected officials to look up to. Considering that a large percentage of it doesn’t believe in electing officials at all, this is not surprising. Two main theories exist in regards to why those in power often are corrupt. As philosopher John Acton puts it, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The American presidency, of course, is nearly absolute power, and thus, lends itself to a whole lot of corruption.
Scientist David Brin, on the other hand, offers a much different theory. He says, “It is said that power corrupts, but actually it’s more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.” This idea, of course, recognizes that power does not change people much, but rather, only corrupt people seek it.
Both of these quotes, though, share a very similar critical concept. Regardless of the nature of power, and whether it is the cause of corruption, there is a strong correlation between power and corruption. Even though those in power may not have started corrupt, they quickly become that way when the opportunity presents itself.
The Actor-Turned-Corrupted Official
One of the greatest examples of this quick change is Ronald Reagan. The former actor served as both California’s governor and POTUS, in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively. Both times, he campaigned on promises of limited government leading to a thriving economy. But both times, he failed to live up to this promise.
As the governor of California, Reagan actually signed off on the largest tax increase in the state’s history. This, of course, is highly antithetical to everything that he ran on. Despite this, Americans still elected him president in 1980 with a huge margin of victory.
However, Reagan, as president, once more abandoned his alleged virtues of limited government. Though he did cut the income tax considerably, he was, in other ways, not true to his word. Admittedly, some of this was due to resistance in a Democratic Congress. But still, much of the blame falls solely on the former president. From 1981 to 1989, the national debt increased by 186%. Deficit spending increased, and the budget increased. In fact, he even raised military spending by an alarming 35% in only eight years.
For these reasons, it is impossible to view Reagan as a supporter of small government without some pretty strong rose colored glasses. Upon entering positions of power, both times, he betrayed his alleged principles. This trait is not unique to Reagan though. In fact, due to the similarity of his campaign to Barry Goldwater, it is highly likely that Goldwater would have done the same, if elected.
Barry Goldwater: The Unproven Failure
In 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson handed Barry Goldwater one of the most crippling defeats in political history. After Kennedy’s assassination, there was little to no chance that the man would have been able to win. But what if he did?
Much like Reagan, Goldwater campaigned on promises of limited government intervention in the economy. He opposed FDR’s New Deal as a form of strong government overreach into the private sector, and is famous for also opposing a government strong enough to supply the citizens’ every need. Despite this strong personal position, his message would simply not have survived well in the tense political climate.
Differing from Reagan a bit, Barry Goldwater did have a track record of living up to his ideals. In his two terms as an Arizona senator, he retained most of his principles. But this is much more difficult to do as a president, especially when your ideas do not have a lot of support in the legislative body.
In 1965, Congress was heavily Democratic, with a majority in both the House and the Senate. These legislators overwhelmingly supported LBJ’s Great Society, and thus, would have fervently opposed the deregulation that Goldwater promised. So, even if he did adhere to his economic principles, it is highly unlikely that very many of them would have passed. Of course, Goldwater could have always passed some via executive order. But in doing so, he would have immediately violated his firmly held belief that a government should have very limited executive power. Thus, none of his economic ideas would come to fruition without abandoning the underlying principle behind them.
A Hypocritical Foreign Policy
Throughout the 1964 campaign, Barry Goldwater attacked LBJ relentlessly for his actions in Vietnam. Of course, it is true that Johnson lied to the American people about Vietnam, as well as needlessly brought the United States into the war. Goldwater was quick to point both of these things out, as well as call the war itself “Johnson’s war”. This all came after Johnson promised that he sought “no wider war” in Vietnam. Of course, this was not to be the case, as Johnson escalated the war and caused countless losses of American and foreign lives.
Conversely, Goldwater himself also had a very firm stance on opposing communism. Though Johnson’s allegations in the popular campaign ad “Daisy”, among others, that Goldwater would drop nuclear bombs on the North Vietnamese people were untrue, it is true that the conservative senator strongly supported action against communist regimes.
In July of 1964, Goldwater gave a speech in which he called for increased action to oppose communism. In fact, he called it “the principal disturber of peace in the world today”. He even went so far as to say that communist regimes were “enemies of every man on earth who is or wants to be free”, before referencing that America should become a beacon of freedom.
Without a doubt, these anti-communist sentiments imply a desire to spend considerable money opposing communist countries. Though Barry Goldwater may not have furthered the war as much as LBJ, his hawkish rhetoric suggests that any notion of small government would be crippled by increased military spending and presence throughout the world.
A Popular Loser
So, whether indirectly or directly, it appears Barry Goldwater would not have entirely lived up to his principles as president. Much like Reagan, corruption and bureaucracy would have crippled his ability to carry out limited government principles. American government, in a position of ultimate power, does not generally limit itself, hence the near-perpetual growth since its dawn.
Goldwater, a reasonably consistent voice for smaller government, would not have been an exception. His lack of success in 1964 ensured he could never go back on his own word, though, preserving his integrity and allowing him to become a role model for limited government advocates of today.
To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.
Without a doubt, language is essential to the perception of an idea. Using two different words for the same idea is a surefire way of molding opinions about it. For example, let’s take a look at these two sentences.
- The obese man lounged in his armchair after a long, non-sedentary day at work, gorging on sugary pastries.
- The heavyset gentleman unwound in his chair following a long, active day at work, eating crullers.
Now, these two sentences have quite similar denotations, that is, the dictionary definitions. However, the connotations are in no way equal. Surely, the image of the second man is that of one in considerably better shape than the first. Connotation is a very useful rhetorical device, as it gives the user complete ability to mold the emotion that his or her words give off. Emotion, the undisputed king of political success, is a hugely useful tool to manipulate.
Connotation can take a number of forms. Most overtly, it comes by using one word in place of another, in the form of a synonym. Above examples include the use of “heavyset” in place of “obese” or “crullers” instead of “sweet pastries”. In politics, these substitutions are commonplace.
For instance, many officials of the Vietnam era referred to the war as an “armed conflict”. Though it is true that the U.S. never officially declared war, this is trivial. By calling it an armed conflict, they hoped to lessen the emotion behind it. Of the two, “war” carries a much stronger emotional impact, which is why nonviolence advocates called it a war.
Another key example occurs often, even today, down by the border. Proponents of tough border laws are quick to denounce the waves of “illegals” entering the U.S., whereas those who support more open borders are more apt to use the phrase “undocumented immigrants”. Of course, these mean the same thing, but that is no matter. They still are able to create two very different opinions of those who cross the border without following the law.
In addition to separate word choices, though, there is a more subtle yet also more powerful way that many use connotation. This comes through establishing the default form of a word, and giving the antonym of it a negative prefix or suffix.
In the above examples, the word that shows this, of course, is “non-sedentary” from the first sentence. Though the word merely means the same as “active”, inclusion of the word sedentary implies that activity is not the default. The obese man, likely perceived to be unhealthy, is not expected to live an active lifestyle. Thus, the break in being sedentary is different or surprising.
Politicians commonly do this exact same thing, and it is perhaps causes perhaps the most dangerous thing in America: violence.
In the U.S. today, there is not a lot of room to agree in politics. But, most people can come together on one thing: unprovoked violence is not a good thing. Though many have differing definitions of just what constitutes unprovoked violence, in our own, highly subjective ways, we can generally come to a consensus on this key issue.
So, that being said, why is violence perceived as the norm? When talking about a lack of violence, there are plenty of synonyms. Peace, equality, and understanding first come to mind. Yet, the chosen word is generally nonviolence.
Why do we describe nonviolence as something it isn’t, instead of something that it is? By using the term in a passive manner, instead of a proactive one, society implies that violence is in the mainstream, and let’s face it, it is. But, it would be quite interesting to see how that society might change their views if the language behind them changed. Would fewer people support a war, if the deaths were murders, not casualties? And, would they support nonviolence more fervently, if it was only known as inequality or anti-peace? How about the word “freedom”?
Would more people believe in the idea of it, if talks were about freedom growing, not government shrinking? A single, working class mother of four on welfare wants to hear nothing of her benefits shrinking. Why would she? Maybe they are helping her stay afloat through hard times. But, put in place the notion of her freedom increasing. That same working class woman probably does not feel as if she has a great degree of freedom under her crony capitalist oppression. Upon hearing of smaller government through the positive term, not the negative, her perception will change.
Language is a powerful tool. It has the ability to shape the minds of millions through the complex web of emotion. The way things stand today, though, it is shaping them all to view freedom and nonviolence as a second cousin that only comes around every few years. This pushes the very ideas into the dustbin of history and makes normal their opposites. Perhaps, by changing up the way words are used, and proactively describing ideals, the freedom movement will see increased success. Or perhaps, the very idea of freedom will never be more than an afterthought.
To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.