One of my projects for the new year and new regime is to pay more attention to conservatives, a task I had largely ignored for years since they held power - sort of - and I find those outside the gate to be more interesting, even when they are reprehensible, as was indeed the case while the conservatives governed. The Democrats were insane, but that can be interesting if not edifying.

I previously mentioned a group blog - Secular Right: Reality & Reason - as one source I would monitor. Little of value has come of that, which seems to be dawning on them too.

. . . we tend to attempt to clear a space where it is acceptable to air both secular and conservative thoughts without accusation of contradiction, but many of our critics suggest that there is no issue at all and no real conservatives make arguments on religious grounds alone. That is debatable, but I thought I would bring something up which might flesh out a positive position which I hold, and that regards a moderate restrictionism when it comes to current levels of immigration.

FWIW, I agree. I don't know a lot about conservatives but never found their arguments to be uniquely predicated on religious views, rather the opposite in fact. Those who base their views on religion sometimes - not always - align themselves with conservatives as the lesser evil.

It [moderate restrictionism when it comes to current levels of immigration] is based on an empirical assertion as to the limits of human rationality, and the latent hidden variables within existing societies which we may not see. . .

Open borders are problematic taking into account current configurations of human nature and society. Ultimately these are not metaphysical assertions about the inviolability of a particular culture or nation-state in a specific form, but a proximate utilitarian assessment about maintaining a flourishing society. In short, I believe society is better conceived of as an evolving organism, changing with new inputs, rather than a modular construction which can be mixed & matched at a whim as factors of production are swapped in & out.

The emphasis was in the original, which made more sense before I abstracted these more interesting bits from a longer text.

This is an argument I find to be sensible and perhaps correct. Good outcomes will not result for either the immigrants or the destination society in the near term unless change is sufficiently gradual to enable the society to continue to function. In some future where all humans achieve a level of modern civilization so that the differences are not so great then this will be less of a problem. In that future the libertarian arguments for free movement will make more sense.

But what about long term outcomes? Free movement in our current situation would result in a "wild west" sort of society and reduced benefits for all but the bad and the ugly, but that would end at some point. What would that new society be like? Would it be superior in some way to the one resulting from more gradual change? Would the net benefit over time for all be greater than if a more sedate pace had been enforced?

It seems possible that society could be improved in the long run by throwing open the gates and riding out the storm, but it seems unlikely. A lot of things would have to fall out just right. These conservative arguments have some merit and may be more intelligently reasoned. What interests me is the idea that conservatives may be better able to apply reason to some subjects that don't challenge their core beliefs and temperaments. If my goal is to seek good arguments then conservative arguments will sometimes be my arguments of choice. I just have to do the work to dig them out.