Related ethical discussion: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/

It is generally best for society as a whole if everyone within it cooperates*, and moral teachings can broadly be thought of as guidelines designed to influence individuals to sacrifice their own interests in favor of group interests. Many, if not most, moral and ethical questions have prisoner's dilemma aspects. (See a list of these sorts of problems here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ )

Since society has an interest in moving people toward cooperation, social norms tend to develop to influence people to cooperate. The Golden Rule is an example of a widely-followed ethical rule that increases cooperation. If you're in a society where people generally follow the Golden Rule, you may be able to cooperate with confidence that you won't be defected upon. Additionally, religions usually have moral codes designed to increase cooperation among members. Social norms punishing or shunning defectors also work to increase cooperation.

When social norms are insufficient at generating cooperation (or when scale makes coordination too difficult), government and the legal system step in to increase cooperation and punish defection. This implies that the burdens of government will be reduced in places where social norms (and people's innate inclinations) result in widespread cooperation.

People are naturally more inclined to cooperate with more closely related people--it can be an effective evolutionary strategy to help people like oneself. This is most obvious in the context of the nuclear family, but it is also true in the context of more distant relations. In societies with a tradition of cousin marriage, clans are distinct and individuals are more distantly related to people outside their clan. In contrast, in societies like much of northwest Europe with a history of prohibitions on cousin marriage, clans are relatively absent and genes have spread more evenly through society.

Unsurprisingly, the societies with the greatest cooperation and with the most effective norms promoting cooperation tend to be the most historically outbred societies. Consider the cooperative spirit and socialism of Scandinavians as an expression of this. Neoreactionaries often refer to the "universalism" of progressives, and this universalism leads to universal cooperation. In contrast, consider the tribal and corrupt nature of places like Afghanistan at the other extreme.

Although it's a winning strategy for everyone in society to cooperate, it's a losing strategy for a person to cooperate with someone who is going to defect. If one person follows the Golden Rule and another follows a strategy of pure self-interest, the self-interested party will consistently defect and the Golden Rule follower will be a loser. This is the fundamental flaw of strict universalism--it is ultimately suicidal. If social norms that cause people to cooperate break down, defection becomes more and more common and government intervention becomes more and more necessary.

One prominent way for cooperation to break down is to add a lot of very unrelated people--something that becomes more likely in a universalist, xenophilic society. Diversity reduces social bonds and trust (see http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=2191462&mc=100&forum_id=2 ). People are less likely to cooperate as more distantly related groups move in. Even if you're a Swede who naturally wants to cooperate with everyone, the Somalis you just brought in don't necessarily have any interest in cooperating with you. The Somalis will defect on you all day and all night while raping your women. The result is a net loss to society and particularly large losses for cooperators.

The best bet for effective cooperation and a pleasant, efficient society is a relatively small, outbred nation with minimal distinct groups within that nation. Ideally, people will want to cooperate with everyone else within the society for the overall good of the society as much as possible. Strong social norms promoting cooperation and punishing defection help. Significant immigration should be avoided to prevent an increase in defection.

* edit: I suspect that a society that goes too far into cooperation will not only have the problems described above with respect to dealing with defectors and outsiders, but also creativity and advancement may require some defection. Imperfect information and varying time preferences complicate the picture as well. However, promoting cooperation is more important as a primary moral concern.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2637663&forum_id=2#26071687)

I'm sort of reminded of the prisoners dilema behind tech innovation

you have a really good idea, what do you do with that idea

if you go around telling everyone, you increase the likelyhood that you'll get the help needed to make it a reality

but you also increase the likelyhood that you'll have copycats and people who'll rip you off

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2637663&forum_id=2#26072235)

SCHOLARSHIP.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2637663&forum_id=2#28707614)

I disagree that the presence of Chinatowns isn't harming America. I think any group preference that isn't in favor of America as a whole is detrimental.

The melting pot is a much better model than multiculturalism, but people overrate the amount of assimilation that actually happened. The Irish are still a problem--it's just that other groups became even more of a problem.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2637663&forum_id=2#26072016)

Irish rates of alcoholism, for example, are still higher. On the bright side, Irish ancestry has been diluted and spread around a lot over time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2637663&forum_id=2#26072047)

jesus fucking christ, this board is bizzarro land. why are there so many dumbasss?

here is but one example you dip shit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

What do the fucking irish have to do anything. what a bizzarre and forced opposition to link the irish and the fucking chinese?

the chinese are flooding in to the us and candada like rats. they might be fine people but that does not matter. it is a waste of national resources and a security risk to have hordes of them in our universities. not only that, they are unpleasant, drone-like, and generally suck the life out of whatever institution you find them in.

ASIA FOR ASIANS

AFRICAN FOR AFRICANS

EUROPEAN COUNTRIES FOR EVERYONE.

Kill yourself!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2637663&forum_id=2#26072077)

Group identity that is separate from national identity reduces outcomes for the nation. It's a simple theory based on the prisoner's dilemma, but I don't have specific data on outcomes at the moment.

You said, "Provide some evidence that Chinatown in NY or the Irish are harming America or go away." The context is generally about whether immigration is a problem or not, so Irish alcoholism is relevant.

As for what we're supposed to do, we can try to promote further assimilation, or we can try to separate. With the Irish, further assimilation is clearly the best option since there aren't that many and they're already quite diffused.

My real point about the Irish is that subtle ethnic differences can persist for a long time despite apparent assimilation. The whites of the American south are actually somewhat different ethnically than the whites in the north, and you can see this in voting patterns and a number of other traits.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2637663&forum_id=2#26072092)

Taking the absolute non-racist stance (always cooperate) allows other groups to fuck you over by defecting. To defend against this, you can try to go totalitarian and force cooperation, or you can push assimilation hard, but these strategies will be much less effective than keeping other groups out in the first place.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2637663&forum_id=2#26072117)

Putnam's search basically proved that diversity corrodes social bonds, but I get the feeling you don't think about anything but GDP and a few other narrow economic metrics.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2637663&forum_id=2#26074226)

It may be possible for nationalism to override ethnic differences to some extent, but France is a terrible example. There are some high ethnic tensions there as a result of the [ethnically distinct] Muslims.

If America were 100% white, shitlibs wouldn't be trying to exterminate whites, but some might be interested in getting rid of Germans or something.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2637663&forum_id=2#26071982)

here's that non ethnic french civic nationalism!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ5iqEAQgjY

you are a fucking twit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2637663&forum_id=2#26072008)

they are semitic/caucausian you fucking twit. jesus fucking christ. kill yourself!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2637663&forum_id=2#26072054)

http://www.gwern.net/docs/1985-hofstadter

^ I really like most of these papers tho he gets preachy at times

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2637663&forum_id=2#26072230)

Why do you think the modern balkan states became the way they are? Why do you think there are separatist movements in Spain, Belgium? You can't have a "homogenous" group of millions or tens of millions or hundreds of millions of people all looking out for each other, they will find ways to divide themselves if such ways don't already exist.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2637663&forum_id=2#26403437)

NW Euros seem to innately have a lot more of this morality than most other ethnicities, and everyone is less likely to cooperate if they think others aren't cooperating.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2637663&forum_id=2#28707670)