How did some reactionary deviant manage to take over Yglesias’ blog and write this racist post and take over Caplan’s blog to post this absurd parody of a pro-immigration argument?
Well played, who ever you are, well played.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Foseti 
Caplan’s blog should now contain the disclaimer “For Entertainment Purposes Only!”
Look, Caplan has the same problem nearly all of us have. As a non-neurotypical high IQ white male nerd he’s very prone to over abstraction and a complete lack of social awareness or human emotion. I’m betting everyone who reads this blog suffers from this some.
The difference is that many of us, through life experience, began to realize our brains lacked a certain social awareness. What could cause it can vary, but almost always its running up against the actions of real humans versus the fake humans we’ve created in our heads. Myself I had to acknowledge reality because I’m a trader among other things, and trading cares only about reality not ideology.
Guys like Caplan have been in academia all their life. They haven’t had to face the real world ever. The real world never shattered their egos by not conforming to their broken ideas of how it works. The data set can always be read to mean whatever you want it to mean, and if there is no consequence to doing so (like making bad trade) then you always will.
So have some pity for Caplan. He suffers from a mental deficiency. And he’s chosen a career that coddles it. The result is inevitable.
Pretty much every neurotypical in the US at any reasonable level of status gives lip service to utilitarian, universalist ethics. They don’t actually believe it, (using ‘believe’ in the sense Christian theologists use the word), but they feel compelled to mouth the platitudes. In practice their ethics are duty based, few of them are actually merely egoists. But their nonstop platitudes do terrific damage to the world models of non-neurotypicals like Caplan—and to the public discourse.
SCENE: The Caplan Household, as Junior arrives back from school.
*Junior comes through the door, and sees Bryan Caplan playing with another child, one of indeterminate Asian ethnicity*
JUNIOR: Dad, what’s going on?
CAPLAN: Don’t call me that anymore. I have a new son now…Ming.
JUNIOR: What do you mean?
CAPLAN: Well ex-son, Ming is just the more efficient choice. If you look at these indifference maps, you’ll see that my utility is maximized when I use Ming as my son over you. He’s just a more efficient choice, ex-son. I spend much less on child care, and he is happy eating a bowl of rice a day. And he takes care of himself, not only meaning he’s going to be a much better libertarian son than you’ll ever be, but also allowing me to post more on my blog about how things like “borders”, “nations”, “cultures”, and “family” are all just irrational thoughts that keep us from total efficiency.
*camera cuts to a close up of Junior crying*
*cue asthmatic laughing of live audience full of jorts-wearing libertarians*
—————–
from: http://mypostingcareer.com/forums/topic/6415-bryan-caplan-and-his-beep-boop-crusade-against-nationalism/#entry121103
Indeed.
Even a cloister like Kaplan should have students and acquaintances to challenge his absurdity: “Professor Kaplan, aren’t you telling us that if immoral things make money, then the only moral thing to do is lose money?”
What’s with these libertarians, who usually preach individual effort and decisions, all of a sudden dive into maximizing the greater good when considering immigration? “To each immigrant according to their need…”
The mental disconnect here is astounding:
Q: Professor Kaplan, why don’t you have more kids?
A: Kids are expensive.
Q: But isn’t immigration equivalent to having more kids?
A: Yes, but other people pay for it, so it’s all good.
Yglesias: “here’s a nice place. Everyone move there and ruin it.”
Realize that on some level life is a struggle against others. You can fight your battles to keep your nice stuff, or maybe fight by living with crappy stuff that others will let be. I think of the Eastern European who explained that their country was in a sweet spot: not too bad of a place to live, but not so good that they were a target for others to come and take their stuff.