Randoms

– At Outside In:

If those Chinese eugenics nightmares come to pass, the future is theirs by (natural) right. A people that opts for stupidity deserves to be replaced.

– DC might get a majority white city council.

– I’m pretty sure I can cut the BS and condense this down to three steps: 1) get a tenured job in a homogenous exurban community; 2) ensure that any minorities you associate with have been carefully selected by a team of professionals; 3) feel morally superior to people that haven’t followed 1) and 2).

Response to controversy

So much for trillion dollar bills.

– Some interesting marriage stats, though as with so many other things, it’s really all just footnotes to Charles Murray.

Hari Seldon’s in Iran.

Advertisements

32 Responses to Randoms

  1. James says:

    Mangan is again wrong. He is treating “immigrants” as an undifferentiated lump—like Keynesian macroeconomics. Americans and the world economy benefit a great deal from high-skilled immigration, just as they do from free trade; this is disguised by lumping all immigrants together.

    There are four problems with low-skilled immigration, in descending order of importance:

    1. Political externalities. There are many points of connection between the quality of a polity and the kind of people who live in it.

    2. USG socially engineers America, so everyone is forced together. This makes ethnic diversity everyone’s business.

    3. State disposal of, or significant involvement in a backbone of land in the realm seems inevitable; otherwise it is easy for landowners to play negative-sum games by impeding people. Therefore, freedom of association ought to be balanced by collective decisions about who gets to share city streets and other public areas. There is not a free market in this, even in very libertarian polities.

    4. Very massive low-skilled immigration would significantly reduce the wages of low-skilled Americans.

    Otherwise, open borders would be no problem. I don’t find Mangan’s (or most of Steve Sailer’s) contributions to this debate edifying; they are almost the flip side of Bryan Caplan.

    • Foseti says:

      I agree that there’s a big divide between the anti-all-immigrants position and the anti-bad-immigrants position.

      I disagree that there are no good arguments against high-skilled immigration.

      Personally, I support skilled immigration. However, Sailer and others have pointed out that high-skilled immigration basically destroys middle class communities. Frankly, I think that’s probably partly true.

      A city with lots of low-skilled immigrants has no redeeming features (other than, of course, the incredibly cheap chalupas). A city with lots of high-skilled immigrants is probably a really nice city, but is also basically unaffordable for those not in the cognitive elite. A city without immigrants is probably just fine. Personally, I’ll take the one with lots of smart immigrants, but it’s not obvious that that outcome is better for civilization over the long term.

      • James says:

        Yes, the merits of immigration in the IQ 130-150 range are debatable, and must vary in different circumstances. I object to Mangan and Sailer’s etatist tenor more than their conclusions, because it betrays the harmful civics class mythologies that Nick Szabo has debunked.

        I think they downplay the extent to which spontaneous order could (in principle) solve the ethnic and economic challenges posed by immigration, and thereby perpetuate etatist fallacies. Contrariwise, in the immigration question many libertarians assume an ideal political order which we don’t have, in regard to #1 and #2 above, and are therefore unduly optimistic about the prospects for spontaneous order.

      • Asdf says:

        Smart immigration isn’t about 130+ IQ. There are very few people and they will find a way in. People are talking about 110-125 H1Bs that fill out IT departments. I work for an IT firm and almost all the programmers are Indian. For the most part this seems to do little more then drive down the wages for native STEM graduates. These people aren’t starting businesses, they are just competing for jobs at mega corps and government. I’m more sympathetic to this job of immigration but I’ve seen lots of negative cultural effects in te workplace as well.

      • Anonymous says:

        I work in the IT department of a major major financial firm, and nearly everyone is indian, and it really sucks

      • Gian says:

        James,
        The “spontaneous order” depends on the
        pre- existing bonds of trust and loyalty between citizens and people sharing a culture.

        Immigrants from a different culture, even very IQ and entrepreneurial, unless they make heroic efforts to assimilate to the host norms, inevitably erode the bonds of trust and loyalty.

      • josh says:

        James, if we were to have open borders local communities would need to protect their territory with guns and organization.

        A community just is a breeding population. Mating being the one biological function that extends the species across time is fulcrum round which institutions, customs, and traditions emerge and are extended across time.

        Different groups bring with them different customs, traditions, and even some institutions. They fundamentally disrupt the social order wherever they go because they detach the economic social order from the child producing social order.

        Assimilation does not really occur until the outside group is fully part of the breeding population with the original group. This does not happen quickly and may not happen at all. In any case the short and medium term is limited civil war over fixed resources such as political power and status and also possibly cheaper chalupas and better IT service.

      • Alrenous says:

        Notably, a spontaneous order can absorb new immigrants only so fast without breaking down. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was less than 5% of current levels. There are limits even if the immigrants are really smart.

        I’d also like to point out that most pro-immigration arguments come from those who believe that revolutions can be grassroots. They believe democracy came about because the peasants finally got fed up with the government and removed it. The potential immigrants could have fixed their government at home rather than come knocking at the west’s door.

      • josh says:

        They also believe that the integration of 19th and early 20th century immigrants happened without coercion.

    • Kudzu Bob says:

      Would it be a good thing for this country if we let in the hundred million smartest Asians?

      • Handle says:

        Depends on what you mean by “good thing for this country.” I don’t believe there’s any such thing as “The National Interest,” because, when I hear different people appeal to what seems to be the same notion, it’s obvious they mean completely different things.

        At any rate, the true answer is, “nobody really knows.” So why risk it?

      • jamzw says:

        The entire point of unrestricted immigration is to end the nation-state, not improve it. 100 million intelligent Asians will do that differently than 100 million morons, but it will do it.

  2. asdf says:

    Part 10 of Caplan’s list is in direct contradiction of parts 1-9.

    Of course the reason part 10 is there is because that’s how he gets paid enough to live in his bubble.

  3. Handle says:

    You should add a caveat to the first part of your condensation. 1. Get a tenured job at an semi-pricy (25K tuition, room, and board in-state) institution with closed borders (you can’t ‘trespass’ and attend classes without paying tuition) and a semi-selective (50%, 1150 average SAT), fixed-size population, a $100 application fee (which filters some folks out from the start, I’m sure), and which is at least 70% White+Asian in undergrad (90% in the Law School).

    Forget about the bubble. His institution behaves like a “low and smart, tightly-controlled immigration nation,” and you can be sure he greatly enjoys the benefits of that policy. And what is “tenured” if not “closed borders”? Only so many slots for new professors you see, and they’re taken, and there’s nothing we can do about it, our hands are tied! When’s the last time you heard him rage against GMU’s injustice?

    What would the benefit and consumer surplus be to the hoards of illegally trespassing undocumented students who could sit in on his classes for free? Huge! The existing students who have to pay the bills and now get crowded by unruly dummies who lower the level of instruction and class discussion? Not so much.

    • Alrenous says:

      To be precise, you can walk in and sit down in a lecture if you want, (and know the when/where) but the point is the transcript record at the end, which you have to pay for.

  4. PA says:

    ” There are four problems with low-skilled immigration, in descending order of importance:”

    Blah blah blah.

    The only problem with low-skilled immigration is that it comes with hideous women.

  5. RS says:

    > Assimilation does not really occur until the outside group is fully part of the breeding population with the original group. This does not happen quickly and may not happen at all. In any case the short and medium term is limited civil war over fixed resources such as political power and status and also possibly cheaper chalupas and better IT service.

    Exactly . . . and what’s wrong with the breeding stock we have now? White people seem to have the highest of achievements in most areas, also staying White means natural alliance with Europe ; racial numbers mean power and freedom (non-clienthood).

    I don’t mind if most of the secular Ashkenazim fold in, as they are not numerous and I think it would be ameliorative for the West. Other non-Europids and semi-Europids I would rather see remain to their own enclaves within the West, and not have any more of them.

  6. Tarl says:

    Race and color and national origin and that sort of thing, don’t really matter much to me at all.

    Unfortunately for him, those things DO matter to the Chinese — and indeed, to everyone EXCEPT idiots like Arthur Jensen.

    • Samson J. says:

      Srsly. I don’t really enjoy making insulting comments over the internet, but come on… when you read these guys, you’ve got to read them with the understanding that they are basically socially autistic and aesthetically retarded. When you’re reading a blog by a guy who thinks this would be “a gorgeous place to live”, you need to pause and give thought to the rest of his advice.

  7. Samson J. says:

    What strikes me about Caplan’s prescription for Bubble living is that almost all of it sounds a lot like a common Christian heresy:

    Why put so much distance between myself and the outside world? Because despite my legendary optimism, I find my society unacceptable. It is dreary, insipid, ugly, boring, wrong, and wicked. Trying to reform it is largely futile; as the Smiths tell us, “The world won’t listen.”

    The difference between him and I, I guess, is that as a Christian I feel obliged to engage with the world because it’s ugly and insipid.

  8. RS says:

    Dumb quote from Jensen, but at least he was terribly technical — in addition to being bold. His level of scholarship gave racial psychometrics an extra gleam.

  9. RS says:

    There are limits to natural right, so just citing it doesn’t do much.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: