Thursday, June 27, 2013

Libertarian Suicide

Occasionally, advocates of an absurd position reveal its absurdity better than any intellectual adversary ever could.  A case in point comes from a recent commentary by libertarian economist Don Boudreaux, who supports open immigration at all costs.   Literally, at all costs.

Boudreaux acknowledges that some populations of immigrants may impose negative political externalities for liberty via their reliably statist voting patterns, among other things.  A free society would face an existential threat from mass immigration from populations hostile to liberty.  For example, immigrants from backward Muslim countries tend to commit high rates of rape and other crimes, tend to set up no-go Sharia zones within cities, and tend to riot and issue death threats in response to Muhammed cartoons and other expressions of free speech. And if only 0.01% of foreign-born Muslims are terrorist threats, then you better hope a free society's foreign-born Muslim population stays under 10,000. 

Why should advocates of liberty tolerate any such threats to or erosions of their liberties? In a worst-case scenario, such pathological libertarian tolerance results in a free society becoming demographically controlled by hostile authoritarians.  Libertarian suicide is the potential price that must be paid for an a priori, acontextual prescription of open borders for all comers.

Libertarian economist Don Boudreaux illustrates this observation perfectly.  He writes, "I still support open immigration.  I cannot bring myself to abandon support of my foundational principles just because following those principles might prove fatal."

This is an expression of pure idealism untempered by any regard for what consequences may come from it.  His open borders prescription is deduced from a first principle and rendered forevermore impervious to any conceivable empirical critique. Putting an abstract principle that is supposed to lead to liberty above the actual survival of liberty in reality is a gross inversion. 

Boudreaux claims to be a voice of sanity.  But his belief that we must be willing to accept fatal consequences for liberty in the name of liberty is insane.

When open-borders policies result in an erosion of liberty for a given country, a substantive libertarian abandons open borders.  Libertarians should aggressively oppose government programs that artificially add new criminals, terrorists, welfare dependents, and statist voters to the electorate in higher proportion.

Someone who is willing to accept substantively less liberty because of egalitarian political correctness, or moral rights, or Austrian economic axioms...or any other sacrificing libertarian concerns for something he operationally believes to be more important.  That something is his real ideology. 

If he can be described as any kind of libertarian, it would be phony libertarian or dysfunctional libertarian.

I don’t cede the premise that libertarianism is an inherently suicidal ideology.  To anyone who would argue that fatal consequences are acceptable under libertarianism, I would say this: Stop.  You’re doing it wrong.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Letter to Don Boudreaux

Mr. Boudreaux,

In your post “Amnesty Intranational,” you ask, “Why are poor Hispanics not accorded the same humane treatment for committing ‘crimes’ that are equally as victimless as are the drug-taking ‘crimes’ committed in the past by presidents, governors, celebrated artists, and, quite likely, several of your neighbors and co-workers?”

You equate deportation of foreign nationals to imprisonment of U.S. citizens for doing drugs.  However, unless these poor Hispanics are from North Korea, deportation back to the countries from where they came isn’t even remotely equivalent to a prison sentence.

You imply that anything less than full amnesty for foreign nationals illegally residing here isn’t “humane.” But amnesty entails, ultimately, citizenship.  It is not an inherently libertarian position to favor adding millions of new statists hailing from the Third World to the voter rolls. Fully 67% of Hispanics say they want a bigger government with more services (Washington Post/Kaiser poll).

Amnesty is, in substance, a Big Government program.  Democrats want to issue voter ID cards to millions of undocumented statists and then shower them with benefits.  The total cost of the Amnesty program to taxpayers could run as high as $6.3 trillion in the years ahead, according to the Heritage Foundation.  Even if the estimate is wildly inflated (I don’t think it is), any package-deal program that on net grows government spending even a little should be opposed by libertarians.

The Amnesty program isn’t libertarian in theory or in practice.  Supporting it because you think some aspects of it are good (e.g., helping poor Hispanics) is a compromise that results in a net loss of liberty.  It also hinders the long-term prospects for liberty going forward.

Low-IQ immigrants from Third World countries constitute a permanent and growing underclass of government dependents.  Racial IQ gaps have not narrowed in decades.  Charles Murray and other researchers into IQ heritability expect that they won’t narrow in the future.  To believe they will is blind faith.  A First World nation won’t sustain itself or its freedoms with a Third World population.

I realize that none of this is likely to convince you to abandon your support of the Amnesty program.  But maybe I can convince you to take a stand on an aspect of current immigration policy on which we (and all libertarians) should be united in opposition, both philosophically and practically.  And that is the U.S. government’s participation in the United Nations Refugee Resettlement Program.  

Under this program, the government transports people from some of the most volatile places in the world (e.g., Somalia) and sets up communities for them here.  These are among the lowest-IQ, least self-sufficient, and highest-risk immigrants we receive in terms of their rates of engaging in violent crime and terrorism.  They weren’t invited here by any private citizens and would have no means of getting here without the intervening aid of government.

Have you or will you make the libertarian case against the Refugee Resettlement Program?

Boudreaux's response: "I know too little about the program that you mention to comment upon it."

My response: It is not even necessary to come to the conclusion that Chechen, Iraqi, Somali Muslim, etc. refugees are a net threat to our freedoms in order to come to the conclusion that the government shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to bring more of them here.  Refugee Resettlement is a Big Government welfare program.  What more do you need to know?

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Needed by Libertarians: More Race Realism

The left always seeks keep the discussion locked inside the confines of what they've pre-determined to be politically correct.  This is their friendly confines, their field of play, where they have the advantage.

If you are an advocate of liberty and you oppose positive government discrimination on the basis of race in the form of Affirmative Action...if you oppose federal and state efforts to mandate equal educational outcomes by race, then you need to understand IQ heritability.  Black adults possess average IQs that are 15-18 points below the white average in the United States, where IQ is approximately 75% heritable. This explains why the achievement gaps have been so persistent and consistent for more than 100 years, why they aren't narrowing despite herculean efforts by social planners, and most importantly, why they can't be eliminated through social interventions.

If you don't ground arguments against government racial-outcome redistribution programs in the science that shows racial differences are natural, then all you can do is engage in a debate about which social remedies to pursue, which is a debate that takes place on the left's home field.

CATO Institute Exposed

Cato's left-libertarian Beltway policy analysts try to attach themselves to the nation's Founding documents. But they aren't Jeffersonians in substance.


Sunday, June 16, 2013

The Principle of Selectivit​y

Immigration egalitarians would give government the power to make voting citizens out of whoever shows up from anywhere in the world by any means (invited or not). I wish to deny government bureaucrats the new clients and the new voters they seek for their racially and economically redistributive programs. I wish to restrict democracy and therefore citizenship.

I employ the same principle that any rational property owner would: selectivity.  A selective, libertarian immigration policy would spare a free society from being subjected to the high rates of crime, Islamic savagery, Democrat votes, and congenitally low IQs of the Third World. 

Open immigration is not libertarian, and no valuer of liberty who owned a private island in a sea of hostile neighbors would proclaim a policy of unrestricted migration into his micro-nation.  Globalist left-libertarians who prescribe open immigration a priori for all countries -- from Israel to Iceland -- are demanding that the people inhabiting them sacrifice their rational self-interest for a set of ideals that carry destructive consequences.

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Scientific Aversion to Science

The following is from my recent exchange with professed scientific skeptic sofiarune.  I'm not going to make this post unduly long by also including her replies to me.  If you know who she is, you can pretty well guess what she says.  If you don't know who she is, it doesn't matter what she says -- because, as I suggest, she's rendered herself irrelevant in the race and IQ debate.'s sad that you think it's the job of scientists to keep people ignorant of the findings of racial science. I seem to recall you allying with the forces of suppression in advocating that Rushton be fired for his research.

This is the epitome of the anti-scientific mindset:


I thought Rushton's argument that darker pigmentation helps explain higher rates of aggression in blacks was a bit of stretch. I also found it curious that he used surveys of public perceptions as evidence.

But Nisbett's failings in pursuit of his egalitarian thesis are far more obvious, egregious, numerous, and systematic:

Nisbett refuses to believe that SSAs have IQs of 70. Maybe more complete, more reliable data for some of these countries would show that their IQs are actually higher. Maybe not. 

But the people who assert that Rushton and Lynn come up with these IQ figures because they are biased reveal just how clueless they are about the hereditarian case. It would be a lot easier for us to make if we could assign all SSAs IQs of 85.  [That way, even the huge environmental differences between Africa and the U.S. could be shown to have no effect on black IQs.]


The issue isn't whether you cite Nisbett, but whether he should be stripped of his academic credentials because of his biased and shoddy research. That's why I brought him up, and you changed the subject instead of addressing the issue. Same goes for L. Lieberman and these other unscientific social activists that your friends on YouTube (Hannibal, et. al.) cite as if they were doing science.

I am not convinced that Rushton and Lynn were "frauds." Did Lynn ever claim that his IQ estimate for Equatorial Guinea was based on IQ tests administered directly to Equatorial Guineans? 

I can roughly estimate the IQ average of any city in the world if you tell me its per capita GDP and its racial makeup. It's not fraud; it's just a rough estimate that stands to be refined if actual, reliable testing data become available.

What about all the academics who arbitrarily assert as fact that there's no genetic basis for racial IQ differences? They're saying 0% without any basis for such a figure other than their opposition to "racism." 

It's not even a rough estimate. It's just scriptural dogma masquerading as a claim about reality. Egalitarians are no more reliable than young earth creationists at explaining human evolution. They come to the table with certain sacred notions that bias everything they do.

And if you won't call for any of these egalitarian social activists who are corrupting science to be fired, then your claim that calling for Rushton and Lynn to be fired was just about scientific rigor is fraudulent.


If you have an argument for an actual, substantive position in this debate, I'm open to it. So far, all you've done is critique one side of the debate while advocating that its most prominent exponents be excommunicated from academia. 

Calling them "frauds" doesn't disprove their heritability estimates. If you have an estimate for gene/environment apportionment that explains the IQ gaps better than Rushton and Jensen's 80/20 model, then let's hear it.

The last time I asked you to make a substantive argument, you said you had bowed out of the race debate and were no longer interested. If you have no argument, then you're irrelevant. 

"I don't know" isn't an argument in this debate anymore than it would be in the debate over what proportion of the observed global temperature increases over the past 100 years is due to human activity. Of course, no one knows precisely. But you'd still argue, I presume, that it's greater than 0%. I would.

You think that just because I'm more open about my political views than you are, that I'm more biased in my assessment of facts. That's not the case. I wouldn't care if it was discovered that there was some population of blacks somewhere in the world with IQs of 100. I don't hold any particular race gap to be sacred.

"Racist" scientists (such as S.G. Morton) tend not to be as biased in their actual handling of data as their impassioned critics. It is because Racists don't care about the social taboo against Racism that they are able to mentally free themselves to go where the data leads them.

You've got self-imposed constraints on what you're willing to acknowledge. And no amount of evidence for the role of biology in shaping non-superficial racial differences would cause you to break out of them. It's not about the evidence. It's about the barriers you've erected to taking in the evidence objectively -- double standards, raising the bar to unreasonable heights, etc.

You're just as guilty as a cruder, more overt social activist, of bias.  And just as guilty of endorsing the use of bully tactics against advocates of politically incorrect viewpoints to try to silence them.