Overall, I get what the author is saying, but a few things about the article bother me.
First, a matter of taste, I resent the contemporary use of the word Liberal, but such are our times and perhaps it’s time to let the word go…
My main problem here is his second example of paradoxical reasoning:
“Blacks do less well than whites and Asians in school, perform
less well on standardized tests, earn less, and are more prone
to crime, illegitimacy, and welfare dependency, so they must be
as intelligent and achievement-oriented as whites and Asians.”
I find it unnecessarily insulting to blacks to paint with such a brush, even if just using it as a example of faulty logic. As the rest of the points are clearly pro-market, the idea that the author does not agree with the counter conclusion here seems unlikely. The author essentially ties skin color to intelligence ignoring cultural and historical factors. This seems to be a philosophical error in itself. Even if his conclusion is true, such a conclusion based on such reasoning would be irresponsible; correlation is not causation. I’m not sure how this bit got into the JLS.
I see from Wikipedia that I’m not the first to complain about his “scientific” racism. He seems like more of a racist “conservative” than a libertarian.
I know he’s saying a silly liberal might reason along those lines. But, reading down the list, I found that every “silly” conclusion, I held the opposite of in my own view - except that about blacks.
The form is Premise => Silly Conclusion : implied belief in the opposite conclusion that would be common among market libertarians. For your defense to be reasonable, he has to break this pattern for just this one bullet point.
Further, he clearly advocates a view that intelligence is inherited genetically.
Explain to me exactly how “By the way, you’re genetically predisposed to being less intelligent than me.” furthers the cause of liberty? Is this likely to lead to repeal of non-discrimination laws?
The implied conclusion in the original article implies that it is. Coincidence that he’d put only one conclusion in his list that failed to imply the opposite of his view? No, they all imply his view by saying the opposite is silly.
He has 16 bullet point examples of silly reasoning. In every one is a premise, and a silly conclusion that is the opposite of what “every market libertarian knows”, so to speak.
• The sexes seem to differ, so they must be the same.
“The sexes are clearly not the same.”
• Blacks do less well than whites and Asians in school, perform
less well on standardized tests, earn less, and are more prone
to crime, illegitimacy, and welfare dependency, so they must be
as intelligent and achievement-oriented as whites and Asians.
“It is foolish to believe that Blacks are as intelligent and achievement-oriented as whites and Asians” is the implied conclusion and viewpoint put forward as reasonable.
• The thought of sex with another man repels heterosexual
males, so the homosexual personality must be just like the heterosexual.
“Of course the homosexual and heterosexual personalities are not the same”
• English is a phonetic language, so it should be taught as if
it were ideographic.
“Of course it shouldn’t be taught as if it were ideographic!”
I know. He provided some observations about black people. He then implied that, therefore, obviously, black people, as an aggregate, are, at the least, less intelligent and achievement-oriented than white and asian people as an aggregate. In your response to that, you stated that “[t]he author essentially ties skin color to intelligence ignoring cultural and historical factors”. But he never implied that black skin causes lesser intelligence. He merely implied that black skin correlates with lesser intelligence.
Right, and it’s irresponsible, inflammatory, and counter-productive to imply such a thing. The point is that the work would stand fine without it.
When I stated that 'the author … ties skin color to intelligence," it would be unreasonable to think I meant that he’s saying that the actual skin caused this. That would be the most absurd interpretation possible of what I said (= strawman). I made that statement because he uses the term ‘Black People’ (people readily identified by skin color) to the fullest extent of this lazy generalization.
In your response, you claimed that “correlation is not causation”. I argued that he did not intend to imply that correlation implies causation. In your response, you claimed that he ignored “cultural and historical factors”. I argued that he did not ignore them.
It was one of the most dispicable talks I have ever listened to from the Mises Institute. I’m not a bleeding heart liberal, but its hard for me to see this talk as anything but racism and homophobia dressed up, and sometimes not even very well.
As far as I know, the libertarian arguement is that while we don’t want the gov’t to be involved in anything, the things it is involved in, it should not actively discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. But that its fine* to allow for discrimination in the private sphere.
This guy also has written justifications for the use of torture.