Don’t be so dense. It’s obvious kingmonkey meant capitalists as in advocating capitalism. A lot of business men advocate all kinds of protections, regulations, taxation, public services, etc. Warren Buffer says regularly in interviews that taxes for the rich are too low – that he pays less taxes relatively to his income than his secretary.
These people advocate regulations that they believe will benefit them. Like DuPont supporting a ban on Freon shortly before its patent was going to run out and they have a new patented replacement ready to put on the market. A small business with no government connections and no patents for a popular product has an incentive to support true capitalism.
Buffet also may be playing to an audience that he thinks may buy his services. He wants to look good to the “little people” who buy insurance from Berkshire Hathaway. Some wealthy people play on envy for financial gain.
Well we’ll just have to see how this unprecedented experiment in social engineering will work out. My money’s on this low IQ population having high time preferences and voting accordingly.
It isn’t unprescidented at all. The Know Nothing movement kicked and screamed when Italians, Irish, Greeks and Germans came to this country. In fact Murray Rothbard once remarked that he grew up in a “communist culture”. He certainly did not turn out to be a commie. In fact, the Know Nothings would have opposed his ancestors coming to the Untied States and certainly would have opposed an immigrant like Ludwig von Mises coming over.
Interesting, I assume that you have conducted sophisticated studies of the intelligence quotient of children of recent “illegal immigrants”. If not, this remark frankly smacks of racism. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before but unless you are both willing and able to back up this remark with data from objective, reliable, scientific studies conducted by trained professionals in the field I am no longer willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I haven’t but others have. Mestizos and indigenous Central Americans are near the bottom of the barrel. That doesn’t mean there can never be such a thing as a mestizo or Amerindian molecular biologist, but they are going to be very, very rare. Contrast them with Ashkenazi Jews, Indians, Japanese and Koreans..
Incidentally, the immigration into the Northeast was a fraction of the current numbers and more importantly, it was eventually restricted greatly, incentivizing the assimilation of these immigrant groups. Of course, I could do without the cultural and classical Marxism they also brought along.
Do you mind providing us with references to these amazing and path breaking studies by modern phrenologists?
Google Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen. Or just google Hispanic dropout rates.
From wikipedia on Tatu Vanhanen:
What a weird reaction…
A couple of things. The people you cited did studies on nations, not ethic groups. National IQ can be impacted by diet, education, health care etc. etc. A child born into a new nation will have a different set of circumstances to grow up in. As for Hispanic drop out rates perhaps you are unaware of this but of all the countries in Central America, only is an English speaking nation. It is a little more difficult to stay in school if you do not understand the teacher and xenophobes have pressured school districts to cut back on ESL training.
Of course, like all conservatives, you engage in the fallacy of attributing all such statistics to nature in a deterministic sense while pretty much ignoring nurture and thinking that correlation equals causation. You almost seem to think as if “cultural marxism” is an inevitable trait of such people, as if that has nothing to do with the effects of their political systems and everything to do with their inherent “nature” as a group.
In either case, the relative statistical merits of people from these groups in terms of intelligence and whatnot is entirely irrelevant to whether or not they have negative rights and may own property in America or Europe. So throw all of the kooky eugenicist statistics you want at me, it’s entirely irrelevant to the principle of this matter. I could care less if they are stupid, lazy and believe in the flying spagetti monster.
Maybe if they grow up that very environment. However, their surroundings, influence of society, education and social environment do have an impact on how a child’s brain develops.
Which is what conservatives like Byzantine like to rather conveniently ignore and go on to characterize all such negative attributes to biology or physiology.
If you don’t support a Berlin wall what do you support? Signs politely asking them to not cross?
My point about taxes is this, if you claim that the government should follow a closed border policy, you’re arguing that the government has the right to decide who has the right to live inside its borders, that implies ownership. As you live on this land, surely the government has every right to tax you?
You claim that at this current time the government should act to discourage immigration, that legitimises government, especially as it means you recognise the borders.
Yes, the immigration restrictionist view inherently legitimizes the state’s territorial dominion. They’re advocating its reinforcement by force.
I’m advocating getting rid of welfare. I don’t like to pay for the people who are born here and I certainly don’t want to pay for those who want to move here. That is my argument. End welfare and I’ll support open borders. I cannot and will not do that until welfare disappears.
Say whatever you like but I live in the real world of real problems and not the theoretical world of perfect ideological purity. Reality is far from perfect and pure. The reality is that more immigrants mean more welfare and more taxes. I don’t know how to stop them from coming because I don’t support the idea of spending more tax dollars to fund more Border Patrol. But I know I don’t want them here if they are going to get on welfare. I’ve cut off members of my family for getting one welfare! I don’t talk to my sister anymore because she is on food stamps and SCHIPS. You know, I grow 75-80% of the food I consume a year in my own garden and I offered to show her how which would have taken an hour of her time a day, she would be self-sufficient and have enough food for her two kids and the pride that she did it on her own. I don’t see why others can’t do the same. Why have a lawn when you can grow your own food? But that’s a side point and I’m rambling. I know apartment dwellers can’t do that. My point is that I can’t support open borders because I know the reality of what will happen. I don’t support more border enforcement either so here I sit in an imperfect un-pure ideological quagmire. Which is why I chose to preach against the welfare state and not the millions of immigrants who are flowing across our border bankrupting everyone. My position remains unchanged – no immigrants if they are going to get on welfare.
That is the premise of public schooling: equality of inputs will yield equality of outcomes. But simply observing a class in progress will show that not all humans are equally educable. And even though you can get 5-10 IQ points out of nutrition and environment you are still starting with a lower baseline.
Society is created by human beings; it’s not dropped on them from the sky. The culture of a low IQ demographic will be different than the culture of a high IQ demographic. Culture shapes breeding patterns, and the results are visible to observation.
I’ve yet to hear a satisfactory answer to this. How does one go about getting rid of the welfare-warfare state so long as it is allowed to enlarge its constituency?
And since culture’s apparently the be-all-and-end-all, how is the cause of liberty advanced by importing people with no cultural grounding in the free market and inalienable rights?
Surely not by advocating that the state expand its power?
Ahh but “public schooling” does not give anything close to an “equality of inputs”. Go to a school in the Bronx in New York, go to another school in Cleveland Heights in Ohio and another one in the rural foothills of West Virginia and you will discover that not all the teachers are equally competent, not all of the textbooks as well written and not all of the buildings are as cleverly designed. And yes, the surrounding environment has an impact as well. A child who is afraid to walk the streets around his home or has neighbors trying to get him to take or sell drugs is going to have a different environment from someone who lives in an aesthetically pretty area that lacks in bookstores, libraries and museums [I am only speaking of RURAL West Virgina, I am not slamming the entire state] both will be disadvantaged compared to a child who both feels relatively safe and has libraries and museums around him as well. Also, culture does play a role to the extent that a given culture values or looks down upon learning.