You made this statement with no proof. It can be voluntarily sustained. Why cannot a homogeneous society be sustained? Why can’t above-average intelligence voluntary associations be sustained? Above-intelligent societies can invent stuff and innovate so they can export and compete goods and services that increases economic growth. They would be much more stable than some average-intelligence association. Their efficient businesses invented by smart people would be protected by trade secrets. Hoppe is a racist. He favors closed borders, limit immigration to Europeans, and mandate IQ tests for immigrants.
Racists would of course prefer an anarchist society than our current one. Their ideal society, however, is a ministatist society that performs racial discrimination and eugenics. This kind of society is not possible to attain, so racists would ally with anarchists.
What do you mean by “above-average intelligence voluntary associations”? I never said anything about intelligence. I can see now though that you are making assumptions of racial superiority in intelligence and assuming that this would make it counterproductive for them to associate with the “dum dums” from other races. Of course, intelligence levels is irrelevant to the benefits of economic relations. Even if you could prove that one race is inherently superior to the other, it would still be advantageous for them to have some degree of economic interaction. The sum total of production of social cooperation far surpasses that of the isolated individual. The same is true of isolated “nations” and “races” vs. social cooperation between them.
Do I really have to do a run-down of comparative advantage and its implications? Do I really have to explain to you the mutually beneficial nature of trade and how discrimination is a suicidal buisiness practise? Do I have to explain that someone on the margin is going to undercut the discriminators and cultural homogenists, and consequentially they will be outcompeted in time? I would think that the fact that racists lose in a free market is common knowledge around here. Another, non-economic reason that a homogeneous society cannot be sustained is the mere fact that the human race is slowly ethnically interbreeding.
I disagree. Most racists I’ve encountered are far from libertarian in their political views. The level of state power necessary to implement what they want hardly would constitute a “ministatist society”. Many of them wish to use state power in the name of producing cultural homogeniety. Furthermore, the political doctrine of white nationalists is relatively interventionist on economic matters and particularly highly protectist. They are far from friends of libertarianism.
I am not a paleocon nor a racist. I know that trade is beneficial to both parties.
Racists prefer a racially homogeneous society to avoid miscegenation. That’s the only major objective that they want. Miscegenation creates “mongrels” which cannot be as smart as either of the parents. Thus, avoiding miscegenation would create more smart people than encourging miscegenation. More smart humans increases economic growth than less smart humans. Therefore, they want to build a voluntary homogeneous association prohibiting miscegenation. That association can recruit intelligent people by offering incentives such as paying them compensation. The compensation can be funded by the businesses operating within that association. Businesses operating within that association are more efficient than businesses outside the assocation; because businesses within that association are operated by more intelligent people. The efficient businesses thus make money through free trade with entities outside that association. The association taxes the businesses and use the profits from its businesses to recruit even more intelligent people. That is a virtuous cycle. Intelligent people reproduce with other intelligent people within that association and create more intelligent people.
I wasn’t accusing you of being either. But in either case this theory has no scientific evidence to back it up. It is either a strange sort of biological determinism or a naive theory of social engineering.
Numerous scientists funded by the Pioneer Fund, numerous books such as the Bell Curve, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, IQ and Global Inequality, and Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, etc. suggests that “general” intelligence has 70% heritability. Many behavorist researchers have given up and adopted heriditarian view that intelligence is highly heritable. Studies compared mongrels and mongrels are not as smart as the white parent.
I agree that economic differences and corruption is the only major cause of the wealth disparity in Africa and South America compared to Europe. Differences in intelligence are subtle. If Africa is perfectly economically free and non-corrupt, it would be much more wealthy than the US and Europe.
We’re all “muts” to some extent, especially many Americans. The history of mankind is in part the story of endless migrations and intermixing between different tribes and nations.
Of course intermixing happened, as many racists believe. Same as the fact that we are all “chimpanzees” to some extent. Prehistoric miscegenation does not change a racist’s opinion on miscegenation. As long as anti-miscegenation laws are practical in preserving the intelligence of pure races.
These racists would usually define “pure” according to the criteria:
If a person passes an IQ test, then he is pure.
A “pure” person is as a person with four pure-looking grandparents of the same race.
Charles Murray? Is that you? Intelligence is not an inherited trait like blue eyes and blond hair. You can test this by raising your child in a basement cut off from all human contact.
Furthermore, intelligence cannot be objectively measured, because it is a subjective value. An IQ test is like a happiness test - which is to say, utterly meaningless, because there can be no objective definition of what intelligence actually is.
And anyway, categories like “Black” and “White” are biologically meaningless. Pseudo-scientists like the folks at the Pioneer Fund take socially defined categories and treat them as if they were objective categories of humanity.
edit
I shouldn’t say “socially defined,” because they’re actually just unilaterally defined by the state - and totally arbitrary. Stop thinking that human beings come in different species. Real life is not Dungeons and Dragons. Dark skinned people do not start life with +2 strength and +2 dexterity and -2 intelligence and -2 wisdom. It’s total fantasy.
I reject racism on moral grounds (though not voluntary disassociation), but please provide proof for the assertion that race does not exist. This is commonly proclaimed by individuals like Gould, Lewontin etc., although their research is highly controversial itself. I was hopeful that libertarians would be more skeptical with regard to the mainstream science on the subject than most (to the extent that such exists, given how controversial the subject is.)
Libertarian, I am not sure how you can assert with such certainty that Hoppe is a racist. It’s easy to quote his arguments out of context etc. and say he is, of course.
Race is a concept that is asserted to exist by the state. Why do you reject so many other naked lies of the state, but judge this one to be worthy of consideration?
Race is simply an arbitrary definition based on the melanin levels of your skin. It is not otherwise indicative of genetics. Any two people might disagree on the racial identity of a “mixed” person, which is a misnomer anyway because everyone is the product of millions of years of “mixing.”
The modern state is hardly favourably disposed towards the idea of race (except when it comes to affirmative action), so I am not sure how it fits in today. It is impossible to do dispassionate research on the matter precisely because it is so controversial.
What you just mentioned is precisely what is controversial - that the only variation amongst human races is melanin levels. I am indifferent as to whether race exists or not, but denying biological differences amongst various subgroups seems completely mistaken. As for the “untermensch” comment, what was its point?
It is not controversial. What is race, as defined by the state? It is based on what a person looks like. Ancestry has nothing to do with it. You can be “Black,” yet have 50% ancestry coming from Western Europe, and the rest coming from Western Africa. You can still be “Black” and have 80% of your ancestry coming from East Africa, and the remaining 20% coming from South East Asia. Do you see the glaring problems associated with conflating socially defined categories with genetics?
Murray has a PhD in Political Science. I don’t see why he is perceived as a biology expert.
But fortunately he can access the journals, works and other literature of biology experts. That’s what these journals are therefore to make the knowledge generated by scientists in a certain field accessible to others.
We should also differentiate between the following: people acknowledging differences between race groups, people that advocate policies refering to race and people that prefer/dislike certain races or their members. Problem is that all these concepts are summarized under the umbrella term of “racism”, which has become a slur word for politically incorrect ideas or those representing them. So the word itself is pretty useless as descriptive term for political debate.
Given my experience and thinking the issue through I’m in favor of that a nation should consist of people that are racially compatible with each other. I acknowledge their are diffences between race groups as well, but that doesn’t mean that I waste my time on “hating” people, because they belong to another race. I btw. think that this is what the founding fathers of the United States had in mind as well.
It’s a bit like saying: “steretypes are true, but I do not have prejudice against Germans, Irish, Italians, Jews, Chinese, etc. etc, but, but, but, all the stereotypes about them are TRUE!”
What a laugh. There is no biological basis for “Race” as melanin level is a continuous spectrum for humanity. There is no biologically definable “Race” based on skin color just like there wasn’t a biologically definable “British Race,” “French Race,” “German Race,” “Italian Race,” etc. etc.. “Race” was simply a device invented for identity politics. What’s idenity politics, you ask? It’s just a sort of mafia scheme for finding brotherhood between you and me so we can both go exploit someone else. That’s why in the early use of “Race,” the term meant supposed nationality and tribal affiliations; that’s why you have “Germanic Race,” “Slavic Race,” etc. in the early days of Racism. Because back then, state borders did not neatly co-incide with ethnic borders. The object of Racism was to make a lot of Irrendentist claims. What followed in Europe was massive “ethnic cleansings” between Germans vs. Slavics, and Germans vs. French. “Race” is simply a tool for those kind of identity politics.
You answered your own question half way through the first sentence. The modern state is very keen on the idea of “race”; affirmative action is only one of the latest tools for identity politics.
Where is this claim coming from? If anything, in agriculture (where you can see the success vs. failure of breeding experiements more quickly than for humans), hybridization is a well-established method for avoiding genetic disease.
I guess, by that logic, only Jews and far east asians should be allowed to reproduce . . . what a proposterous idea!
It seems to me these two criteria combine to produce inbreeding based on looks . . . What a dumb idea; how in the world would the government be able to go back in time and give IQ test to the grandparents? If intelligence is truely the goal here, the racists should really ban themselves from breeding