Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

High returns on IQ between countries, but low returns within country

Tuesday, December 21st, 2010

If we control for academic qualification, there is zero or negative return on IQ within a country.  That is to say, of two people of different IQ but same country and the same academic qualification, the smarter one will have similar or lower socioeconomic success.

If we do not control for academic qualification, IQ still does not make a very large difference.  Of two people of very different IQ, but the same country, and academic qualifications typical for their IQ, the much smarter one will not be much richer

I think it likely that this is a manifestation of the observed fact that high IQ people tend to be nerds, socially low status, tend to get in trouble socially.

However, if we compare between countries, countries where people have slightly higher average IQ tend to be much more prosperous than similar countries with slightly lower average IQ.

A two standard deviation difference in an individual person’s IQ predicts only about a 30% difference in his wage.  But half a standard deviation difference in a country’s average IQ score predicts a 200% difference in the average wage in that country.

Why do high IQ people do so badly?

Suppose you have a bunch of people together.  And the crowd makes a mistake about X, or, which comes to much the same thing, a high status person in the crowd makes a mistake about X.  The high IQ kid is going to say “X is wrong”.  But no one else in the crowd can tell whether X is right or wrong.  They will think it is a matter of opinion, like what flavor of icecream is better, or a matter of authority, an arbitrary rule decreed by someone, and this kid is wrongfully claiming authority to decree that rule.

And will conclude that the smart kid is inappropriately throwing his weight around, is acting inappropriately for his status, they will be insulted, offended, and angered at what they incorrectly perceive as a claim of status and authority. And so will attempt to correct his swelled head, will tell him his status is low, and his status claim inappropriately high.

So the smart kid in the group, like the stupid kid in the group, is going to wind up at the bottom – and very likely with an income to match.  The high IQ kid is going to be a social failure in a group where the majority is stupid.

In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is at the bottom.

So if you want society to be run by smart people, that society has to stream the kids, group smart kids with smart kids, and dumb kids with dumb kids, and get its leadership from the leadership that emerges from leading the smart group.

If, on the other hand, society thinks that everyone should go to university, and the elite universities select their students primarily on political correctness and cultural similarity to the existing elite rather than smarts, then your society is going to wind up being run by people who are not much brighter than average, and most of the wealth and power is going to be in the hands of people who are not much brighter than average for that country.

The smart group will do well, but the smart individual will do badly.  Thus a smarter country is much richer, but a smarter individual is little richer, and may well be be poorer.

It follows that the way for the smart kid to succeed is to get in with a smart group of about his own intelligence that is in charge of its own destiny, get in on the right track early, and the way for a country to succeed is to make the formation of such groups easy and natural.

Leftist fratricide

Thursday, December 16th, 2010

The unity of the left in part derives from room at the top, that the ruling elite promised endless expansion – government jobs, and quasi governmental jobs like “diversity training”, “human resources”, and “sensitivity training”, jobs for which one must demonstrate adequate leftism as a entry requirement. As the west moves into financial crisis, there is a marked shortage of additional room at the top. In Britain, the expansion of the state has halted, or considerably slowed, a change misleadingly described as “drastic cuts”. For those Britons expecting natural progression into government jobs and government created jobs, it certainly feels like they have been cut, that they have been abandoned to drop into the underclass. The end of endless expansion is, to them, indeed a “cut”.

So anti establishment leftist Julian Assange exposes the establishment leftists in the state department. Rotund establishment leftist Michael Moore supports Julian Assange, pays his bail, and smirks and rolls his eyes when discussing the ludicrous sex charges against him. Immediately ugly diesel dyke feminists are thrown into a frothing rage by that smirk and eye roll and call Michael Moore a rape enabler.

The unity of the left is expensive, and starting to exceed the capability of states to pay. The left is therefore moving into a crisis analogous to the reformation.  The reformation was a loss of unity in the theocracy which made the age of reason possible.  Today’s theocracy is suffering from a similar weakening.

On the other hand, Roissy, like Unwin, argues that rationalism can only dominate in a patriarchal society, for which proposition Oprah is plausible evidence.

Julian Assange’s “rape”

Thursday, December 9th, 2010

Roissy has the details:  The Assange “Rape”: A Case Of Spurned Groupies

These girls, excited by his internet fame, pursued him, stalked him, and jumped his boner.  He pumped them and dumped them both.  Upon discovering they had been dumped and that he had banged them both, they then claimed rape – not on the basis that he had coerced them, but on the basis that he had refused to wear a condom, had been banging them both, and had refused to keep on banging them – on the basis that he treated them the way famous people usually treat the numerous  women that eagerly pursue them.

Julian Assange is a hero

Tuesday, December 7th, 2010

Yes, he is a leftist, but he is an enemy of the regnant left, an enemy of the state, an enemy of my enemy.  Why are all these rightists complaining when Assange makes Obama look like a dangerous lunatic and the state department look like deluded religious fanatics?  Are these rightists loyal to a government that is at every level composed of men who hate them and regard them as enemies?  Apparently so.

What took down the Roman Catholic theocracy was not the light of reason, not the enlightenment, but bigoted religious zealot theocrats like Martin Luther, who were rebelling because the Church was not theocratic enough.  Julian Assange is one of those rebel theocrats.

Julian Assange’s most important accomplishment was not leaking a pile of private emails that show our masters speaking unspeakable truths that no one speaks in public.  What I found more disturbing was how often the cables were bland, how often they sincerely believed their deluded lies.  What I found disturbing was not that these diplomats sometimes spoke the truth, but that they usually did not, that while hereditary aristocrats and monarchs can usually see the truth and are apt to speak it, and foreign politicians can sometimes see it and sometimes speak it, American diplomats can seldom see the truth even when it is right in front of them.  The cables are shocking not because they reveal what was unknown, but because they sometimes reveal what everyone know but no one says – but far too often, the cables are not shocking, far too often they reveal a theocracy that piously and sincerely believes in its official religion, far too often the cables reveal a frightening lack of hypocrisy.

Julian Assange’s most important accomplishment was rubberhose, the predecessor to truecrypt.  In the long run, it is more effective to change society by changing the tools through which people interact, than by direct confrontation with the state.  The state exists only because people think it exists, and is therefore far more fragile than it seems.

This wikileak good for the US

Saturday, December 4th, 2010

Pajamasmedia argues the leak is bad for the US

The fact is, the WikiLeaks drop gravely hurts the U.S., not so much in what’s in the documents but in the disclosure itself. Imagine the U.S., China, Iran, Russia, North Korea etc etc all around a high-stakes poker table. WikiLeaks just took America’s cards out of her hands and plopped one of them on the table, while keeping the rest of them for its own use.  WikiLeaks has not done the same to the other players.  This asymmetrical disclosure helps the other powers and hurts us, just by the fact that we don’t control our cards anymore, and they still control theirs.  We should be afraid of the unforeseeable and unintended consequences that this disclosure is bound to have.  To not fear this is to not be prudent in the job of statecraft.

Well that would be true if the government was pursuing the interests of the US, but on the face of it, what is in Wikileaks suggests that the US government is pursuing the interests of the regnant left as an interest group, the interest of the Cathedral, that the government of the US does not much like America or Americans, that it thinks we are a bunch of stupid selfish white trash rednecks who pollute the earth and oppress and exploit the rest of the world, that it is just gut level hostile to ordinary Americans  in flyover country, that the government is left wing elitist, regnant left, at the top and at every level.

Your government just does not like you.  And electing politicians who do like you would not change much, because the real government is the permanent bureaucracy, whose conduct and policies is largely unaffected by the outcome of elections.

Decline of the west

Friday, November 26th, 2010

The last man on the moon left in 1972

The tallest building in the united states was finished in 1974.

Cars are becoming humbler.

US electricity production was growing exponentially until 1972.  After 1972 it grew more slowly.  Per capita electricity consumption  seems likely to have peaked around 2007 or so.

Supposedly GDP is still growing rapidly, just as supposedly inflation is zero, but it seems improbable that GDP is growing when per capita electricity consumption is not.

One could present all sorts of rationalizations for the decline in manned space exploration – for example that manned space exploration was a polite way of demonstrating superior capability to nuke the other side, and supposedly we are so much more civilized and mature now that the need for such chest beating has diminished.

However, by 2000, we have more compelling evidence of decline.  The buildings damaged or destroyed in 9/11 have not been repaired or replaced.

The west is the past. America sinks into Eurosocialism, while Europe becomes the western satrapies of the new Persian empire. Every rising civilization was a lender, innovator, and investor, every declining civilization a borrower.  California used to be the place where the future was invented, but no longer.

The west’s lead was California’s lead.  And California is no more.

Where, for example, was the netbook commercialized?  Who invented and built the “Amazon” Kindle?  Who is today creating the blue light lasers that are the core of every DVD reader and writer?

The Kindle was developed in Taiwan, by Eink.   It is some standard computing parts wrapped around a new display technology invented, developed and manufactured by Eink.

Indians looking to study abroad rate Melior in Singapore higher than Stanford in the USA.

Today, our universities turn out people trained in political correctness and “diversity”.  Every male CS graduate can parse a boolean expression, but most female CS graduates cannot, indicating that a male needs to be able to parse a boolean expression to get a CS degree, and a female does not. The end stage of this process is that no one needs to be able to parse a boolean expression, but everyone needs to be able to hate dead white males.

China leads the world in coal to liquids technology.

China leads the world in internet based transactions.

The simplest explanation for the fact that western research seems to have fallen off a cliff is that we are now reaching the point where hating dead white males is a more important academic qualification than anything else.  Doubtless it is in reality more complicated than that, but the simplest explanation works quite well:  Consider, for example, the recent demonization of Chagnon.  The most striking factor was the ignorance and stupidity of the academic associations condemning him.  They just did not know stuff.  It was as if they don’t read books by dead white males, as if they feared that reading such stuff might contaminate their minds with dangerous thoughts.

What we have had for some time in academia is theocracy, not meritocracy, and theocracy tends to promote those whose faith is most zealous and reliable.  It is easier to have zealous and reliable faith if you are dumb as two planks glued together.

Who is at the top of Academia:  I suppose the tip top crust are the people who condemned Chagnon, and people like the leading scientists of global warming, Mann and Phil Jones, who are demonstrably not nearly as smart as I am.  Mann, for example, keeps making ludicrous and amateurish mistakes in his statistics, and any time Phil Jones wants something scientific done, he summons a post grad, and tells the postgrad to produce a chart that proves such and such, suggesting that Phil Jones cannot produce such charts, nor tell if the chart actually does prove such and such.

Mann’s work demonstrates he is simply stupid.  Mann’s power over other scientists demonstrates that simply stupid people are on top.  Stupid people on top provide a simple explanation of why science does not get done.

How did Mann get to the top?  By telling the state what it wants to hear, by political correctness.

Demonstrably, the people in charge of science and research are not the tip top crust.  They got where they are by hating dead white males more than anyone.

The fact that undergraduates are marked on the basis of race, gender, and political correctness is fairly harmless.  That academics get power over other academics on the basis of political correctness has not been so harmless, and we are today paying the price, in that western research is failing.

Singapore has sustained its rate of growth.  Taiwan has sustained its rate of growth.  Therefore China is likely to sustain its rate of growth.

Assuming China grows like Singapore from now on, and the US grows like Europe (counting European growth as real, even though such growth as occurs is government employees, whose product is valued at cost, which cost grows at astonishing rate) then China should surpass the US in total GDP by 2019 or so.

China should surpass the US in GDP per head, as Singapore already has, by around 2045 or so.  Taiwan should surpass the US in GDP per head in 2018 or so.

The financial system of the west is collapsing because the fed and its bureaucrats have the mission to replace financial panics with wise regulatory authority – which might work if wise regulatory authority had the will to punish elite wrongdoing the way financial panics did, and resist the desire of politicians to use the financial system as a piggy bank for vote buying the way bankers threatened by financial panics did.  Since brave regulators are not to be found, the replacement is not working.

The last time the west stalled, it stalled for four hundred years under intellectual stagnation induced by theocracy, from 1277 to 1648.

We are seeing multiple simultaneous crises.  Academia is a thousand loudspeakers controlled by one microphone, and that microphone in the hands of an idiot.

All the massive financial crime that the financial crisis exposed <http://blog.jim.com/economics/mortgage-fraud-predatory-borrowing.html> continues unpunished and unabated, foreshadowing another, even bigger financial crisis coming up fast.

The graffiti on the buildings that are now owned by the Federal Reserve foretells our future.

We are also seeing an explosive gold rush in government as rent seeking monopolies multiply.  Thus it used to be, for example, that the local council gave itself a monopoly of water and sewage, though there is in practice no rationale for the sewage monopoly – septic tanks and highly localized sewage farms are more economical.  Large centralized sewage facilities beloved of councils and council unions suffer severe diseconomies of scale due to the high cost of  piping sludge any reasonable distance. Seeing the lucrative flow of money, every other level of government gets into the act.  Just as to get anything done, a private individual needs multiple permits from the council, each requiring him to hire numerous “consultants” at $400 per hour, the council needs multiple permits from state and federal governments, requiring the council to hire numerous “consultants” at $100 000 per hour.  The tip is emitting methane!  Oh the horror.  Someone official comes to officially look at the methane, charges  $100,000 for looking, and issues an enforceable “recommendation” for an open ended and indefinite series of remediation measures, each of which will require another look.

Oh what did we do before there were people to officially and highly scientifically investigate the fact that tips are apt to pong?  What would we do without government to supervise government?  And surely any problems that might occur can be easily remedied by providing yet another layer of regulatory authority to regulate the regulators that are regulating the regulators that are regulating the local council.

This, like the housing boom is unsustainable.  A single monopoly will charge inefficiently high prices and produce inefficiently low product, which is indefinitely sustainable. Multiple layered monopolies suffer a coordination problem that results in them charging infinite prices and producing zero product, as each attempts to get the majority of the squeeze.

This problem is remediable only through collapse or foreign conquest.  As I have remarked several times, the reason that Dubai can build high towers and we no longer can, is that in Dubai, you only need the approval of one theocrat and one holy religion.

I hope for collapse, since foreign conquest is likely to be unpleasant.  Last time around, however we had stagnation for four hundred years.   Collapse would be preferable.

Democracy is self destructing, as it inexorably moves further and further to the left – the fate of the past democracies of Athens and Rome.

Hyperinflation coming, but not soon

Sunday, November 21st, 2010

There is a lot of ruin in a nation.

Glen Bleck predicts catastrophic instant inflation completely collapsing the currency and government in a single two week crisis.  That is not the way hyperinflation happens.

Hyperinflation consists of a series of hyperinflationary crises.  In a hyperinflationary crisis, the value of money falls abruptly, typically to two thirds, half or a third of its previous value.  The collapse occurs so suddenly that by the time most people realize that the hyperinflationary crisis has begun it, is already over.

And, after the crisis is over, people think normality is returning.  After all, most of the government’s debts have been inflated away.  And sometimes normality does return.  But usually the irresponsibility, criminality, and incompetence that led the government to run up unpayable debts is still present, so suddenly, when people least expect it, there is another hyperinflationary crisis.  And then another.  And another, until the government gets its act together or people just stop using its currency.

So when will the first hyperinflationary crisis hit?  Europe is in worse shape than the US, and Europe still stands.  So probably not for a few years.

Government probably will not collapse in the first hyperinflationary crisis, but there is a good chance it will collapse or undergo some fundamental change not long after.  In 1994 I predicted governmental collapse around 2016, 2020, or 2025, or so.  The American government has lasted a lot longer than most other governments, but there are numerous indications that its run is ending.  That the buildings damaged or destroyed in the 9/11 attacks are still down is an omen, a manifestation of loss of cohesion and internal discipline withing the ruling elite.  Park 51 cannot be repaired because to repair it needs permissions from lots and lots of authorities, and each authority wants the largest share of the vigorish.

Reflect on the proposed victory mosque at at Park 51.  The factory at Park 51 suffered extensive damage in the 9/11 attack, due to parts the plane and parts of people landing on it, and could never be repaired or replaced, because any repair would require too many permissions from too many different authorities, each wanting the lion’s share of the vigorish, so stands damaged and empty to this day, with bits of the 9/11 passengers still in it to this day.

But Imam Rauf, unlike the owner, has no trouble getting all the permissions he needs for a victory mosque, because if anyone creates difficulty for him, instead of paying off the bureaucrat making trouble, Imam Rauf drops a gentle hint that if Rauf does not get what he wants, some other Muslims, immoderate Muslims quite unlike the wonderfully moderate Rauf, might blow up the offender.  Rauf, of course, understands that Islam is the religion of peace, but if he does not get what he wants, might inspire some of those dreadful misunderstanders of Islam to blow you up.

In the final stages of state decline, presaging final collapse, broader and broader state power, the power to destroy, is delegated to more and more people subject to less and less state discipline.  Patent trolls are merely one more consequence of irresponsible judges with too much power and not enough restraint, and irresponsible overpowered judges are merely one more consequence of the expanding bureaucracy and regulatory apparatus that has prevented the towers from rising again.

The left rules, but like the Soviet Party,  has lost faith in itself: Mencius remarks:

Over a century ago, Lecky found the core of liberalism in his portrait of Gladstone:

Passion and casuistry seem naturally incompatible, but in Gladstone they were most curiously combined.

The perfect leftist is the fanatical hypocrite. While his beliefs correspond precisely to his own advantage, he believes in them furiously just the same. His opportunism does not even slightly detract from his sincerity, which is palpable and enormous. Indeed, if the situation changes and so do his interests, his mind will change as well. And change sincerely.

Alas, this character is easier to describe than find. In the day of Gladstone, liberalism was young and crazy and full of juice. Today? The movement exudes the overwhelming odor of fatigue. It remains both fanatical and hypocritical – but not in one person. Its fanatics, who could be broadly described as the amateur left, are devoid of any tactical cunning. And its hypocrites, who despite Robert Gibbs constitute the professional left, are as passionless as an eggplant.

They try to care. They moan, they gasp, they writhe. But their eyes are dead, whore eyes. Now that we’ve seen it in the White House, we’d know it anywhere. You have to be an awfully blind fanatic not to see what you’re looking at. Can the amateur left, the audience, the chumps who buy the magazines, find a professional leftist who actually cares about his ideals? They’ll need a much brighter lantern than it took to find B.H. Obama.

In 2010, there is nothing fresh about the revolution industry. The idealistic professional leftist is the exact counterpart of the romantic porn star – a human impossibility. A porn star is a prostitute. It’s simply impossible for a prostitute to feel, or even simulate, normal sexual passion. If any ordinary, amateur leftist were somehow transported into the White House, “enhanced patdowns” and Afghan wars would end tomorrow. But once a pro, always a pro. And who gets elected, but a pro?

And why has the ruling elite lost faith? The gate keepers to the elite demand proof of sincere radical leftism before anyone can be allowed in, require a demonstration of sincere leftism so extreme that no genuine leftist is likely to manifest it:

Gonzalo explains in Selecting for Cynicism in the Ivy League

Chatting with my new classmates on my first day in Hanover, I quickly learned that none of this do-goodism was genuine. That wasn’t my verdict—it was the verdict of my peers: The very ones who had done all this do-goodism admitted to me that it was not genuine—had never been genuine.

But community service or volunteer work was key: Any student serious about getting into an Ivy simply had to do community service or volunteer work.

Four years of high school meant eight “community service” extra-curriculars—one per semester. Anything more would seem like you were a “dabbler”, and therefore “weren’t serious”. But anything less would show a “lack of commitment”, which was equally bad. And the extra-curriculars had to be more or less aligned: You couldn’t read to blind people one semester and then go save the whales in the next. Rather, you had to work on saving the whales in one semester, and then volunteer to work on an organic farm in the next: That showed you were “environmentally aware”. Or else you had to tend a soup kitchen for the homeless, then read to the elderly in the next semester: That showed you were “socially engaged”.

My fellow Dartmouth students, as well as students at all the other Ivies that I would get to know over the years, did all this do-goodism as a requirement, in order to get into a good school—an Ivy League school.

They did it in order to get ahead—and they were openly encouraged to do it: Not just by their parents, but by their high-school guidance counselors, their college prep advisors, even the visiting admissions deans of the very universities they were applying to—

—it was simply part of the admissions process: “It’s like taking calculus,” I still remember a girl named Debra, from Nebraska, telling me on the bus ride back to Hanover from Moosilauke Lodge. “You have to grind it out, and get it over with.”

In 1985 I predicted the Soviet Union would fall, because the party had lost the faith.

A ruling elite sticks together, and presents a united face to all their inferiors. A ruling ideology, a theocratic state, like the Soviet Union, like the leftist ruled west, is a state where the elite derives its cohesion from shared belief. And when the theocrats no longer believe, the state will collapse at the first serious challenge.

Astroturf

Friday, October 8th, 2010

Casting Call: It’s a Bit Part Playing a Concerned Ordinary Citizen
Shannon Love found an interesting job listing at website advertising acting jobs:

Casting Notice Search Results

New Casting Notice Search

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next

158 Casting Notices found |
Posted
Date
Ascending Descending
Casting Notice Summary
10/7/2010 PRESIDENT OBAMA TOWN HALL, DC
PRESIDENT OBAMA TOWN HALL, DC MTV, BET, and CMT (prods.) are casting the audience for a town hall meeting with President Obama. Shooting Oct. 14 at 4 p.m. in Washington, DC. Seeking—Audience Members: males and females, 18+. To apply, email townhallaudience@mtvnmix.com and put “Town Hall” in the subject line. To ensure that the audience represents diverse interests and political views, include your name, phone number, hometown, school attending, your job and what issues, if any, you are …[more]

The cause of the crisis

Monday, September 13th, 2010

One of a series of posts titled “the cause of the crisis”, each discussing a different cause, but each of these causes caused or was caused by each of the other causes:

When the universal franchise was introduced a hundred years ago, people said the system would go to hell.  Now it is going to hell.

Obviously a government cannot go on forever spending much more than it collects.  For a while printing money and borrowing money will work, but eventually, it is bound to lead to trouble, and big trouble is approaching fast.

Government inexorably and rapidly gets more expensive and more intrusive.  No doubt more taxes could be collected if they went after the politically well connected, but overall taxes are close to the Laffer maximum – if they raise taxes on those whom it is easy to raise taxes on, for example a tax on luxury yachts, they will get less money, not more money.

A tax on gas, beer, and cigarettes would work, but be unpopular with the electorate.  A tax on bankers, educationists, and lawyers would work, but would be unpopular with the well connected – and even such taxes would merely postpone the day of reckoning.  Government’s existing commitments are unsustainable with any politically realistic, or even politically unrealistic, tax rise.

The welfare state is simply running out of money.

There are two related problems:  Theocracy and democracy.  The masses are stupid, the elite is theocratic.

Because the elite is theocratic, they compete for power by each being holier than the other, that is to say, more politically correct than the other – but because their religion is this-worldly, they are required to have religious beliefs about this word rather than the next, thus each member of the elite competes to be further out of contact with reality than the other.

Because the masses are stupid, they succumb to politicians promising that the voters can vote themselves rich.

A hundred years ago, progressivism was a sect of Christianity with ambitions for theocracy and world conquest.  To better pursue these goals, it discarded theism, becoming theologically indistinguishable from universalist Unitarianism, thus evading the restraints imposed by the first amendment.

Consider, for example, the doctrine that men and women are equal – therefore the same and interchangeable:  Women, supposedly, can be firemen and soldiers.  Men, supposedly, can marry other men.

The modern progressive theory of equality is in fact a variant of Christianity.

Equality of men and women, and of the races, makes no common sense or biological sense. Men and women, for example, are biologically so different, that pretty much however you decide to measure them, chances are slim that they will prove to be equal.

When I discuss the matter with leftists, the main argument is some kind of skepticism with regard to efforts to measure people (which always end up demonstrating sexual and racial differences). For example, Gould is skeptical about IQ and race.

Roissy wonders why the elites are so stuck on the obviously false idea of literal equality.  Understood as a species of Christian belief, it makes sense, because the Christians believe that the most important part of the self is immaterial. If it’s immaterial, then material differences have nothing to do with it. So Christians are free to believe pretty much anything they want about this most important part of the self, unconstrained by material evidence of any sort. They are free to believe that deep inside everyone, there is a core, an essence, that is not the slightest diminished by bodily infirmity etc. etc. I.e., the soul.

The progressives jettison God, replacing God with, presumably, Nature. So “equality before God” becomes “equality before Nature”. That is, natural equality (of some unspecified sort). And this could be how the progressives manage to believe in some unspecified “natural” (biological or whatever) equality even though no evidence backs them up. Their belief is derived, not from evidence, but from the Christian heritage of progressivism. Their belief looks superficially like a scientific hypothesis because all the terms in it could be interpreted as referring to natural things, but it doesn’t really have any empirical content, because “equality”, while it could refer to something measurable, does not actually refer to anything measurable. Any attempt to measure something to test the claim of “equality” is attacked by progressives.

Progressives are using naturalistic-sounding words to talk about equality, but they are behaving as though it didn’t make any sense to try to measure it, which is how Christians would behave with respect to attempts to rigorously test equality before God. Their reaction would range from skepticism that it could be done, to the sense that it doesn’t even make sense to try, and finally to the certainty that it is heresy to even suggest such a thing and the person suggesting it is evil and possibly a sorcerer and should be burnt at the stake.

The progressive reaction to naturalistic attempts to assess equality is exactly the same as the Christian reaction would be.

The Christian view of equality is entirely impervious to empirical evidence, and so is the progressive view. It makes sense, then, to interpret progressives, when they talk about male and female equality, and about black and white equality, as really talking about the Christian soul, even though they themselves do not realize this is what they are doing because they have forgotten why they are going through these mental motions.

After mass democracy

Tuesday, September 7th, 2010

A couple of hundred years ago, the conventional wisdom was that democracy with broad voter participation was unstable, violent, ruinous, and short lived.

A hundred years or so ago the world moved to mass democracy, universal franchise.  Many people predicted that this would result in the masses trying to vote themselves rich, resulting in social and economic collapse

Well guess what.  The masses have been trying to vote themselves rich, social collapse is under way, and economic collapse looms.

The success stories of governance are Singapore, Hong Kong, China, and Botswana, which would suggest the future is not democratic.

Mass democracy is visibly self destructing.  In 2005 nearly half of births in California were on medi-cal, and the disappearance of statistics after 2005 suggests the situation is rapidly deteriorating, hence the present Californian meltdown.  The world of “the Marching Morons” is now.

Clearly this is unsustainable – Liverpool and Detroit represent the future of democracy – majority underclass. Detroit is the future of California, Liverpool the future of England if the Caliphate does not take England first.

I am hoping for anarcho capitalism, but a more likely outcome is military dictatorship evolving into monarchy, or gangs evolving into feudalism.

Mencius suggests an interesting form of futuristic government:  The sovereign corporation with cryptographic control over its weapons.  The vote of the board creates a cryptographic secret that gives the CEO control over the weapons of corporation’s security forces. If there is a coup by the armed forces against the CEO or the CEO against the board, the coupists weapons stop working.

Mencius’ proposal reflects the typical nerdly assumption that guns are all powerful. In practice, the way that power works is that the elite males settle things between themselves by means that are not overtly violent, and then the outsiders find they face a united, and violent front from the elite males. Once the elite males have agreed amongst themselves, the weapons are merely an afterthought, making the cryptographic locks irrelevant – which would suggest that if Kingship revives, it will have more resemblance to traditional kingship than to Mencius’s CEO.

Switzerland’s plebiscitary democracy is also an outstanding success, though it could be argued that this  mainly because it is sufficiently unwieldy to prevent the government from actually doing much, and therefore  prevents the government from vote buying in the fashion that led to the meltdowns in California and Detroit. Switzerland is a blast from the past.  The future is more likely to be China, though I think that anarcho capitalism, or the revival of feudalism are also possibilities.

The minimum necessary reforms are to stop the financial system leaking money, and put welfare on a sound basis – but only the most extreme elements of the tea party are proposing anything approaching this, and they are clearly far too extreme for the voters.  If reforms that would actually enable the system to survive were on the table, Christine O’Donnel would be unelectable left, not the unelectable right.

To put welfare and affirmative action a sound basis means imitating Singapore’s welfare, social security healthcare, and so forth.  Pigs will fly first.

Let us consider the seemingly more achievable problem of stopping the finance system from leaking money.  All bankers are criminals, for they were all party to the grossly improper loans that led to our present crisis.  Any honest banker was fired, because any honest banker got in the way of affirmative action and got run over.

To stop the system leaking money, have to fire crooked bankers, and replace them with honest bankers.  To replace them with honest bankers, have to end affirmative action lending.  That does not seem too hard.  After all 99% of the voters oppose affirmative action lending, and a clear and substantial majority oppose all affirmative action.  But it is hard.  We have affirmative action lending for a reason:  As I said before:

When they gave a Nobel prize to Marie Curie for being female, that did not hurt anyone except more deserving potential Nobel prize winners.   But handing out phony Nobels on the basis of sex, race, and nationality necessitated handing out phony degrees on the basis of race and sex, and handing out phony degrees on the basis of race and sex necessarily led to a crisis where these phony degrees were being ignored by employers, so employers necessarily had to be forced to give out well paid phony jobs on the basis of race and sex.   But being given well paid phony jobs on the basis of race and sex failed to result in recipients living a middle class lifestyle, so lenders had to be forced to give out a middle class lifestyle on the basis of race and sex.  Which has led to our present financial crisis.  It all began with Marie Curie.

So if you roll back the most unpopular, extreme, and disastrous form of affirmative action, you then immediately face a problem with less extreme and more popular forms.  And if you roll them back … All solutions are either radical or unworkable.  Roll back affirmative action loans, and pretty soon you are going to have to restrict the franchise, or bring affirmative action loans back.