My beliefs are similar on most issues here. Two beliefs that we both hold and I think are underrepresented among the larger population (even libertarians) is how useless and wasteful education is for the most part and the future impact of genetic enhancement technology. Hard to imagine we shouldn't be pouring education money into genetic enhancement instead of subsidizing signaling games.
Agree with almost all of it, but you might want to consider the degree to which acceptance of self-determination for ethnic groups contradicts your otherwise libertarian leanings. Nationalists tend to be very interested in taking away the rights of other citizens, empires have often been more tolerant.
Libertarianism is not sustainable in the long term at the electoral level. Success belongs to viral memes which win by either being able to spread to most people or by turning a minority into fanatics. Like it or not any regime needs a compelling story and libertarians don't have one.
This is a serious problem because, unlike in marxism leninism, voting rights are central to libertarianism. An ideology that is both democratic and unpopular at the same time is not viable.
What do think about the latest accusations from Adam Rutherford (tweet 26th of July) that your science credentials are simply not large enough? I guess I can somewhat read it out of your free speech opinion, but should there maybe also be some H-index cutoff for allowance to participate in conferences or such? Would love to hear your thoughts on it (and rip that argument to pieces, please)
1) I'm of the same opinion of you in the vast majority of what you've written here.
2) In practical modern context, 10% less democracy means 10% more progressive government functionaries. Not a win on net.
In a theoretical world that will never come in the near term, I agree that nuclear families should get more votes. Specifically, I would let married couples vote for their children. One man one vote isn't changing without a revolution.
My ideal voter is Mike Judge/Hank Hill.
3) On the eugenics front, I think that vastly increased child tax deductions and no strings school vouchers would do a lot. Recent Arizona school choice bill should be backbone of GOP platform, and Romney child tax credit should be increased by several multiples. Agree that culture/education is biggest problem with eugenic TFR. Share you view on technological eugenics.
4) I favor making abortion illegal sometime in the second trimester with some exceptions. It's not about how many abortions it prevents. It's about sending a signal that abortion, and the entire ethos that leads to it, is morally wrong in societies view. The social censure is the point.
5) I find the libertarian obsession with drugs repulsive. John Galt wouldn't be a stoner. 99% less time should be spent talking about drug laws.
Singapore won its War on Drugs. I'm not saying that's the right reference for the west to implement. I'm merely mentioning it as a this world possible ideal to strive for.
Libertarians should sell freedom on the basis that it will help you become the best person you can be. Not that it will let you nihilistically dissipate yourself and then die.
6) I know its not possible in our society, but the ideal criminal justice system has a 100% case close rate, implements brutal physically punishment to offenders in public, then lets them try to reintegrate into society. Hopeless repeat offernders executed quickly.
My line on politics is now very simple: I either refuse to talk about anything that I know very little about (the litmus test being something like: would I feel embarrassed voicing my views with a professor of the subject?), or I heavily caveat my views with "this is mainly based on intuition and selective reading, but it you really want to know..."
I think it's generally only possible for most people who aren't super brains to know (in this sense) about one or two things in sufficient depth. Noam Chomsky is a good example: an encyclopaedic brain, but has mainly dealt with foreign policy and philosophy of language. Albeit his contributions to the latter are immense and span diverse disciplines. Ordinary clever people would be lucky to acquire the knowledge he has about either domain, let alone contribute anything of value.
Ethnic cleansing by forced deportation ("population exchange") is very un-libertarian, actually. it is also a UN-recognized "crime against humanity."
The Turkish-Greek population exchange was considered a great tragedy from day one. People were expelled from their homes and homelands where they lived at least for centuries because they belonged to the wrong religion.
*
Also, that bit on Lamaian universal ethnonationalism doesn't help us against accusations of "biology as ideology."
I can imagine how hard it could be to write this in a comprehensive manner. Mosy of what is shared is rational given the orginxal
disclaimers and experiences cited.
I wonder if it is libertarian to demand that the state create transparent and visible markets, and aggressively regulate the data that must be shared publicly, the means of sharing it, and provide access so the market can effectively report on and effectively analyze this data? I don’t know that I am a opposed to having state sponsored and administered analytics and reporting as long as the data set is readily available to anyone.
I believe that any corporation (a creature do the state), the state itself, and anything state sponsored has no inherent right to privacy. National security seems to be overused as well.
Imagine a real estate market where the buyers and sellers and selling prices and days on market etc were not visible to all parties. how would I ever know what the market might prove my house or if I am purchasing one if I am paying an appropriate amount according to the market?
"China is currently taking over his homeland [Tibet] by settling it with Chinese people"??
Nope. Tibetans are thriving and Han immigrants are not. Only in the two biggest towns does the Han population rise above 10%, not far from its historical average. Nor are Han the only minority.
Mostly agree. Disagree on the war on drugs being worse than not having it. The opioid epidemic should inform one's views on drugs to a large degree. Would have loved to see a separate point emphasizing the need to radically liberalize land use, YIMBY and zoning reforms. Housing costs are the biggest economic problem in the West.
Economically to be sure, although I think it was Sean Last who wrote about some studies showing that average well-being may not improve or even deteriorate.
Seriously though, I think your views on self-determination are very naive. You conspicuously forgot to add Northern Ireland Independence to your list. I guess IRA is not as hip as ETA.
Any region is bound to request independence from its larger country on a miriad of accounts. Independentist politicians will use their population as a tool and will shape their beliefs to hate the rest of the country. It is a very poisonous ideology.
The smart thing is to try to preserve the status quo as much as possible, trying not to affect demographics with mass emigration or inmigration, trying to have reasonable regional laws, etc. Fostering independence of regions results in total chaos when taken to its logical conclusion. Independentist movements in Europe have been used as a weapon, not surprisingly they are mostly marxist-leninist in nature.
My beliefs are similar on most issues here. Two beliefs that we both hold and I think are underrepresented among the larger population (even libertarians) is how useless and wasteful education is for the most part and the future impact of genetic enhancement technology. Hard to imagine we shouldn't be pouring education money into genetic enhancement instead of subsidizing signaling games.
Agree with almost all of it, but you might want to consider the degree to which acceptance of self-determination for ethnic groups contradicts your otherwise libertarian leanings. Nationalists tend to be very interested in taking away the rights of other citizens, empires have often been more tolerant.
Libertarianism is not sustainable in the long term at the electoral level. Success belongs to viral memes which win by either being able to spread to most people or by turning a minority into fanatics. Like it or not any regime needs a compelling story and libertarians don't have one.
This is a serious problem because, unlike in marxism leninism, voting rights are central to libertarianism. An ideology that is both democratic and unpopular at the same time is not viable.
What do think about the latest accusations from Adam Rutherford (tweet 26th of July) that your science credentials are simply not large enough? I guess I can somewhat read it out of your free speech opinion, but should there maybe also be some H-index cutoff for allowance to participate in conferences or such? Would love to hear your thoughts on it (and rip that argument to pieces, please)
1) I'm of the same opinion of you in the vast majority of what you've written here.
2) In practical modern context, 10% less democracy means 10% more progressive government functionaries. Not a win on net.
In a theoretical world that will never come in the near term, I agree that nuclear families should get more votes. Specifically, I would let married couples vote for their children. One man one vote isn't changing without a revolution.
My ideal voter is Mike Judge/Hank Hill.
3) On the eugenics front, I think that vastly increased child tax deductions and no strings school vouchers would do a lot. Recent Arizona school choice bill should be backbone of GOP platform, and Romney child tax credit should be increased by several multiples. Agree that culture/education is biggest problem with eugenic TFR. Share you view on technological eugenics.
4) I favor making abortion illegal sometime in the second trimester with some exceptions. It's not about how many abortions it prevents. It's about sending a signal that abortion, and the entire ethos that leads to it, is morally wrong in societies view. The social censure is the point.
5) I find the libertarian obsession with drugs repulsive. John Galt wouldn't be a stoner. 99% less time should be spent talking about drug laws.
Singapore won its War on Drugs. I'm not saying that's the right reference for the west to implement. I'm merely mentioning it as a this world possible ideal to strive for.
Libertarians should sell freedom on the basis that it will help you become the best person you can be. Not that it will let you nihilistically dissipate yourself and then die.
6) I know its not possible in our society, but the ideal criminal justice system has a 100% case close rate, implements brutal physically punishment to offenders in public, then lets them try to reintegrate into society. Hopeless repeat offernders executed quickly.
My line on politics is now very simple: I either refuse to talk about anything that I know very little about (the litmus test being something like: would I feel embarrassed voicing my views with a professor of the subject?), or I heavily caveat my views with "this is mainly based on intuition and selective reading, but it you really want to know..."
I think it's generally only possible for most people who aren't super brains to know (in this sense) about one or two things in sufficient depth. Noam Chomsky is a good example: an encyclopaedic brain, but has mainly dealt with foreign policy and philosophy of language. Albeit his contributions to the latter are immense and span diverse disciplines. Ordinary clever people would be lucky to acquire the knowledge he has about either domain, let alone contribute anything of value.
Ethnic cleansing by forced deportation ("population exchange") is very un-libertarian, actually. it is also a UN-recognized "crime against humanity."
The Turkish-Greek population exchange was considered a great tragedy from day one. People were expelled from their homes and homelands where they lived at least for centuries because they belonged to the wrong religion.
*
Also, that bit on Lamaian universal ethnonationalism doesn't help us against accusations of "biology as ideology."
P. S. I am Turkish.
I can imagine how hard it could be to write this in a comprehensive manner. Mosy of what is shared is rational given the orginxal
disclaimers and experiences cited.
I wonder if it is libertarian to demand that the state create transparent and visible markets, and aggressively regulate the data that must be shared publicly, the means of sharing it, and provide access so the market can effectively report on and effectively analyze this data? I don’t know that I am a opposed to having state sponsored and administered analytics and reporting as long as the data set is readily available to anyone.
I believe that any corporation (a creature do the state), the state itself, and anything state sponsored has no inherent right to privacy. National security seems to be overused as well.
Imagine a real estate market where the buyers and sellers and selling prices and days on market etc were not visible to all parties. how would I ever know what the market might prove my house or if I am purchasing one if I am paying an appropriate amount according to the market?
"China is currently taking over his homeland [Tibet] by settling it with Chinese people"??
Nope. Tibetans are thriving and Han immigrants are not. Only in the two biggest towns does the Han population rise above 10%, not far from its historical average. Nor are Han the only minority.
Mostly agree. Disagree on the war on drugs being worse than not having it. The opioid epidemic should inform one's views on drugs to a large degree. Would have loved to see a separate point emphasizing the need to radically liberalize land use, YIMBY and zoning reforms. Housing costs are the biggest economic problem in the West.
I have some questions:
1)Israel/Palestine?
2)Minimum wage?
3)Selling one's kidney?
4)How is it possible that Denmark has such an unusually high capital gains tax (42%) but is still competitive?
5)If eugenics means high average IQ and if high average IQ means everybody is a leftist, isn't it a problem?
"Immigration is beneficial to immigrants"
Economically to be sure, although I think it was Sean Last who wrote about some studies showing that average well-being may not improve or even deteriorate.
Emil is a jew!?
Seriously though, I think your views on self-determination are very naive. You conspicuously forgot to add Northern Ireland Independence to your list. I guess IRA is not as hip as ETA.
Any region is bound to request independence from its larger country on a miriad of accounts. Independentist politicians will use their population as a tool and will shape their beliefs to hate the rest of the country. It is a very poisonous ideology.
The smart thing is to try to preserve the status quo as much as possible, trying not to affect demographics with mass emigration or inmigration, trying to have reasonable regional laws, etc. Fostering independence of regions results in total chaos when taken to its logical conclusion. Independentist movements in Europe have been used as a weapon, not surprisingly they are mostly marxist-leninist in nature.