De-homogenizing Racism

At least Ebeling uses the proper original definition of racism: not merely that race is responsible for making one person inferior to another in certain inborn dispositions (while perhaps making him superior to him in other such), but a conjunction of this assertion with the further political proposal that “inferior” races must be for reasons of their very inferiority exterminated or enslaved; as Ebeling writes,

A classical liberal or libertarian is not true to his own principles and their defense, if he remains silent in the face, for instance, of a Nazi arguing the inferiority of Jews, blacks or Slavs, and that as “sub-humans” they should be enslaved or eradicated for the good of some “master race.”

The first part of this injunction is false. Anybody can proclaim anybody’s inferiority as loudly as he wants. He may be shunned by polite society if he is too rude or vain, but could he be on occasion right? Surely, a book like Why Race Matters by Michael Levin, even if one finds himself in disagreement with it, has a place on every libertarian’s bookshelf.

The second part is very true. The law of comparative advantage (or of association) has undermined any economic justification for racism thusly understood. Christianity has further defended the universal brotherhood of men and Fatherhood of God. But any call for violence, promoted by whatever arguments, is to be condemned. Not just racial violence.

Why Blacks Are Disproportionately Imprisoned

It is often said that blacks are given harsher sentence than whites for the same crimes. But few people have sought an explanation for this phenomenon.

I have one in this post.

Juries and judges tend to treat blacks with greater rigor, because blacks are less deterrable than whites.

First, blacks are more amoral than whites; are more like wolves; they care less about morality. A white person to whom a thought of killing has occurred might simply say, “It is evil to commit murder” and abstain from it. A black person is less likely to engage in this sort of reasoning; hence, society depends more on the threat of punishment to deter him.

There is a related point: too many blacks go through life full of dull hatred for their fellow men. This lack of basic charity contributes to the blacks’ unusual criminality.

Here is the second difference: blacks are more impulsive and less in control of themselves than whites. Their time preferences are higher. Hence, they imbue possible future punishment with less displeasure as compared to the immediate gratification of a present crime.

I hasten to add that to explain something is not the same as to justify it. It is still open to anyone to say, “Yes, those factual propositions are true,” yet to insist that law ought to be color-blind.

Meek Shall Inherit the Earth

When Jesus said this, he meant it literally. He did not mean that the meek shall find spiritual salvation or inherit heaven. These were addressed in the other beatitudes.

Why would the actual earth on which we live be eventually populated by the meek? The argument consists in two points. First, there is in general such a thing as progress. There are indeed numerous dead ends into which individuals and nations joyously directed themselves during the course of human history. But they lead nowhere. The sinners have to, on their own will and intellect and power, renounce sin, lest they never find happiness.

Here’s a latest headline: “Islamic State Has Full Control of Syria’s Palmyra.” Here’s the thing, though: there is nothing there but ancient ruins. ISIS is the undisputed ruler of a desert wasteland. And that is all this place will remain, until ISIS meeks up.

Second, the direction of social progress and justice points toward laissez-faire capitalism. But there is a eugenic tendency within the free market, as I have already pointed out, that causes those people who are more productive and better at satisfying consumer desires, i.e., at making other people happier, to “afford” more children than their less capable fellows. As a result, superior workers and entrepreneurs should be expected to leave more children who will, on average, inherit their benign powers.

Such productive men and women will be especially peaceful and more intelligent, including emotionally, in their inborn traits (as being a successful entrepreneur entails reading one’s customers), and will leave more children than the more aggressive and to that extent less useful to society persons. This, however, only given the laissez-faire ideology.

Therefore, if we want to fulfill Jesus’ prophesy, then we’d better adopt unfettered capitalism ASAP.

Meek Are Fittest Under Laissez Faire

This could very well explain the Flynn effect or secular rise in IQ scores, in particular, that even blacks have gotten smarter on average over the last several generations, despite the welfare state which encourages the opposite dysgenic process.

The Flynn effect has been fast, but it could be argued that the market selects the winning people almost if not quite as fast as people select the winning consumer goods.

In the free market, the “fittest” individuals are by their nature the most meek.

White People Are Already Sufficiently Diverse

White people are within their own race already diverse regarding their personalities, inborn talents, skills and market specializations, lifestyles and habits, interests, life’s work, hobbies, political ideologies, religious views and worldviews, and so on.

More savage races, such as indeed blacks, are considerably less diverse in these regards. Blacks themselves have picked up on this by complaining that to whites, “all blacks look the same.” Which is true, but is no fault of whites.

As a result, the cause of diversity is promoted by discriminating in favor of whites.

Metaphysics of Discrimination

“Discrimination” or treating different people seemingly, but not really, arbitrarily is part and parcel of our daily lives. The most obvious example of discrimination is taking interests of family members over the interests of strangers. One helps his grandmother with her shopping but not other old ladies, and everyone correctly thinks this is reasonable. The explanation why is that no man is by natural law required to love other people; only not to hate them and thereby to abstain from unjustly harming them. Bestowal of benefits on strangers is supererogatory, i.e., beyond the call of natural duty. Duties to family members are more rigorous than duties to fellow men in general, however.

So then, suppose, given 1) that nations and races are also very extended families, both biologically and in terms of natural sentiments and 2) that morally better people are superior companions, Smith thinks that white people are closer to him than blacks, or straight people closer than gays. Does it mean that he hates blacks? Or that he hates gays? Obviously not. It does not even mean that he fails to love either group. All that is entailed by his attitudes is that he loves whites somewhat more than blacks, and straights somewhat more than gays, and in giving their preferences more weight, serves them, if he is a businessman, with more readiness than other customers.

Blacks and gays have confused the issue utterly by calling people who “discriminate against” them racists and homophobes. But once again, the vast majority of people who discriminate in an un-PC way do not hate blacks or gays. They may well consider them wonderful people, just slightly less wonderful than whites and straights. Just as one shows his uncle greater affections than a stranger, or his cat, than a stranger’s cat, so he shows an arbitrary white person more hospitality than an arbitrary black person.

And there is not one thing disgraceful about that.

We can easily see that anti-discriminationists are extended family wreckers, love wreckers, as opposed to love-builders they pretend to be.

Poverty of Identity Politics

How many identities has the political correctness movement been able to synthesize?

So, there are blacks and maybe brown people, though the latter tend to be foreigners, and we seem to be killing them in large numbers; there are a number of sexual disorders which have received the blessings of the PC; and there are the women who, though a majority, have been lumped by feminism into a single homogenous mass. Seriously, is that all?

Consider Jerry Seinfeld’s stand-up routine on immigration:

I am for open immigration but that sign we have on the front of the Statue of Liberty, “Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses…,” can’t we just say, “Hey, the door’s open, we’ll take whoever you got?”

Do we have to specify the wretched refuse?

I mean, why don’t we just say, “Give us the unhappy, the sad, the slow, the ugly, people that can’t drive, that they have trouble merging, if they can’t stay in their lane, if they don’t signal, they can’t parallel park, if they’re sneezing, if they’re stuffed up, if they’re clogged, if they have bad penmanship, don’t return calls, if they have dandruff, food between their teeth, if they have bad credit, if they have no credit, missed a spot shaving;

in other words, any dysfunctional defective slob that you can somehow cattle prod onto a wagon, send them over, we want ’em.”

Why aren’t the PC defending, for example, all of those miserable bastards? Why aren’t they legitimate (and oppressed) identities?

Or take Ko-Ko’s little list of society offenders, including “the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs; all people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs”; etc.; why aren’t the PC championing them?