A Conversation between a Millennial and a Zoomer

I was listening to this conversation between Dave Smith and Nick Fuentes. I like Dave Smith who is a Ancap Libertarian. His big influences are Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard he’s also stand up comedian. He is one of the Legion of Skanks. The podcast I linked, is where he can discuss his more political opinions but if you want to the comedy you can check out the Skanks. I like his point of view, even though I am not a Libertarian, but I have many, many sympathies with Libertarians. I totally get the instinct to go that way, but from what I know of Human nature, I don’t think it could work. I’m becoming almost a monarchist at this point in my life, but I’m still a work in progress.

Anyway, on his show he interviewed Nick Fuentes. I really thought it was a really good conservation. The first part of the conservation, they discuss the whole gryoper war thing. Which I think is worth listening to but, if you go to the 59 minute mark Dave remarks on the generational divide. Which I really think is worth having a discussion about. So many of the grownups are pushing these policies of cultural degeneracy in the schools, in the movies, in books, etc…. Many of us can’t understand how all of this confusion going on in the broader culture is effecting these kids. The boomer generation is holding the political power and seems to want to fight til their last breath to keep it. Look at the Presidential candidates who are viable. They are all old (with the exception of Mayor Pete who acts old, so it makes no difference) and none of these people in power seem to give a damn about these young people. Especially the ones who are mired in debt with porn addictions. Sure they want to buy their vote with debt forgiveness but if you were buried in so much debt like that wouldn’t you take the life preserver thrown at you? And I know, they took the loan but they are pushed by every single adult in their lives to go to college. Cause if you don’t you’ll never be a productive member of society. So instead of our leaders doing something about the cost of college or perhaps coming up with some kind of refinance of those loans. They do nothing. They see, evil school boards who are pushing the trans agenda. Allowing boys in girls locker rooms and having boys compete with girls in sports. What the heck. Those adults never had to deal with that, and because of some stupid pie in the sky, ideology (and some funding I’m sure) they push this on kids. What do you think that does to these kids and don’t be surprised when there is a backlash. I know so many like to dump on millennials and zoomers, but who raised them? And who influenced them?

I just found this to be an interesting conversation that we need to be having about what young people have to deal with. Also, these kids aren’t going anywhere and they will grow up and take

Political power, don’t you want to know what they are thinking.

7+
avataravataravataravataravataravataravatar

52 thoughts on “A Conversation between a Millennial and a Zoomer”

  1. drlorentz:

    Devereaux:

    Mate De:
    Also another problem with libertarianism is what do you do with the low IQ Folks? You know the people who don’t have the time or the inclination to pour over thousands of pages of philosophy and economics.  Libertarianism doesn’t really appeal to people outside a certain demographic. What do you do with the rest?

    You find them jobs. There are TONS of jobs that do not require philosophy and economics. Things like carpenter, plumber, electrician, mechanic, machinist, tool and die maker. People with decent jobs are generally happy. They don’t need to debate philosophy, they discuss the last NFL game. To suggest otherwise is arrogance.

    Libertarians don’t find people jobs; they leave them be. Communists find people jobs. Or, at least, they make people go to work where the people pretend to work and the state pretends to pay them. Only communist states have full employment. Either that or the gulag, which is also employment.

    Geez DL, I didn’t mean it literally. The question was what is done with the “low IQ” types. The answer is to have jobs that they can do, make a livable wage, and so be happy. That happens with a good economy. Like now. Pretty much anyone who wants to can find a job. No real reason to have welfare queens.

    1+
    avatar
  2. Devereaux:

    drlorentz:

    Devereaux:

    Mate De:
    Also another problem with libertarianism is what do you do with the low IQ Folks? You know the people who don’t have the time or the inclination to pour over thousands of pages of philosophy and economics.  Libertarianism doesn’t really appeal to people outside a certain demographic. What do you do with the rest?

    You find them jobs. There are TONS of jobs that do not require philosophy and economics. Things like carpenter, plumber, electrician, mechanic, machinist, tool and die maker. People with decent jobs are generally happy. They don’t need to debate philosophy, they discuss the last NFL game. To suggest otherwise is arrogance.

    Libertarians don’t find people jobs; they leave them be. Communists find people jobs. Or, at least, they make people go to work where the people pretend to work and the state pretends to pay them. Only communist states have full employment. Either that or the gulag, which is also employment.

    Geez DL, I didn’t mean it literally. The question was what is done with the “low IQ” types. The answer is to have jobs that they can do, make a livable wage, and so be happy. That happens with a good economy. Like now. Pretty much anyone who wants to can find a job. No real reason to have welfare queens.

    The trouble is that, in libertarianland, people are left to their own devices so there won’t necessarily always be “jobs that they can do, make a livable wage, and so be happy.” And then what? The larger point is that a healthy society is more than just a good economy.

    A mistake folks on the Right often make – I have been guilty of this – is to focus on economics: the more GDP, the better and the rest be damned. To quote (approx.) a blogger I respect, “I don’t want to have to step over heroin addicts on my way to work.”

    Here’s a more specific, concrete example. Some, not all, libertarians favor open borders provided there welfare state is eliminated or greatly circumscribed. There’s no violation of the non-aggression principle. The GDP will grow. This was literally the argument made by AEI types, in condensed form. I kinda-sorta used to agree. Let’s say we do that. Is that all that matters to you? Let’s say a bunch of Somali Muslims like Ilhan Omar move into town. How do you think that’s going to go? Is there such a thing as Western culture and do you have any interest in preserving it?

    Okay, maybe you don’t subscribe to that brand of libertarianism. Maybe there’s some other element of your community that you value, like not having it full of drug addicts and hookers. They’re peacefully plying their trade or indulging their pleasures, so no problem. Some folks might be fine with that; I’m less enthusiastic.

    Everyone can come up with his own examples. The practical implementation of full libertarianism would produce a lot of unhappy people, each with his own grievance, which circles back to my claim of instability. Recall that Mate De kicked this off with the expression full libertarian. I have no objection to adopting selected libertarian principles in the context of a more structured political system as we have (had) done in the US.

    Finally, the fact that there are some pro-open borders libertarians and some anti- points back to my complaint that there is no single libertarian ideology: two libertarians, three opinions. An AEI guy once said that libertarians have almost come to blows over intellectual property policy over there.

    Let’s say the US becomes a libertarian state tomorrow. Welfare is eliminated and the borders are thrown open based on the will of the majority, maybe even a supermajority.* How are the losers gonna feel about their libertarian utopia then? My guess is, revolutionary.


    *This would never happen.

    2+
    avataravatar
  3. Mate De:
    The first part of the conservation, they discuss the whole gryoper war thing. Which I think is worth listening to but, if you go to the 59 minute mark Dave remarks on the generational divide. Which I really think is worth having a discussion about.

    I listened to the first 20 minutes or so and didn’t learn much since people like Vee and Styx have been covering YouTube censorship and the groypers pretty well. Others may find the summary useful.

    I skipped to 59 min. There’s a lot of good stuff there. Not done but here are some initial, random thoughts. There’s a big disconnect between life in my formative years and today. A useful exercise I’d recommend to illuminate this is to watch a mass market TV show from the 1970s, the 80s, or even the 90s on Netflix or Amazon Prime; we have both. These shows illustrate the differences Fuentes alludes to. For example, I used to enjoy the Bob Newhart Show (70s) where he played a psychologist. Today’s sacred cows were all the butt of jokes: transsexuality, homosexuality, racism. It was never mean spirited. Today, the show could not exist. I read that even Friends (90s) was being targeted by the Wokerati. As a result of these changes, boomers have trouble understanding today. Fuentes’s observations about that are spot on.

    Dave Smith highlights the sharp disagreements within the libertarian movement. There’s a woke wing of libertarianism, e.g. defending assaults on an individual because “speech has consequences.” He also makes a good point about enforcing cultural norms. He doesn’t want the government enforcing them but something has to; now there is a vacuum. Smith says, “Libertarians have to learn their cultural lessons.” This is the point I was getting at in some previous comments.

    Next, Smith makes the point, which I largely agree with, that younger people are being screwed by a transfer of wealth from them to older generations, specifically boomers: “…a redistribution from a poorer group to a richer group.” He blames this on the government, using it to bolster the libertarian case. What he leaves out is demographics. Fertility has been falling for a long time, down to about 1.7 in the US now. One of the reasons Gen Z is facing this massive wealth transfer is that there aren’t enough younger people to meet the obligations of the pyramid-scheme social security/Medicare system. And bringing in more fertile, but lower skilled and often dependent, immigrants is not a solution.

    Fuentes complains about the divergence of libertarian views: the Cato Institute, open borders, globalism, AEI. Again, these align with some of the previous comments.

    Overall, I found myself agreeing with Smith and Fuentes on many points. Smith is right to note that there is much common ground between his brand of libertarianism and the groypers. I hope these two camps find a way to work together, while being aware that there are fifth-columnists under their banners. For the libertarians, it’s the Cato, AEI, NR guys. For the America Firsters it’s the Charlie Kirks of the world.

    As an aside, I met a woman at an event (Mollie’s book signing and discussion) who knows Charlie Kirk well. I was complaining to her about how he’d responded to the groypers and she got a little annoyed with me and defended him unabashedly and unreservedly. She is an exemplar of the boomers these guys are complaining about.

    1+
    avatar
  4. Doc you are either only familiar with libertarianism on a superficial level—which I doubt—or you are intentionally mischaracterizing libertarianism because you are not fully sold on the ideal and for some reason seek to intentionally denigrate it. No, people in need would not be “left to their own devices” in the sense that they “root, hog, or die” as it sounds like what you are saying.

    Libertarianism simply posits that the government would not be the mechanism by which these people are cared for. Ideally there would be private mechanisms that would care for them, find those who can perform tasks jobs, etc. But it is a very simplistic statement that they would just be left alone. That is NOT what any libertarian I read/listen to advocates and I would love for you to cite the ones who do so I can check them out and be better prepared for this topic in the future. My preferred Libertarians—Woods, Murphy, etc.—do not talk this way.

    1+
    avatar
  5. Also I think there is a lot of conflating Anarcho-Capitalism with libertarianism generally. There are many strains of libertarianism which I think creates the notion that it is a fanciful ideology. I think An-Cap libertarianism is utopian because it does negate human nature. I adhere to the notion that “if men were angels…” but certainly that should not equate to succumbing to the current circumstances that we find ourselves in today. I think the Founders gave us a system that, if diligently adhered to, produces the exact mix of recognizing human nature and libertarian government. I would hope that after the many years of posting here, people would recognize that for me, this is the type of libertarianism I support and advocate for.

    1+
    avatar
  6. One last thing, AEI is NOT libertarian. I don’t give a damn what their website says or what any “fellow” there says. That is a warmongering group interested only in doing the bidding of Saudi Arabia and Israel. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

    1+
    avatar
  7. drlorentz:

    Mate De:
    The first part of the conservation, they discuss the whole gryoper war thing. Which I think is worth listening to but, if you go to the 59 minute mark Dave remarks on the generational divide. Which I really think is worth having a discussion about.

    I listened to the first 20 minutes or so and didn’t learn much since people like Vee and Styx have been covering YouTube censorship and the groypers pretty well. Others may find the summary useful.

    I skipped to 59 min. There’s a lot of good stuff there. Not done but here are some initial, random thoughts. There’s a big disconnect between life in my formative years and today. A useful exercise I’d recommend to illuminate this is to watch a mass market TV show from the 1970s, the 80s, or even the 90s on Netflix or Amazon Prime; we have both. These shows illustrate the differences Fuentes alludes to. For example, I used to enjoy the Bob Newhart Show (70s) where he played a psychologist. Today’s sacred cows were all the butt of jokes: transsexuality, homosexuality, racism. It was never mean spirited. Today, the show could not exist. I read that even Friends (90s) was being targeted by the Wokerati. As a result of these changes, boomers have trouble understanding today. Fuentes’s observations about that are spot on.

    Dave Smith highlights the sharp disagreements within the libertarian movement. There’s a woke wing of libertarianism, e.g. defending assaults on an individual because “speech has consequences.” He also makes a good point about enforcing cultural norms. He doesn’t want the government enforcing them but something has to; now there is a vacuum. Smith says, “Libertarians have to learn their cultural lessons.” This is the point I was getting at in some previous comments.

    Next, Smith makes the point, which I largely agree with, that younger people are being screwed by a transfer of wealth from them to older generations, specifically boomers: “…a redistribution from a poorer group to a richer group.” He blames this on the government, using it to bolster the libertarian case. What he leaves out is demographics. Fertility has been falling for a long time, down to about 1.7 in the US now. One of the reasons Gen Z is facing this massive wealth transfer is that there aren’t enough younger people to meet the obligations of the pyramid-scheme social security/Medicare system. And bringing in more fertile, but lower skilled and often dependent, immigrants is not a solution.

    Fuentes complains about the divergence of libertarian views: the Cato Institute, open borders, globalism, AEI. Again, these align with some of the previous comments.

    Overall, I found myself agreeing with Smith and Fuentes on many points. Smith is right to note that there is much common ground between his brand of libertarianism and the groypers. I hope these two camps find a way to work together, while being aware that there are fifth-columnists under their banners. For the libertarians, it’s the Cato, AEI, NR guys. For the America Firsters it’s the Charlie Kirks of the world.

    As an aside, I met a woman at an event (Mollie’s book signing and discussion) who knows Charlie Kirk well. I was complaining to her about how he’d responded to the groypers and she got a little annoyed with me and defended him unabashedly and unreservedly. She is an exemplar of the boomers these guys are complaining about.

    This is an excellent synopsis. I totally agree with all of what you said above, which is why I posted their conversation. I think older folks really need to understand the perspective of younger people because to many seem baffled by their political leanings or contemptuous. I just remember watching a few of Soph’s videos and was a bit shocked by how much she knew about a lot of adult stuff at such a young age. I get the vulgar and crass presentation because teens talked like that when I was a kid but we didn’t talk about the stuff she talks about.

    2+
    avataravatar
  8. A mistake folks on the Right often make – I have been guilty of this – is to focus on economics: the more GDP, the better and the rest be damned. To quote (approx.) a blogger I respect, “I don’t want to have to step over heroin addicts on my way to work.”

    Here’s a more specific, concrete example. Some, not all, libertarians favor open borders provided there welfare state is eliminated or greatly circumscribed. There’s no violation of the non-aggression principle. The GDP will grow. This was literally the argument made by AEI types, in condensed form. I kinda-sorta used to agree. Let’s say we do that. Is that all that matters to you? Let’s say a bunch of Somali Muslims like Ilhan Omar move into town. How do you think that’s going to go? Is there such a thing as Western culture and do you have any interest in preserving it?

    Okay, maybe you don’t subscribe to that brand of libertarianism. Maybe there’s some other element of your community that you value, like not having it full of drug addicts and hookers. They’re peacefully plying their trade or indulging their pleasures, so no problem. Some folks might be fine with that; I’m less enthusiastic.

    Everyone can come up with his own examples. The practical implementation of full libertarianism would produce a lot of unhappy people, each with his own grievance, which circles back to my claim of instability. Recall that Mate De kicked this off with the expression full libertarian. I have no objection to adopting selected libertarian principles in the context of a more structured political system as we have (had) done

    Doc, this where you and I agree. The full on, atomized individualistic version of libertarianism is unworkable. This is why I don’t fully subscribe to An-Cap. I try to profess the Jeffersonian ideas of government being localized and that government that governs least is the government that governs best.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  9. Devereaux:
    You find them jobs. There are TONS of jobs that do not require philosophy and economics. Things like carpenter, plumber, electrician, mechanic, machinist, tool and die maker. People with decent jobs are generally happy. They don’t need to debate philosophy, they discuss the last NFL game. To suggest otherwise is arrogance.

    This is akin to Bloomberg saying he can teach anybody how to farm.

    Get your low IQ carpenter to build your house, low IQ plumber to plum it, Low IQ electrician to wire it, low IQ mechanic to fix your brakes on your car, low IQ machinist and tool and die maker to build the engines on your airplane.

    This is laughable. You would not survive it to tell about it.

    I know your comment was about philosophy and economics. However, the question was low IQ folks.

    Lot’s of high IQ folks a stupid.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  10. Kevin Schulte:

    Devereaux:
    You find them jobs. There are TONS of jobs that do not require philosophy and economics. Things like carpenter, plumber, electrician, mechanic, machinist, tool and die maker. People with decent jobs are generally happy. They don’t need to debate philosophy, they discuss the last NFL game. To suggest otherwise is arrogance.

    This is akin to Bloomberg saying he can teach anybody how to farm.

    Get your low IQ carpenter to build your house, low IQ plumber to plum it, Low IQ electrician to wire it, low IQ mechanic to fix your brakes on your car, low IQ machinist and tool and die maker to build the engines on your airplane.

    This is laughable. You would not survive it to tell about it.

    I know your comment was about philosophy and economics. However, the question was low IQ folks.

    Lot’s of high IQ folks a stupid.

    But your high IQ housebuilder does have tasks that are easily assigned to a low IQ carpenter, and I depend on my high IQ housebuilder to make good choices in assigning tasks so that I get a good job at a reasonable price.  Likewise, my high IQ plumber sometimes shows up by himself, but some tasks require him to bring a low IQ helper along.   Even a group of high IQ mechanics are likely to have a position available for a low IQ mechanic.

    I don’t think there is room for low IQ machine tool makers, though they might have a position for a low IQ helper, and they are much more likely to be able to employ a low IQ helper when they are busy; not so much when business is down.

    Those low IQ guys are the ones who desperately need a good economy if they are going to keep good jobs.

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  11. Robert A. McReynolds:
    Also I think there is a lot of conflating Anarcho-Capitalism with libertarianism generally. There are many strains of libertarianism which I think creates the notion that it is a fanciful ideology. I think An-Cap libertarianism is utopian because it does negate human nature. I adhere to the notion that “if men were angels…” but certainly that should not equate to succumbing to the current circumstances that we find ourselves in today. I think the Founders gave us a system that, if diligently adhered to, produces the exact mix of recognizing human nature and libertarian government. I would hope that after the many years of posting here, people would recognize that for me, this is the type of libertarianism I support and advocate for.

    Yes, and the “Full Libertarians” seem unable to consider the full range of innate human capabilities.

    We could provide for the folk at the lower extremes of the range via charity rather than government, if we still had an overwhelming majority of Christians.   But with churchgoing Christians down to about a third of America, most of the folk at the lower extreme would become more people you would have to step over.

    2+
    avataravatar
  12. MJBubba:

    Kevin Schulte:

    Devereaux:
    You find them jobs. There are TONS of jobs that do not require philosophy and economics. Things like carpenter, plumber, electrician, mechanic, machinist, tool and die maker. People with decent jobs are generally happy. They don’t need to debate philosophy, they discuss the last NFL game. To suggest otherwise is arrogance.

    This is akin to Bloomberg saying he can teach anybody how to farm.

    Get your low IQ carpenter to build your house, low IQ plumber to plum it, Low IQ electrician to wire it, low IQ mechanic to fix your brakes on your car, low IQ machinist and tool and die maker to build the engines on your airplane.

    This is laughable. You would not survive it to tell about it.

    I know your comment was about philosophy and economics. However, the question was low IQ folks.

    Lot’s of high IQ folks a stupid.

    But your high IQ housebuilder does have tasks that are easily assigned to a low IQ carpenter, and I depend on my high IQ housebuilder to make good choices in assigning tasks so that I get a good job at a reasonable price.  Likewise, my high IQ plumber sometimes shows up by himself, but some tasks require him to bring a low IQ helper along.   Even a group of high IQ mechanics are likely to have a position available for a low IQ mechanic.

    I don’t think there is room for low IQ machine tool makers, though they might have a position for a low IQ helper, and they are much more likely to be able to employ a low IQ helper when they are busy; not so much when business is down.

     

    Those low IQ guys are the ones who desperately need a good economy if they are going to keep good jobs.

    Agreed, mostly.

    We both left out the mid IQ guys that are the majority of the population.

    The low IQ people ( They are God’s children and the foot of the cross is level ground) should only be doing menial jobs. Their worth is equal to mine. I do not look down on them.

    When work gets busy those low IQ guys get tasked with things they should not.

    Just sayin.

    1+
    avatar
  13. Robert A. McReynolds:
    Doc you are either only familiar with libertarianism on a superficial level—which I doubt—or you are intentionally mischaracterizing libertarianism

    See, this is perfect. I am the true libertarian and everyone else is a poseur. You’ve made my point better than I made it myself.

    But wait, there’s more:

    One last thing, AEI is NOT libertarian. I don’t give a damn what their website says or what any “fellow” there says.

    How about Cato, or are they also heretics? How about the Libertarian Party?

    This whole libertarian thing gets real slippery. C’mon, man.

    1+
    avatar
  14. Robert A. McReynolds:

    A mistake folks on the Right often make – I have been guilty of this – is to focus on economics: the more GDP, the better and the rest be damned. To quote (approx.) a blogger I respect, “I don’t want to have to step over heroin addicts on my way to work.”

    Here’s a more specific, concrete example. Some, not all, libertarians favor open borders provided there welfare state is eliminated or greatly circumscribed. There’s no violation of the non-aggression principle. The GDP will grow. This was literally the argument made by AEI types, in condensed form. I kinda-sorta used to agree. Let’s say we do that. Is that all that matters to you? Let’s say a bunch of Somali Muslims like Ilhan Omar move into town. How do you think that’s going to go? Is there such a thing as Western culture and do you have any interest in preserving it?

    Okay, maybe you don’t subscribe to that brand of libertarianism. Maybe there’s some other element of your community that you value, like not having it full of drug addicts and hookers. They’re peacefully plying their trade or indulging their pleasures, so no problem. Some folks might be fine with that; I’m less enthusiastic.

    Everyone can come up with his own examples. The practical implementation of full libertarianism would produce a lot of unhappy people, each with his own grievance, which circles back to my claim of instability. Recall that Mate De kicked this off with the expression full libertarian. I have no objection to adopting selected libertarian principles in the context of a more structured political system as we have (had) done

    Doc, this where you and I agree. The full on, atomized individualistic version of libertarianism is unworkable. This is why I don’t fully subscribe to An-Cap. I try to profess the Jeffersonian ideas of government being localized and that government that governs least is the government that governs best.

    I think we generally agree. All my comments were in the context of full libertarian, which is why I took pains to emphasize that. It was my effort to narrow the definition to make sure we were all talking about the same thing. The trouble with the unadorned libertarian is that nobody agrees about what that means, as illustrated by the AEI/Cato/Mises Institute/Ayn Rand/Rand Paul/Ron Paul/Ancap/left libertarian circular firing squad illustrates.

    Furthermore, I think something closer to full-on libertarianism would work in a society of spergy white boys. I might even enjoy living in such a place.* However, that is not the world we inhabit.

    *Edit: assuming we could bring our wives.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  15. drlorentz:

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    Doc you are either only familiar with libertarianism on a superficial level—which I doubt—or you are intentionally mischaracterizing libertarianism

    See, this is perfect. I am the true libertarian and everyone else is a poseur. You’ve made my point better than I made it myself.

    But wait, there’s more:

    One last thing, AEI is NOT libertarian. I don’t give a damn what their website says or what any “fellow” there says.

    How about Cato, or are they also heretics? How about the Libertarian Party?

    This whole libertarian thing gets real slippery. C’mon, man.

    In reverse order.

    The LP has many critics that comprise what is called the Mises Caucus of the LP. Woods, Dave Smith, etc. are very critical of the LP. Are you going to seriously claim that THEY have no grasp on what would make a “good” libertarian?

    Next Cato is very critical of the Mises Institute. However, at least Cato does not openly advocate for every damned military operation that comes out of the Pentagon. AEI employs Jonah Goldberg who has advocated that the US invade smaller, third world countries every ten years to show the rest of the world that the US isn’t a bunch of pansies. So yeah, irrespective of what some at AEI think about open borders, that place is a den of warmongers. Remember Bill Kristol also wants open borders and he ain’t no bloody Libertarian.

    lastly I said nothing of the sort! You made the claim that libertarianland leaves people to their own devices and you did so in the context of “finding people jobs.” You should own your words instead of moving goalposts when those words are soundly refuted. I am very familiar with a particular strand of libertarianism and they absolutely do not hold the characters view you ascribe to “libertianland.” If you can’t provide me with citations to other libertarians who have a “sink or swim” attitude about society, then I can only conclude that A) you don’t really know anything about libertarianism, which I know is not true, or B) you are being somewhat disingenuous with your characterization.

    0

  16. MJBubba:
    But your high IQ housebuilder does have tasks that are easily assigned to a low IQ carpenter, and I depend on my high IQ housebuilder to make good choices in assigning tasks so that I get a good job at a reasonable price.  Likewise, my high IQ plumber sometimes shows up by himself, but some tasks require him to bring a low IQ helper along.   Even a group of high IQ mechanics are likely to have a position available for a low IQ mechanic.

    This is all well and good except that numbers matter: are there going to be enough low-IQ tasks to employ all the low IQ individuals? Over the centuries, the cognitive requirements have been moving up. There used to be a surplus of high-IQ people, meaning that there were fewer jobs that required high cognitive skills than there were people who could handle them. Herrnstein and Murray made this point in The Bell Curve. In the future, those roles might reverse.

    There’s a broader problem than just finding jobs. Linda Gottfredson has made the point that simply navigating through a more complex world requires higher cognitive skills. Life is an IQ test. Interacting with the government, companies, healthcare system all require more than it once did. A few years ago I had to go to the DMV to take my kid for a road test for a new license. While I was waiting for child and examiner to return, some random guy asked me to help him fill out a DMV form. This was not a problem he would have faced one hundred years ago. How is it going to be for a person like that in the future and how many more will join his ranks? Also Ed Dutton and Michael Woodley claim we are getting dumber in At Our Wits’ End, but that’s another topic.

    1+
    avatar
  17. drlorentz:

    Robert A. McReynolds:

    A mistake folks on the Right often make – I have been guilty of this – is to focus on economics: the more GDP, the better and the rest be damned. To quote (approx.) a blogger I respect, “I don’t want to have to step over heroin addicts on my way to work.”

    Here’s a more specific, concrete example. Some, not all, libertarians favor open borders provided there welfare state is eliminated or greatly circumscribed. There’s no violation of the non-aggression principle. The GDP will grow. This was literally the argument made by AEI types, in condensed form. I kinda-sorta used to agree. Let’s say we do that. Is that all that matters to you? Let’s say a bunch of Somali Muslims like Ilhan Omar move into town. How do you think that’s going to go? Is there such a thing as Western culture and do you have any interest in preserving it?

    Okay, maybe you don’t subscribe to that brand of libertarianism. Maybe there’s some other element of your community that you value, like not having it full of drug addicts and hookers. They’re peacefully plying their trade or indulging their pleasures, so no problem. Some folks might be fine with that; I’m less enthusiastic.

    Everyone can come up with his own examples. The practical implementation of full libertarianism would produce a lot of unhappy people, each with his own grievance, which circles back to my claim of instability. Recall that Mate De kicked this off with the expression full libertarian. I have no objection to adopting selected libertarian principles in the context of a more structured political system as we have (had) done

    Doc, this where you and I agree. The full on, atomized individualistic version of libertarianism is unworkable. This is why I don’t fully subscribe to An-Cap. I try to profess the Jeffersonian ideas of government being localized and that government that governs least is the government that governs best.

    I think we generally agree. All my comments were in the context of full libertarian, which is why I took pains to emphasize that. It was my effort to narrow the definition to make sure we were all talking about the same thing. The trouble with the unadorned libertarian is that nobody agrees about what that means, as illustrated by the AEI/Cato/Mises Institute/Ayn Rand/Rand Paul/Ron Paul/Ancap/left libertarian circular firing squad illustrates.

    Furthermore, I think something closer to full-on libertarianism would work in a society of spergy white boys. I might even enjoy living in such a place.* However, that is not the world we inhabit.

    *Edit: assuming we could bring our wives.

    Okay I think I understand the breakdown. If you are looking for what I mean by libertarian then start with Mises, Rothbard, Woods, Walter Block, Bob Murphy, Judge Napolitano. Those are the folks I look to when I am talking about libertarianism. Mises.org is really my starting point. Also I do not necessity equate my views on our system of government with this strain of libertarianism. Rothbard preferred the Articles to the Constitution because was more limiting of the central power than the latter. I agree. But I am not a full on subscriber to An-Cap because man needs to be governed.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  18.  

    Robert A. McReynolds:
    The LP has many critics that comprise what is called the Mises Caucus of the LP. Woods, Dave Smith, etc. are very critical of the LP. Are you going to seriously claim that THEY have no grasp on what would make a “good” libertarian?

    Never made such a claim. Simply illustrating that they all claim to be the one true libertarian. It’s a two-way street: I’m sure there are many self-professed libertarians who criticize Dave Smith and the rest of your libertarian pantheon. I like Dave Smith, btw, based on the discussion he had with Fuentes.

    Next Cato is very critical of the Mises Institute. However, at least Cato does not openly advocate for every damned military operation that comes out of the Pentagon. AEI employs Jonah Goldberg who has advocated that the US invade smaller, third world countries every ten years to show the rest of the world that the US isn’t a bunch of pansies. So yeah, irrespective of what some at AEI think about open borders, that place is a den of warmongers. Remember Bill Kristol also wants open borders and he ain’t no bloody Libertarian.

    Never claimed that AEI was composed exclusively of people who call themselves libertarians; just that there are some in there. For instance, I don’t think Jonah Goldberg calls himself a libertarian. And yes, he is a left-handed wanker. So’s Kristol, who also doesn’t claim to be a libertarian. Why are you even making me think of those guys?

    lastly I said nothing of the sort! You made the claim that libertarianland leaves people to their own devices and you did so in the context of “finding people jobs.”

    Wait, are you saying that under a libertarian regime, the government would find people jobs? Because that’s what I was addressing in a comment by someone completely different from you. Let me re-clarify: in a libertarian state, individuals would be left to their own devices in finding their own jobs. Is this some flavor of libertarianism that does not agree? If so, libertarianism is more diverse than I thought.

    2+
    avataravatar
  19. No, not saying GOV would find jobs. I believe in an earlier post I stated that there would private mechanisms in places to carry out this function.

    And Doc, of course wives are welcome. Demographics man, if catch my drift.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  20. Robert A. McReynolds:
    Okay I think I understand the breakdown. If you are looking for what I mean by libertarian then start with Mises, Rothbard, Woods, Walter Block, Bob Murphy, Judge Napolitano. Those are the folks I look to when I am talking about libertarianism. Mises.org is really my starting point. Also I do not necessity equate my views on our system of government with this strain of libertarianism. Rothbard preferred the Articles to the Constitution because was more limiting of the central power than the latter. I agree. But I am not a full on subscriber to An-Cap because man needs to be governed.

    I got it. And, without having dug deeply into the writings of Rothbard or those other guys (von Mises excepted), I’m probably in broad agreement with them. I certainly like von Mises (referring to the writer, not the Institute), though I have some critiques of the methodology in Human Action.

    As I mentioned before, my complaints about libertarianism are in the context of full libertarianism, first mentioned in this thread by Mate De in an early comment. If I understand you correctly, we generally agree on that.

    1+
    avatar
  21. At the risk of offending almost everyone, which I am loath to do,* libertarians remind me of Protestants. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of different sects. Outsiders can’t tell them apart but the adherents are firm in the belief that theirs is right and all the rest are wrong. Frankly, it’s just too much work. I love the flowchart. Can we get one for libertarianism?

    *Who am I kidding here?

    4+
    avataravataravataravatar
  22. Mate De:
    I just remember watching a few of Soph’s videos and was a bit shocked by how much she knew about a lot of adult stuff at such a young age. I get the vulgar and crass presentation because teens talked like that when I was a kid but we didn’t talk about the stuff she talks about.

    Soph’s videos were great. The vulgarity didn’t especially bother me per se but I was concerned that her outspoken, crudely-expressed views would get her into trouble that wouldn’t go away. Stuff posted online is forever. Even though she took down her breakout video on Islam, portions of it live in BitChute. Her parents were aware of her antics and I defer to them on regulating her behavior. Still, I worry she may yet regret it. It would be a shame if she did because she’s clearly smart and has talent.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  23. Doc just as an attempt to help you out, I think the first principle of all strands of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. Which is why some one like me can openly support some one like Tulsi. Her’s is a foreign policy that embraces that more than any other outside of Jacob Hornberger who is running for the LP nomination.

    0

  24. Robert A. McReynolds:
    Doc just as an attempt to help you out, I think the first principle of all strands of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. Which is why some one like me can openly support some one like Tulsi. Her’s is a foreign policy that embraces that more than any other outside of Jacob Hornberger who is running for the LP nomination.

    Yeah, I get the non-aggression principle. You’ll find I mentioned it several times in this thread. The trouble is that every single form of libertarianism, including the ones you and I don’t like, are consistent with the NAP. In short, it’s too thin a reed to hang an entire ideology on. It is the reason that two libertarians—>three opinions. It’s why we need that flowchart. Replace the Bible with the NAP and proceed from there.

    1+
    avatar
  25. Apropos of the generational issue, Clint Eastwood:

    “The politics has gotten so ornery,” the five-time Oscar-winner said in the wide ranging WSJ interview. Eastwood says he wished President Trump would act “in a more genteel way, without tweeting and calling people names. I would personally like for him to not bring himself to that level.”

    This, coming from Dirty Harry? Yeah I get he was acting a role but it was also his persona.

    He’s also backing Bloomberg. Seriously, dude? I guess he likes the stop-and-frisk Bloomie  Stop and frisk with extreme prejudice. (Apocalypse Now reference)

    1+
    avatar

Leave a Reply