Byzantine: Meso-Americans are a little more diverse in terms of outcomes but for the most part, they seem glad to be here and opportunistic.
Meso-Americans are a little more diverse in terms of outcomes but for the most part, they seem glad to be here and opportunistic.
Often though, 'latino' is just a catch-all category of otherwise unrelated Spanish speaking groups. That graph cites 'Latinos of all races'. It would be interesting to see the change if you subtracted Cubans from that.
Snowflake: Let me know the next time a white jewish guy gets affirmative action.
If Jesús Huerta de Soto was a student in the United States, he would be eligible for financial aid and would be subject to affirmative action.
But there will always be income inequality. How does one 'address' what basically amounts to a non-existent 'problem'?
I was talking about inequality of income across racial/ethnic groups. If skin color is irrelevant to worker productivity, then I can't imagine any reason why median black income should be significantly different from median white income.
Since median income is infact very different between these two groups (and has been for decades), there must be something else going on here. Maybe there is discrimination in wage setting (less likely these days I think). Or maybe there are factors that are making black workers less productive than they otherwise would be--like maybe fewer educational opportunities, living in more violent communities, etc.
Like abskebabs noted, libertarians have ideas for solving these problems like abolishing the public school system so that competition among private schools will improve educational quality and open doors to higher education or ending the war on drugs to reduce gang violence. I don't necc agree with these policy prescriptions, but if you're a libertarian I'm sure they probably make sense to you.
Of course, how often do you see any politically prominent libertarian making these policies or issues their number one priority??? They certainly are not Ron Paul's priority. By my count he has written 5 entire books on the Gold Standard or monetary policy and not a single book on poverty or income inequality. And of course its not just him. Look at this board, it is clearly not a big issue here How many threads are there on this forum about poverty or income inequality across races? By comparison, how many threads do you think there are about frickin' Homesteading?
The simple fact of the matter is that libertarian generally don't care about income inequality across races and neither do most of their supporters. So I am not surprised that the OP thinks the libertarian base is not very diverse.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
Student: Of course, how often do you see any politically prominent libertarian making these policies or issues their number one priority??? They certainly are not Ron Paul's priority. By my count he has written 5 entire books on the Gold Standard or monetary policy and not a single book on poverty or income inequality. And of course its not just him. Look at this board, it is clearly not a big issue here How many threads are there on this forum about poverty or income inequality across races? By comparison, how many threads do you think there are about frickin' Homesteading? The simple fact of the matter is that libertarian generally don't care about income inequality across races and neither do most of their supporters.
The simple fact of the matter is that libertarian generally don't care about income inequality across races and neither do most of their supporters.
That's right. We don't care about races.
Byzantine:Higher intelligence is strongly correlated with higher income, so if median black intelligence is lower than median white intelligence, that would explain the difference.
I think there is more to it though, as immigrant blacks in the U.S. have a slightly higher median income than that of native U.S. whites (so much for the racism holding black income down nonsense!), so even with I.Q. there must be a cultural reason as well.
Higher intelligence is strongly correlated with higher income, so if median black intelligence is lower than median white intelligence, that would explain the difference.
I think the OP has found his answer right here.
IMO it's the lack of capital accumulation amongst blacks. After all, they never got their 40 acres and a mule, then had to suffer through Jim Crow, then they had to deal with the Federal Reserve stealing the value of their wages and savings (to disproportionate effect since credit inflation most hurts the poor, who lack assets which would appreciate in value). Then MLK hit the scene and turned the situation into a call for socialism.
An ugly situation but I'd not put it down to blacks being less intelligent. I tend to not really buy in to those statistical analyses that say otherwise, given the lack of economic understanding of those who conduct them.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
being white!
Student: Higher intelligence is strongly correlated with higher income, so if median black intelligence is lower than median white intelligence, that would explain the difference. I think the OP has found his answer right here.
Lmfao.
KILL WHITEY!
Snowflake: Why are libertarians all white and all male?
Why are libertarians all white and all male?
Who cares? Let me know when I should start feeling guilty for the big-bang; I'm sure plenty of dark matter was created / affected with it's ocurrence.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
"Then MLK hit the scene and turned the situation into a call for socialism."
I'm uncomfortable with placing the blame for an ideological tendency towards socialism in the African-American community at the feet of Martin Luther King Jr. That tendency already existed and had for some time. If the blame should be placed anywhere, it should be spread pretty evenly. However, if any one man more than others deserved credit or scorn for doing so, I'd look no further than W.E.B. du Bois, who remains highly lauded while his ideological foe Booker T. Washington remains on the margins of black intellectual favor, where he resides with Zora Neale Hurston. Du Bois and his acolytes went on a true hate campaign against Washington and their victory was near total. What the black intelligentsia of the 1940s did to Zora Neale Hurston was particularly shameful (it involved a truly pernicious hoax at ZNH's expense: false allegations that she had sexually molested two ten year-old African-American boys).
African-Americans exhibiting tendencies towards classical liberalism, individualism, and libertarianism were marked for destruction in the wake of Du Bois's crusade to root them out. Classical liberals such as Frederick Douglass (who would likely abhor today's "Black Leadership") were recast as proto-progressives. Struck from the record was Douglass's time crossing the British Isles on foot with Cobden and Bright expounding upon the benefits of free trade, free association, and every other cast of liberty. Martin Luther King Jr., whatever the faults of his socio-economic convictions, was a man of peace who set an example for popular protest we're going to need to emulate as best we can as the shitstorm that is facing us advances. We'd be far better off not trying to knock from a pedestal a man who, frankly, deserves to occupy it and opting instead to concern ourselves with reminding our opponents of the African-American classical liberal tradition. God, to read Booker T. Washington sometimes, the man may have been something of a proto-Rothbardian.
If anything, the rewriting of Douglass's biography and the trashing of black classical liberals ought to serve as an example of how insidious the institutionalization and regimentation of "socially-acceptable" parameters for African-American intellectual discussion really is.
Black Americans have an antipathy towards markets due to being sold in them, while Native Americans have an antipathy towards property rights, because Western conceptions of property rights were used as a justification for killing nearly all of them.
Because they're on the 'winning' side of the inequality?
Benjamin: The simple fact of the matter is that libertarian generally don't care about income inequality across races and neither do most of their supporters. Because they're on the 'winning' side of the inequality?
No, but both of your statements are equally assumptive.
Benjamin: Native Americans have an antipathy towards property rights, because Western conceptions of property rights were used as a justification for killing nearly all of them.
Last time I checked it was also part of their culture.
I'm going to answer the question of why libertarians are just a point of white guys from the stand point of evolutionary psychology:
Firstly Libertarianism is fundamentally Jewish in origin. Mises, Rothbard and Rand were all jews who provided the intellectual base for the movement. It is an ideology that promotes Jewish ethnic interests by a) legitimising their high status at the top of the economic food chain and b) reducing anti-semitism by using individualism to undermine group identity of the native populations they reside in.
Secondly, libertarianism attracts whites because they have a tendency to view things in universal terms and for evolutionary reasons have weak group cohesiveness. It attracts a subsection of whites who beleive that the they stand to gain from a free market, which is why all of you generally fit the profile of white middle-class graduates who are not facing the prospect of their livelihood being shipped to China.
Thirdly, non-whites have high group cohesiveness and view things in particularist terms i.e. whats good for Black's? and will promote ideologies that maximise their group interests, whether its marxism, liberalism or good old white guilt. Hence it’s no point arguing to a Black man holding a cushy affirmative action job that society as a whole will better offer in a free market. He will, having comparatively low IQ with Whites, to give up his high status affirmative action post for a menial low-status job.
I hate to break it to you white boys but your messianic movement is going nowhere because it doesn't understand basic evolutionary psychology.
Simon Lote: I'm going to answer the question of why libertarians are just a point of white guys from the stand point of evolutionary psychology: Firstly Libertarianism is fundamentally Jewish in origin. Mises, Rothbard and Rand were all jews who provided the intellectual base for the movement. It is an ideology that promotes Jewish ethnic interests by a) legitimising their high status at the top of the economic food chain and b) reducing anti-semitism by using individualism to undermine group identity of the native populations they reside in. Secondly, libertarianism attracts whites because they have a tendency to view things in universal terms and for evolutionary reasons have weak group cohesiveness. It attracts a subsection of whites who beleive that the they stand to gain from a free market, which is why all of you generally fit the profile of white middle-class graduates who are not facing the prospect of their livelihood being shipped to China. Thirdly, non-whites have high group cohesiveness and view things in particularist terms i.e. whats good for Black's? and will promote ideologies that maximise their group interests, whether its marxism, liberalism or good old white guilt. Hence it’s no point arguing to a Black man holding a cushy affirmative action job that society as a whole will better offer in a free market. He will, having comparatively low IQ with Whites, to give up his high status affirmative action post for a menial low-status job. I hate to break it to you white boys but your messianic movement is going nowhere because it doesn't understand basic evolutionary psychology.
Your post is full of collective thinking, which means that, according to your post, that you are probably non-white.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Calling me a 'collectivist' is just your way of saying my arguments are nasty. Well nasty as they are do you actually care to refute them?
Simon Lote: Calling me a 'collectivist' is just your way of saying my arguments are nasty.
Calling me a 'collectivist' is just your way of saying my arguments are nasty.
Nasty in what sense?
Well nasty as they are do you actually care to refute them?
No. I haven't said I've disagreed with you.
Btw, why did you capitalize "Libertarianism"?
Simon Lote: I'm going to answer the question of why libertarians are just a point of white guys from the stand point of evolutionary psychology: Firstly Libertarianism is fundamentally Jewish in origin. Mises, Rothbard and Rand were all jews who provided the intellectual base for the movement. It is an ideology that promotes Jewish ethnic interests by a) legitimising their high status at the top of the economic food chain and b) reducing anti-semitism by using individualism to undermine group identity of the native populations they reside in.
Yet Rand was an Objectivist, through & through. There is a difference between objectivism & libertarianism.
Simon Lote: ... b) reducing anti-semitism by using individualism to undermine group identity of the native populations they reside in. ...
... b) reducing anti-semitism by using individualism to undermine group identity of the native populations they reside in. ...
Then why are so many Jews socialist? Wouldn't their ethnic interest be to be libertarians so that they can undermine antisemitism?
No reason
Simon Lote: I hate to break it to you white boys but your messianic movement is going nowhere because it doesn't understand basic evolutionary psychology.
Normal 0 21 false false false SV X-NONE X-NONE
Then why is the great evolutionary psychology professor Satoshi Kanazawa a libertarian (or at least a "South Park Republican")? Look, I know about the insistence of you guys to find reason as a systematic trait that evolved to solve things other than inter-personal problems. But this is ultimately flawed, since logic can teach us truths of the world which your science ultimately rests upon. Seriously, I cannot see how a scientist in his right mind can make the claim that reason is not an absolute, regardless of if the matter is inter-personal or scientific.
Evolutionary Psychology certainly has a lot to teach us, especially behaviors not directly attributable to reason. Instincts or even aesthetics are phenomenon that can be explained by evolutionary psychology.
How we should behave and “what is right” (ethics) is basically a matter of philosophy (which must be built upon reason). An evolutionary psychologist might say that “well, we must behave in a way that does not make us genetic losers”. But that is just an observation on how to continue the process that the science of evolutionary psychology is meant to study, and not a goal in itself. But are there any intrinsic goals? Sure there are, given certain goals there are plenty. If you want to live you must be able to use resources to sustain your life, or another person must be able to do this for you to continue your survival. There are plenty of implications there, and they lead us to libertarianism.
Why conservatives are usually stronger than liberals and why liberals are often smarter than conservatives is interesting though. But the world is not deterministic, and what is interesting about these groups is that they do not use reason to come to their conclusions, hence there might be an evolutionary drive involved in their choices. Any one conservative, or liberal, when accepting the outcome of sound logic, must accept libertarianism. Some libertarians might be libertarians because of an evolutionary drive to certain ideas, and certainly many libertarians are of above-average IQ, which says something about how evolution plays a part in our choice of ideology.
A theory on why liberals tend to be smarter than conservatives is that smart people want to show this to possible mates by holding views that are nonsensical but constructed to impress. Like the peacocks do with their tails. A peacock has no real advantage in nature by having a beautiful and big tail. But the ones with big tails attract female peacocks. This is probably because the big tails tell the females that “look, my tail is big which is a big disadvantage to me, but I am so skillful that I still manage to survive, I have good DNA!” If you look at liberals, they tend to favor high taxation, this is the same thing as “look, I can manage the higher tax burden and still manage to live well!”
As you can see, evolutionary psychology can certainly explain certain behaviors, but not those behaviors where we consciously apply reason towards certain goals.
Objectivists and libertarians may approach it from different angles but their agenda is basically the same: laisez-faire capitalism. It is also undeniable that objectivism has influenced the wider libertarian movement.
Simon Lote:Firstly Libertarianism is fundamentally Jewish in origin. Mises, Rothbard and Rand were all jews who provided the intellectual base for the movement. It is an ideology that promotes Jewish ethnic interests by a) legitimising their high status at the top of the economic food chain and b) reducing anti-semitism by using individualism to undermine group identity of the native populations they reside in.
So you're asking me to refute the Jewish religion?
Simon Lote:Secondly, libertarianism attracts whites because they have a tendency to view things in universal terms and for evolutionary reasons have weak group cohesiveness. It attracts a subsection of whites who beleive that the they stand to gain from a free market, which is why all of you generally fit the profile of white middle-class graduates who are not facing the prospect of their livelihood being shipped to China.
So you don't choose your political or economic slant?
Simon Lote:Thirdly, non-whites have high group cohesiveness and view things in particularist terms i.e. whats good for Black's? and will promote ideologies that maximise their group interests, whether its marxism, liberalism or good old white guilt. Hence it’s no point arguing to a Black man holding a cushy affirmative action job that society as a whole will better offer in a free market. He will, having comparatively low IQ with Whites, to give up his high status affirmative action post for a menial low-status job.
And the man "holding the cushy affirmative action job" doesn't choose that job?
Simon Lote:I hate to break it to you white boys but your messianic movement is going nowhere because it doesn't understand basic evolutionary psychology.
I hate to break it to you but you're asking me to refute a particular group of people's faith (the Jewish religion), and the choices people make in life why?
Why were the Catholic scholastics the first major liberal movement in history if the libertarian movement is largely of Jewish origin? Not to mention the French scholastics.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Why were the Catholic scholastics the first major liberal movement in history if the libertarian movement is largely of Jewish origin? Not to mention the French scholastics.
His view of history will tend to historical materialism, because he has misunderstood the applications for an important science. Therein lies the problem. He is using a science based on generalizations and empirical observation to the world of ideas.But his methods of dealing with the world of ideas and history are far too simplistic, and evolutionary psychology is not a great tool to deal with this, although it might be used to illustrate some points.
Well I'm a middle eastern, muslim, and libertarian male raised in southside, jamaica queens NYC(not a nice area to grow up in)- a lot of friends of mine that I grew up with, who are african american are libertarians too. Would the evolutionary psychologists and others who think they know exactly how and why people choose their paths in life give me their take on how this could've happened by only knowing the information I just gave you? I'd love to hear it.
auctionguy10:Well I'm a middle eastern, muslim, and libertarian male raised in southside, jamaica queens NYC(not a nice area to grow up in)- a lot of friends of mine that I grew up with, who are african american are libertarians too. Would the evolutionary psychologists and others who think they know exactly how and why people choose their paths in life give me their take on how this could've happened by only knowing the information I just gave you? I'd love to hear it.
cause you're not real middle eastern and they're not real blacks, just anomalies, freaks of nature
Well both movements socialism and libertarianism are universalistic, internationalist movements which in practice undermine native group cohesiveness. Both movements preach equality whether it is the equality of individual rights in libertarianism or economic equality under socialism. They essentially hold that a Jew is the same as a gentile.
In politics Jews do not march in lockstep, rather they are flexible strategisers who adopt ideologies according to time and place, the important thing is all these ideologies are vehicles to maximise their advantage in their competition with other ethnic groups for resources. Some Jews developed libertarianism as under the conditions of laissez-faire jews tend to rise to the top and dominate economies thanks to their high IQ and ethnic networking. I'm guessing the reason why few jews take it up is that its considerably more pie in the sky than Zionism, liberalism or neo-conservativism. Embracing libertarianism also conforms to anti-semitic stereotypes of greedy jews ruthlessly exploiting the poor. Ayn Rand is almost a charicature of the greedy jew.
In a sense you could argue that promoting socialism causes anti-semitism - and indeed anti-semities do hold jews responsible for subversive movements like marxism. But at the same time socialism works to eliminate anti-semitic dissidents by using the power of the state to raise the price of dissent to intollerable levels. As an extreme example publishing anti-semitic literature in many European countries can merit a prison sentence.
wow...lol
This is a joke right. Are you trying to experiment if a new Onion article will receive laughs?
First of all, I don't think that all forms of socialism are inherently anti-semitic. Obviously the Nazis were the epitome of anti-semitism but there were lots of Communist Jews in Russia, there still are. So socialism doesn't equal anti-semitism.
I happen to have a hypothesis for why so many Jews are liberals. I think it has a lot to do with the idea of being a light to all nations.
Simon Lote: Then why are so many Jews socialist? Wouldn't their ethnic interest be to be libertarians so that they can undermine antisemitism? ... In politics Jews do not march in lockstep, rather they are flexible strategisers who adopt ideologies according to time and place, the important thing is all these ideologies are vehicles to maximise their advantage in their competition with other ethnic groups for resources.
... In politics Jews do not march in lockstep, rather they are flexible strategisers who adopt ideologies according to time and place, the important thing is all these ideologies are vehicles to maximise their advantage in their competition with other ethnic groups for resources.
Then why does Stanford University have Jewish socialists and Jewish libertarians? Aren't they at the same place in the same time?
The problem with you thinking is that you keep over-generalizing. Saying, "(All) Jews this..." and "(All) Jews that...," instead of saying "Some Jews this..." or "Some Jews that."
actionguy pointing to a handfull of token black libertarians, which by the way would like some proof that they exist and actually do engage in activism, does not mean that Blacks as a group are going to be receptive to a political ideology that will reduce the socio-economic status of the vast majority of blacks. As I understand it the black vote went 95% for Obama because he was a black man who promised them more government privileges.
libertarian are bunch of white guys because more whites care to read political philosophy while their brethren update their PHAT clothing inventory.
garegin: libertarian are bunch of white guys because more whites care to read political philosophy while their brethren update their PHAT clothing inventory.
Non sequitur.
Simon Lote: Yet Rand was an Objectivist, through & through. There is a difference between objectivism & libertarianism. Objectivists and libertarians may approach it from different angles but their agenda is basically the same: laisez-faire capitalism. It is also undeniable that objectivism has influenced the wider libertarian movement.
how is that non sequitur. More percentage of Czechs play hockey than Spanish. hence they have a bigger share in world hockey. same thing applies for guitar players, rugby, political philosophy, nuclear physics, marine exploration.