Quote notes (#66)

Gregory Clark on his new book:

Because America is such an unequal society there has been more emphasis on the possibilities of social mobility. How else are you going to justify the incredible inequalities in the US? So it’s going to be very unwelcome news for people in the States that there really are very slow rates of social mobility. Now what’s interesting about this book is that its message seems to be equally unwelcome to both right and left. The left loves the idea that there are slow rates of social mobility. But they want to hold on to the idea that there’s going to be a political programme that will end this problem. But the book says that there’s absolutely no sign of our ability as a society to change that. The right hates the idea that there are very slow rates of social mobility, but they love the idea that there’s nothing you can do about it.

Liberals: “Things are unfair, we need to change that.”
Conservatives: “No, things are fair enough, we don’t need to do anything.”
Reactionaries: “Things are vastly more unfair than you can possibly imagine, and all of our attempts to change this situation amount to a fantastic calamity.”

March 15, 2014admin 27 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : ,

27 Responses to this entry

  • spandrell Says:

    I’d rephrase it as:

    Neoreactionaries: You’re both wrong.

    And that’s it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 15th, 2014 at 11:33 am Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    @admin

    “Things are vastly more unfair than you can possibly imagine, and all of our attempts to change this situation amount to a fantastic calamity.”

    The incredible error in this statement is a very bad sign. Consider re-reading that statement.

    NRx is better suited speaking about “equality” than fairness. Fairness/justice, as commonly expressed, is dependent upon bias/development to say the complete minimum.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’d need you to spell out the “incredible error” in order to respond pointedly.

    [Reply]

    nyan_sandwich Reply:

    The error was s/unequal/unfair/

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That doesn’t seem like a fight worth having to me, but if people here really think ‘fairness’ can be extracted from leftist emotionalism they’re welcome to try. (No point trying to drag me into it though.)

    Alrenous Reply:

    Fairness is not-special-pleading. In an unfair competition, some are given advantages with no logical justification. In a fair competition, everyone has an equal capacity to choose to earn the reward.

    But HBD shows that all competitions are won by some unique advantage. The best runner has blood of higher oxygen capacity. Or their training regimen was better, because they had a higher IQ and therefore thought of it first. Or they trained harder, because they were born with more capacity for impulse suppression. Or they doped harder by lying or manipulating their way around regulations more efficiently.

    In each competition, we must define what ‘earn’ means ad-hoc. Some have said the only fair fight is the coin flip, but what is more clearly special pleading than random chance? There is truly no such thing as a fair fight.

    Leftists believe in a just world. When NAMs lose competitions, it must be due to predation – someone intentionally inflicting disadvantages unequally. Everyone has the capacity to predate, but we always put that outside the ‘earn’ field because prisoner’s dilemma. The sprinters can win by pushing the other guy back, but since the other guy can too, the heat ends up in a ball wrestling on the ground. Of course, some predating and some not predating the height of special pleading.

    Proggies say they believe whiteness is an advantage, granted by chance to only some souls, that functions by sucking things away from the less-uncoloured.

    Different T Reply:

    @admin

    “(No point trying to drag me into it though.)”

    Incorrect.

    “Things are vastly more unfair”

    To what does “things” refer?

    You are implicitly agreeing with the value of equality if you state the “things” are “unfair.” You accepted the false premise and began reasoning from there.

    “That doesn’t seem like a fight worth having to me” -> “amount to a fantastic calamity”

    [Reply]

    TD Reply:

    It’s not for me to speak for admin, but I don’t think the hypothetical reactionary is actually “stating” that things are unfair. Rather, the reactionary seems to be simply echoing the verbiage at hand as a rhetorical device. His response could well be written like this: ‘Things’ are vastly more ‘unfair’ than you can possibly imagine …

    admin Reply:

    You seem to think ‘fairness’ is less laden with malignant senselessness than ‘equality’. I have no idea why.

    Different T Reply:

    @admin

    Thank you for clarifying.

    @Izak and TD

    It should now be clear that your rationalizing with regard to admin being ironic is incorrect.

    ——————-

    “You seem to think ‘fairness’ is less laden with malignant senselessness than ‘equality’. ”

    No. As assumed, you were substituting the concepts of unfair and unequal (likely for simplicity). This is the incredible error. “Fairness” or justice, as commonly expressed, is a human judgment. Equality is an independent characteristic. a=a. a=/=b. Substituting dissimilar conceptions (fairness and equality) causes incorrect differentiation and integration. Inequality exists without regard to “fairness.” Fairness/justice, as commonly expressed, is dependent upon bias/development to say the complete minimum.

    Stating that things (inequality) are vastly more “unfair” implies a judgment for the value of equality: “It is not fair that red is not the same as blue.” Stating that things are not equal does not.

    “Things are vastly more unfair than you can possibly imagine, and all of our attempts to change this situation amount to a fantastic calamity.”

    What is the purpose of this site? Is it only a… fantastic calamity?

    admin Reply:

    “What is the purpose of this site? Is it only a… fantastic calamity?” — The purpose of this site is to recommend against the ‘correction’ of Gnon.

    Posted on March 15th, 2014 at 2:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Izak Says:

    @Different T

    But the problem with your line of reasoning is that the irony is implicit. And people overuse scarequotes.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 15th, 2014 at 8:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    “The incredible error in this statement is a very bad sign.

    ———

    “Rather, the reactionary seems to be simply echoing the verbiage at hand as a rhetorical device.”

    Really? Why the second part: “and all of our attempts to change this situation amount to a fantastic calamity”?

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 16th, 2014 at 1:05 am Reply | Quote
  • Shlomo Maistre Says:

    There are too many ways man fails to recognize how it is that “every country gets the government it deserves” for any Reactionary to explicate this truism in a single way so as to illuminate its veracity to more than a few doubters. Families are happy in but one way – rinse and repeat. With that said, prefacing Maistre’s famous maxim with “Things are vastly more unfair than you can possibly imagine, and all of our attempts to change this situation amount to a fantastic calamity” quite aptly illustrates the depth of meaning behind it.

    Inevitable in the same sense that warfare, divorce, and theft are, social mobility occurs insofar as society lacks order. A degree of social disorder in all human society is inevitable given that perfect social order is the effect of incentive, desire, and expectation so perfectly aligning so as to render their functions useless. In this manner, perfect order is literally timeless, outside the domain of mortal experience, and where perception and reality are synonyms.

    Like any trend that is inevitable and opposes the divine order, the immediate/temporal effects of social mobility are less purely harmful insofar as they are more prevalent. In other words, the less war, divorce, theft, and social mobility there is, the more likely people fight, divorce, steal, and rise by virtue of worth. Insofar as these phenomena are symptoms of social disorder, the harm to social order they indicate are proportional to their frequency & severity. But these phenomena are also causes of further social disorder themselves; therefore, their harmful effects not only rise inasmuch as their frequency/severity do – but more (disproportionally) so. This is another way of understanding how time erodes, degrades everything.

    And I say all that to put into proper context my personal response to social mobility: the right of heredity is inevitable

    Collective social power is restrained by faith and constrained by force. In other words, to the extent the ruled do not openly rebel against the ruler, there is combination of actual faith and threat of force. The less political information is, the more faith in the ruler and the less force need be threatened to deter rebellion against the ruler.

    Rule by faith is the right to power; rule by force is the will to power. The less manifested power (action ipsum action) was perceived required to achieve recognized right of rule, the more likely there is belief in the right of succession. The case of minimal manifested power is the case where belief is inevitably immanent. This is also the only case wherein authority, responsibility, and incentive all stem from the same source – that which created it. Indeed, the act of creation is participation in that which distinguishes Him – sovereingty itself. If rule by faith is orderly, rule by recognized birth right is order itself. The right of heredity is inevitable.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 16th, 2014 at 6:05 am Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    @Alrenous

    “But HBD shows that all competitions are won by some unique advantage. The best runner has blood of higher oxygen capacity. Or their training regimen was better, because they had a higher IQ and therefore thought of it first. Or they trained harder, because they were born with more capacity for impulse suppression. Or they doped harder by lying or manipulating their way around regulations more efficiently.”

    Is this meant to read as window dressing on determinism?

    “In each competition, we must define what ‘earn’ means ad-hoc. Some have said the only fair fight is the coin flip, but what is more clearly special pleading than random chance?”

    To speak harshly, do you only consider the coin flip “random chance” because of stupidity?

    [Reply]

    Alrenous Reply:

    You’re not worth my time, you say? Okay, good to know.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Apologies.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 16th, 2014 at 12:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • JLanceCombs Says:

    I wanted to point out that the author, Gregory Clark, seemed to use his conclusion that some are just born more talented than others as justification for switching from a free market principle to one of redistribution from greater to lesser, since his argument is that it is not the fault of the untalented that they are born so. He does not acknowledge that it is neither the fault of the talented that the untalented are born so. In other words, the fact that some are born “talented” and are more prone to success, while others are born “untalented” and are prone to lesser success actually strikes me as quite fair. He seems to call it “luck”. He conflates ability with luck. He has touched on to the fact that some people are simply born better than other and has decided he doesn’t like it, calling it “unfair”. Whereas when he says that some are born with more advantages, we should respond with “Really? Good.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 16th, 2014 at 3:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • JLanceCombs Says:

    Also, a pet peeve. The author seems not to understand what “full circle” means. He says he was a libertarian free marketeer who went full circle when learning this. It should mean that it let him towards a more socialist path at first before further conclusions made him realize that it was even greater justification for his original libertarian stances.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 16th, 2014 at 3:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Says:

    Fairness and equality are not synonymous.

    With regard to fairness, equity is the operative word, not equality.

    Equity

    1. Justice; right. In practice, equity is the impartial distribution of justice, or the doing that to another which the laws of God and man, and of reason, give him a right to claim. It is the treating of a person according to justice and reason.

    The Lord shall judge the people with equity. Ps.98.

    Thus, it is wrong to say that our attempts to make things more fair have been a calamity. Rather, it has been one of the best points of our civilization. Think common law.

    There are places where justice is not and has never been distributed impartially. You don’t want to live there.

    Your mistake, which the Left is happy to see you make, is to confuse equity and equality. Equity merely says that each man must have his due, it does not suggest that each man must get the same.

    Thus, in the Magna Carta, we see the imposition of rules which are designed to promote fairness.

    “No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny of delay right or justice.”

    Due process = fairness. Lawful judgment, rather than the arbitrary whims of the King or Baron. But not equality, since the law can (and did) prescribe different results for different people, based on their different social positions, rights and privileges.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Both ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’ have defensible meanings, and degenerate ones. In both cases, degeneracy has triumphed comprehensively. For a conservative — let alone a reactionary — to beg for ‘fairness’ under present cultural circumstances sounds simply ridiculous. Leave “it’s not fair!” to small children and progressives.

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    agreed

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    @admin

    Did you find the discussion regarding fairness/equality helpful in sorting?

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 16th, 2014 at 4:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    What some people may be trying to get to is fairness under law, same treatment.

    When we have actual nobility, as opposed to the most capable financial thieves, suppose we could consider different penalties.

    The Magna Carta is a great document, but it’s not ours.

    And the idea of different penalties in what will remain a multi-ethinic nation is not only anathema to us but fatal to any enterprise. It cannot be a matter of statute. Local Juries and Judges have quite enough flexibility to make any desired adjustments.

    Freedom of association and the tossing of the entire Federal Register including the act itself, along with the New Deal managerial state solves so many problems.

    [Reply]

    Saddam Hussein's Whirling Aluminium Tubes Reply:

    “The Magna Carta is a great document, but it’s not ours.”

    What do you mean “ours”?

    It’s “ours” in the sense that it is a reactionary document, representative of “our”
    civilization, pre-liberalism.

    In contrast, “your” ‘Murican documents are “theirs”, not “ours”. Liberal documents, written by liberals, enshrining liberal principles. They are of the enemy.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”

    The question was whether or not “our” civilization attempted to make things “fair” before the liberal rot set in. And unless you want to say the rot started in the 13th century, the answer is yes, as long as you define fairness carefully.

    Agree with you about financial thieves. The term Baron couldn’t be more clear.

    “The word baron comes from the Old French baron, from a Late Latin baro “man; servant, soldier, mercenary”.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 17th, 2014 at 1:32 am Reply | Quote
  • TD Says:

    @Different T

    It should now be clear that your rationalizing with regard to admin being ironic is incorrect.

    Well… fair enough!

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 17th, 2014 at 2:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2014/03/19 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] Reactionaries and inequality. […]

    Posted on March 19th, 2014 at 5:02 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment