Suicidal Libertarianism (Part-n)

Two posts in succession at Tyler Cowen’s Marginal Revolution acknowledge that libertarianism’s suicide-by-population-replacement is proceeding according to spontaneous disorder. Completely un-shockingly, mass low-IQ immigration from dysfunctional cultures that despise economic liberty has pushed libertarian ideas from marginality into complete irrelevance. So it goes.

Firstly, there‘s “Bad Demographic News for Libertarians” from Arnold Kling. It should probably be noted that this isn’t a story being told from an immigration-catastrophe angle, so anybody with advanced skills at mental segmentation can dismiss it as irrelevant. You need to check the final table of the source post, by Timothy Taylor, to connect the dots. Kling’s sober conclusion: “I am afraid that the number of households married to the state has soared.”

Secondly, Cowen cites this paper by Hal Pashler (a psychologist at UCSD), whose research “results showed a marked pattern of lower support for pro-liberty views among immigrants as compared to US-born residents. These differences were generally statistically significant and sizable, with a few scattered exceptions. With increasing proportions of the US population being foreign-born, low support for libertarian values by foreign-born residents means that the political prospects of libertarian values in the US are likely to diminish over time.”

I just wish there had been some sort of short-cut to self-abolition for these maniacs that hadn’t been routed through the destruction of America.

[Previous installments of Suicidal Libertarianism here, and here]

December 2, 2013admin 27 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations


27 Responses to this entry

  • Daniel Schmuhl Says:

    I noticed this about a year ago when i was a libertarian and not familiar with the neo-reactionary stuff. Bryan Caplan himself wrote a paper on how IQ correlates with thinking like a economist and thus classical liberal beliefs and he also acknowledges group differences in IQ. Despite this he just can’t see the conflict within his own writings.


    Posted on December 2nd, 2013 at 6:29 am Reply | Quote
  • Hawk Spitui Says:

    I doubt this is going to phase most libertarians in the least. When confronted with this rather obvious fact, my experience has been that they’ll usually retreat into, “I stand by my principles, wherever they lead!” mode. Apparently they don’t care if we go to hell, as long as we go to hell consistently with libertarian principles.

    For a crowd that prides themselves on being rational, libertarians can be pretty damn irrational.


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    “My sanctimony is more important than your children’s lives.” It’s the pacifists’ motto, but it works here, too.


    Posted on December 2nd, 2013 at 7:04 am Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Yes that’s a libertarian. Perhaps when -arian is suffix to anything reason is banished.

    Most of them have never seen Hell, or they’d care where it leads…

    Why worry? Any Foe that grounds both his feet in Fantasy is a blessing from God Presbyter*.

    God Presbyter wants Dark Enlightenment to WIN.

    For the Enlightenment turned it’s face against God, thought themselves God, and have incurred God’s wrath. His wrath began when he let the Foe go mad…and mad they are..

    But man was wandering in the wilderness….a flock of sheep who’s Shepherds have gone mad and dine, indeed fornicate with wolves.

    So he sent Moldbug and the other Saints to shepherd man back to sanity.

    Then God Presbyter so loved the world he inspired man to 3D metal printing. Man so Darkly Enlightened did bring forth the Solid Concepts 1911 Colt .45. Which itself was an inspiration from God Presbyter to the Prophet John Browning.
    This is the demarcation line for all humor.

    Only pray, be humble, and accept your gifts from God as tools for you to do Good.

    The Good you are to do is to lead mankind from insanity, degradation and predation back to simple sanity.

    As to why the Progs nee Puritans are raving Mad; because God wants them destroyed.

    No responsible man that would do the decent thing because it’s the decent thing to do would leave them in power for a moment longer than he could end this madness.

    This is why we’re here, and why we know.

    Now pray for strength and humility.



    Posted on December 2nd, 2013 at 11:21 am Reply | Quote
  • bob sykes Says:

    The traditional American values, including the Constitution, are inherently WASP values, and every wave of immigration beginning with the Germans and Irish has diluted those values. In the long run, those values and the Constitution will disappear because the race that invented and preserved them will become insignificant. The evolution of America into a kind of Mexico or Brazil is inevitable. hbd chick can explain it.


    Posted on December 2nd, 2013 at 1:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Nothing is inevitable, except death and people using “inevitable” as an excuse.

    Is America only values? Of course not. But those Liberties are hard fought for and cherished by many immigrants sons* [if not the immigrant 1st generations who were here to work] up to recently, recently being the 1960s. When the WASPs lost power to their brats and shall we say the New Guys.

    The New Guys were in the fold one generation for the subversion to completely overwhelm the host. There’s no getting around it, it happened. It happens still.

    America is sometimes called an open society, usually by those seeking it’s destruction through subversion.

    It’s actually peak high trust culture, and it trusted the wrong people. The trust was eroding slowly for decades, given the obvious it should have been immediate. Starting fall 2008 it collapsed, and the Revival process began again. It may be that Revivals and what follows are what’s inevitable in America.

    Back down on earth America and the Americans aren’t going anywhere. There’s too many and there’s too much going for them inherently. Americas elites are going somewhere. The idea that these degenerates and their dysgenic associates could hold on to anything is both comic and tragic. As will be their fate.

    * who is harder on those values then the Scotch-Irish? Are they “WASPS”?


    Posted on December 2nd, 2013 at 4:43 pm Reply | Quote
  • R7 Rocket Says:

    Tyler and Kling conveniently leave out the other side of the coin, single men. If more and more women are married to the state, then more and more men are single. Anyone familiar with Aaron Clarey and the manosphere knows that single men have few incentives to be respectful and loyal to society. There’s a reason that governments for thousands of years rewarded men for marrying (by guaranteeing that the man had near absolute authority over his wife and children).


    Posted on December 2nd, 2013 at 6:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    Do these idiots ever examine what they’ve wrought ?

    After one of the commenters remarked that single mothers aren’t wedded to the state, the state is not geared towards spending on mothers [!!!] I headed over to

    Since it will get deleted soon, let me share here..
    Really? Not geared towards motherhood? Perhaps you mean being a mother.

    My benefits avatar is an African-American never married mother of four chillins, I have no job, never did, I’m in prison, I don’t know if my parents are alive or dead, I have no skills or interest in school, no one in my family has ever served in the military or as a public safety officer.

    My Benefits Avatar qualifies for 66 benefits.


    Posted on December 2nd, 2013 at 10:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:


    Interesting. my benny avatar [benvatar ?] qualifies for military/veterans assistance.

    Although benvatar was quite specific she and as far as she knows her “family” were never in the military.

    Perhaps it’s because she’s in Jail.

    Military: Active Duty and Veterans = 3


    Posted on December 2nd, 2013 at 10:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ben Says:

    What if migration is a net benefit anyway? It has certain economic benefits to the host and source societies, and massive economic benefits to the individual. So we ought (surely?) weigh these against the cost to society in the form of lower social capital and worse policy. And we should probably weight in favour of the extremely badly-off foreigners who benefit so much from migration. It doesn’t seem obvious to me that the social costs and worse policy are so significant they will always make 0 migration optimal. And I certainly haven’t seen any restrictionists try and make the calculation!


    admin Reply:

    I’m very positive about selective immigration. Singapore has a good policy (as in most things). Additionally, if incomers have no political / welfare rights, few problems result (the wastrels don’t stay). As for the more extreme altruistic elements of your suggestion, I don’t find them persuasive — but then I’m not a utilitarian universalist.


    Ben Reply:

    What are you if you’re not a consequentialist?


    admin Reply:

    I am a consequentialist, but not a utilitarian. Optimize for intelligence.

    VXXC Reply:

    Singapore does not have a government that hates it’s people.

    If it did, it would be like the USG.

    As the Americans are well aware they are hated, and can see daily that the wrong people are being immigrated in hordes [just go shopping] hence the American demographic [not just white] is for a complete halt. Believe me, I just went shopping. Shop Rite is not low end. I have seen but not for years Pathmark.

    If you have any doubts about the negative effects of USG policies of either welfare or immigration, never mind both– to include the beloved/hated dysgenics, there’s Pathmark.

    Now does consequentialist mean you know..Consequences?

    Hmm. Time for

    Before we find out what the illegal [other actual choice] resident status Haitian making $12,500 a year in New York can get…I can’t let describe where you live pass;

    3. Choose the option that best describes where you live:
    Private residence
    Nursing home (cost paid by Medicaid)
    Jail or correctional facility
    Other facility

    Not only is my avatar underemployed in agriculture, she’s an illiterate aspiring screenwriter and performance artist. Moh Monee.

    So the HIV positive only caregiver of 4 in Jail who has no idea of where her parents are [or his] and doesn’t know whether to fuck or go blind mean whether or not they’re married or not, but wants the usual benefits plus the important step of education while incarcerated [education is key] qualifies for a paltry 76 benefits. Only 76. Dat’s Raychiss.

    BTW speaking of consequences –admin I should warn you that if you don’t delete this post after I put up da free money links you may concievablely be indicted by DOJ. Or something.

    I’m going to look and see what the chinese off the boat in Chinatown can get. That’s because I love Admin. And this is the best online role playing game ever.

    I think I may have just either turned some around a corner, or laid the seeds for the great DEC sellout.


    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    I highly recommend (1) Mencius Moldbug’s essay, “Democracy, cis and trans”, (2) Steve Sailer’s short piece, “Libertarianism is applied autism”, and (3) becoming a regular listener to John Derbyshire’s Radio Derb podcasts at Taki’s Magazine.

    Being a voting citizen of a nation is like being married. I am not married to all women in the abstract. I am married to one in particular. I have obligations to my wife that I do not have to anyone else, and I do not weigh the interests of all women equally in my decisions.

    I quote the Sailer piece nearly in it’s entirety:

    “We live in a world where violence — perpetrating it and preventing it — is the fundamental fact that social and political organization must deal with.

    Thus, all property rights come out of the barrel of a gun.

    Once you realize that, the reason why we prefer the welfare of our fellow citizens to that of non-citizens is (to get all reductionist):

    They are the ones who would fight on your side.”

    Derbyshire is a mathematician by training, and if you peruse his transcripts, you will find some numbers you won’t like.


    Ben Reply:

    I should favour countrymen because it is good for me is only true if I ought to do what is good for me. I think one ought to do what is for the good of beings as a whole, as part of the general principle that things ought to be arranged to produce the good of beings as a whole (in proportion to their sentience and importance). Now you could give me an interesting argument about how having special obligations to one’s spouse, or one’s ethnicity, or one’s nation state, produces good results overall (and I’m happy with maximising different things, not just welfare). But I don’t really care what’s in your or my self-interest.


    admin Reply:

    I’m compelled to doubt your sincerity. If you believe what you say, the consistent thing would be to disburse all your resources among the wretched of the earth, including spare body parts (a kidney, one cornea …) … If you haven’t done that, why should we take you seriously?

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    I believe you when you say that you don’t have my interests at heart. I believe you when you say that you would be a faithless trustee of any organization over which you were given authority. I don’t believe you when you say that you don’t have your own interests at heart. I also don’t believe you when you say that destabilizing political institutions that defend property rights is good for humanity as a whole.

    “If the goal is exporting the behaviors of the most successful capitalist nation, open borders is a poor way to do it – the most likely outcome seems to me to be an importation of woe that overwhelms the good: the assumption is that assimilation into US culture is a given (with the freedom loving you’re-going-to-reap-the-benefits-and-downsides-of-your-actions-yourself school of culture as the target); this seems a quite over-optimistic basis for a national immigration plan. The risk is cultural dilution…resulting in loss of support for the very target intended for ‘export’.” — Bruce Tufts

    Posted on December 3rd, 2013 at 9:21 am Reply | Quote
  • Ben Says:

    Surely your worldview has space for something like weak will?

    @Peter A. Taylor
    I don’t think you’re providing evidence that the benefit to the incomers will outweigh the cost to the natives. I’m not sure why we should impose very large costs on very badly-off foreigners to generate small benefits to natives. Again, if you tell me a story about the overall long-term costs of this, backed up by some numbers or projections, then I am interested. But no one is telling that story.


    admin Reply:

    Macroeconomic quantities are already garbage (for solid Austrian reasons). Your universal calculus of felicity is a (vast) step further out from that. There’s no real data even possible, so no evidence could convince you. Besides, my problem is with your moral philosophy, not with your estimation of util distribution under various scenarios.

    I’d be more impressed by a “weak will” if it inhibited the imposition of your moral intuitions upon others, before it prevented you from applying them to yourself. If you can’t realize these ideas in your own life, why should your neighbors be told to submit to them?


    Ben Reply:

    1. We have to make *some* decision on the costs and benefits—restricting migration (to 0 or 100,000 or whatever) is just as much of a policy choice as not restricting it. In order to make such a decision, we use the best data and the best predictions that we have. The data needn’t be macroeconomic, and indeed migration work is typically from a micro perspective, but macro data is better than “smell test” guesses of what overall conditions in an economy are like.

    The sorts of things I’m interested in are effects on perceived societal trust (see recent US study), effects on politics (see studies mentioned in OP), effects on wages (numerous studies finding mildly positive effect for natives, 10x jump in migrants’ wages), effects on joblessness (numerous studies showing lower unemployment after migration). Any factor you consider important is probably worth considering. And we have to reconcile these to make *any* decision.

    2. What specifically do you find unconvincing about welfarist consequentialism?

    3. All moral theories involve “imposing” on others. If you don’t believe in morality, fine. But then you can’t tell me that we should or shouldn’t do anything (categorically; obviously hypotheticals still work—you could still say if you want X then you should Y).


    admin Reply:

    (1) The “we” is identifying with the policy-making government agency. You’ll find that we don’t like to do that (it’s a democratic vice). Vote through exit, and if you’re not prepared to restrict yourself to that, we’re going to find you dangerous and want to be somewhere else.

    (2) Everything the libertarians find unconvincing about it, and then a whole lot more.

    (3) I don’t at all agree that all moral theories involve imposing upon others. Cultivate yourself (or not). Exit, micro, wu wei.

    DB Reply:

    There are countries with natives who are friendly to substantially increased immigration. If open borders was actually a win-win, the obvious move would be for open borders advocates to cooperate with one or more of them to show the “win” in practice, while personally profiting from it.

    Granted, some people have families, etc. which may restrict their ability to execute on such a plan. But *zero* open borders advocates have shown any interest in this opportunity when it has been pointed out to them, despite no shortage of unmarried men among their ranks. Under the principle of revealed preference, this implies that they really believe open borders is a strong win-lose, rather than a win-win, proposition, so in practice they are lying with the goal of screwing over the American people, regardless of the much nicer sounding rationalizations they have for their behavior. (Any open borders guy who at least stops actively pushing for open US borders after understanding this point is probably intellectually honest, and further engagement with them may be worthwhile. It’s not that easy to find people willing to acknowledge they were probably wrong.)

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    >I don’t at all agree that all moral theories involve imposing upon others.

    ‘but’, the universe added, ‘the fact of your existence is, atleast, an imposition’.

    VXXC Reply:

    Your universal calculus of Felicity =

    It definitely covers weak will. Go and see…

    [ I’m afraid I’m not employed until Friday. Sorry admin. The fixation will probably continue until I stop laughing.]

    In fact doesn’t any system that would destroy and supplant an actual working Universal Calculator of Felicity owe a moral and intellectual duty to replace it?

    Unless DEC/NR can come up with it’s own Universal Felicity Calculator it’s just not ready for the Klieg lights.


    Posted on December 3rd, 2013 at 2:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:


    CATO warns of overthrow of government if Obama acts lawlessly over Obamacare…invoking Abraham Lincoln’s admonition that a lawless government gives the citizens the right to change it.

    No, I didn’t make that up.


    Posted on December 4th, 2013 at 1:45 am Reply | Quote
  • 3.9 Anarcho-Tyranny | Radish Says:

    […] give the last word to Tyler Cowen, another libertarian. Nick Land, truly the reigning expert on suicidal libertarianism, rightly calls this “a candidate for the most insane splinter of […]

    Posted on December 14th, 2013 at 1:20 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment