The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Giving Up Hereditary Citizenship: What's in It for Me and Mine? Seriously.
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Reason:

The Hereditary Aristocracy of Citizenship

We pride ourselves on having abolished the hereditary privileges once associated with aristocracy. But our citizenship system replicates many of the same evils.

Ilya Somin | Jul. 7, 2018 6:20 pm

Immigration Discrimination

A US passport. The privileges associated with it are available only to citizens, and citizen status is largely hereditary.

Citizens of modern Western nations like to think that we have abolished the hereditary privileges once associated with aristocracy. No longer does a person born a noble enjoy a vast array of rights denied to commoners. Nor do we any longer have a class of serfs tied to the land, condemned to poverty and oppression for life. But, as conservative columnist Rachel Lu points out in an insightful recent article, we have a system of hereditary privilege that in many ways is just as pernicious as the aristocracy of old. We call it citizenship: We like to think we’ve transcended this kind [of] elitism. Here in America, we prioritize content of character, not circumstances of birth. In this country, your fortunes depend on what you can do, not on some inherited pedigree.

That, at any rate, is our national myth. Unfortunately, it’s not really true, in this nation or any other. Democratic ideals may have swept the globe so totally that even totalitarians now pay lip-service to them, yet our world is in some respects more ruthlessly class-divided than ever. I’m not talking here about the 1 percent, or the 9.9 percent, or whatever percentage we see as inheriting systemic advantages from their well-heeled parents.

I’m talking about citizenship. Citizenship represents the most significant class lottery remaining in the modern world. The cover of your passport speaks volumes about your prospects for enjoying peace, prosperity, and happiness over the course of your life. If you are the offspring of Danes, you can likely look forward to eight peaceful and happy decades, with a good education and quality medical care. Were you born in Haiti? In that case, you may get 65 years, but you’ll probably spend them coping with grinding poverty (at about 1/30th the income of an average American). …

Citizenship, in short, is massively consequential, and there’s almost nothing meritorious about it. If you’ve spent your life as an American citizen, your fortunes have depended to a very great extent on an inherited pedigree. Even if you’re brilliant and full of entrepreneurial energy, those qualities probably wouldn’t have helped you as a citizen of Burundi or Niger.

King John should have had Ilya Somin working for him doing spin at Runnymede in 1215. He would have shamed those aristocrats into giving up all their Magna Carta hereditary rights to the autocrat.

Do you ever get the feeling that, leaving aside minor details about what kind of economic system, the Soviet Union will eventually triumph over the United States due to the sophistic skills of ex-Soviets like Ilya Somin, Max Boot, Masha Gessen, and Julia Ioffe? They may not quite agree on what should replace the U.S., but they are united in being committed to propagandizing Americans into believing that America isn’t for “ourselves and our posterity,” no matter what it says in the Preamble to the Constitution.

After all, who would know more about how to organize a polity than somebody whose ancestors helped set up the Soviet Union? Who cares what Gouvernor Morris thought, when what matter these days is what the Somin family thinks?

Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University and the author of Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter and The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain.

In contrast to your ethically deplorable hereditary American citizenship, the Koch Brothers’ inherited wealth is sacred, as are any and all bequests they might choose to make to institutions promoting their views, such the sacredness of inherited property and the dubiousness of inherited citizenship, such as, say, George Mason University.

 
Hide 318 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Andrew M says:

    The goal is Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, whereby citizenship is only awarded after two years’ Federal Service, not merely conferred by birth.

  2. jim jones says:

    “To be born English is to win first prize in the lottery of life”.

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes

  3. 22pp22 says:

    Russia is lucky to be shut of him.

    Something tells me he isn’t advocating open borders for Israel.

  4. “ex-Soviets” sounds like an anti-Semite slur. Better alert the ADL, this is hate speech.

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
  5. To think that’d I read a number of decent articles from this guy in the last decade. If this wasn’t the internet, I’d be red in the face right now from this one. (It wasn’t from Reason magazine. Can someone tell me what blog this guy used to write on?)

    As far as those 4 Russians go, you could have had 100 x this many writing and talking the most stupid of ideas, but that is all negligible compared to how the new Bolsheviks have infiltrated the other institutions over the last 5 decades. Universities, lower education, and government, that’s where the stupidity has done the bulk of the devastation.

    • Replies: @mobi
    , @NoName
  6. Kirt says:

    Many of those who oppose immigration also want to abolish birthright citizenship. That’s merely another term for hereditary citizenship, which is what most of us have. Abolishing birthright citizenship would call almost everyone’s citizenship into question. But maybe that’s the idea given the tendency on all sides to claim that their opponents are not “real Americans” because “that’s not who we are”.

  7. Anonym says:

    Watch him speak. He has about the most punchable face I can remember seeing. Maybe if he stopped grinning while lying it would be a different matter.

  8. Tiny Duck says:

    People of Color believe in the free movement of people and love and dignity

    They are the majority and reject white mens evils like closed borders religious intolerance racism sexism and homophobia

    You guys will lose get over it

    Read Leonard Pitts read Marie lu watch Adam conover and you will see that you are hopelessly outnumbered

    Nobody wants stinky mayonnaise

    We want progress we want Alexandra ocosio Cortez we want Liz warren we want Keith Ellison we want diversity we want the destruction of white privilege and white supremacy we want hate crimes law and hate speech laws we want gun control so entitled white boys stop killing everyone

    The most dangerous terrorists are white men

    Read nikole Hannah jones we want fairness in schools and desegregation

    We want justice and to make sure Charlottesville is avenge.

  9. ChrisZ says:

    At first glance that lead paragraph seems to be setting up a straw man: by defining “aristocratic” privilege so broadly as to encompass citizenship alongside the domination of a serf class. That’s a very novel understanding; most political thinkers of the past considered citizenship as something like an antidote to class exploitation.

    But on reflection the writer may be advancing a more radical idea. How would inherited citizenship differ meaningfully from other kinds of inheritances? Not just material ones, but also ones having to do with family cohesiveness, religion, or ethnic origin? All of these certainly could be seen (are seen, in fact) to confer “privileges,” in the aggregate.

    Are these to be abolished too, in the name of impartial justice? In the manner of Plato’s Republic?

    This is yet another indication to me that libertarianism is at bottom an inhuman, and potentially dehumanizing, philosophy.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  10. JerryC says:

    The arc of history is long and bends towards rootless cosmopolitanism.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  11. dearieme says:

    It’s a bit like complaining that the American colonists prattled about liberty but kept happily driving their negroes. That’s just how people are. They want some other bugger’s privilege removed, not their own.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  12. IHTG says:

    Well, most of them seem to have agreed that it should be replaced by “Trumperica”.

  13. … ex-Soviets like Ilya Somin, Max Boot, Masha Gessen, and Julia Ioffe …

    They seem to be the children and grandchildren of the people frozen out of power in the USSR as people like Alexei Kosygin took over. They wanted to remain a hostile elite and resented the new class of ethnic Russians taking white collar jobs from them.

    And why were their eyes kept so tightly shut that they couldn’t see the essence of Soviet rule for thirty to forty years? How is that that their eyes were opened only now? And what opened them?

    Well, it was mostly because of the fact that now that power had suddenly turned around and began pushing the Jews not only out of its ruling and administrative circles, but out of cultural and scientific establishments also.

    pg 374 of my PDF copy of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
  14. Jack D says:

    The children of ex-Soviet Jews pick up their liberalism here in America. Their parents, born and reared in the USSR, like the 1st generation of Cubans who fled Castro, are allergic to anything that reeks of Communism – they know first hand how much it stinks. So blame America. They didn’t learn this stuff at home.

  15. DFH says:

    But Ilya is a libertarian, so presumably he doesn’t have any problem with inheritance, or are Cato advocating for a 100% inheritance tax as well?

  16. nebulafox says:

    What is it with these people and their strange determination to be living embodiments of anti-Semitic propaganda? I get how America allows Jews to live in a political fantasy land where it is forever 1972, unlike in Europe or Israel, but still, more awareness than this, please.

  17. Whitney says:

    Yes, I do feel like the Russians system will succeed ultimately. It might be because I’m reading Witness by Whittaker Chambers in hard back at the same time I’m reading the True Believer by Eric Hoffer on my Kindle and looking into the Stalin Mao Connection in China. It’s actually all kind of horrifying. It makes me feel like those of us on the right are just wholly unprepared and unaware and there’s really nothing we can do to prepare. Are we willing to go to the same extremes? I don’t know

    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
  18. mal says:

    Oh I’d love for some Democratic presidential candidates to “like” this article on twitter. You talk about electoral suicide. Trump’s successes really do lure these people through their anger to admit primal urges they shouldn’t even admit to each other, much less print.
    BTW, that guy has one of the most punch-inviting faces I’ve ever seen if you web search his picture, a very ideal sneering, condescending, above-it-all, hate-real-people academic face.

    • Replies: @Redman
  19. Tyrion 2 says: • Website

    I have a two player game that I have just invented. It is interesting because it is non-competitive and asymmetric. There is no prize either.

    Player A has to spend their life trying to improve their own life, the lives of their children and their neighbours.

    Player B has to spend their life trying to improve the lives of a random bunch of people from around the world whom they’ve never met.

    Which player do you want to be? Which player will be more productive? Which player has more compelling incentives?

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @ic1000
  20. @The Big Red Scary

    Although I understand the point of not granting citizenship automatically to children of US citizens born abroad (otherwise you could end up with generations of absentee citizens), it is rather strange that in theory that the child of an Nth generation US citizen might not have the right to citizenship, while the child of an illegal immigrant born in the US is automatically a citizen. A reasonable solution to this would be to grant automatic citizenship only to those born in the US to at least one parent who is a US citizen at the time of the birth (in which case my own children would not have been given US citizenship).

    • Replies: @jim sweeney
  21. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @22pp22

    Something tells me he isn’t advocating open borders for Israel

    Read the article before you embarrass us all again.

  22. ic1000 says:

    Citizens of modern Western nations like to think that we have abolished the hereditary privileges once associated with aristocracy. No longer does a person born a noble enjoy a vast array of rights denied to commoners. Nor do we any longer have a class of serfs tied to the land, condemned to poverty and oppression for life. But we have a system of hereditary privilege that in many ways is just as pernicious as the aristocracy of old. We call it family: We like to think we’ve transcended this kind of elitism. Here in America, we prioritize content of character, not circumstances of birth. In this country, your fortunes depend on what you can do, not on some inherited pedigree.

    One year after the Bolsheviks took power, they ratified the 1918 Code on Marriage, the Family and Guardianship. The revolutionary jurists, led by Alexander Goikhbarg, adhered to the revolutionary principals of Marx, Engels, and Lenin when drafting the codes. Goikhbarg considered the nuclear family unit to be a necessary but transitive social arrangement that would quickly be phased out by the growing communal resources of the state and would eventually “wither away”. The jurists intended for the code to provide a temporary legal framework to maintain protections for women and children until a system of total communal support could be established.

    Wikipedia paraphrasing Wendy Goldman (1993).

  23. nebulafox says:
    @Jack D

    Yeah, that’s true. Most first generation Soviet Jews I’ve met have political opinions that would make Pat Buchanan blush.

    Going back to a longer gone era, although Jews were quite prominent among left wing intellectual movements in early 1900s Europe (for natural and obvious historical reasons), most were highly loyal to the Central Powers during WWI-especially the Hapsburgs, who I think they knew were the ones keeping national passions under wraps. However, the former was the one more visible to the eyes of the public in interbellum Middle Europe, ergo, Judeo Bolshevism. Silent majorities don’t always make history at their peril.

    Same story among the Vietnamese. Once stalwart Republicans, now solidly Democrat.

    • Replies: @songbird
  24. Tex says:

    Your fortunes depend on what you can do, not on some inherited pedigree is our national myth, that’s why we have to get rid of citizenship.

    • Replies: @Tex
  25. In this country, your fortunes depend on what you can do, not on some inherited pedigree.

    But… isn’t what one can do at least partly inherited?

    John Derbyshire already wrote about that in this very website not long ago, and linked to previous articles and transcripts where he mentioned that, and mentioned other people who noticed it as well, and can back it up with evidence, even if the details are still an open question.

    However, intelligent people still maintain that is not true, and that skills and talent are not mostly inherited, and possibly not inherited at all. Oh, well.

    Citizenship, in short, is massively consequential, and there’s almost nothing meritorious about it. If you’ve spent your life as an American citizen, your fortunes have depended to a very great extent on an inherited pedigree. Even if you’re brilliant and full of entrepreneurial energy, those qualities probably wouldn’t have helped you as a citizen of Burundi or Niger.

    That is true. It wouldn’t. I recall (wrongly, perhaps) Warren Buffett already made the point of how his talent for investing and such would not have been very useful if he grew up in some blighted place in our world. But he didn’t. He grew up in the United States. Good for him. (Now he is a bit well off, it is said, even if he may sometimes have some trouble saving up to keep his Cadillac up and running at the end of the month)

    From this, it does not follow everyone should be, or have a right to be, a citizen of the United States, or of any other successful, first world country, because at least for the moment this would come with a very considerable cost. I think most of those who write critically about immigration — and most importantly, those who do not get to write about it but experience it first hand — know this has some basis in reality.

    Other smart people, though, do not mention that cost, and so it looks it may not exist at all. Who knows, maybe it doesn’t. For them, at least.

  26. @Tyrion 2

    JIDF fears the comment section on Unz Review; your weak tribe is disintegrating.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  27. ic1000 says:
    @Tyrion 2

    > I have a two player game that I have just invented.

    [Raises hand] Ooh, can I play? I want the best of A and B. As Player C, I’ll devote myself to improving the lots of me and my children (sorry neighbors and community, sucks to be you).

    What makes the game fun is that I pledge to behave in nuanced and complex ways. People who judge me on the basis of my Facebook posts, Op-Eds, political contributions, tweets, and rally participation will be impressed by my noble* spirit and self-sacrifice.

    Only those who know me very well indeed will understand how it is that my kids and I — somehow — ended up in Belmont, not Fishtown.

    * noble, perhaps not the best word choice in this context. Substitute “wondrous,” please.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  28. TG says:

    If someone tries to tresspass onto the sacred walled estate of Mark Zukerberg, they will be roughly turned away by large unsmiling guards – and if you press the issue, you will be arrested, even if it means separating you from your children.

    If you try to overstay your welcome in Vatican city, the heavily armed Swiss Guard will make sure that you don’t, and there will be no court appeals, no pictures of desperate people looking for shelter, nothing.

    Because “there shall be open borders” is so only for little people.

    • Replies: @Oswald Spengler
  29. Rob McX says:

    I’ve noticed this trend in the last few years of eroding the idea of borders or sovereign states, and promoting the idea that everyone has a human right to live wherever they want. It sounds too crazy to make any headway, but then again many things that are accepted nowadays would have sounded insane ten or twenty years ago.

  30. Bartolo says:

    Have you, Ilya Somin, given up the advantages you, personally, inherited?

    No? Then shut up.

    I am sick of people whose position in life is secure virtue signalling at the expense of others.

    Plus, am I hallucinating or does he propose the kind of reform that would benefit rootless cosmopolitans…?

  31. songbird says:
    @nebulafox

    Under communism, they are repulsed by the state. In the US, they are bonded to it – probably in large part through the schools.

    I don’t know, if it would really be a solution, but I’ve long thought it would be a good idea, if students were given one year of history purely about communism. Call it anti-civics or something.

  32. The funny thing is if the US was a corporation the libertarians would be all for the “owners“ of that corporation being able to keep others out and pick who they employ. They would also advocate for beimg able to hold their shares and pass them down to their offspring for generations.

    Citizenship should be treated like corporate ownership for the same reason. Your ownership gives you motivation (skin in the game) to make your country or corporation a better and more profitable place. Without that ownership interest in the country, it will be allowed to deteriorate in a tragedy of the commons fashion.

    It is shocking that the libertarians don’t get it.

  33. JMcG says:
    @Jack D

    You mean the same way all the Californians leaving for Oregon and Montana and Idaho are leaving their liberal politics behind them? Or the Massachusetts escapees currently turning New Hampshire blue?

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
  34. I can’t remeber the details but I definitely heard some #metoo stories about this guy

  35. MEH 0910 says:

  36. seth says:

    One way in which the USA and the USSR are/were similar is in their geographic indeterminacy. Theoretically any place in the world can be constitutionally absorbed into the polity.

  37. @Rob McX

    “promoting the idea that everyone has a human right to live wherever they want”

    Agree, I’ve noticed this weird trend too and also view it ominously.

    I wonder, as long as we are handing out weird new rights to everyone, will there be a right for the people already there to veto your “right” to live with (on) them?

    Actually this right isn’t new. Or weird.

    In fact, it used to be in our Constitution. But some guy in a black robe decided it wasn’t. So I guess we have to abide by that…

  38. @Jack D

    …. or they learned from their families how dangerous it is to let the largest ethnic group regain power in a multi-ethnic country?

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    , @Reg Cæsar
  39. Do you ever get the feeling that, leaving aside minor details about what kind of economic system, the Soviet Union will eventually triumph over the United States due to the sophistic skills of ex-Soviets like Ilya Somin, Max Boot, Masha Gessen, and Julia Ioffe? They may not quite agree on what should replace the U.S., but they are united in being committed to propagandizing Americans into believing that America isn’t for “ourselves and our posterity,” no matter what it says in the Preamble to the Constitution.

    Bolshevik Jews in Communist Russia had no problem butchering and killing Russian Christians — and other Christians such as the Ukrainians — because the Bolshevik Jews saw them as the enemy.

    Many Jews in the United States see the European Christian ancestral core of the United States as the enemy. Ilya Somin, Max Boot, Masha Green and Julia Ioffe see the European Christian ancestral core of the United States as the enemy.

    You will never get gratitude from Somin, Boot, Green or Ioffe, only vengeful hate for European Christendom.

    Remember what Aleksandr Solzenhenitsyn said about the heavy Jew involvement in the butchery and killing of Communist Russia.

    Ilya Somin, Max Boot, Masha Green and Julia Ioff are made of the same stuff as the Jew Bolsheviks who killed 60 million European Christians in the Soviet Union.

    Somin, Boot, Green and Ioffe have an innate eliminationist hatred of all European Christians and all European Christian countries.

    • Replies: @anony-mouse
    , @bartok
  40. Unasked in any of the original articles:

    Why is citizenship in Denmark so desirable and citizenship in Haiti so worthless?

    It’s a mystery…

    • Replies: @GermanReader2
  41. Barnard says:

    From the idiotic Rachel Lu piece at The Week Somin references:

    Lord Salisbury, one of England’s great conservative leaders, was an unapologetic snob. Looking out over the European landscape in 1862, he saw that the aristocracy was collapsing, and this seemed to him like a catastrophe for all of civilization. How, he wondered, could common morals and high culture be maintained without the support of patricians? Who would govern when no one had been groomed for leadership? What chaos might ensue in a world where people had no clear sense of their proper roles and obligations? “Political equality is not merely a folly — it is a chimera,” he concluded. “It is idle to discuss whether it ought to exist; for, as a matter of fact, it never does.”

    Lord Salisbury was obviously correct. She admits he was right, but also rejects the for ourselves and our posterity line from the preamble as morally unacceptable. She argues for some sort of tiered system of citizenship and a longer naturalization process. I wonder if she has ever spoken to anyone who has gone through the current naturalization process.

  42. Ibound1 says:

    He doesn’t want to let anyone and everyone in or even care probably – he’s totally full of it. This is just another “clever” college essay, only instead of his professor giving him an ‘A’ it’s the readership of Reason. He wants the satisfaction of that ‘A’, that’s what he’s trained to do, like a seal wanting a piece of fish. America is full of these people, people who were taught to write this way in high school and college, who are rewarded for it, who cannot stop thinking like a college sophomore, who are removed from reality, whose psychic satisfaction is most satisfied by a good grade and they cannot stop. Just one more academic one day writing this and the next day writing that, all for nothing.

  43. songbird says:

    Is Reason associated with ReasonTV on Youtube? I absolutely cannot stand the latter, since they use words like “xenophobe” and “bigot” to slander anyone against large-scale invasion.

    Kind of an odd moniker too. Invites comparisons to Pravda.

  44. Anon[680] • Disclaimer says:

    Citizenship, in short, is massively consequential, and there’s almost nothing meritorious about it. If you’ve spent your life as an American citizen, your fortunes have depended to a very great extent on an inherited pedigree.

    But isn’t that pedigree the result, at least in part, of the efforts – or in other words, the merits – of one’s ancestors? Isn’t it a gift from the ancestors to the descendants, and therefore theirs to dispense as they see fit? The ancestors, I mean: don’t I get to choose who inherits the fruits of my labours after I’m gone? Isn’t that what private property is all about?

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  45. Altai says:

    I hope and expect Ilya Somin will place any of his children into the wilderness and his wife expect a repayment from them with interest to compensate her for the pregnancy and labour. They may be afforded the right to enter the family if they can pass some tests. Otherwise Mr Somin would obviously adopt a superior child.

    Seriously, these people should be really worried about the fact that the 4th image result of Somin is a picture of him with a ‘Jude’ star on it. (As well as the fact that the two dozen or so publicity shots of him all have this expression) But their response is to panic and intensify the animosity against their host culture to cartoonish levels that not even the most cynical would have predicted. (But then as Steve once said, libertarianism is practical autism)

    In my ideal future through a combination of genotyping and psychometrics nobody who is clearly a psychopath like Somin would be allowed to take a position of any influence or authority. (Imagine a world where you never have to hear a word about Ayn Rand again.)

  46. istevefan says:

    A few countries have established a “right of return” for members of the majority ethnic group within that nation, such as Germany for ethnic Germans, and Israel for Jews. But this, too, is a kind of hereditary privilege, albeit based on race or ethnicity rather than family.

    Doesn’t Steve like to say that ethnicity is really an extended family?

  47. Altai says:
    @Jack D

    The guy works for the Cato institute and is a hardcore libertarian. This is ultimately a libertarian argument taken to it’s extreme. He’s about as anti-Communist as you can get.

  48. Chase says:
    @Jack D

    Their professed ideology is nothing more than a weapon at any given point. Their only real ideology, as always, is what will advance the interests of their tribe. When it’s communism, they will be communists. When it’s liberalism, they will be liberals. This should be obvious by now, and it’s why arguing over ideological details is so pointless.

  49. istevefan says:
    @Rob McX

    It sounds too crazy to make any headway, but then again many things that are accepted nowadays would have sounded insane ten or twenty years ago.

    Just remember how gay marriage sounded the first time you heard it. I don’t think I even contemplated the idea of it prior to maybe 1995. If they can take that and turn it into reality in under 20 years, there is no telling what they can’t do.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  50. Did Warren Buffett’s ancestors help create the Soviet Union? http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-on-the-ovarian-lottery-2013-12

    And he’s not the first person to compare being born American to winning the lottery.

    Somin is presenting a philosophical argument (don’t worry inherited citizenship isn’t going to be abolished anywhere). So why is Steve getting all upset? He doesn’t have a good counterargument so he’s going all ad hominem. Unusual for a smart person.

  51. BTW It’s highly unlikely that Somin’s personal ancestors created the USSR. Most of the old Bolsheviks along with their families were killed off by Stalin.

    But apparently Steve thinks its okay to attribute some sort of ‘citizenship’ to Soviet Jews regardless of their own ancestry.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    , @Cagey Beast
  52. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @ic1000

    Well played, ic1000. You’ve benefited over the opening few turns. Unfortunately, now, your limited perspective has led you to a chain of events that will ruin everything.

    You see, while you’ve been making out like a Belmont bandit, you have been left mostly alone by a reasonably benevolent government.

    This government always had the power to take everything you have, even your life, but, thanks to the large number of people who had chosen to play as Player B, the government has actually shown a degree of loyalty to you, because those who decided what it did have felt a degree of loyalty to you.

    The decent folks of Fishtown did not vote themselves your Belmont monies.

    Unfortunately, Fishtown has been replaced with the residents of Tacotown and Kebabtown and myriad other towns whose denizens probably don’t hate you but sadly they have little common feeling with you; and those they do have common feeling with currently live in places that would benefit hugely from your stuff.

    So, pay up pale face.

    N.B your Voodoo economics protestations were never really the decisive argument. They may have even be true but they never actually mattered to the Fishtown residents’ at whose sufferance you kept your Belmont bubble. The Fishtowners didn’t care about that, that stuff is autistic, they merely thought that you were all in it together.

    As for the newly in-place residents of Tacotown and various world food towns, they’re mostly good people but what kind of idiots would give you their benevolent loyalty when you sold out your own kin in Fishtown so easily. And for what? Cheap lawn-mowering?

    Player ic1000, last chance, do you want to change your playstyle?

  53. Citizenship, in short, is massively consequential, and there’s almost nothing meritorious about it.

    Citizenship is completely merit-based. Just not merit of the atomic individual. But it’s absolutely group-merit.

    The author assumes that we strive towards a society based on merit of the atomic individual, and that group merit based on family, culture, or civilization is an intrinsic moral wrong. I don’t see why this should be the case.

    And he’s not the first person to compare being born American to winning the lottery.

    Sure, like being born as a human instead of a farm animal. Or being born in prosperous times as opposed to being born into a great famine or plague. Or being born to a caring family instead of being born to abusive or neglectful or absent parents.

    • Replies: @Daniel Williams
  54. Big Bill says:
    @Jack D

    My experience (NYC, Odessa, Novorosiyyisk, Leningrad) is that Russians emigrès are amoral hustlers and scammers.

    The US-based Russians are most questionable. When they, as Jews, were given the special choice of getting out, making aliyah, rejoining their people in their native homeland, and rebuilding their nation, they followed the money to America.

    However, even the ones who went to Israel aren’t trusted. There are hundreds of thousands of Russian Jews in Israel who are still denied their official Israeli Jewish breeding papers. As Israeli Jews know, you can’t trust someone of tainted blood, certainly not enough to let them breed with your children. And you certainly don’t move them into positions of political, legal, or military power (PM, President, Chief Justice, military chief).

    Somin is pushing the old Open Borders “accident of birth” rhetoric for his own reasons. Believe me, he’s no fool. He wasn’t politically seduced by the wily goyim in America. He knows full well that Haitians are poor because they are, by their blood, abysmally and irremediably stupid.

  55. AndrewR says:
    @Jack D

    I’ve a 35 year old Jewish friend who was born in the USSR but came here at age 9. He’s very assimilated (primarily to ghetto black culture), but his parents, in their late 50s, pine about the days of the tsar, who represents to them the era before communism, which they, unlike their son, were forced to live under well into adulthood.

  56. George says:

    What he is suggesting is eliminating the nation-state system, which is fine with me but what is he suggesting replace it?

    “Even if you’re brilliant and full of entrepreneurial energy, those qualities probably wouldn’t have helped you as a citizen of Burundi or Niger.”

    1) Is there a real person he is thinking of? Occasionally you hear about Jews denied entry to the US before WWII and imagine smart or at least well behaved people. But Burundi? Maybe Senegalese Baba Sy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Sy is who he is thinking of?

    2) “Brilliant”, does he mean iq testing for entry? How do you determine brilliance before any accomplishments?

    3) Entrepreneurial? I think some of the talk of immigrant entrepreneurs is a scam as immigrants are often given advantages. But even if you accept that as true how do you identify the entrepreneurial ability of Burundians prospectively? I think the best test of entrepreneurial ability is if they can scam the immigration system, especially the lottery.

    4) What happens with the Burundians that turn out not to be brilliant or entrepreneurial? Deportation?

    Policy suggestion: Bonding. Anyone from anywhere can come to the US. They need to meet Bonding conditions set by a US admitted insurer. The insurer would be required to pay damages including incarceration fees an healthcare costs for life. The bonding fee would be annual. I guess to be nice fed gov would pay most of old age care if the person arrived young enough.

  57. Altai says:
    @Rob McX

    Indeed, how many years have there been comedy bits do they do asking American born citizens to answer the questions on the citizenship test.

    Clearly Apu is more American than Homer Simpson.

    Justin Trudeau has said he thinks people who emigrated to Canada are more Canadian than those born there since they demonstrated they explicitly wanted to be a apart of Canada. (Whether he really believes that is another matter.)

    Anytime I meet people who got to make the deliberate choice, whose parents chose Canada, I’m jealous, because I think being able to choose it, rather than being Canadian by default, is an amazing statement of attachment to Canada.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/3567893/justin-trudeau-jealous-immigrants-ctv-interview/

    I remember hearing a similar argument from an Imam in Australia. (Because who could be a better Aussie than a Muslim?) It’s obviously an epic contradiction to say people from China or India are better at being Canadians on a behavioural or cultural level but it doesn’t matter.

    In reality is all just words. The exact meaning or purpose of the words is irrelevant, they represent power and will to assert moral superiority. They could have said they feel superior because of their blood type or because of their cuisine or because it’s Wednesday. So long as they all say it together and repeat it as a mantra it’ll have the same effect.

    • Replies: @ThirdWorldSteveReader
  58. @22pp22

    Something tells me he isn’t advocating open borders for Israel.

    Ilya Somin explicitly mentions Israel and is completely logically consistent on this:

    A few countries have established a “right of return” for members of the majority ethnic group within that nation, such as Germany for ethnic Germans, and Israel for Jews. But this, too, is a kind of hereditary privilege, albeit based on race or ethnicity rather than family.

    It is the Failing New York Times (and Commentary) that features many Jewish writers who famously advocate for a tribal ethno-religious-state for me but not for thee.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  59. J1234 says:

    By applying a word like “discrimination” to the most extreme and absurd circumstances repeatedly, the social gurus will, eventually, make people realize that discrimination isn’t such a bad thing. Christians have said for centuries, “love thy neighbor as thyself,” and some people do, but the vast majority of Christians still don’t love neighbors as much as their own children. And they never will, for to do so would go against nature at it’s deepest level. (This is probably a big part of the reason priests and nuns can’t get married – the church understands that people can find it within themselves to deny themselves for God…but not their children.)

    The founding fathers understood this when they said: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

  60. AndrewR says:
    @anony-mouse

    While I object to the juvenile sarcasm Sailer employs in this post, he, more than perhaps anyone alive, has extensively written about the harm done to the US by open borders. And frankly, Somin’s article is so absurd that it almost seems offensive to suggest that it should be treated with real seriousness.

  61. Anonym says:

    OT: Politics and ongoing race replacement is getting you down? Some good news, or at least a silver lining.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5931823/David-Davis-resigns-Brexit-Secretary.html

  62. densa says:

    One of Ilya Somin’s claims to fame is criticism of the use of eminent domain. So many immigrants advocate for the rights of more immigration without seeing it as a form of eminent domain. They expect the property built by generations of native born to share with the world without limit as a taking because everything you have is merely an artifact of white privilege. I really wish the history of real working people was taught instead of SJW ideology.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  63. AndrewR says:
    @istevefan

    SSM is the best recent example to show how rapidly the Overton window can shift, but it’s not really analogous to open borders. Virtually all the arguments against SSM that anyone bothered to make boiled down to “gays are icky” and “muh bible.” Few people even tried to make other arguments (which is very shameful, because there are strong arguments against SSM that don’t involve fairy tales or mindless disgust), so SSM won out. And frankly, given the abysmal state of heterosexual marriage over the last couple generations, it’s hard to argue that SSM has weakened the institution of marriage more than it was weakened already. Modern marriage was a complete farce before you ever heard anyone bring up SSM.

    But I digress. My point is that the harmful externalities to society from open borders are far more obvious than the harmful externalities of SSM. So it will never be possible to garner support for radically open borders as easily as support for SSM was garnered.

  64. Svigor says:
    @22pp22

    We’d need a trustworthy source for translating Hebrew to English before we could really assess whether a Jew is poisoning his ethnostate the way he’s poisoning America. And even then, the most important thing to a doctor is the state of the patient; Israel is healthy, so a small dose of arsenic will have no effect. America, on the other hand, has been receiving small doses of arsenic from Jews every day for generations; she’s at death’s door, so every little bit extra matters.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  65. Svigor says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Give us the TL;DR version.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  66. Svigor says:
    @anony-mouse

    Somin is presenting a philosophical argument (don’t worry inherited citizenship isn’t going to be abolished anywhere). So why is Steve getting all upset? He doesn’t have a good counterargument so he’s going all ad hominem. Unusual for a smart person.

    Jews should be expelled from the West; that will end all of the trouble they have caused, and continue to cause. Don’t worry, Jews aren’t going to be expelled – it’s just a philosophical argument. Don’t get all upset if you don’t have a good counterargument…

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  67. wholy1 says:

    Neither “Citizen” (willing captive of a social/political” system nor “CitYzen” (future desperate zombie 3 days after the lights go out/water stops running/toilet runneth over/pantry empties/jammed roadways and roving gangs severely limiting mobility, due I give any regard whatsoever – especially the latter. I long ago repented and C-H-O-S-E an inland rural, simplified “PlanB/SystemD” REAL life on a portion of unencumber/unaddressed arable county “allodium” – GROUNDed, GROUPed, GUNned, GARDENed and very “neighborly”. The clock is ticking – especially for “Murkaa”.

  68. Svigor says:
    @anony-mouse

    Most of the old Bolsheviks along with their families were killed off by Stalin.

    Citation needed.

    But apparently Steve thinks its okay to attribute some sort of ‘citizenship’ to Soviet Jews regardless of their own ancestry.

    I think most everyone but you thinks it’s okay to assume a background of Soviet citizenship for immigrants from the former USSR for the purposes of a humorous piece.

    Don’t the kids at Berkeley need guidance on the proper solemn tone, or something?

    • Replies: @anony-mouse
  69. @anony-mouse

    Everybody has a provenance, whether we want to admit it or not. Of course it’s fine to bring up the ethnic and family history of some people but not others. Did you think it was out of bounds for people to speculate about what political rallies Trump’s father attended? Do you think discussion of Jim Crow or the Confederacy have nothing to add to a debate on the merits of Jeff Sessions? I’ll bet you don’t.

    Listen, the conversation between Jews and Gentiles is going to be much more of a dialogue now that the web has nearly leveled the playing field. The era of the Megaphone and “dynamic silence” is over. This is a new chapter in the Jewish-American story. Deal with it.

  70. Tyrion 2 says: • Website

    The argument’s structure is worth examining because it is commonplace.

    Essentially, it says “here are your ideals” and “here are the conclusions they should be leading you to”.

    It is a reasonable point and was made in a reasonable tone by the writer.

    Of course, the answer is that we have many ideals and their complex interplay will lead us to fail to live up to the majority of their more extreme conclusions. Often, they become quite contradictory!

    Furthermore, failing to follow any particular ideal to its most dogmatic conclusion is actually a demonstration of the intellectual virtue of humility. Dispossessing your children because you have a fanatical belief in equality opportunity does not make you a better person.

    Normally, critiques like the article’s are put far more aggressively and therefore preclude a gentlemanly answer like the one I’ve given. The article is instead an immoderate harrangue. Such articles may bully many to unthinkingly nod along but they also create moral nihilism. If ideals aren’t worth anything if you don’t follow them to their most unabidable conclusions then why have any ideals at all?

    Moral dogmatism and nihilism feed off each other.

    • Replies: @vinteuil
  71. ic1000 says:

    > Player ic1000, last chance, do you want to change your playstyle?

    As the US continues to Brazilify, I am certain, yes certain, that Diversity. Also Vibrancy, and more restaurants with exotic flavors and textures to tease my demanding palate.

    And it’s a cheap shot to mention cheap lawn-mowering. There’s also nannying and pool-cleaning, plus the many social benefits of paying helot wages for Jobs Americans Just Won’t Do, such as busboys, maids, janitors, roofers, construction workers, and stoop laborers. Think of the crops!

    Tyrion2, by challenging my playstyle, you have committed a microaggression against me. That‘s what I want to talk about!

    Besides, what could possibly go wrong?

    • LOL: Tyrion 2
  72. @anony-mouse

    So why is Steve getting all upset? He doesn’t have a good counterargument so he’s going all ad hominem. Unusual for a smart person.

    Not for Steve. He has a Jewish problem, that’s for sure. I used to think he was just cynically throwing red meat to his anti-Jewish readers, but more and more it’s clear that’s not it.

  73. Anonymous[213] • Disclaimer says:

    What a load of contemptible bollocks!

    It’s as about as intelligent and insightful as claiming that humans are privileged over chickens – or amoeba for that matter – by virtue of the ‘accident’ of being born into the homo sapiens species and nothing else – tough titty for chicken not having the ‘birthright’ of the ‘accident’ of incarnating as human.

    Babytalk. Babytalk of the very worst illogical pseudointellectual type.

    The horrible fact that I have to endure this rubbishy drivel garbage of Ilya Somin is dependent on a whole concatenation of ‘accidents’ – the cumulative probability of which are exceedingly remote – on the galactic scale, no less, but happened they did.

    First of all Somin pere and Somin mere had to meet (unfortunately) and then marry, in what no doubt was an improbable chance encounter. Then there was, at a particular time and place, a ‘window of fertility’ – in contrastinction to other putative ‘windows’ in which just one particular winner out of the untold millions of Somin spermatozoa (soma?) happened to have the ‘unearned privilege’ of sparking Ilya. Tough titty to the millions of also-rans whose names and existentences can never be realised, let alone recorded.

    Need I go on…,?

  74. @nebulafox

    What is it with these people and their strange determination to be living embodiments of anti-Semitic propaganda?

    It’s an innate sadomasochistic compulsion. Many, many Jews have a higher level version of the “low future time orientation” criminal blacks are mocked for, and those Jews heedlessly persist in the same old patters as if the goyim won’t notice. Eventually, bloody chaos will be the result (again).

    If we all can’t have nice things in part due to compulsive meddlers, “better angels” humanity will, for a while at least, switch back to a more savage, atavistic mode:

    I’ve seen the future, brother
    It is murder

  75. This whole idea ignores the fact that citizenship does not have a fixed value, but changes as your country becomes more developed and well run, so they obvious way to make country’s citizenship worth more is to improve the country, not to abolish citizenship entirely.

    For example, in 1965 Hong Kong, South Korean, Taiwanese or Singaporean citizenship would not be worth much. Now they are excellent passports and represent membership in well functioning prosperous societies that had built themselves up to that point.

    In the converse, in 1900 Argentinian or South African citizenship would be pretty good – less so today . . .

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @songbird
  76. As a libertarian, Somin should understand that a borderless world would be a “tragedy of the commons” situation.

    If we knew our children were destined to emigrate (or flee), then we might just concentrate our energies on squeezing maximal short-term advantage from the system — say, by milking welfare benefits while doing our best to evade taxes.

    But with “ownership” over our country — ownership here meaning an exclusive right for us and our progeny to live here — comes an incentive to tend the institutions of good government, such as rule of law and spirited but civilized political competition.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri, Rosie
  77. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Svigor

    He specifically calls out Israel as a country that doesn’t live up to the argument he is making.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  78. Svigor says:
    @International Jew

    Jews kinda make themselves a problem, no?

  79. Svigor says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Yeah that’s a far cry from equivalence, as I ably pointed out.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  80. @Jack D

    Open borders isn’t Communism.

    The Communists typically weren’t huge fans of importing foreign labor. Just compare West Germany to East Germany.

    The Communists wanted to create peasant and worker revolts throughout the world. Then use those revolutionaries to create Communist societies globally.

    The capitalist model is more amenable to labor mobility.

    The ultimate capitalist society is place like Saipan.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    , @Rob McX
    , @Anonymous
  81. Whiskey says: • Website

    This is Mainstream elite FT thinking like gay marriage and trans so it is a fait accompli.

    Our job is to survive Lets have a SJW movement to take Zuck, Bezos, Gates and Buffetts wealth and give it to Latinos and Blacks. End that aristocracy.

  82. @Cagey Beast

    As a member of the largest ethnic group I ask, “So?” That suits my interests. Somin’s interests are not my interests. He has an open invitation to a nation where his ethnic group is in power.

  83. @Tyrion 2

    I too cringe at some of the Jew-bashing that appears here, but in this case I think 22pp22 has a point (not about Jews in general but about Somin’s double-standards for Jews in particular). The original article says,

    A few countries have established a “right of return” for members of the majority ethnic group within that nation, such as Germany for ethnic Germans, and Israel for Jews.

    but this is an obvious head-fake. That any country uses jus sanguinis at all is precisely what Somin & Co. are arguing against, so mentioning it as if, “hey, a few countries do use citizenship by blood, and that’s cool” nullifies the point of his original argument. After all, that’s essentially what the pre-1965 US immigration law did, and Somin wants to go in precisely the opposite direction, except for the Israel carve-out he glibly inserts. And it is really just an Israel carve-out because German citizenship law is very different from Israel’s. The so-called “right of return” for the German diaspora, which never applied as broadly to Germans as Israel’s did to Jews in the first place, has been further constricted over the past couple of decades, while anchor baby-like provisions have been steadily inserted. And sadly, I don’t need to tell you who has made themselves prominent in urging these changes. Meanwhile, Israel has remained firm in welcoming Jews and restricting everyone else. So Somin is just tossing non-equivalent Germany in with Israel to cloak the double standard he wants to pass under our noses.

    • Agree: Prester John, Anonym
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @istevefan
  84. Gee. My kids benefit from being born into my affluent family. Just an “accident of birth.” Maybe all children should be taken away from their parents and randomly distributed to homes. End that “hereditary privilege!”

    Somin’s idea is so pernicious and dystopian that one is challenged to know where to begin to start attacking it. The whole world awash in stateless migrants won’t work out well.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  85. @TG

    “Open borders for thee, but not for me.”

  86. istevefan says:
    @International Jew

    He has a Jewish problem, that’s for sure.

    I don’t think he has a Jewish problem. It just turns out that in the few areas that catch his interest Jews are overrepresented in having the opposing view. Immigration/borders happens to be one of those areas.

    • Replies: @Anonym
  87. Svigor says:
    @Massimo Heitor

    Somin is less guilty than the worst in this piece, but still guilty. Now, if he’d made the piece about Israel and gotten it published in Hebrew and English in an Israeli equivalent to Reason, he’d be approaching “least guilty” status (still impossible to reach equivalency because of the arsenic levels in the Jewish population are roughly nil).

    All these equivalency arguments are invalid because the states of the patients are so radically different. You guys are making moral arguments in a vacuum; nudging someone who’s sitting in an easy chair is simply not equivalent to nudging someone balanced on the edge of a precipice.

    Schools out, boys. Grownups here.

  88. Svigor says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Open borders is like revolution; something leftists use to gain power, then permanently shut down to prevent anyone else using it to gain power.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
  89. CPK says:

    Prof. Somin was one of my law school professors and I think highly of him… but he’s spent his whole adult life in academia, which leads to a sort of déformation professionnelle that overvalues theory. His theory is a sort of naive Aspergery libertarianism.

    Put another way: He’s against the government controlling the borders because he’s against government controlling stuff– not because he’s against borders as such.

    Not that this is a reasonable policy, by any means, but it’s not fair to characterize it as support for Soviet-style autocracy.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    , @Svigor
  90. @Tiny Duck

    Trolling again.

    • Replies: @Jon
  91. If the State has no right to determine who is a member of the State, or who lives within what formerly were called its boundaries, by what right does it tax anyone? The taxation power of the State has always laid on very shaky grounds, but at least the State is in most cases a somewhat exclusive club by residence and heredity. If the scope of U.S. citizenship is greatly broadened, why should I be obligated to pay for less-productive members of that citizenry?

    If “citizenship no longer determined where you are allowed to live and work” then I am sure there will be some clever states who will, for a very reasonable annual fee, grant you citizenship, but charge no further taxes and provide no further services. Then I could be a citizen of that State, while still living within the borders of what was formerly called the United States, and why should I pay taxes to the former United States, when it has no claim on my citizenship, my property, nor any authority to tell me where I can live?

    Somin is an educated idiot. Every time I read one of his articles, it’s like fingers scraping along a chalkboard. He’s the worst sort of ivory tower idealogue, so separated from the real world that it seems he has no conception of human nature or the larger consequences of his ridiculous proposals.

  92. syonredux says:
    @dearieme

    It’s a bit like complaining that the American colonists prattled about liberty but kept happily driving their negroes. That’s just how people are. They want some other bugger’s privilege removed, not their own.

    Yeah, sort of like how the Crown decided to free the slaves of colonists who were in rebellion but allowed Tories to keep theirs…..As always, who,whom (кто кого?, Kto kogo?)

    • Replies: @dearieme
    , @Hank Yobo
    , @Old Jew
  93. Anyone have Somin’s address? Maybe I’ll vacation in his home sometime. It’s only an “accident of birth” that he’s privileged enough to afford it.

  94. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Svigor

    I am genuinely confused. This thread did not start with your comment. I have no idea what you are referring to.

  95. mobi says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    but that is all negligible compared to how the new Bolsheviks have infiltrated the other institutions over the last 5 decades.

    ‘The New Bolsheviks’ should henceforth replace ‘Liberals’, ‘Leftists’, ‘Socialists’, and all other such weak and meek descriptions of who the real enemy is.

    Much more potent.

    Let (((them))) do the work of calling attention to what that really equates to.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
  96. Big Bill says:
    @AndrewR

    … there are strong arguments against SSM that don’t involve fairy tales or mindless disgust

    Disgust, by its very nature, is mindless. Disgust is probably one of the deepest rooted, sub-cortical survival instincts, and thank heaven for that. “Unreasoning” fear of insects and reptiles is a close follower.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    , @Almost Missouri
  97. @Kirt

    That’s a ridiculous claim. The form of birthright citizenship that many want to abolish is the idea that a foreign woman, impregnated by a foreign man, can stumble onto U.S. real estate, pop out the baby and have that baby be a U.S. citizenship by right of birth. Virtually no other nation in the world allows this and it’s trivially easy to distinguish such “positional citizenship” from the births of citizens. It’s done daily by most nations in the world.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  98. Arclight says:
    @Andrew M

    I would actually be OK with something along these lines – at least when it comes to the right to vote. The problem with our current system isn’t that too many people don’t participate, it’s that too many for whom voting is strictly about a transfer of benefits to them at someone else’s expense do get to vote. This applies to people across the class spectrum.

  99. Big Bill says:
    @International Jew

    I love Jews — real Jews, that is. Sabras. The tikkun olam galut Jews, not so much. I can’t say I like the Sheldon Adelson-type fence-straddlers either.

    See, e.g. Birthright Israel, Sheldon’s unregistered political lobbying group:

    http://mondoweiss.net/2018/07/sheldon-adelson-business/

    • Replies: @Svigor
  100. Benjaminl says:
    @anony-mouse

    I too think this post would be stronger without the “ancestors” line. But anyway, it’s easy to find out what Somin has to say:

    https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/faculty/Somin_HIASMemoir.pdf

    Some of the adults in my life probably would have understood Havel’s point. By the mid1970s, my parents had largely lost faith in the regime and its ideology. My paternal grandfather had hated the communists almost from the time when they first came to power. As far back as the 1960s, he told my father that he should leave the Soviet Union the first chance he got. My great-grandfather on my mother’s side had been arrested by the KGB several times. Other relatives had served time in Gulags. No one, however, spoke of these things to me. It was considered dangerous to criticize the regime in front of a child. I might unthinkingly repeat it to strangers who in turn might report it to the authorities. Unlike in Stalin’s day, such an incident
    probably wouldn’t lead to a Gulag sentence or other really severe punishment. But it could cause trouble nonetheless.

    Of course not all of my relatives were closet anti-communists. Some were loyal supporters of the regime and its ideology. Sixty years of indoctrination was not without effect. Others probably simply didn’t give the matter much thought either way. They were too busy trying to live their lives. One of my mother’s friends developed the interesting theory that the regime deliberately made daily life difficult so that Russians wouldn’t have any time or energy to think about the government’s oppressive nature….

    Why did my parents become disillusioned with communism and the USSR? For many Soviet Jewish emigrants, the crucial factor was anti-Semitism.

    So, as long as Communism wasn’t anti-Semitic, it was okay? Whatever… His memoir describes a pretty deep dislike for Communism, and how his libertarianism was nurtured at Lexington High in Massachusetts, where he learned about Nozick and Rawls with his Indian-American debate partner.

    This thread has a nice discussion of Lexington, home base for our new elite:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/top-massachusetts-public-high-schools-by-sat-scores/

    • Replies: @Svigor
  101. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Almost Missouri

    Doesn’t he criticise Israel’s Right of Return as another “kind of hereditary privilege” and therefore, by his argument, just as wrong?

    It doesn’t seem to be so much a carve-out as an extra criticism. Not only does he see Israel privileging its citizens, like all countries do to some degree, but Israel discriminates further in who it lets become a citizen.

    His article is a sobre sort of academic exercise – or at least written as such. Were it written in the more SJW style he’d have called Israel whatever the contemporary speak is for doubleplusungood.

    Whether Germany and Israel’s doubleplusungood policies are exact parallels I don’t think matters. I believe they probably both originated in the same sort of circumstances though. The desire of those two countries, after WW2, to frame in law a way to prioritise refugees from their own nations. In Germany’s case thatbof blood andnin Israel’s case also of blood but also something more mystical.

    N.B I say I don’t think it matters because it doesn’t matter to what the OP wrote.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  102. dearieme says:
    @syonredux

    Or Lincoln emancipating only the slaves in the states that were not in the Union.

    • Replies: @syonredux
  103. @Anonym

    I’ve only read Somin before, never watched him on TV. He speaks as if he’s brain damaged. I wonder if his Ivy League degrees are really reflective of his intelligence. At the very least it seems as if he suffers from a level of confirmation bias, narcissism and arrogance that is pathological.

    Somin has no answers for any of the points Carlson makes. He doesn’t deny the massive demographic changes and the political changes they have engendered. His base argument seems to be that it is wrong to be opposed to them.

    Somin says that Hispanics views on particular issues are more important than their overall voting patterns, and Carlson correctly points this out as ludicrous. On the gay marriage issue, Hispanic opposition to gay marriage was effectively useless once the leftist judges with the support of the leftist government overrode the will of the voters on the referendum. Hispanics don’t seem to be very smart voters if they oppose this.

    He mentions that immigrants are less likely to be opposed to immigration. Well, duh. Isn’t that a deal-killer right there for people who — legitimately and knowledgeably — want to avoid massive demographic change to their nation? I don’t want to live in Mexico or Mexifornia, so I certainly don’t want the whole nation looking and voting like that.

  104. @Kirt

    Bollocks. Hereditary Citizenship is conferred by ones parents being citizens.

  105. res says:
    @Kirt

    You have an odd definition for “birthright citizenship” (“merely another term for hereditary citizenship”) relative to the usual debate. I don’t think the immigration opponents want to abolish citizenship being granted to the children of citizens. Which is what I would call hereditary citizenship.

    Wikipedia does a good job of clarifying things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

    Birthright citizenship may be conferred by jus soli or jus sanguinis.

    I understand jus sanguinis (right of blood) as hereditary, jus soli (right of the soil) as not.

    US law is a hybrid (I was not aware of the third category, is that common knowledge?):

    United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. The following are among those listed there as persons who shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

    - “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” or
    - “a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe” (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
    - “a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States”
    - “a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person”

    As I understand it, the current birthright citizenship debate centers around the first of those, though the third is clearly related to that.

    Perhaps the aboriginal tribes can turn into citizenship entrepreneurs (selling tribe membership to parents to be) to go along with their casinos.

  106. songbird says:
    @just a guest

    Much as I hate communism, I personally would probably prefer to live in mainland China rather than HK, due to cost of living and some other factors. But I know that isn’t everyone, and many do prefer to live in HK.

    South Africa and Argentina are kind of a shame. Whenever I think of the World Wars, or something like the Potato Famine in Ireland, it is easy to believe that the wasted dead could have really helped stabilize those countries.

  107. Nobody cares what’s in it for you. There are rootless cosmopolitans to think about!

  108. @AndrewR

    SSM is the best recent example to show how rapidly the Overton window can shift,

    Agree.

    but it’s not really analogous to open borders. Virtually all the arguments against SSM that anyone bothered to make boiled down to “gays are icky” and “muh bible.” Few people even tried to make other arguments (which is very shameful, because there are strong arguments against SSM that don’t involve fairy tales or mindless disgust), so SSM won out.

    Disagree.

    Plenty of people made other arguments, and the media’s gatekeepers made sure not to air them. They already knew which side they wanted to win and they made sure that only weak straw man arguments would oppose it.

    This, combined with the coordinated persecution of anyone who opposed the preselected party line, is what won the issue for the radical left. Remember, their final victory was getting five people in black robes to endorse them. They lost every referendum (a.k.a. actual election by people who will live with the consequences).

    The lesson of same sex marriage was not that the counter arguments were too weak or unvoiced, it was that the arguments didn’t matter. Corralling the issue into a government committee mattered. Controlling public media mattered. Destroying opponents’ livelihoods mattered. Merit didn’t.

    And frankly, given the abysmal state of heterosexual marriage over the last couple generations, it’s hard to argue that SSM has weakened the institution of marriage more than it was weakened already. Modern marriage was a complete farce before you ever heard anyone bring up SSM.

    And who made the legal and cultural changes that brought heterosexual marriage to its current abysmal state? The same people who insisted homosexual marriage was so urgently necessary.

    They play the long game, and so should you.

    My point is that the harmful externalities to society from open borders are far more obvious than the harmful externalities of SSM. So it will never be possible to garner support for radically open borders as easily as support for SSM was garnered.

    But the harm of open borders has been obvious for a long time, yet the demands of its partisans become more strident by the week. Why? They have the courts. They have the legislature. They have the media. They have the deep state. What worry have they about obvious harm?

    • Agree: Tyrion 2, Cloudbuster
    • Replies: @istevefan
    , @AndrewR
    , @Anonymous
  109. bjondo says:

    Of course Somin’s brilliant mind has earned him citizenship rights to Guantanamo. His countrymen will be Max and Masha. More to join. But only if they are equally brilliant and brave.

  110. mobi says:
    @Jack D

    They didn’t learn this stuff at home.

    They didn’t ‘learn’ it anywhere, so much as they re-discovered inborn nature.

    Who taught Masha Gessen, Ilya Somin, Max Boot, to be parasite/agitators, pray tell? They are the source.

    Inborn nature is commonly masked in 1st generation immigrants, temporarily. See: 1st vs 2nd and 3rd generation British Pakistanis. 1st vs 2nd and 3rd generation British West Indians. 1st vs 2nd and 3rd generation French North Africans. 1st vs 2nd and 3rd generation Mexican-Americans, 1st vs 2nd and 3rd generation Soviet-Jewish emigres, etc.

    The mask is artificial, and so can’t be sustained for long. True nature wins out.

    Your deflections are transparent, and work against you.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  111. istevefan says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Also note that despite the one reference to Israel the main thrust of this piece is presumably directed at the USA and Europe. This in spite of the fact that the USA has already taken in more people since 1965 than any nation in history. So much so that the European nature of our nation, once taken for granted, is now confined to history as the nation is about to become majority non-European.

    It’s like the more the USA, and now Europe, have opened up to non-European immigration the more criticism we get for not taking even more. I’d take these open border guys a bit more seriously if they targeted other wealthy nations who have not opened up yet. Expecting the US and Europe to continue to lead the way is like having a partnership where you are the only partner putting anything into it and the other guys are just sitting on their hands watching you do all the work.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  112. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Love Machine

    The Unz comment sections does not scare me, it frustrates me.

    I’ll tell you what scares me: I went away for a stag weekend. I was one of around 20 blokes. Practically all of us had attended Ivy League or British equivalent universities. All but a few were white Anglo-Saxons. All were heterosexual. None looked like the soy boy type. Average earnings must have been quite a few multiples of the average salary. None worked in academia or the media. I don’t think any were born into the plutocracy.

    Yet the general consensus was brexit = racism, immigration is a benediction, Putin has fixed the world cup.

    Thankfully, I know most of them so there was a lot of goodwill. I also tried to avoid these types of discussions…it is meant to be a celebration.

    Nonetheless one bloke I’d not met before got extremely aggrieved when I dissented from the approved line and was clearly sizing me up to see if he should hit me. I’d already played the ethnic-religious minority card to no avail. Lol.

    Naturally, the physical threat didn’t scare me in and of itself (;. Instead, at first, it was the craziness of my stag mates’ opinions and the fact that they were both the types to make a great impact on our country’s future course and the type who, surely, stand the most to lose.

    I became particularly terrified when I realised that their opinions aren’t even because they think they’re doing good. Although they do. They’re mostly just doing alright themselves so any change off the progressive course is a distraction.

  113. @nebulafox

    I see it as the “Rabbi” compulsion – the need to be the charismatic interpreter of some esoteric screed to disciples. And in America those happen to be left-wing and libertarian. Sure a few Jews went down the right wing route but you don’t hear about them.

  114. OT,but it seems old habits die hard. An Irishman has been busted under Ireland’s new anti-terrorist laws.
    Hasan Bal has been sentenced…

  115. In other words, you didnt build that.

  116. istevefan says:
    @Kirt

    Many of those who oppose immigration also want to abolish birthright citizenship.

    I think most people are not opposed to birthright citizenship when it applies to people legally residing in the USA. The problem we have is when a woman, who has never set foot in America, illegally crosses the border and gives birth to a new citizen. According to the 14th Amendment, one could presume that such a case does not confer birthright citizenship because the illegal alien was not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” since they never received permission to enter. I think when you hear opposition to birthright citizenship, that and similar cases is what is being opposed.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  117. @Tyrion 2

    Okay, rereading Somin (what I suffer to converse with you, Tyrion, you should be flattered), I can see the ambiguity of his Germany & Israel reference. Nevertheless, if he does not intend to create an exception, why bring them up at all? He is already saying jus sanguinis is wrong. So I still expect that he is laying the foundation for a future exception for Israel.

    Tell you what. If Somin ever comes out and writes in black and white that Israel should abandon its jus sanguinis policy, I will apologize and withdraw my foregoing critique. But if Somin ever makes an explicit exception in favor of Israel, I would hope you will do the same for 22pp22.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  118. Anonymous[101] • Disclaimer says:

    No, I do not get that feeling.

    I do get the “feeling” that boomers, like you, are mentally ill cucks.

    We, the alt-right, are neither senile nor ignorant nor deranged (take your pick; its usually all three) like boomer cuckservatives.

    We do not get fooled by Lucy pulling the football away like you have done, every single day, for five decades.

    We are not impressed by the rhetorical skills of masha fucking gessen.

    We will win.

  119. @Tyrion 2

    Interesting anecdote, but I didn’t understand “both the types” and the last sentence.

    Also, I’m shocked that there are any Anglo-Saxon non-soyboy Ivy League grads left. How old are these guys?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @Tyrion 2
  120. istevefan says:
    @Almost Missouri

    The lesson of same sex marriage was not that the counter arguments were too weak or unvoiced, it was that the arguments didn’t matter.

    Another lesson is akin to the old maxim that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. SSM lost in about every referendum held. People didn’t like the sound of it. However, once it was enacted by the courts support for SSM actually went up, and if you had a referendum today, it would probably pass.

    Why? I suppose most of the voters are not really cultural warrior, Pat Buchanan types who look at the long term effects of such policies. Rather most voters are interested in making a living and raising a family. And since the sun came up the day after the courts forced SSM, it no longer seemed to be a problem and thus the opposition to it dropped.

    So the lesson the left learned is to get their policy enacted first, then the unwashed masses will tolerate it so long as it does not directly affect their daily lives. Of course this is what they do in authoritarian regimes, not so much what they are so supposed to do in systems like ours.

    • Replies: @Fidelios Automata
  121. pyrrhus says:
    @National Review Reader

    The proper term is (((Trotskyites))) bent on their usual aims of destroying western society and civilization….This message approved by the ADL…

  122. @istevefan

    … and trying to shame you for not doing even more.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  123. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    King John should have had Ilya Somin working for him doing spin at Runnymede in 1215. He would have shamed those aristocrats into giving up all their hereditary rights to the autocrat.

    Or perhaps Somin would’ve worked for the other side. Those aristocrats were wealthy landowners who rebelled against the king with French help. In other words, they were powerful oligarchs who wanted more power and brought in foreigners to obtain it.

  124. Anon[680] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonym

    He looks like he’s playing a prank and struggling to stop himself from laughing

  125. tyrone says:
    @Tiny Duck

    “no mayonaise” you’ve obliviously never had a real tomato sandwich……you poor bastard.

  126. pyrrhus says:
    @Kirt

    No, people oppose birthright citizenship for the offspring of non-citizens, and especially illegal residents…The 14th Amendment did NOT confer citizenship on these people, but a leftist Supreme Court decided otherwise many years later, thinking their handout would only apply to a handful of folks…

  127. Liljoe says:
    @Tiny Duck

    There is no universal right to access to white people. Oh, and you have to go back.

  128. Rob McX says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Open borders isn’t Communism.

    In a sense, it’s ultra-communism. Under communism, having everyone else share the fruits of your labour was on a personal scale and within the bounds of your own country. An open borders system would globalise this phenomenon. Not just individuals but whole nations would have to surrender the capital they accumulated over centuries to invaders from other countries who aren’t genetically equipped to create their own.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  129. Didn’t Hillary say that Birthright Citizenship was one of the “bedrock principles” of American democracy? Or does that only apply to those whose parents came here illegally?

  130. AndrewR says:
    @Big Bill

    Thanks for the biology lesson, Darwin. Some people are disgusted by the thought of sex with the opposite sex. Disgust isn’t necessarily an adaptive trait, and it makes for really bad law.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  131. Tex says:
    @Tex

    There’s something about national characteristics that has some bearing on the concept of citizenship, but I can’t put my finger on it. Oh well, maybe some other Reason writer can sort that out.

  132. “Putin has fixed the world cup.”

    Well, we know that isn’t true. Not because Russia lost to Croatia (barely) but because Putin missed the Spain game and has been oddly MIA since the opening games. Theory in Russia is that Putin, like everyone (tbh), assumed Russia would lose badly to Spain and didn’t want to be associated with defeat. Had a little egg on his face when he missed Russia’s greatest international performance in decades.

  133. @istevefan

    I wonder if there’s a scholarly study related to this phenomenon, which has happened many times in history. For example, Americans were anti-conscription through much of the country’s history but when WWII brought back the draft it became almost treasonous to suggest ending it, even though the ability to change laws is part of the democratic process. However, when we went to the all-volunteer military as the result of a top-down decision there was no great agitation to resume conscription. Don’t you dare advocate ending mandatory registration, however, you’d be emboldening America’s enemies — at least not until some high muckety-muck makes that decision for us.

  134. @mobi

    ‘The New Bolsheviks’ should henceforth replace ‘Liberals’, ‘Leftists’, ‘Socialists’, and all other such weak and meek descriptions of who the real enemy is.

    How about Neo-Bolshevik?

    Early use of Neo-Conservative by Aldous Huxley:

    Aldoux Huxley in The Devils of Loudun

    “In Communist Russia, in Fascist Italy, in Nazi germany, the exploiters of humanity’s fatal taste for herd-poison have followed an identical course. When in revolutionary opposition, they encouraged the mobs under their influence to become destructively violent. Later, when they had come to power, it was only in relation to foreigners and selected scapegoats that they permitted herd-intoxication to run its full course. Having acquired a vested interest in the status quo, they now checked the descent into subhumanity at a point well this side of frenzy.

    For these NEO-CONSERVATIVES, mass-intoxication was chiefly valuable, henceforward, as a means for heightening their subjects’ suggestibility and so rendering them more docile to the expressions of authoritarian will. Being in a crowd is the best known antidote to independent thought. Hence the dictators’ rooted objection to “mere psychology” and a private life. “intellectuals of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your brains.”

    https://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24843-the-definition-of-a-neocon/?page=3&tab=comments#comment-1085955

    Who Controls The Corporate Media?

  135. Do you ever get the feeling that, leaving aside minor details about what kind of economic system, the Soviet Union will eventually triumph over the United States

    Considering that the US President, and a lot of GOP Congressmen, is a big fan of the unreconstructed Soviet Patriot and former KGB agent running Russia, yes, that seems likely. Russia is attacking us from the left and right simultaneously.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  136. @Big Bill

    Disgust, by its very nature, is mindless

    Sorry to be the metaphysical hairsplitter, but I have to dissent from your reasoning even though I agree with your conclusion (“thank heaven for that”).

    Disgust is very mindful. A stone has no mind, neither has it disgust. A plant, likewise, unless you argue that shrinking blooms are a sign of disgust with cold, heat, wind or what have you. Animals begin to show something like mind, likewise they begin to show something like disgust: it is possible to give them bad food that they will refuse and even avoid. Only in humans, the crown of creation, does mind (potentially) fully exist and likewise does appropriate disgust (potentially) fully exist.

    Like you, I think we must embrace disgust, cultivate it, interrogate* it, learn from whence it springs and what it is telling us about the universe. It is just a natural part of embracing our minds and cultivating them.

    BTW, I was going to say all this in my reply to AndrewR, but I’m trying to ration my replies.

    *LOL

  137. AndrewR says:
    @Almost Missouri

    You bring up some good points but it’s silly to act as if public opposition to SSM in the US in 2015 was both overwhelming and permanent. Ireland is not the US, but it’s similar enough. Their voters supported SSM in an electoral referendum. There’s no reason to think that wouldn’t have happened in the US eventually, albeit in a piecemeal fashion. Nationwide public support for SSM was already at 60% in 2015. Kennedy, and probably Breyer and the girls, presumably felt that SSM was going to be passed legislatively before too long so why not just make it legal now. Many, if not all, of the justices have expressed that the court should express the popular will.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  138. @JMcG

    You mean the same way all the Californians leaving for Oregon and Montana and Idaho are leaving their liberal politics behind them? Or the Massachusetts escapees currently turning New Hampshire blue?

    The New Hampshire GOP is turning New Hampshire into a Democrat Party state.

    The Koch boys have set the New Hampshire GOP up to be destroyed. That is a good thing.

    The Koch-controlled GOP in New Hampshire pushes open borders mass legal immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders. The Koch boys who control the New Hampshire GOP push for massive increases in the REFUGEE OVERLOAD intake into New Hampshire. The Koch boy controlled NH GOP pushes for massive amounts of guest workers and other visas to flood foreigners into the United States.

    Trump smashed the hell out of all the GOP whores in the New Hampshire presidential primary by taking a tough stance on immigration. Disgusting rat whores such as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Jebby Bush didn’t stand a chance.

    Kelly Ayotte, the GOP politician, lost her US Senate seat because she pushed for open borders mass legal immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders. Ayotte was also in tight with treasonous rat John McCain and the Neo-Conservative faction of the GOP.

    The New Hampshire GOP must break the hold that the evil Koch boys have on the party.

  139. @Peter Akuleyev

    “Considering that the US President, and a lot of GOP Congressmen, is a big fan of the unreconstructed Soviet Patriot”

    I’ve never heard anyone in the Federal government express admiration for Putin the way they do for say, Martin Luther King, Benjamin Netanyahu, or even Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Sultan.

    What they do respond to, I think, is his patriotism. The reason is that they are patriots themselves, and so naturally recognize and respect this quality in the other, even though they differ on the object of that patriotism.

    The SJWs want everyone to believe that patriotism = xenophobia/racism/doubleplusungoodness, etc. But the reality is that the self-respect of patriotism calls forth respect from others, so patriotism makes for civility and stability. SJWs, on the other hand, have no self respect, so they resent it in others and try to bring everyone down to their level.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
  140. Anonymous[117] • Disclaimer says:
    @22pp22

    We have here the platonic ideal of an Unz comment! Quickly rushing to incorrectly accuse a Jewish leftist douchebag of hypocrisy in regard to Israel without bothering to do 5 seconds of actual skimming of the linked article!

    • Replies: @Rosie
  141. Anonymous[117] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Plenty of people made other arguments, and the media’s gatekeepers made sure not to air them.

    What are/were the arguments against SSM, other than disgust, the bible, and the slippery slope to polygamy and/or people marrying their dog? Serious question, because I recall all of those being prominent in media coverage.

  142. Such ideas don’t rise to the level of sophistry as they are so easily refuted. First, if not handled carefully, the circumstances of the stateless along with those grappling for total control would lead to chaos. Second, if those who advocate this Darwinian citizenship of the fittest idea were sincere, they’d simply take over a less populated country (or buy up part of a failed state) and order it to their liking. No legitimate reason exists for US citizens to give up their citizenship or their political power, which is what such bold yet ridiculous arguments are really about. The US is not for sale!

  143. @Jack D

    The children of ex-Soviet Jews pick up their liberalism here in America.

    PSA – I learned It By Watching You!

    • Replies: @Malcolm X-Lax
  144. Anonymous[242] • Disclaimer says:
    @Andrew M

    Covington proposes a tiered system of citizenship in his novels, but even the lowest rung has a service requirement.

  145. @The Big Red Scary

    You’re mistaken about children of American citizens born abroad. They are automatically citizens by operation of law. What is required is proof that they are actually citizens of an American citizen. E.g., See Cruz, Ted. Once the proof hurdle is met, they are citizens. And their parents can certify their citizenship if they register the birth timely at the local US Embassy.

    The question of birthright citizenship for illegal alien parents’ kids has never been legally settled. State and the CIS did it by regulation which can be revoked. It should be and then SCOTUS can do its thing as it did long ago in the Van Ark (?) case where a child of legal resident aliens was determined a citizen.

    • Replies: @Frankie P
  146. @22pp22

    I don’t think he’s advocating open borders, he’s simply stating a factual observation, that’s been stated by capitalist icons like Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett.

    Your place of birth, plays a consequential role in your standard of living. Admitting it, is just acknowledgement of reality, no more, no less…

    • Replies: @Anonym
  147. ChrisZ says:

    Very well put, AM. I especially like the layers of analysis in your final paragraph.

  148. @anony-mouse

    Did Warren Buffett’s ancestors help create the Soviet Union? http://www.businessinsider.com/warren-buffett-on-the-ovarian-lottery-2013-12

    And he’s not the first person to compare being born American to winning the lottery.

    He said, “Incentivize the top performers.” That puts his position squarely at odds with Somin, who is arguing for the disincentivization (dispossession) of the top performers.

  149. @Chase

    Their only real ideology, as always, is what will advance the interests of their tribe…. This should be obvious by now, and it’s why arguing over ideological details is so pointless.

    And so what we should do is __________. (Please fill in the blank.)

  150. @Anon

    But isn’t that pedigree the result, at least in part, of the efforts – or in other words, the merits – of one’s ancestors? Isn’t it a gift from the ancestors to the descendants, and therefore theirs to dispense as they see fit? The ancestors, I mean: don’t I get to choose who inherits the fruits of my labours after I’m gone? Isn’t that what private property is all about?

    Yes, absolutely.

  151. @AndrewR

    SSM is the best recent example to show how rapidly the Overton window can shift, but it’s not really analogous to open borders. Virtually all the arguments against SSM that anyone bothered to make boiled down to “gays are icky” and “muh bible.” Few people even tried to make other arguments (which is very shameful, because there are strong arguments against SSM that don’t involve fairy tales or mindless disgust) . . . .

    Did few people try, or were their voices somehow impeded from reaching your ears?

    • Replies: @Svigor
  152. @JerryC

    The arc of history is long and bends towards rootless cosmopolitanism.

    No. Just towards the death of Western Christian civilization.

    There’s no fricking way the Chinese or Indians or pretty much anyone else is going to let themselves be buried by this nonsense.

    No, this is just a mind virus, that’s been injected–with an incredible propaganda campaign through news media, education, government, Hollyweird–into white gentile nations who are susceptible because of high openness and affective empathy.

    It does look like there’s a good chance it may succeed in killing us–genociding our race. But there’s no way it can destroy all these other civilizations which have much, much higher natural immunity to this crap.

    • Replies: @ChrisZ
  153. Anonym says:
    @Tyrion 2

    I became particularly terrified when I realised that their opinions aren’t even because they think they’re doing good. Although they do. They’re mostly just doing alright themselves so any change off the progressive course is a distraction.

    There was not one crypto WN among these Tony Blairs? Had any of these people done business or lived in a non-white country? What terrifies you and why?

  154. CCZ says:

    “Citizenship? We don’t need no stinkin’ citizenship!”

    Black female Councilwoman pushes for voting rights for as many as 190,000 legal non-citizens in Boston. “Legal non-citizens” supposedly represent 28% of Boston’s population.

    https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2018/07/08/boston-weighs-giving-legal-non-us-citizens-voting-rights

    Very possibly, in a few more years, the “privilege” of being an American “Citizen” will be, in the words of once United States Vice-President John Nance Garner, “Not worth a bucket of warm spit.”

  155. @DFH

    Koch Brothers’ children will inherit billions of dollars, a far greater privilege than any son of a noble did. If we do away with citizenship, let’s do away with inheritance too. An equal society MUST not have billionaires.

  156. Dr. Doom says:

    You do not have to prove the invaders are inferior. They admit it by abandoning homelands they say they LOVE just to be able to eat. They have to use emotional blackmail, they still at least subconsciously FEAR the White Men they used to bow to and call Bwana and Sahib. These calls for surrender amuse me. They ADMIT they will slaughter us and rape our women and yet they expect capitulation. The enemy waits. They are cowards who expect OTHERS to fight for them. Has it been going well? Probably not. When things go well they at least TRY to be polite and keep their mouths shut. The shrill sounds like a woman in here.
    Gib us the poor, the stupid, the incapable, the insane, the lazy and gullible. They will pay for your retirement. So much stupid. Over 100 channels and not a White family successful on ANY OF THEM.

    Yeah, that’s a brilliant plan there, Baldrick. Bet on black. Tell Idi Amin he’s the Last Kang of Scotch. Never Before and Never Again.

    Never say Never. Never cancels out everything, but cheap talk and old ladies wishing for what they wouldn’t do when they were young enough to do it.

  157. @Anonym

    As well as being a moron, this twit is as gay as a french horn.

    • Replies: @Anonym
  158. @Whitney

    Europe as it had existed for over a thousand years – Christian, monarchical,and elitist – died a tragic death in 1918.

    The survivors of that debacle decided to opt for elitism as the most promising facet of that trinity. These in their turn died tragic deaths in 1945.

    Since then we have been living the postscript – and we are getting very near the end.

  159. the sophistic skills of ex-Soviets like Ilya Somin, Max Boot, Masha Gessen, and Julia Ioffe? They may not quite agree on what should replace the U.S., but they are united in being committed to propagandizing Americans into believing that America isn’t for “ourselves and our posterity,”

    Sooo . . .
    Since that hereditary thingy is soooo bad, so very very very baaaaad – how ’bout we abolish the right of the above-named persons to inherit wealth and property, or to pass same to their descendants?

    Inheriting stuff ain’t much different from inheriting a title, such as Duke, Earl, Princess, etc.
    Or inheriting the name “Kennedy”. Heck, who sez we ain’t got no royals?

    A much more deserving person to inherit their stuff would be me. I would quickly liquidate, take the cash, pay the taxes, move along, and not bother anyone. Hey – it would be good for the economy!

  160. @Tiny Duck

    Can you imagine if Priss Factor and Tiny Duck are the same poster? That’ll be hilarious.

    • Replies: @BB753
  161. Anonymous[115] • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123

    East Germany had Vietnamese guest workers IIRC. Not as numerous as the Turks etc. of the West, but the principle was the same.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
  162. Anonym says:
    @istevefan

    I don’t think he has a Jewish problem. It just turns out that in the few areas that catch his interest Jews are overrepresented in having the opposing view. Immigration/borders happens to be one of those areas.

    If Steve had Jewish problem, one would think that there would be bushels of goy immigrationist intellectual crops left rotting in the fields so to speak. So among the commanding heights of the media’s opinion setting organs, where are they?

    Frequently it is up to the commentariat to discover Jewish background of the would-be white genocide promoters.

  163. OT: Sane Gessen in NYT–It’s pretty weird how Americans suddenly became obsessed with Russia and its “meddling”

    I was depressed, too, by the news coverage in the United States, especially postelection. It almost entirely neglected the long history of American meddling in the internal affairs of many, many countries, including Russia itself. Some of it was perfectly understandable anger at Russia’s role, however marginal, in electing Mr. Trump; but much of the Russia talk threatened to crowd out an examination of all the other reasons Mr. Trump was elected.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/opinion/sunday/russia-news-attention.html

  164. @Ibound1

    Spot on.

    I learned this lesson in my mid 20s. A group of Harvard grads had moved over in a body to Berkeley for their graduate degrees. They were historians mostly, like myself.

    I was therefore delighted to receive an invitation to dine with them and can still remember my eager anticipation of an evening of good food and good talk as I walked to the flat of whomever it was who had agreed to host us.

    Three hours later I was a sadder but a wiser man. I had listened with amazement as the talk moved effortlessly from his grade-point average to hers and back again. They never tired of it and never deviated from it.

    Sophomoric? The word could have been invented just for them.

  165. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Almost Missouri

    By “doing alright” I mean married, well paid (£70k and up per annum) and with good health. As for age, they are late millennials, mostly.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
  166. @Kirt

    Many of those who oppose immigration also want to abolish birthright citizenship. That’s merely another term for hereditary citizenship, which is what most of us have.

    When your premise “… That’s merely another term for hereditary citizenship” is completely wrong, it makes your comment sort of pointless.

  167. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Almost Missouri

    My cynical side thinks he mentioned it to preempt conversations like this – he is a creature of the internet. Perhaps it is just something he thinks about. Either way, he said it was wrong.

    Thanks for doing me the service of re-reading it. I don’t envy you. I find him to be a man whose ideology is stuck in 1968 realities.

  168. Rosie says:

    I knew it would come to this. Citizenship is indeed a privilege of birth and therefore completely incompatible with modern liberal ethics as we have come to know it.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

  169. ChrisZ says:
    @AnotherDad

    This is a good, big-picture comment, AD. But don’t discount Jerry’s point about “rootless cosmopolitanism.” That’s the auto-immune deficiency that makes Westerners so vulnerable to the pathology you’ve ably described.

  170. Pat Boyle says:
    @Andrew M

    It is actually even easier than that. Instead of a performance test we might consider an aptitude test.

    The right to vote originally was restricted to property owning men. The franchise expanded over time to include blacks and women. For about a century the voting right was restricted to the literate. But that was struck down in 1970. Now neo-Marxists are advocating that non-citizens get to vote in American elections. After that I imagine PETA will want farm animals and pets also get to vote. That’s about as liberal as we can take unless some new group wants to include inanimate objects. With the advances in AI soon your smart phone may also get the vote.

    Or maybe this expansion of the franchise will reverse. Trump is today going to make his nomination for the replacement for the retiring Justice Kennedy. This has prompted the neos to propose ‘packing’ the Court the way FDR once tried. Expanding the membership weakens the power of the current voters.

    We established literacy requirements in the nineteenth century. We know a lot more about testing and mental ability today. It would make more sense to give a standard IQ test. The Chinese have had aptitude tests (as measured by knowledge of Confucian literature) since at least the Sung Dynasty. I don’t think an IQ of 110 or so for all voters would be a problem. We should also restrict voting to those gainfully employed.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    , @Reg Cæsar
  171. Jon says:
    @Prester John

    Trolling again.

    He trolled, but you fed. And so the cycle continues …

  172. @Rob McX

    I’ve noticed this trend in the last few years of eroding the idea of borders or sovereign states, and promoting the idea that everyone has a human right to live wherever they want. It sounds too crazy to make any headway, but then again many things that are accepted nowadays would have sounded insane ten or twenty years ago.

    The insanity of the last few years is really amazing. Will it pass? Or is this how things were in 1789 or 1917?

    Maybe this is the follow on to World War T? AnotherMom and I were talking about this on our walk last week. Gay marriage was absolutely insane…. and in less than two decades became a firmly grouned constitutional principle. With the rapid progress with World War T–the critical importance of putting mentally ill boys into the girls’ locker rooms–i thought “what can come next, with this they have tapped out their long march of mainstreaming sexual deviancy in all forms”.

    Maybe i was right? Maybe they’ve realized they are pretty much done with mining the sexual deviancy well and need to look elsewhere for pushing destructive insanity? And open borders is it?

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    , @Tex
  173. @Tyrion 2

    Are they also fathers?

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  174. Rosie says:
    @Cloudbuster

    Gee. My kids benefit from being born into my affluent family. Just an “accident of birth.” Maybe all children should be taken away from their parents and randomly distributed to homes. End that “hereditary privilege!”

    I don’t think it is possible to distinguish citizenship privilege from family privilege in a way that is meaningful enough to withstand an puritanical egalitarian attack. You can say that the family is more proximate to the individual, more intimate and therefore inviolate, but that line wouldn’t hold for long.

    • Replies: @Chase
    , @3g4me
  175. Anonymous[115] • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor

    This is that Kantean universalism that Westerners are so taken with. To everyone else in the world, a person who wishes you harm is an enemy. Period. That they may also wish harm to themselves is irrelevant.

    • Replies: @Svigor
    , @ben tillman
  176. @Pat Boyle

    The right to vote originally was restricted to property owning men.

    And for very good reason. The founders opposed to expanding the franchise further correctly identified the issues with ever-expanding the vote to individuals with only marginal interest in the future. In their own way, they were very much aware of the importance of having people with skin in the game.

    It is as it was said, it will keep going until every donkey has a vote, and then we can finally say that all the asses have their say.

  177. @DFH

    But Ilya is a libertarian, so presumably he doesn’t have any problem with inheritance, or are Cato advocating for a 100% inheritance tax as well?

    Exactly. And the analogy “The Capitalist” makes in comment #32 and Anon[680] at #44, below.

    I’ve noted this with respect to Bryan Caplan’s ranting numerous times. It’s really quite simple–citizenship is basically an inherited property right. Your ancestors created a nice nation, defended it, built it up, improved it, passed it on down through generations.

    Ergo there is *nothing* actually “libertarian” about OpenBorders. Rather it is massive socialism. Grabbing property from a group of people who have worked for something, built something and giving it to random people who have not.

    But these Caplan types have an incredible over-the-top hostility to this property right–which is really the most valuable thing that large numbers of regular folks (“the peasanty”?) possess. Why is this precious property create such hostility in the Caplans, while financial assets are sacrosanct?

    • Agree: ben tillman
  178. njguy73 says:

    I’m going to keep asking this question until someone gives me a satisfactory answer:

    Why am I not allowed to sell my U.S. citizenship to the highest bidder and have my legal status changed to resident alien?

    Sailer, you got anything to say on this? Anyone? This is not rhetorical. I want a good answer.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  179. Rosie says:
    @anony-mouse

    So in is presenting a philosophical argument (don’t worry inherited citizenship isn’t going to be abolished anywhere). So why is Steve getting all upset? He doesn’t have a good counterargument so he’s going all ad hominem. Unusual for a smart person.

    Steve is most certainly not making an ad hominem argument here. He’s not making any argument at all. He’s doing what he always does: noticing. When Jews persist in attacking and undermining White gentile nations, we are not under any obligation to get into a dispassionate philosophical discussion with them about it. My interest in having a reasoned discussion about politics stops right at the point where my existential interests begin.

    BTW, I don’t mean to attack any of the patriotic Jews who post here. I don’t blame you.

  180. Rosie says:
    @AnotherDad

    Why is this precious property create such hostility in the Caplans, while financial assets are sacrosanct?

    Shekel-grubbing at the expense of the nation-state is dangerous so long as the nation-state exists.

  181. @CPK

    Prof. Somin was one of my law school professors and I think highly of him… but he’s spent his whole adult life in academia, which leads to a sort of déformation professionnelle that overvalues theory. His theory is a sort of naive Aspergery libertarianism.

    Put another way: He’s against the government controlling the borders because he’s against government controlling stuff– not because he’s against borders as such.

    That can’t explain it. “Open borders” is a case of government controlling the borders. It’s just that the control is used to allow unwanted aliens to enter.

    As for overvaluing theory, his position has no theoretical support.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
  182. @Almost Missouri

    Except Putin is not a patriot. He is a cynic who has enriched himself at the expense of the Russian people and will leave Russia weaker than when he found it. Education and healthcare have been decimated, the gains in agriculture and manufacturing are due mostly to Western sanctions, so have happened despite Putin. Russia is basically a giant gas station. The odd thing about so many nationalists is that they are so eager to take facile claims of patriotism at face value, and become easy marks for con men like Putin, Trump, Orban or Farrage.

  183. Chase says:
    @Rosie

    Our host has written about this. It always ends with a baby lottery. Actually, it ends with people writing about that. The Reaction comes before it can be implemented.

  184. Chase says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Take a look at standards of living of everyday Russians before and after Putin. Compare those to the SOL over the same timeframe for Americans. I don’t want to say Putin is a saint or anything – I’m sure he’s skimmed some off the top – but he’s not popular in Russia for nothing. He’s been a remarkable leader by all accounts, and buying the propaganda about him actually handicaps our ability to navigate the geopolitical landscape.

    Hell, the fact that in Russia they are rebuilding the Orthodox Church while the US has literal transsexual demons reading to elementary school kids tells me all I need to know about which leader has their people’s interest at heart.

  185. Rob McX says:
    @ben tillman

    “Open borders” is a case of government controlling the borders. It’s just that the control is used to allow unwanted aliens to enter.

    True. The default attitude to borders is to close them to outsiders. Defending your race, tribe or nation against intruders is a natural, deep-rooted instinct. Governments who allow mass immigration are going against that, although they can sometimes brainwash or intimidate the people into acquiescence.

    • Agree: ben tillman
  186. @AnotherDad

    Why is this precious property create such hostility in the Caplans, while financial assets are sacrosanct?

    You could go further with this, arguably citizenship has a definite financial value. Citizenship grants you rights to “entitlements” and services such as police, fire, emergency care in public hospitals, etc. These have been paid for either by yourself as a current citizen (assuming you’re a taxpayer) or by family or ancestors. That all this is given free to immigrants is a giant gamble that at some point they might pay it forward by covering their own current costs as well as future costs of their dependents. More rational nations address this by requiring immigrants to invest a set amount in the country and putting a price tag on the citizenship/passport. Citizenship is a financial asset even if it cannot be sold or made liquid.

    Reason has been communist since at least the mid-1990’s when I cancelled my subscription. The editor at the time wrote an editorial arguing against a la carte television programming (which I enjoyed then on C-band satellite, but no cable or little dish providers offered). He complained that with a la carte, people would buy only what they wanted and some programming he liked might not be popular enough to survive, therefore everyone should be forced to buy programming packages that would subsidize what he liked to watch. I doubt my strongly worded letter to the editor that accompanied my subscription cancellation was published. That was the end of my libertarian phase.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  187. @Svigor

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Bolshevik

    Note the years in which virtually all of them died (1935-1939)

    and as to their families:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people

    • Replies: @Svigor
  188. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Daniel Chieh

    Some. Others will be soon enough. I’d imagine all will have children.

  189. Rob McX says:
    @AnotherDad

    I think immigration and World War G/T are part of the same plan – to demoralise and ultimately destroy white countries (neither of them is promoted in any meaningful way in non-white countries). But things like same sex marriage can’t do much harm in the long run compared to non-white immigration. Few people want to marry anyone of the same sex, and nobody has to. The whole LGBT thing will probably run out of steam eventually and reach some kind of stagnant equilibrium. Anyone who wants to truly ruin a nation would be far better advised to invest their time and money in promoting immigration and open borders. A nation whose population is replaced is destroyed forever. The filling of the SCOTUS vacancy should concentrate exclusively on the candidate’s position on this.

  190. @Massimo Heitor

    Sure, like being born as a human instead of a farm animal. Or being born in prosperous times as opposed to being born into a great famine or plague. Or being born to a caring family instead of being born to abusive or neglectful or absent parents.

    Or being born at all, really.

    And what about being intelligent enough to follow this sort of sophistry? Intelligence is a heritable trait. I wonder if this fellow thinks that bright people are part of a hereditary aristocracy, using unearned privilege to exert their will on their less-able fellow men?

    • Replies: @Tex
  191. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Almost Missouri

    Apologies, I was rushing when I wrote it. The insertion of “both” didn’t mean anything and “progressive course” is what our countries are hurtling along. Sort of as in “progressive” like a cancer diagnosis.

  192. @Peter Akuleyev

    “and will leave Russia weaker than when he found it.”

    Russia was pretty weak when he found it. Is it weaker now?

    “con men like Putin, Trump, Orban or Farrage.”

    They may or may not be con men. But what if the alternative was Yeltsin, Hillary, Merkelism, or Blairism?

  193. Svigor says:
    @CPK

    Prof. Somin was one of my law school professors and I think highly of him… but he’s spent his whole adult life in academia, which leads to a sort of déformation professionnelle that overvalues theory. His theory is a sort of naive Aspergery libertarianism.

    Put another way: He’s against the government controlling the borders because he’s against government controlling stuff– not because he’s against borders as such.

    Not that this is a reasonable policy, by any means, but it’s not fair to characterize it as support for Soviet-style autocracy.

    If he’s just about the ideas, the article should be about Israel. They’re the worst offenders of his ideas. And since he’s such an intellectual and such a libertarian, borders mean nothing to him, so he should be going (intellectually) where the worst offenders are.

    I.e., he’s either not smart, or not just about the ideas.

    • Replies: @CPK
  194. Svigor says:
    @Big Bill

    I share your sentiment, to a degree, but calling them the real Jews is a bit rich. Good propaganda, but we can be honest here in the boiler room; diaspora Jews are the real Jews, nearly two eons worth of precedent. Sabras are the New Jews, the upstarts.

  195. Anon7 says:

    As far as I know, the Jews are the most cosmopolitan of peoples, and yet Jews REALLY like having the state of Israel, with its right of return for all Jews. Is this a change in their historical tune, or are they just hedging their bets?

    Of course, the other interesting fact is that there are almost as many Jews in the US as there are in Israel, totaling 90% of all Jews. Talk about the promised land.

  196. Svigor says:
    @Benjaminl

    If communism had won and the West had lost, the Narrative would be how integral Jews were to the Revolution, Jews’ unrivaled commie credentials, etc. ‘Course it would at least have the virtue of being true…

  197. Svigor says:
    @anony-mouse

    Citation still needed. Also, given that you’re using Old Bolsheviks in a very narrow way, your original point is now moot. There were a Hell of a lot of people involved in creating the USSR (the process didn’t stop in 1917, that’s for sure) that weren’t in by 1917. And I saw nothing about the systematic extermination of anyone’s kids, btw.

    • Replies: @anony-mouse
  198. Frankie P says:
    @jim sweeney

    I’m somewhat surprised that all this discussion is going on without mention of or understanding of the nature and qualifications of a “natural born citizen.” My children were both born here in Taiwan to myself, an American father, and my wife, a Taiwanese (ROC citizen) mother. After registration with the US government through a “Consular Report of a US Citizen Born Abroad”, I was able to quickly obtain US passports for them. My children are natural born US citizens, no different in rights and obligations than any other US citizen born in the US. Only fools try to argue that because they were not born in the United States, they cannot become the President of the United States. “Naturalized citizens”, that is aliens who obtain US citizenship, are unable to become President or Vice President of the United States, but ALL natural born citizens, regardless of the place of birth, have the same rights.

    Frankie P

  199. Anonymous[115] • Disclaimer says:
    @Stan d Mute

    That reminds me of the ‘Canadians of convenience’ controversy of the last decade.

  200. 3g4me says:
    @Rosie

    @177 Rosie: “I don’t think it is possible to distinguish citizenship privilege from family privilege in a way that is meaningful enough to withstand an puritanical egalitarian attack. You can say that the family is more proximate to the individual, more intimate and therefore inviolate, but that line wouldn’t hold for long.”

    Excellent point. Those in search of cosmic justice never tire in their efforts to ferret out every jot and tittle, every shade and shadow of a memory of anything “unfair” in any way. My hairdresser (highly skilled at her trade but the product of a broken home and the participant in multiple marriages) is an avowed socialist. Her go-to rationale, whenever I raise an objection she even somewhat agrees with, is that “Not everyone has a supportive family.” So only when parental emotional and social and financial support is equally distributed (no mention of genetic inheritance, please, that would be rayciss – her latest partner is a mulatto) can we all truly be considered to have an “even playing field.”

  201. syonredux says:
    @dearieme

    Or Lincoln emancipating only the slaves in the states that were not in the Union.

    That had the virtue of being where the overwhelming bulk of the slaves were….As opposed to the Crown letting slavery continue unmolested in places like Jamaica and Barbados…And, of course, ratification of the 13th Amendment (for which Lincoln worked quite hard) came in 1865, approx two years after the Emancipation Proclamation….Whereas the Crown’s purely punitive measure in the Revolution had no real follow-through…Unless you want to count the UK finally abolishing slavery five decades after The War for Independence ended….

    Really, dear fellow, you should stop parroting Dr Johnson’s old line; it’s simply too easy to cut it to shreds…..

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  202. Svigor says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s mostly Jewish Privilege. Westerners are strongly indoctrinated to bend over backwards for Jews. I mean minorities in general get this but Jews get it to the max. So stuff like your Kantian effect always get dialed up to 11 on their behalf. Then we get to hear about how everybody blames them for everything.

    It’s mostly status-signaling cud-chewing BS; OMG what if the Joneses find out better cuck fast or they’ll know I’m a phony two generations removed from Appalachia.

  203. Svigor says:
    @anony-mouse

    Are there any hard numbers in there? Cuz this is getting old fast.

  204. utu says:
    @AnotherDad

    Ergo there is *nothing* actually “libertarian” about OpenBorders.

    It is libertarian. Closed border reduces freedom of business to hire whom they want to hire. Libertarians are not about everybody’s freedom and liberty. Most of them do not know it because they are useful idiots of big money capitalism. But Cato people and Ilya know it very well. They know who signs their checks.

  205. Svigor says:
    @ben tillman

    It boiled down to “no, you leftist idiots don’t get to destroy marriage so you can apply the new ‘definition’ to something that isn’t marriage” (do you see homos supporting heteros taking over their organizations? I mean why can’t we define heteros as homos? Wherez ur tolerance? Nope) and “no, there’s no good reason to incentivize inherently barren coupling” and “no you psycho, letting homosexual couples raise kids as if they’re real couples is psycho” but they didn’t like hearing that so they pretend they didn’t.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  206. Anon[309] • Disclaimer says:

    I think the idea behind this is that by extending the Overton Window to something as radical as this you make the real goals of eternally soft U.S. borders, little internal immigration enforcement, illegallity as a protected class, and frequent amnesties seem moderate and easier to obtain.

    • Agree: Rosie, Mr. Rational
  207. ex-Soviets like Ilya Somin, Max Boot, Masha Gessen, and Julia Ioffe?

    You left out Cathy Young.

  208. Redman says:
    @mal

    Totally agree.

    My view of the suburban mom left (here in a rich NY suburb) is that their hatred of Trump is basically being pissed at losing the first female President.

    Most of them have a very simplistic view of geopolitics. They see this more in terms of an affront on their gender that needs to be avenged.

    They’ll be voting conservative in no time flat when shit gets real. Their “ideology” is skin deep, at best.

    We need more Maxine Waters types. More BLM bs. And more old line Dems getting shouted down by the POCs. The soccer moms will come around.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  209. @Pat Boyle

    Now neo-Marxists are advocating that non-citizens get to vote in American elections

    There are no “American elections”. There are only state elections.

    Actually, non-citizens, to be precise, not-quite-yet citizens, could vote in a number of states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This was mostly in the emptier interior states, who wanted to attract homesteaders.

    In other words, we had a higher class of non-citizens then.

  210. @Cloudbuster

    Couldn’t have said it better myself, thank you.

  211. @Cagey Beast

    …. or they learned from their families how dangerous it is to let the largest ethnic group regain power in a multi-ethnic country?

    Yeah, democracy sucks, doesn’t it?

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  212. @syonredux

    Really, dear fellow, you should stop parroting Dr Johnson’s old line; it’s simply too easy to cut it to shreds

    On the contrary, you’ve just showed its application to his own country as well as ours.

    • Agree: Svigor
  213. ex-Soviets like Ilya Somin, Max Boot, Masha Gessen, and Julia Ioffe

    They really are a lot nastier than the native born Red Diaper Babies.

    The difference is, the native born Red Diaper Babies had parents and grandparents who fantasized about becoming commissars and secret police agents and then murdering Christian clergymen and petit-bourgeoisie nationalists by the million.

    The Soviet born Red Diaper Babies, on the other hand, had parents and grandparents who actually were commissars and secret police agents and actually did murder millions.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Anonym
  214. @AndrewR

    And frankly, given the abysmal state of heterosexual marriage over the last couple generations, it’s hard to argue that SSM has weakened the institution of marriage more than it was weakened already

    Exactly. The slippery slope metaphor isn’t wrong, it’s just that SSM is at the bottom of that slope.

    (Oh, dear, I said “bottom”…)

    • LOL: AndrewR
  215. @Reg Cæsar

    Are you and @Cloudbuster under the impression I’m arguing that Jews need to be allowed to maintain the whip hand over the ethnic majority population in countries they inhabit? You’re mistaken if you think that’s the case.

  216. BB753 says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    Priss Factory seems to have disappeared.

  217. Rosie says:
    @AndrewR

    Some people are disgusted by the thought of sex with the opposite sex.

    Oh gosh I’d never thought of it that way before.

  218. Rosie says:
    @AndrewR

    Kennedy, and probably Breyer and the girls, presumably felt that SSM was going to be passed legislatively before too long so why not just make it legal now. Many, if not all, of the justices have expressed that the court should express the popular will.

    Nonsense. The Kritarchs knew perfectly well that an unfavorable ruling would embolden SSM opponents. Every time the Court oversteps its proper boundaries, it expends political capital and undermines its legitimacy. No way they’d have done that if they thought it was only a matter of time before the appropriate (legislative) branch enacted SSM.

    The US was in a uniquely strong position to oppose SSM because of the First Amendment. Without free speech, democracy is a sham.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @AndrewR
  219. Rosie says:
    @Anonymous

    We have here the platonic ideal of an Unz comment! Quickly rushing to incorrectly accuse a Jewish leftist douchebag of hypocrisy in regard to Israel without bothering to do 5 seconds of actual skimming of the linked article!

    Jewish hypocrisy is not strictly a matter of what they say, but what they do. Perhaps this Jewish leftist is a true believer who would impose multiculturalism on Israel, but I wouldn’t assume so in the absence of agitation directed specifically at Israel. After all, their policies are far more illiberal than any US policy.

  220. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    It’s not libertarianism. It’s neoliberalism. Under neoliberalism, only that which is determined by economics and the market are legitimate. Politics and social organization are illegitimate and ultimately ineffectual. “There is no such thing as society,” as Thatcher put it. Thus being wealthy enough to buy into a certain neighborhood is legitimate. Selling your labor to an employer in another country who wants to use it is legitimate. Using politics to determine the distribution of a good like citizenship is illegitimate.

    • Agree: Cagey Beast
    • Replies: @ben tillman
  221. @Anonym

    His mouth and eyebrows don’t move symetrically. Maybe he had a stroke?

  222. @Tyrion 2

    I became particularly terrified when I realised that their opinions aren’t even because they think they’re doing good. Although they do. They’re mostly just doing alright themselves so any change off the progressive course is a distraction.

    It’s called “imitation”. People imitate those who are successful. It’s one of the four I’s: indoctrination, intimidation, incentivization, imitation.

  223. @DFH

    He would likely counter that inheritance about individual rights, while citizenship is about a form of collective cartel or something, therefore wrong. Because reasons.

    With these people, it’s just about rhetorics and the possibility of an easy swindle.

  224. Anonym says:
    @John Gruskos

    Here is where I would like to both simultaneously agree and LOL. Insightful, probably. Who knows what their ancestors actually did though. As a tribe, sure.

  225. @Anonymous

    Using politics to determine the distribution of a good like citizenship is illegitimate.

    That can’t be their rationale — that’s exactly what they’re doing. Moreover, citizenship is inherently and fundamentally political.

    • Agree: kaganovitch
  226. Anonym says:
    @Harry Lynde

    Not just the Jews, the gay Jews, lol.

  227. AndrewR says:
    @Rosie

    Democracy is a sham regardless, but let’s agree to disagree on that.

    The first amendment protects you from the government, not outraged, self-righteous mobs and bullies. It is worth considering, however, the extent to which pro-homo bullies are just acting like the anti-homo bullies who relentlessly bullied homos historically. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If Group A treated Group B poorly in the past then A has no standing to object to B’s bullying of A now that B has the whip hand, unless full reparations have been made. Gays are like abused children. You can’t entirely blame them for killing mom and dad.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  228. @Altai

    I would counter that the people who had never been anything else but Canadians are definitely more Canadian than people born and raised elsewhere, who have a different, non-Canadian baggage.

    But this would be too candid for the Smart People who know it better, of course.

  229. The notion that birth is an ‘accident’ is absurd. If you are a materialist it could not be otherwise. If you are a theist it is in the hands of the Deity. The ‘accident’ argument is just another form of anti-white bigotry.

    • Replies: @Tex
  230. NoName says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    He wrote for The Volokh Conspiracy. Maybe he still does.

  231. @Ibound1

    Strongly agree on this. This guy is just a rhetorician swindling Reason’s readership.
    Unfortunately, sometimes the things these hacks write ends up being taken seriously by policy makers, and then we get screwed.

  232. Hank Yobo says:
    @syonredux

    It is too simplistic to make a blanket statement that the Crown “allowed Tories” to keep their slaves. Blacks were given land grants in what became Upper Canada as early as 1784 and the process to begin abolition was undertaken by the first Upper Canadian legislature in the early 1790s. The slave presence in British North America after the American Revolution, while minimal, was often the result of Rebel owners who refused to repay honest pre-war debts to “Tories.” Instead, creditors in Canada were instructed by former owners to recover slaves captured by British forces or their Amerindian allies as debt repayment. A precursor to NAFTA?

    • Replies: @syonredux
  233. eah says:

    The Jews have this shit covered:

    Holocaust survivors’ grandchildren call for action over inherited trauma

    Never Ever Again! wants to move from what it calls “melancholic memorialisation” to “positive action”, and is calling for mental health provision to treat inherited trauma, as well as campaigning on various issues, including increased surveillance of fascist groups across Europe, supporting the Human Rights Act and challenging anti-immigration legislation.

    So to avoid being ‘holocausted’ again, the Jews got and get to keep their own country — but not you Whitey — dumb goyim.

  234. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Remember this one? I probably saw it 5,000 times when I was a kid.

    “Grandpa, yesterday Jimmy said I was…prej-u-diced.”

  235. Old Jew says:
    @syonredux

    English Transliteration: “Kto Kavo”

    • Replies: @Jack D
  236. Rosie says:
    @AndrewR

    The first amendment protects you from the government, not outraged, self-righteous mobs and bullies.

    What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. You conclude, based on Ireland’s vote for SSM, that the same would have happened here, without taking into consideration that the First Amendment provides for a more robust debate than is possible in European countries that have no such protection. Now puleez do not lecture me about the legalities of the First Amendment.

    If Group A treated Group B poorly in the past then A has no standing to object to B’s bullying of A now that B has the whip hand, unless full reparations have been made.

    I didn’t know SS had any SJW readers. I completely reject your morally bankrupt assertion that an individual’s basic civil rights are contingent upon whether or not their ancestors’ conduct was above reproach.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  237. herp derp says:

    next it will be, why should people prefer their own children and help them, showing irrational preference, when they should instead, help and assist any random children who cross their path.

    oh wait, some leftists in the democrat party actually already believe a version of this. your kids don’t belong to you, or some version of that, is what they said.

  238. @NoName

    Thank you, NoName. I could even remember the color scheme of the web-site, but the name wouldn’t come to me. Have a good evening.

  239. Anonymous[344] • Disclaimer says:

    What’s disconcerting to me, is less that there are these idiots running around saying,”give up what you work for; give up what your ancestors worked to build; don’t have any kids, or, if you do, don’t give them anything…”; there will always be a nut here and there.

    What’s more troublesome is that there are some people who actually heed this “wisdom”. At least the silver lining is that it is more likely to be the leftwingnut true believers who fall for it.

  240. @Redman

    They’ll be voting conservative in no time flat when shit gets real.

    If the shit has really gotten real, then they won’t be voting at all. That’s part of the definition of “shit getting real” – life is back to basics, and human nature will be respected again. This of course, comes after Peak Stupidity.

  241. Anon[680] • Disclaimer says:
    @AndrewR

    …there are strong arguments against SSM that don’t involve fairy tales or mindless disgust.

    Such as? (Serious question.)

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  242. Jack D says:
    @Old Jew

    Nope. The last consonant is Ge (Г) which is pronounced like the g in “go” in Russian.

  243. anon[118] • Disclaimer says:

    We need to make it so that in order for a new immigrant to be granted citizenship, an existing citizen must willingly give up his. Let’s see how many of these libtards step forward to give up their citizenship for their beloved immigrants.

  244. @Cagey Beast

    I kinda wonder if the Soviets weren’t laughing up their sleeves at having been “forced” to give up and let their Refusniks emigrate. Maybe that was where Fidel Castro got the idea of dumping the criminals out of his jails, and sending them off to vex his tormentors in America via the Mariel Boatlift. “Let our verminous social parasites become your verminous social parasites, Yanqui scum; we will use your sanctimony as our weapon against you”.

    • Agree: Cagey Beast
  245. Mr. Anon says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Read the article before you embarrass us all again.

    You are not part of any us that I recognize.

  246. AndrewR says:
    @Rosie

    Lol methinks the lady doth protest too much.

    I am not an “SJW” and I fancy myself less of an ideologue than most politically-minded people, the vast majority of whom are highly prone to groupthink and conformity. Clearly this site is no different, given the countless personal attacks to which I’m routinely subjected in retaliation for having the audacity to express a sincere, civil opinion. But your juvenile insults don’t faze me.

    Gay-bashing isn’t exactly slavery. It isn’t something your “ancestors” did. It’s something your cousins did, your siblings probably did, you probably did, and your kids probably did. Did and/or do. It still goes on today. My point is that the appalling pettiness and spite with which many homos act today is the unambiguously direct and utterly predictable consequence of the treatment those very same individuals got during their own lives. If pointing this obviousness out makes me an “SJW” then that term is meaningless.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Daniel Chieh
  247. CPK says:
    @Svigor

    I.e., he’s either not smart, or not just about the ideas.

    Smart people can have dumb ideas (and often do). He’s got the same blind spot that a lot of libertarians have regarding immigration and nationality: people are fungible and culture and kinship don’t even register as variables, so borders are just arbitrary government limits on people’s freedom.

    While I think he’s obviously wrong to see borders that way, I cut him some slack because his underlying instinct is sound: we should reject arbitrary government limits on people’s freedom. He’s just wrong about this being one of them.

    • Replies: @Jorge Soros
  248. surly says:
    @International Jew

    Hey everyone! It’s that one moronic insinuation. You know, the one you’re sick of. But you probably weren’t paying attention, and a thought crept into your head… you started wondering “what if Sailer is a strange combination of mentally defective and morally repugnant?”

  249. bartok says:
    @Charles Pewitt

    Ilya Somin, Max Boot, Masha Green and Julia Ioff are made of the same stuff as the Jew Bolsheviks who killed 60 million European Christians in the Soviet Union.

    Whoa, dude, calm down, you’re making wild accusations without evidence.

    The relevant evidence: What were the occupations, nighttime hobbies, political causes and the public service, military, paramilitary, pro-government militia, intelligence, secret police, financial/charitable activities of every one of the ancestors and family members of Somin, Boot, Gessen, Ioffe and Young from 1918 to 1957? And for that matter, from 1888 to 1988?

    I just can’t let you get away with wild accusations. I need evidence.

    • Replies: @Jorge Soros
  250. @22pp22

    Russia is lucky to be shut of him. Something tells me he isn’t advocating open borders for Israel.

    I guess according to the others here he very much supports open borders for Israel. The difference is that the Israelis aren’t stupid enough to listen to him, nor is he even addressing himself to them, Reason being more of an American thing.

    Americans, OTOH, might just be that stupid…

  251. @bartok

    The relevant evidence: What were the occupations, nighttime hobbies, political causes and the public service, military, paramilitary, pro-government militia, intelligence, secret police, financial/charitable activities of every one of the ancestors and family members of Somin, Boot, Gessen, Ioffe and Young from 1918 to 1957? And for that matter, from 1888 to 1988?

    Why don’t you know that the sins of all Jewish or non-white immigrants have been washed away with the very act of immigration?

    Somin is innocent of the sins of his parents and grandparents in Russia. He’s innocent of the masacres of the Communist state

    However you and I, as Americans, are guilty of every last damn crime committed in America all the way back to Columbus, whether it was committed by our ancestors or not, even if (as in the case of one whose ancestors all fought for the Union) our ancestors actually fought against said crimes, we’re still guilty of the crimes they fought against.

    Somin’s great-grandpappy could have been the righthand-man to Joe Stalin, but nevermind – by immigrating his sins are washed away.

  252. @CPK

    we should reject arbitrary government limits on people’s freedom. He’s just wrong about this being one of them.

    Apparently Somin is a huge opponent of the use of eminent domain. Clearly he understands the right to private property. Perhaps if he understood that a country is merely a form of property (extremely valuable property), and that its citizens are its owners and simply went from there.

    It’s not a hard concept to understand.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @CPK
    , @ben tillman
  253. Rosie says:
    @AndrewR

    I am not an “SJW” and I fancy myself less of an ideologue than most politically-minded people, the vast majority of whom are highly prone to groupthink and conformity. Clearly this site is no different, given the countless personal attacks to which I’m routinely subjected in retaliation for having the audacity to express a sincere, civil opinion. But your juvenile insults don’t faze me.

    Your opinion may have been sincere, but civil it certainly was not.

    My point is that the appalling pettiness and spite with which many homos act today is the unambiguously direct and utterly predictable consequence of the treatment those very same individuals got during their own lives. If pointing this obviousness out makes me an “SJW” then that term is meaningless.

    Your exact words were that straight people have no “standing” to complain about mistreatment by homos. That is what SJWs say about White South Africans, though they’re not so crass as to come right out and say it in so many words.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  254. It’s worth taking a gander at the comments at Reason. Reason is the leading libertarian rag of our day, but not one comment in five supports Somin’s premise, and most of those that do are by just two authors.

    Fewer and fewer people, even libertarians, are buying into this open borders bullshit. Fewer and fewer people give a rat’s ass about being called a racist for defending the right of a Western nation to remain, well, Western.

  255. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @nebulafox

    What happened in 1972?

  256. 22pp22 says:
    @Tyrion 2

    You’re right. I should have read the linked article rather than assuming it was like a dozen others I actually have bothered to read.

    Also, unlike a lot of other people on Unz, I was very philosemitic until quite recently. Then I read one t0o many NYT op-eds.

    I would actually far rather have the highest-IQ ethnic group in the world on our side. It just appears they don’t want to be.

  257. @Anonymous

    This isn’t correct. Foreign workers were a little over half of 1% of East Germany’s population, with about half of those coming from Vietnam. Most of those workers were trainees who were brought temporarily and then eventually sent back to develop their local economies.

    This occurred in a totalitarian state that could’ve easily flooded in as many workers as it would’ve liked.

  258. @Svigor

    There’s some element of that, but immigration is mostly driven by oligarchs who want workers and consumers. It’s economic.

  259. @Old Palo Altan

    No, Europe is no where near its end, anymore than any other civilization. It is undergoing a particular period of crisis of confidence in itself, a period of severe demographic pressures and invasions. Other civilizations have undergone such periods (such as China in 19th century) and came out stronger. There is no reason to expect, conditional on the non-replacement of population, that Europe cannot rediscover itself and be reborn.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  260. AndrewR says:
    @Rosie

    Lol you think “civil” means “Rosie agrees with it”

    Perhaps my phrasing was bad. Obviously people have the right to object to and fight against the militant homosexual agenda. But it’s definitely worth reflecting on how much of the pettiness and bullying that some homos/SJWs do is a direct result of the same treatment they got at the hands of anti-homo bullies in the past

    • Replies: @JSM
    , @Anon
    , @Mr. Rational
  261. AndrewR says:
    @Anon

    Given your Anon status I’m not sure if you’d even read any response I wrote so I’ll be brief. In no particular order: children do best with a mother and a father; SSM means fewer children born; SSM puts deviant, nonreproductive units on par with heterosexual unions

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Anon
  262. vinteuil says:
    @Tyrion 2

    Moral dogmatism and nihilism feed off each other.

    Totally agreed. Treating everybody equally? A beautiful ideal – up to a point. But if that ideal means caring no more for your own children than for strangers you will never meet, it’s madness. And pushing that ideal to that extreme can only lead to moral skepticism.

  263. @Anonymous

    This is that Kantean universalism that Westerners are so taken with.

    First, Kantian “universalism” isn’t really a thing.

    It’s “universalizability”. A right to aggression is not universalizable, nor is a duty to treat outsiders better than insiders. Neither is universalizability.

    Our problem is an inversion of the immune system. Hostile outsiders have re-programmed our immune system to discriminate against self and in favor of non-self.

    A tendency to expand the boundary of the ingroup because of the benefits expansion can bring to the ingroup is a characteristic, with costs and benefits that make the characteristic adaptive or non-adaptive depending on the circumstances. An inverted immune system is a disease, and it results from outside influence.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  264. First, Kantian “universalism” isn’t really a thing.

    It’s “universalizability”. A right to aggression is not universalizable, nor is a duty to treat outsiders better than insiders. Neither is universalizability.

    Sorry — that should read:

    It’s “universalizability”. A right to aggression is not universalizable, nor is a duty to treat outsiders better than insiders. Each produces “rights” that are in conflict with “obligations”.

  265. Anonymous[600] • Disclaimer says:

    And here is Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute showing a similar sentiment.

    As an immigrant, he’s more American than you are!

    He will fight you “fascists”. Starts at 1 hour and 22 minute mark.

  266. vinteuil says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Putin…will leave Russia weaker than when he found it.

    Wow, PA – you’re quite the wild & crazy guy!

  267. Overlooked in all the New Bolsheviks’ recent attacks on inheritance (whether of money or of citizenship) is the right of the bequester to dispose of what is his as he sees fit. If I may not leave my money to my children, for example, then my money isn’t mine.

    The meaning of the new Bolshevik attacks can be readily seen if one applies their principle to, say, the spending of one’s money in a store. Here’s how a New Bolshie (writing for Cato) might make his pitch:

    “It can probably be statistically proved that McDonalds receives more food purchases and therefore more money than local food co-ops do. So McDonalds has it easy by comparison. McDonalds is almost guaranteed billions of sales because it has truly massive advantages (worldwide name recognition, etc.). Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonalds, may have worked hard and earned what he got. But did everyone who was subsequently associated with McDonalds do what he did? No. They started with advantages which they had not earned. The local food co-ops, by comparison, are doomed to grinding effort and tight economy. But no matter how hard they work, their owners will never get as far as McDonalds. Isn’t this unfair? Isn’t it anti-meritocratic? Shouldn’t customers of both kinds of store — McDonalds and food co-ops — and really all people everywhere, be required to put all their money in an impartial trust, which shall distribute it according to pro-American, meritocratic principles of hard work? (A trust which I, the Bolshevik, shall control, and standards which I, the Bolshevik, will set.) Is that not a proposal for a purer, more consistent Americanism, which says that everybody should have an equal chance unconditioned by the dead hand of mere privilege and prior circumstance? Did not our Founding Fathers intend,” etc.

    Jewish and gypsy upstarts are always trying to get our property away from us, appealing perennially to “human rights,” “social justice,” “liberty, equality, fraternity,” and just lately words like “merit,” “equal chance,” “hard work,” anything that their mark will be a knee-jerk sucker for. Don’t want to give everything away for “equality”? Okay, then, how about for “meritocracy”? Would that suit you any better, dumb goy?

    Let us hang on to our wallets, gentlemen.

  268. Anon7 says:

    Yes, yes, by all means, we must do away with citizenship privilege. Open Borders now!

    However, the real aristocracy in a meritocratic society is genetic. What good is it to get rid of citizenship when we selfishly retain superior genes. Open Legs now!

  269. Ian M. says:

    It’s hard to argue with Somin’s logic here if one agrees with the logic that the founders used to abolish the hereditary aristocracy.

    That’s the logic of liberalism: freedom from unchosen, pre-rational constraints. The founders applied it to the hereditary aristocracy; their ideological descendants push the logic further and apply it to biological sex and citizenship.

    The lesson here is that it was a mistake ever to have abolished the hereditary aristocracy.

  270. @AndrewR

    But the participants in call-out culture aren’t the gays who presumably suffered from bashing: its mostly goodthink slacktivists(usually women) who are pick a simple position of “love trumps all” and find common cause in self-expression values. Fundamentally, its just a religious drive(or status signaling, if you wish) with modifications.

    I don’t see as an action-reaction; given some modifications, they would be protesting against nuclear plants, child slavery, teenage pregnancy, or whatever the cause celebre of the day might be. Even the SJWs, I would say, are born: they are true believers by nature, they only are waiting for a cause to devote themselves to.

  271. Ian M. says:
    @Anonym

    I thought you were talking about Tucker Carlson at first (whom I also think has a rather punchable face).

  272. CPK says:
    @Jorge Soros

    Perhaps if he understood that a country is merely a form of property (extremely valuable property), and that its citizens are its owners and simply went from there.

    While I can’t speak for him, I’m not crazy about the idea that citizens have a collective property right over the country, and that government policy is them exercising this property right. If that were true then all government takings would be proper, since The People have superior title to “your” property.

    Perhaps a closer analogy would be fiat money. Some people are born into poor families. We could do away with this “class lottery” by printing money and handing it to them, and/or by decriminalizing counterfeiting. But that would obviously (1) destroy the value of money and (2) create perverse incentives. So it is with citizenship and borders.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  273. JSM says:
    @AndrewR

    But it’s definitely worth reflecting on how much of the pettiness and bullying that some homos/SJWs do is a direct result of the same treatment they got at the hands of anti-homo bullies in the past

    Maybe what you say is true, the homos think they’re just giving tit-for-tat. But they’re NOT.

    Homos are not just “hurting back the people who hurt them.” They are hurting innocent people who NEVER teased them, because they’ve only just shown up: the next generation of children, both the ones they adopt and other people’s kids exposed to their antics.

    Truth is, fact is, children who are not gay do best growing up in the home of their married bioparents.

    Gay marriage hurts the children forced to live with the gay couple. Hurts them in a couple ways: The kid is gonna get the same ridiculing treatment the parents got when young and that’s not fair to the kid. Good parents protect their kids from the evils they endured, not deliberately expose them to it for their own gratification. So for flamers to adopt kids knowing full well that kid’s gonna get teased for having Two Daddies or Two Mommies, is just evil.

    Gay marriage also hurts the adopted (or turkeybaster-conceived) kids, who are likely heterosexual themselves, by not providing them a role model of heterosexual marriage. What does healthy heterosexual, normally-reproducing marriage look like? How could that kid know? He’ll have never seen it. Gay couples are statistically MUCH more likely to engage in abuse of the spouse. This ain’t cool to grow up around. Before you pop off that hets also fight, sure, but adding on the gay part doesn’t mitigating the adults fighting, it makes it worse!

    And, flamers in public hurt the rest of society’s kids. Google Folsom Street Fair, if you dare, for a nauseating look at what San Fran thinks is cool to show kiddoes.
    Folsom Street Fair. We gave the homos their emanicipation. Look what they did with it!

    Back to the closet, please. Don’t ask don’t tell is as good as a homo deserves.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Tex
  274. Jack D says:
    @Peter Akuleyev

    People would rather have a fake nationalist than a real globalist. A fake nationalist at least pretends to care about his own people. Globalists don’t even bother to hide their contempt nowadays.

  275. Jack D says:
    @mobi

    So, “the taint is in the blood”? I think I’ve seen this movie before and I didn’t like the ending the last time.

  276. LG5 says:

    Steve Sailer,
    OT article to review. Import of gulag owner, guard, prisoner (except rare bird like author) mentality all leads to the same end, trouble for EU and for USA.

    https://www.isegoria.net/2018/07/forty-five-things-learned-in-the-gulag/

  277. @Peter Akuleyev

    Russia is basically a giant gas station.

    Bullshit.

    I agree that Putin is no angel but he’s fairly nationalistic within realistic constraints. Life is definitely better than Yelsin-era.

  278. Sideways says:
    @NoName

    Yes, that’s where this is from. They’re just hosted by reason now

  279. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @AnotherDad

    You inherited voting shares in your country. The executive is chosen by you and other shareholders to look out for your collective interests.

    Currently, the executive have decided to dilute your share in order to increase the percentage of shares held by those sympathetic to them.

    This is gross mismanagement made even worse by the fact you only hold your shareholding in trust for future generations.

  280. Anon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @AndrewR

    Lol you think

    Definitely the way to prove one’s high standard of civility.

  281. the sacredness of inherited property

    Well, now, the left is strongly against the concept of inherited wealth. That’s why they’re so much in favor of things like estate taxes and inheritance taxes. Left wing ideology is completely opposed to any kind of private property rights.

    • Replies: @njguy73
  282. @Jorge Soros

    Apparently Somin is a huge opponent of the use of eminent domain. Clearly he understands the right to private property. Perhaps if he understood that a country is merely a form of property (extremely valuable property), and that its citizens are its owners and simply went from there.

    It’s not a hard concept to understand.

    No, it’s not.

  283. @CPK

    While I can’t speak for him, I’m not crazy about the idea that citizens have a collective property right over the country, and that government policy is them exercising this property right.

    No one has espoused the idea that you’re not crazy about. Citizens own the country, and the government often usurps citizens’ ownership rights and acts country to the wishes of citizens.

  284. Anonym says:
    @Scipio Africanuz

    By the same argument, the cow is unlucky to be born a cow, and therefore we should transfer all our assets to cows. And gnats I guess.

  285. @AndrewR

    Where in any of the “equal rights” laws or initiatives were there any “right to payback” provisions?  (Nowhere, that’s where; none would ever have gotten through had there been.)

    Frankly, anyone who’s ever asserted “justice for Trayvon” (or Matthew Shepherd, or anyone else) while attacking someone completely uninvolved should not only be prosecuted for a hate crime, they should lose the protection of every civil-rights law ever passed.  They’ve proven themselves unworthy.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @AndrewR
  286. @Rob McX

    Open borders isn’t Communism.

    In a sense, it’s ultra-communism. Under communism, having everyone else share the fruits of your labour was on a personal scale and within the bounds of your own country. An open borders system would globalise this phenomenon. Not just individuals but whole nations would have to surrender the capital they accumulated over centuries to invaders from other countries who aren’t genetically equipped to create their own.

    Very well said, Rob McX thanks.

    There is no doubt that there is a cheap-labor swilling “greedy capitalist” problem that’s a big part of this. But these folks in denial about the people who demand this, keep pushing it–like these sons\daughters of Trotsky, that Steve’s post is on–are ridiculous. For the left it’s the ultimate restribution–taking from the “haves” and giving to the “have nots”, with the bonus of letting their ethnic resentments loose on a global scale.

    Despite the fact that there is an old–on its deathbed–nationalist left, that prizes workers’ welfare within their own nations–overall mass immigration/open-borders, really is an old-style left-right battle. The radicals, the liberals, the greedy damn-the-future capitalist, the financiers, the bureaucrats, the super-state all on one side and normal people concerned about conserving family, community, their traditions, religion, language and culture–their nation–on the other.

    This is really a classic left-right battle. With

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  287. @njguy73

    Why am I not allowed to sell my U.S. citizenship to the highest bidder and have my legal status changed to resident alien?

    It’s a darn good question.

    I’ve also pointed out in response to Caplan, that a transferrable(saleable) citizenship right, is actually what the true autistic, race+culture denying, libertarian would argue for. “Hey, it’s a good, it should be for sale.”

    Again, it’s the sort of question that gives the game away. Caplan and this Ilya Somin putz and the others do not argue for transferrability of this right.

    Why not? Simple, because that’s an acknowledgement that the citizenship right exists, has value. And they do not want people thinking that … because they are viscerally hostile to the nation, to these feelings of place, tradition, continuity and ownership associated with a nation.

  288. Rosie says:
    @Mr. Rational

    Where in any of the “equal rights” laws or initiatives were there any “right to payback” provisions? (Nowhere, that’s where; none would ever have gotten through had there been.)

    Bait & switch.

  289. njguy73 says:

    Simple, because that’s an acknowledgement that the citizenship right exists, has value. And they do not want people thinking that … because they are viscerally hostile to the nation, to these feelings of place, tradition, continuity and ownership associated with a nation.

    AnotherDad, you have given me a satisfactory answer.

    People do not want their citizenship in a nation to be perceived as just another commodity to be bought and sold. People have emotional connections to the communities and societies where they were born and raised.

    I didn’t ask to be born in New Jersey any more than some dirt-cake eater chose to be born in Haiti. I wasn’t given a list a countries at birth and asked to pick which one I’d do best in. No one was. I say, let the Haitian hate his life in Haiti so much that he has a burning desire to tear that nation down and rebuild it.

    The reason our elites want foreigners to pour into America is because it’s our elites who, through their folly, made those foreign countries not fit for humans to live. I don’t need to provide a catalog of U.S.-led interventions which left not just Haiti, but dozens of other nations, ravaged. If the Caplans and Somins truly cared about the rest of the world, they’d adapt a five-word policy:

    Leave. It. The. Fuck. Alone.

  290. njguy73 says:
    @Labatt Blu

    Left wing ideology is completely opposed to any kind of private property rights.

    Try strolling into one of their gated communities.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
  291. AndrewR says:
    @Mr. Rational

    They never wanted equality… Only revenge

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  292. @AnotherDad

    With what?

    Anyway, I got lots of disagreement from commenters here for saying that the open borders idea is Socialism writ large. In my comment here,, under a James Kirkpatrick post:

    “[A] clear majority of those of you who have pitched in do not believe that people should be free to choose where they live without any constraints”

    is my example. “Free to choose” said this way shows a total lack of understanding and/or regard for the fundamental concept of property rights.

    Libertarians get called names on here for pointing out that the Socialists have this fundamental misunderstanding of human nature that should have been learned during the kindergarten years*:

    Hey, it eventually comes down to the same thing. People who think that life would be fair if we all forcibly share our stuff will come around trying to make us all forcibly share our stuff. This is why the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

    Here’s what I, and I’m sure most other kids ran into during the years around kindergarten, 3 – 6 y/o or so: There are people, parents, adult relatives and teachers, telling you to share your stuff. “It’s nice to share.” they all said. That seemed fine. Then, at some point you just wanted to be left alone to play with your own toys some of the time, ones you had spent your hard-earned bread on waited for eternity for Christmas or your birthday for. If you were a smart kid, most of the toys that you got after you quit being so rough on them, say at 4 y/o, were in OK shape. Well, so long as they hadn’t broken on their own just due to being Cheap China-made Crap yet, that is. (That wasn’t a problem back in my day!)

    What’s more, lots of the other kids didn’t take care of their stuff. They lost pieces and broke stuff indiscriminately. That’s why they didn’t have their own vehicles ready to go in the dirt. “Share your dump truck and backhoe with the other boys.”, you were told. Yet here you were with all your stuff that you sweated out waiting on all that time: Was Santa gonna get stuck in the chimney? Would his elves strike on him on Black Friday as your parents used as an excuse a coupla years back? Would your birthday EVER come at all, as the dates seemed to be approaching your birth date asymptotically? Why should you HAVE to share? Those kids might break your stuff as they did your own.

    Even back then, these ideas would come, though the words to describe them were those big ones you couldn’t spell yet. A kindergartner understands the problems with Socialism’s disregard for human nature’s ideas on property, just as adults should. It takes 12-20 years of schooling to override this understanding, usually the longer the more effective. How long does it take to get back to the truth you knew in kindergarten?

    Now, this latest stupidity is simply Socialism taken up a notch. They are not talking about you just giving up a major part of your property and labor to support the slackers. Now, your whole country must be shared with those who may not have taken care of their countries so well. It’s the same concept – Socialism. They’ve just expanded the program a bit – why the confusion?

    Remember, says BIG GLOBALISM “It’s NICE to share! In fact, we insist, SHARE your country with those other little boys, or we’ll take your Lego set country and give it to Sally Strothers to distribute to those poor toyless countryless kids in Africa!”

    * Yes, “years”, plural – as not all of us experienced such an easy program. I was in a challenging Tiger Mother environment.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  293. Anonymous[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @julius caesar

    Not true.

    Just look at the worthless trash which runs the EU.

    Consider the *FACT* of government by Economist magazine.

  294. Anon[680] • Disclaimer says:
    @AndrewR

    1. I agree, but has it been proven yet?
    2a. To some, that’s a feature, not a bug.
    2b. Surely a negligible effect, since open homosexuality is now legally and socially acceptable.
    3. Isn’t that just disgust?

    I’m not a troll or an SJW, FYI. I’ve just long been interested in how one might argue against SSM without relying on religion or disgust.

    (The only one I could come up with: it upsets the religious and the disgusted, and we’ve all got to live together, so their feelings matter. But that’s pretty weak.)

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  295. AndrewR says:
    @Anon

    1) I am not passionate enough about this topic to have studied the relevant studies, or to bother doing so now. I wouldn’t be surprised if none have even been done. Even today, only a relatively small number of people have been raised with same-sex parents. I certainly don’t know any.

    2) true on both counts

    3) I don’t think so. The nuclear family, headed by a father and mother, have been the bedrock of our society for centuries. You don’t have to find homosexuality disgusting to recognize it’s not equal to heterosexuality. I imagine many non-heterosexual people would agree.

    But yes, strong arguments not relying on religion/disgust can be very helpful, although perhaps not always sufficient.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  296. Rosie says:

    The only one I could come up with: it upsets the religious and the disgusted, and we’ve all got to live together, so their feelings matter. But that’s pretty weak.

    Public health.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Anonymous
  297. Anon[680] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    What, cos gays have AIDS etc? Why should the actions of a few – even a majority – of gays condemn Mr. Upright and Mr. Responsible, both of whom wear condoms, practise extra-marital chastity, etc, to live without marrying and adopting kids? We don’t ban slutty heterosexuals full of STDs from marrying.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  298. Rosie says:
    @Anon

    What, cos gays have AIDS etc? Why should the actions of a few – even a majority – of gays condemn Mr. Upright and Mr. Responsible, both of whom wear condoms, practise extra-marital chastity, etc, to live without marrying and adopting kids? We don’t ban slutty heterosexuals full of STDs from marrying.

    I don’t agree with your premise that marriage is some sort of right that cannot be denied without due process. Marriage has never been that and cannot be that. The whole point of marriage is to privilege the heterosexual union that renews a nation. It is an honor bestowed by a society on that relationship and only that relationship. If you extend that recognition to same-sex unions, you have undermined its very reason for being.

    And yes, it’s unhealthy. AIDS is under control for now, but there will be another epidemic, and it will be everyone else’s responsibility to find a cure, whatever the cost.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Jim Don Bob
  299. Anon[680] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    (Understand that I’m not interested in making a case here, I’m just discussing the quality of the arguments.)

    I don’t agree with your premise that marriage is some sort of right that cannot be denied without due process.

    Very well, but this argument – marriage is a privilege, not a right – was unpersuasive, wasn’t it? To most people, it just seems like semantics, and it’s easily countered by appeals to equality and privacy.

    The whole point of marriage is to privilege the heterosexual union that renews a nation. It is an honor bestowed by a society on that relationship and only that relationship. If you extend that recognition to same-sex unions, you have undermined its very reason for being.

    And this argument was unpersuasive too: after decades of easy divorce, too few people think of marriage in that way, if they think about it at all. It’s hard to convince people of the priviledged position of marriage when their experience is that it’s something that can entered into and out of casually.

    The other facet of this argument is that it’s tradition, and one should respect tradition, but this too is no longer persuasive, and easy to counter: “it used to be traditional to beat your wife/enslave blacks/etc, etc”. Never mind whether you think that’s true or fair, it’s persuasive. Our whole modern way of thinking is all about jettisoning tradition to make things better: tradition is a bad thing to a lot of people.

    Your mentioning of a future AIDS outbreak hints at the only other secular, rational argument against gay marriage, which is that it’s dyscivilizational. (Is that the word?) Sure, perhaps individual gay couples might make good parents and cause no trouble, but if we concede the principle, we will get more gay marriage, and more degeneracy, and 100 years from now society will collapse. (I exaggerate to make the point.)

    But this is unpersuasive as well. I’ll quote myself:

    Why should the actions of a few… condemn Mr. Upright and Mr. Responsible, both of whom wear condoms, practise extra-marital chastity, etc, to live without marrying and adopting kids?

    Democracy, we’ve all learned, is about protecting the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Never mind that that doesn’t make sense: that’s what a huge chunk of our society believes. If it’s unfair to let one gay couple not get married because other gay couples are irresponsible or otherwise unfit today, how much more unfair if the unfit couples haven’t even been born yet? It’s the precautionary principle: we have to infringe your rights today because things might be worse off in the future if we don’t.

    It takes a whole hell of a lot of pseudoscientific bamboozling to get people to accept that argument w/r/t global warming, and even there, it isn’t working.

    The broader point is that these are hard cases to make without the backstop of God, and so if people don’t believe in God, then they won’t be persuaded. Sanctity, tradition: the obvious response is simply, “Why?” And what can one respond with, except, “Because!”

  300. @Rosie

    Aids is not an epidemic. It requires blood to blood contact and is very hard to catch. And no, it is no my responsibility to find a cure, whatever the cost, especially since most of it is the result of irresponsible behavior.

  301. Tex says:
    @AnotherDad

    Maybe i was right? Maybe they’ve realized they are pretty much done with mining the sexual deviancy well and need to look elsewhere for pushing destructive insanity? And open borders is it?

    They have already moved to normalizing pedos. IIRC Salon (I don’t want to look it up on this computer) had a series on a “righteous pedophile” who keeps his impulses in check and just wants a reasonable adjustment to the laws that will make it legal to have sex with 8 year-olds.

    There’s more out there (a TED talk from a German woman, if my info is correct) if you have the stomach to look for it. World War P is in its opening stages.

  302. Tex says:
    @Daniel Williams

    Or being born at all, really.

    And what about being intelligent enough to follow this sort of sophistry? Intelligence is a heritable trait. I wonder if this fellow thinks that bright people are part of a hereditary aristocracy, using unearned privilege to exert their will on their less-able fellow men?

    That’s an interesting line of reasoning. I think Somin has basically laid the philosophical groundwork for the social system in Harrison Bergeron.

    http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

  303. QQQ says:

    If we don’t have a moral right to unearned inheritances like hereditary citizenship, then what moral right do we have to other unearned inheritances, such as our inherited natural gifts and talents?

    I mean, Ilya Somin is naturally smart and all that, but what exactly did he do to deserve those intellectual gifts? And why should he get a well-paid job in large part because he inherited a high IQ?

  304. Tex says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    The notion that birth is an ‘accident’ is absurd.

    Both my parents were white Americans, and I am too. Funny how coincidences like that occur.

    I am INTENTIONALLY Texan though.

  305. Tex says:
    @JSM

    Moira Greyland Peat, author of The Last Closet, got a first hand view of how homosexuals used abuse (sexual, emotional, and physical) to coerce their children (and others) into becoming homosexual.

    I’m not sure that’s the whole story of how a person becomes homosexual (my knowledge is limited), but it appears that a not insignificant portion of the LGBT, etc, etc, population is that way because of childhood abuse.

  306. Anon[229] • Disclaimer says:

    Nothing is more neo-aristocratic than globalism.

    The rich, privileged, and most-educated have the most connections and opportunities.

    The hoi polloi get little in contrast.

    With nationalism, the average person still has his nation. With globalism people lose even that.

    Nationalism is far more egalitarian than globalism. Nationalism means all people of the nation own the nation.

    Globalism means the elites gain the world while the people lose their nations.

  307. Anon[229] • Disclaimer says:

    Somin is a Kochroach

  308. syonredux says:
    @Hank Yobo

    It is too simplistic to make a blanket statement that the Crown “allowed Tories” to keep their slaves. Blacks were given land grants in what became Upper Canada as early as 1784 and the process to begin abolition was undertaken by the first Upper Canadian legislature in the early 1790s.

    Even earlier in the nascent USA: Vermont (1777), Pennsylvania (1780), Massachusetts (1783), etc.

  309. Anonymous[274] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Public health.

    This is an argument against sodomy, not homosexuality per se. And there are many more heterosexual sodomites than homosexual ones.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.