The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Would You Rather be Ruled by the People or the Experts?"
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Oddly uncrowded Malibu

At Marginal Revolution, Tyler Cowen writes:

Would you rather be ruled by the people or the experts?

by Tyler Cowen on January 13, 2017 at 9:54 am in Current Affairs, Economics, Law, Philosophy, Political Science | Permalink

In my latest Bloomberg column I consider William F. Buckley’s old conundrum:

William F. Buckley famously said he would rather be ruled by the first 2,000 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than by the faculty of Harvard University.

Here is part of my take:

For better or worse, direct rule by Buckley’s 2,000 American citizens probably would mean a slower pace of immigration, less emphasis on free trade, more law and order politics, and a blunter form of nationalism in foreign policy.

Those don’t match my policy preferences (I am more of a globalist, and also a professional academic), but I fear what the Harvard faculty could bring. I can imagine an America closer to Bernie Sanders’s vision, with single-payer health insurance, levels of taxation exceeding 50 percent of GDP, levels of immigration unsustainable with a large welfare state, too many aggressive attempts to legislate equal treatment for various groups, excessive fondness for a universal basic income, and too many humanitarian interventions abroad.

Only 13,000 for 27 miles of beach?

One interesting conundrum is that the Harvard higher-ups haven’t been all that enthusiastic about admitting more undergraduates. While Harvard professors may support mass immigration for you and me, they haven’t done much to support dropping the average SAT of freshmen by 20 points in order to confer the Harvard brand upon more people.

Similarly, having grown up on the wrong side of the hills from Beverly Hills and Malibu, I haven’t noticed that the voters of Beverly Hills and Malibu are hugely enthusiastic about letting in more newcomers. Of course, residence in Beverly Hills and Malibu aren’t just tests of IQ: good looks and animal cunning play a role, too.

So, I was trying to think of a high IQ municipality and I came up with Evanston, IL, home of Northwestern U., which I used to live a few miles south of. Evanston is apparently pretty enthusiastic about massive immigration into the United States. Evanstonians voted 88% for Hillary.

Yet, is Evanston enthusiastic about mass immigration by, say, fellow Americans, such as, says, Chicagoans?

Nah. Evanston’s population is down roughly 5,000 since 1970.

 
Hide 208 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Tyler is a pretty good example of how the modern college campus is an adult daycare center. Most of what goes on is entirely inconsequential. The persons in the Womyn’s Studies department, for example, could spend all day doing acid and no one would notice or care. There are very few places on campus where the work counts for anything outside the campus or has to comport with nature. In those cases, you see little of the silliness and it is usually attached to some private sector venture or the military.

    As a result, most everyone on campus are free to indulge in make believe. It’s an interesting study in what happens to people when they no longer have responsibilities. In the Godfather, Don Corleone says, “I spent my whole life trying not to be careless. Women and children can afford to be careless, but not men.” There are no men on campus. Everyone can afford to be careless because they are insulated from reality. The money keeps flowing no matter what they do so they are free to do what they like.

    Another interesting aspect here is Cowen, Pinker and Murray and others have lately been making a big show of the fact they are not on board with the Resistance. Pinker increasingly sounds like he is about to go Bruce Jenner on us. Murray sounds like a sneering snob hanging out on John Forbes Kerry’s yacht. I suspect some version of the Committee for Public Safety is popping up on our campuses to root out enemies of Progressive virtue. That means everyone with a penis better remove all doubt.

    • Replies: @SFG
    The persons in the Womyn’s Studies department, for example, could spend all day doing acid and no one would notice or care.

    The guys who receive the rape charges would care.

    (I otherwise agree)

    , @Olorin

    There are very few places on campus where the work counts for anything outside the campus or has to comport with nature.
     
    Oh, I don't know. Private sector industry depends heavily on the men who deliver infrastructure and related services on campuses, which are small cities.

    The private sector can't monetarize their services to their satisfaction for these settings. So they depend on public institutions to underpay workers on campuses to deliver them contracts that they service at bottom dollar (and quality). It's welfare to the private sector and frequently the only way that skilled white men who build good things well can also have family lives and not be ground up and spat out by age 40. Many of them having come from the private sector themselves.


    There are no men on campus.
     
    Like you'd know or they'd out themselves to you.
  2. Hmm, that is not a surprise. My wife did her Econ PhD from there and is a yuge Hillary fan. I have learned not to call her the Hildebeast for the sake of marital harmony.

  3. I met Tyler Cowen, but I can’t remember his face, but I’m sure he has a very punchable face.

    Is Tyler really anti-expert here? It sounds like he just thinks Harvards experts are the wrong one. I sure as shit don’t want to be ruled by the George Mason Econ faculty any more than the Harvard faculty.

    I think rule by random citizens could work well. The legislative body could be selected at random (semi random) on a per decision basis, vote on the decision, and then be dissolved. Next vote, pick a new bunch of congressman for a new 1 issue term. Nobody is in “power” long enough to get corrupt or harden into an elite. We already have the technology for this.

    • Replies: @27 year old
    And yes I am aware there are still many potential problems in the system I described
    , @Desiderius

    I think rule by random citizens could work well.
     
    Moldbug had a thought experiment where he advocated rule by airline pilots (which is now ironic given the late New Yorker cartoon about the election). He made a strong case that it would be an improvement on present arrangements.
    , @Roland
    Sounds a bit like the jury system.
    , @mobi

    I think rule by random citizens could work well. The legislative body could be selected at random (semi random) on a per decision basis, vote on the decision, and then be dissolved. Next vote, pick a new bunch of congressman for a new 1 issue term. Nobody is in “power” long enough to get corrupt or harden into an elite. We already have the technology for this.
     
    I've thought along these lines recently, too. As someone noted - we already do something similar, in the form of jury selection.

    A Citizen's Legislative Council, randomly selected from the same pool as juries. With the same obligation to serve if selected.

    To serve for 12 months. Strong protections against them losing their jobs or damaging their careers. A premium paid over whatever was their income before selection (double?).

    Large enough to capture the general 'everyman' stability (1000 members?)

    It removes political parties. Political parties inherently encourage division, 'us vs them' thinking, and may be driving liberal democracies toward civil war. Ie, multi-party democracies may be inherently unstable, because they harness deep, atavistic tendencies to divide into teams, and defeat 'the other', for the sake of defeating the other.

    Removes the waste and carnival of campaigns.

    Makes it considerably harder to lobby behind the scenes, or to target career politicians for corrupting influence.

    Perhaps with the added flourish of weighting the vote of those chosen for the council, by their contribution to paying the bills, in the form of cumulative taxes paid in their lives to date (as a brake on reckless generosity with 'other people's money. Also as a rough proxy for IQ). A logarithmic weighting scale, to prevent dominance by the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world.

    So many possibilities haven't been tried yet.
    , @Argosy jones

    I think rule by random citizens could work well.
     
    Athenians did it!

    In ancient Athenian democracy, sortition was the traditional and primary method for appointing political officials and its use was regarded as a principal characteristic of democracy.
     

    The Athenians believed sortition to be more democratic than elections and used complex procedures with purpose-built allotment machines (kleroteria) to avoid the corrupt practices used by oligarchs to buy their way into office.
     

    Both Aristotle and Herodotus (one of the earliest writers on democracy) emphasize selection by lot as a test of democracy,
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition#Ancient_Athens


    Ancient writers would characterize our present system of representative democracy as a form of oligarchy. And rightly so.

  4. @27 year old
    I met Tyler Cowen, but I can't remember his face, but I'm sure he has a very punchable face.

    Is Tyler really anti-expert here? It sounds like he just thinks Harvards experts are the wrong one. I sure as shit don't want to be ruled by the George Mason Econ faculty any more than the Harvard faculty.

    I think rule by random citizens could work well. The legislative body could be selected at random (semi random) on a per decision basis, vote on the decision, and then be dissolved. Next vote, pick a new bunch of congressman for a new 1 issue term. Nobody is in "power" long enough to get corrupt or harden into an elite. We already have the technology for this.

    And yes I am aware there are still many potential problems in the system I described

  5. “…and too many humanitarian interventions abroad”

    It astounds me that anyone (even a highly indoctrinated academic) still buys in to such transparent BS as the “humanitarian intervention” crap.

    • Replies: @Not Raul
    I agree.

    "Humanitarian" if the humans are senior executives of defense contractors, mercenary organizations and hedge funds. A few two faced flatterers like Chalibi and leaders of non-existent rebel groups do pretty well, too.
  6. Self-proclaimed “political” experts are just running a long con, thanks to the MSM.

    John Podesta isn’t an expert. His password is [email protected] He’s an idiot.

    Hillary Clinton isn’t an expert. She shook down foreign dictators to the tune of $350 million while in office and destroyed 33,000 government documents after receiving a Congressional subpoena. She’s a crook.

    John McCain wants to start a war with Russia for no apparent reason. Nobody in their right mind would consider him an expert of anything on God’s Green Earth because he’s obviously either senile or insane or a bit of both.

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Jack Highlands
    John McCain’s not exactly insane
    But gird your loins: he’s worse
    He has sold his soul, as our host does post -
    He’s a psychopath chained by a purse.

    But wait there’s more now he’s reached fourscore,
    And his neurons assuredly dwindle.
    As you suggest, his brain should rest,
    Instead, he doubles down on his swindle.

  7. Steve,
    Looks like the residents of Malibu have been busy espousing inclusion in theory but not in practice in terms of actually living there:

    http://www.canyon-news.com/malibu-closes-escrow-open-space-trancas-canyon/60623

    http://www.malibusurfsidenews.com/school/puerco-canyon-remain-open-space

  8. What defines an expert?

    I know my mechanic is an expert, because my car gets fixed. I know a carpenter is an expert because he builds stuff. But the technocrats and economists…how do we know they are experts? By what metric are they measured? It seems to me the only metric used is a scrap of paper from a prestigious university and their proximity to the oligarchy.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Zoo, Years ago I stood with my middle child in front of an abstract painting at Buffalo's world renowned Albright-Knox art gallery. My daughter looked at the painting and asked, "Dad, is that really art?" Before I could reply a nearby woman turned and snapped...."Of course that is art." When I asked how she could be so sure, she replied," Because I studied art." So there you have it. See how easy it is to be an expert.
  9. anon • Disclaimer says:

    wisdom of crowds – which is influenced by “experts” but not exclusively so

    question is how do you translate “the people” into wisdom of crowds?

    democracy is admittedly a pretty poor first attempt whenever the number of citizens exceeds an Athenian size town

    (i.e. when the citizens can all directly debate each other without filtering by interested parties who control the means of mass communication)

    so personally i think a free internet will *eventually* create wisdom of crowds out of billions of individual arguments

    might take a while though

    • Replies: @guest
    Crowds are only wise on certain subjects . On others, they're as stupid as experts. No one knows where one ends and the other begins.
    , @res

    question is how do you translate “the people” into wisdom of crowds?
     
    And how do we avoid it becoming the "wisdom of mobs" instead?
  10. I am starting a new charity that will rehabilitate childhood soldiers of Congo by moving them to San Francsico and placing them in the top public and private school districts.

    With your help, we can reach our goal of resettling 10,000 per year in a place that will enable them the education they have been denied amongst a community willing to help.

    Please donate.

  11. I’d rather be ruled by experts who share my ethnic background, and who aren’t hostile towards me and my interests. Is that too much to ask?

    • Replies: @utu
    "I’d rather be ruled by experts who share my ethnic background, and who aren’t hostile towards me and my interests. Is that too much to ask?"

    You are anti-Semite.
    , @Karl
    11. Oilcan Floyd > I’d rather be ruled by experts who share my ethnic background, and who aren’t hostile towards me and my interests. Is that too much to ask?

    What zionist history teaches me, is that you don't get what you ask for... you get the facts-on-the-ground that you create.

    Show me a kindergarten which teaches children that they were born to build a Pioneering Little Europe - i'll send it a donation. I'm not joking.
  12. I am more of a globalist, and also a professional academic

    IOW, he hates the People.

    • Replies: @map

    IOW, he hates the People.
     
    No, he hates White people.
  13. Interesting question, and I think I would agree with Cowan’s general take that the experts have a tendency to look for gigantic problems to solve and inflict their prescriptions on a public that is not on the same page, with results that tend not to justify the cost.

    Right now it is popular in certain quarters to attribute the opposition Obama faced to racism on the part of the GOP, but that overlooks the fact that Obama immediately dove into trying to impose enormous changes on society. First was the stimulus, with it’s mind-blowing size and laundry list of areas of the economy it was supposed to revive. Then, with the effects of that far from clear he plunged right into healthcare, an effort that no poll (except the Kaiser Family Foundation) ever showed majority public support for. Combine those with his apology tour of the Muslim world and stiff-arming of longtime allies and he signaled that he was determined to follow his vision no matter whether the public was inclined to follow. The GOP recognized that a significant amount of the public was put off by this and successfully ended the short-lived Dem majority in Congress and made huge gains at the state level through redistricting and tying the national Democratic party around the necks of candidates in areas that were much more politically moderate than Obama or his allies in Congress.

    To be fair we can also blame conservative experts for the enormous mistake of invading Iraq, who also decided to take on a huge and transformative project that didn’t turn out at all like they said it would, and both parties have been enthusiastically conducting a massive social and economic experiment with their wholehearted embrace of large scale illegal immigration.

    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    Clear and concise, Arclight. And timely in this final week of the Obama presidency. We made it through.

    One thing that occurs to me in light of Steve's post of Cowen and your comment concerns the factor of time. The 2016 election was in some ways a repudiation of the last 20 to 25 years of "expert" policies. It's apparently taken that long for the popular will to harden against those policies in an effective way. By contrast, as you say, Obama (i.e. Rule of "experts") could work quickly to effect changes. The comparative advantage of the latter over the former must have a lot to do with the leftward ratchet effect the country's experienced over the last couple of generations.
    , @ben tillman

    To be fair we can also blame conservative experts for the enormous mistake of invading Iraq
     
    But they weren't experts.
    , @El Dato

    The GOP recognized that a significant amount of the public was put off by this
     
    Epic retconning there.

    The GOP recognizes nothing and remembers nothing, it's full of well-groomed idiots, monstrous statists and neocons. It's fully onboard with invading the next country for TODITME (the only democracy in the middle east) , fellate Saudi Arabia, kickstart a hard war with Russia or sell out to the slimiest lobbyists alive.

    Hell, they are still wondering why Trump won in spite of all their own efforts to stick the knife in.

    Everything hinges on whether Trump policy will manage to be significantly different from GOP fever dreams.

    , @Jefferson
    "Right now it is popular in certain quarters to attribute the opposition Obama faced to racism on the part of the GOP,"

    Heck the Left calls GOP voters racist for not voting for Crooked Cankles even though she is not even dark by Caucasian standards, let alone dark by People Of Color standards. Richard Nixon looks more ethnic than she does. So if you were of voting age in 1968 or 1972, and you didn't vote for Richard Nixon than you are even more racist than the voters in 2016 who did not stand with her.

    The Left is applying Transracialism to Crooked Cankles.
  14. Derb made a great point about limiting the vote to a certain IQ band, not too low nor too high. The latter being romantics prone to the latest fads.

  15. Why be ruled by anyone? I thought the idea was that US government finds its authority through consent. I do not believe that gels with “ruling” which implies arbitrary decisions over the powerless.

    Perhaps an argument over semantics, idk, but I am disgusted by the notion in Washington that they “rule.”

    • Agree: Old fogey
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Yak, well stated. Here in New York Andrew Cuomo acts and speaks like he is our ruler. Unfortunately his party in deeply embedded in our state.
    , @ben tillman

    Why be ruled by anyone? I thought the idea was that US government finds its authority through consent. I do not believe that gels with “ruling” which implies arbitrary decisions over the powerless.
     
    Indeed. That pretty well sums up Germanic political theory.
  16. Somewhat OT, but still iSteve-ish: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/fbi-raids-liquor-board-officesi-n-prince-georges-county/2017/01/05/4a8fb27c-d35e-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?utm_term=.8fc46be79906#comments

    “Two liquor store owners looking for an advantage with Sunday sales bribed public officials in a scheme that involved money drops in the men’s restroom of a restaurant and bank deposits by an elected official who pulled stacks of cash from his pockets, federal prosecutors said Thursday.

    Four people were charged in federal court in connection with what prosecutors said was a long-running conspiracy that paid off a Maryland state lawmaker and officials with the Prince George’s County liquor board.

    Two people with the liquor board and two business owners in the county are accused of conspiring to influence public officials, and the investigation included undercover FBI agents, wiretaps and an envelope of cash stashed in a car’s glove compartment.

    Among those charged were David Dae Sok Son, 40, the liquor agency’s administrator, and board commissioner Anuj Sud, 39, a College Park lawyer…..”

    Given that it’s PG County, I would have expected names like Washington or Jefferson. But wait, there’s more…

    “Two business owners also were charged Thursday: Young Jung Paig, 62, the owner of Central Avenue Restaurant & Liquor Store and Shin Ja Lee, 55, owner of Palmer Liquor Store.

    After Hogan signed a Sunday sales bill into law in April 2015, prosecutors said Son arranged a lunch with Paig, Lee and the elected official whose help he had sought. During the lunch, prosecutors said Son told the elected official to meet Paig in a men’s bathroom, saying, “He’s going to hook you up, alright?””

    I’d say that the immigrants to PG County are assimilating just fine into the local customs.

  17. Evanston has public housing and the attendant problems.

    A very good corollary would be River Forest. Next to Oak Park but much more prosperous. But no public pool. They have the means but refuse.

    There is River Forest Tennis Club. Private and dry. With a pool. Membership is limited to those who are not a-holes. But it is limited. It drives people who cannot get it craaazy. (The actual cost is low). Every year there are calls to build a public pool. Every year it loses. With Oak Park and Austin so close, why risk it?

    The club is dry but everyone just brings their own booze. Some lockers have no room for clothes, stuffed with bottles and mixers. Not having a liquor license gives government one less lever over you. There is a North shore all men’s club that is dry for the same reason.

  18. The question “Would you rather be ruled by the people or the experts?” forms the very backbone of Plato’s philosophy. Again and again Socrates asks in The Republic whether, in any particular field of endeavor be it horse breeding or navigating a ship, the breeder’s or pilot’s opinion is to be heeded or that of the passengers in steerage. Should we, in the midst of a terrifying tempest, respond to the panicked screams of the passengers or obey the experienced voice of the captain and crew?

    Adrift in a life raft, would we allow the navigator, equipped as he is with knowledge of stars, winds and currents and trained in the proper use of compass and sextant, to guide our course or would we heed the advise of anyone who offers an opinion? Should we take a vote? Should we submit to the person who can back their opinion up with the threat of violence?

    And so Plato rejects the so-called wisdom of the masses and along with that democracy as the best form of government. Invariably, the majority of people know little to nothing about any one thing in particular. Each of us knows one thing fairly well, but each of us is ignorant of most things and should therefore, keep silent.

    This attitude doesn’t sit well with SJWs who find fault with everything around them and fancy themselves capable of reorganizing society so as to optimize outcomes.

    Today’s system is so infinitely complex that it is virtually impossible for any one person–with a few exceptions–to know enough to prescribe any change that could improve things. The parts must be allowed to seek their own level of optimum functioning while establishing an equilibrium with the other parts. Prescribing just how to achieve this is practically impossible. It must be left to work itself out but in doing so, excess is inevitable. Waste seems to be integral to optimization.

    There are experts but no one Expert. So, oligarchy of and by those who know. Aristocracy of knowers, which today means Technocracy.

    • Replies: @guest
    There are no experts in governing. Socrates' (the character) solution, an insane community for the breeding of a ruling philosopher class, was just that: insane. The simplest child could tell you it's a stupid idea, but it is fun to think about.
    , @guest
    Technocracy is the Managerial State, which was the dream of progressivism. See how well that turned out. It could be done both better and worse. But it's a precarious endeavor in any case, with a suicidal downside.

    Take race. (Please.) I think our ruling technocratic class is wrong on the subject, but more to the point, whatever they believe they've jiggered it wrong, simultaneously maintaining race doesn't matter and is the most important thing ever. Which has alienated both the majority population, which holds the keys to civil society upon which successful governance is based, and various minority populations, which are probe to violence.

    Not that there's going to be a race war, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's what the ruling class wants. Of course, if they were trying they'd probably do a much worse job of it.

    , @map
    The problem with Plato's view is that the experts he cites are all people of whom layman have a choice not to engage with. You don't have to ride steerage or get caught in a lifeboat, or fly in a plane, or deal with navigators and horse breeders. The layman controls the engagement and disengagement with these experts. They only factor into the lives of the masses when the masses choose to deal with them.

    Heck, even experts submit to experts by choice, for example, when a pilot chooses to fly on someone else's plane.

    But none of this "spot-transaction" expertise justifies a permanent oligarchy from which one cannot disengage, that is ubiquitous, and that plans to run your life, or control the environment in which you are forced to make decisions.

    So, Plato is wrong and he misunderstands the problem.
    , @ben tillman

    And so Plato rejects the so-called wisdom of the masses and along with that democracy as the best form of government.
     
    Except that democracy isn't rule by "the masses". It's rule by consensus of the "experts" and the "masses".
    , @anon
    Technocracy doesn't mean what you think it does.
    The term originates with the idea, going way back, that technology will eventually make labor redundant.
    The goal of the technocrat is to find ways to employ people, no matter how wasteful or pointless in terms of allocation of resources.
    , @John Pepple
    This is part of the story. The rest is that Plato in the Republic believed he could produce true experts for governing, namely the people who could (at the very least) contemplate the forms. Such people would produce a perfectly just state since they would be able to compare their state to the form of justice.

    Of course, we can't produce true experts in governing who know exactly what justice is. What Plato believes about states if we can't find true experts is found in the Laws, that a state governed by laws (that are hard to change) that is between monarchy and democracy is acceptable.
    , @The Big Red Scary
    There is a quite good and fairly sympathetic biography of Nicholas II (last tsar of Russia) by Dominic Lieven. What I took away from it was that while fifty to a hundred years earlier, it was still possible for an englightened autocrat with good advisors to run an empire, by the beginning of the twentieth century this had become simply impossible, no matter how reasonable and diligent the autocrat and no matter how expert the advisors. The problems had simply become too complex and the system of Russian autocracy was bound to fail. Similarly, I have been wondering more and more if our systems of representative democracy, designed in the late eighteenth century, are not similarly doomed.
  19. Experts or not, we are ruled by people who think the recent New Yorker cartoon about a populist revolt in an airplane passenger cabin is clever.

    http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/02/new-yorker-cartoon-sums-up-anti-elite-national-mood-angers-many/

  20. Notice how Tyler Cowen perceives himself as an outside observer and not as a member of the lunatic, ivory tower elite, but not as a member of the masses either. The reality of the matter is that he is just sitting in a different ivory tower as Bernie Sanders and his lunacy is evident in his expressed views.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    We could call his perspective "florentine", but I hate to drag down one my favorite cities.
  21. The headline question offers a false dichotomy.

    (i) Nobody has ever devised a way that allows any sizeable country to be ruled by the people. Perhaps Switzerland comes closest.

    (ii) The “experts” in question tend to be expert in academic disciplines that are junk: Macroeconomics, Sociology, Political Science, …. or downright dangerous e.g. Law, Criminology ….

    Nobody really proposes that a country be run by physicists, engineers, chemists, surgeons, dentists ….. For what little it’s worth, I suggest the best bet for running a country by experts from just one academic discipline is Veterinary Surgeons. They tend to know a bit of science, and a hell of a lot about mammals, in theory and practice. We are mammals.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    I understand Singapore comes close to being run by technocrats of the kind you mention (scientists, engineers, etc.) and they seem to do pretty well by their people and in competing internationally.

    A lot less personal freedom there than here, though.
  22. Steve, how do you feel about Santa Rosa? Would you live there?

    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    How do you feel about Rosa Schwartz? Would you go there?
    , @415 reasons
    The guy who got shot on top of Twin Peaks in SF last winter was from Santa Rosa

    http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5239537-181/suspect-arrested-in-san-francisco?artslide=1

  23. For better or worse, direct rule by Buckley’s 2,000 American citizens probably would mean a slower pace of immigration, less emphasis on free trade, more law and order politics, and a blunter form of nationalism in foreign policy.

    God yes! This is what I want, and I’m not even in the Boston phone directory.

    This also happens to be a good summation of Donald Trump’s platform.

    I grew up in high IQ, high income places on both coasts and in the middle of America. I’m settled in another one here now. Lots of “experts” in various fields in each of those places.

    I’d feel safer if Buckley’s 2000 from any average place ruled. They elected President Trump.

  24. More immigration pushes up real estate prices all over the country.

    Restrictions on housing development pushes up housing prices in a typical affluent person’s neighborhood.

    If you combine high levels of immigration with restrictions on housing development, you get a very hot real estate market that’s good for wealthy homeowners.

    I suspect this is why many elites don’t seem that disturbed by our increasing population.

    If America adds 100 million more people and Malibu housing prices double, Malibu homeowners won’t be too unhappy.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    Not necessarily, though I see why you would think so. There is only a fixed amount of land in the US, but the increased demand would also incentivize more efficient uses of real estate. People's ability to afford real estate might also not be affected negatively, provided that the costs of other goods go down to balance the higher costs of real estate. E.g. people move to expensive cities because they earn so much more in the city that they can afford the higher rent. As you note, however, legal restrictions on housing development clearly put a limit on the market's ability to allocate real estate more efficiently.
    , @anonymouslee
    We need some sort of final solution to the baby boomer problem.

    These people didn't create but inherited a golden goose from the sweat of their ancestors. They had the temerity to just slaughter it.

    Then they doubled down on their crimes against their ancestors; stealing from their children and future generations by hoarding more golden eggs bought with future debt and enslavement.

    , @Zachary Latif
    Basically that is the situation in South East England (Greater London & Home Counties); burgeoning population coupled with strict planning.
    , @anon
    You can say that, both LA and OC have real estate listen on international real estate blogs. For example, there was a story in the Wall Street jouranl about a Chinese kid sent to school in Mission Viejo at a private christian school while the parents were still in China and the kid is grade school. Most of the price hike is international buyers, Chinese, Persians, Koreans, a few wealthy Mexicans, Canadians, Russians, you name it. During the Obama years it was decided to get out of the mess in Real Estate was to up Real Estate visas.
  25. Maybe I’m being too literal, but Buckley’s observation is rhetorical. How would one construct a system of government for 320 million people in a nation as large as the US?

    More and more I find Cowan to be obtuse and off putting.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    Maybe Cowen was being rhetorical, too? I'm sure he doesn't believe you can sustain the federal government with only 2,000 people. He's comparing the kind of policies that the first 2,000 names in the Boston phonebook would prefer with the kind of policies the Harvard faculty would prefer.
  26. There has never been, since the Dawn of Time, rule by the “People”. There is only rule by the representatives of “the People”, and these representatives are experts, only, experts at what?

    Speaking of experts, if you look at the think tanks and gas bags on the academic circuits, how many of these experts are truly independent, and how many are just mouth pieces for institutional interest groups?

    If you replace “representatives of the People”, bought and sold by the Chamber of Commerce, with “experts”, bought and sold by the Chamber of Commerce, would you get better government?

    You probably would, from the perspective of the Chamber of Commerce.

    The “problem” of democracy only emerges when there is a stark divergence between elite preferences and the preferences of the majority. That usually only occurs when the elite policy preference enriches the elite at the expense of the majority.

    How can we screw them over and still get their votes? Knowing how to get away with that is the true expertise.

  27. A bit like saying ”would you rather be shot or strung up?”

  28. The smart kids who ruled in the 1930s-50s picked things that were objectively smart, like the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Salk vaccine, and imposed them on the rest of us. Good for them, good for us.

    Today’s ruling smart kids are picking things because they like them, not because they are the objectively smart thing to do, like multiculturalism and open borders. This works out good for them, but bad for the rest of us.

    The psychological trait that is most highly correlated with an IQ over 130 is “openness to new experience”. That’s why our ruling liberal Democrat smart kids insist on multiculturalism and open borders. They’re hungry for exposure to new languages, new social customs, new foods, and so forth. And since they really only associate with the smartest of the newcomers, it just reinforces their bias that the multiculti open borders flood of wretched refuse is wonderful.

    The rest of us need to school the smart kids, telling them about the difference between being smart and simply going along with personal bias. They’re trashing the “smart kid” brand – this is one of the real sources of the current conflict about fake news, climate change and the denial that there are experts who know better.

    • Agree: TomSchmidt
  29. @Busby
    Maybe I'm being too literal, but Buckley's observation is rhetorical. How would one construct a system of government for 320 million people in a nation as large as the US?

    More and more I find Cowan to be obtuse and off putting.

    Maybe Cowen was being rhetorical, too? I’m sure he doesn’t believe you can sustain the federal government with only 2,000 people. He’s comparing the kind of policies that the first 2,000 names in the Boston phonebook would prefer with the kind of policies the Harvard faculty would prefer.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  30. The question can be taken in two ways.

    1. The people we have now in the US vs the experts we have now? The people, of course. But I’m not sure I would give that answer after another few decades of decline towards 3rd world status.

    2. The people anywhere and any time at random? Probably the “experts” as they represent some kind of order, painful though it may be. Consider the people of Egypt, Sudan, Afghanistan, etc. ad nauseam. Not that they are evil, but I believe they are altogether incapable of establishing any kind of stable political order.

    This country was not founded on and did not prosper by universal suffrage.

    • Replies: @another fred

    “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
    - John Adams

     

    Democracy is not magic. It does not transform people into something noble, or bestow a belief in the rule of law.
  31. @JohnnyWalker123
    More immigration pushes up real estate prices all over the country.

    Restrictions on housing development pushes up housing prices in a typical affluent person's neighborhood.

    If you combine high levels of immigration with restrictions on housing development, you get a very hot real estate market that's good for wealthy homeowners.

    I suspect this is why many elites don't seem that disturbed by our increasing population.

    If America adds 100 million more people and Malibu housing prices double, Malibu homeowners won't be too unhappy.

    Not necessarily, though I see why you would think so. There is only a fixed amount of land in the US, but the increased demand would also incentivize more efficient uses of real estate. People’s ability to afford real estate might also not be affected negatively, provided that the costs of other goods go down to balance the higher costs of real estate. E.g. people move to expensive cities because they earn so much more in the city that they can afford the higher rent. As you note, however, legal restrictions on housing development clearly put a limit on the market’s ability to allocate real estate more efficiently.

    • Replies: @bomag

    There is only a fixed amount of land in the US, but the increased demand would also incentivize more efficient uses of real estate.
     
    I'm less and less sanguine that incentives will solve such problems. The horizon keeps receding; each "more efficient use" gets swallowed up by more people until the dysfunction discourages any more activity.
  32. Evanston’s population has dropped, but it’s low income black population has increased. The town is another beneficiary of former Chicago Mayor Daley’s 20 year plan to remove low income people from the more choice real estate locations that their crumbling housing projects happened to be built upon, and relocate them to the surrounding suburbs.*
    My brother, a genuine vacuum sealed, globalist zealot, lives in nearby white oasis Glencoe. Despite all of his moral grandstanding about diversity, unchecked immigration, free trade, blah blah blah, when asked about how many Somali immigrants should be communally housed near his residence in Lilywhiteland, the mask of equality unknowingly comes off.

    *The town of Park Forest, where my wife grew up, has been completely turned over in one generation from quiet working class white neighborhood to just ‘hood. There are reports of shootings at her former high school and there was even a riot there a couple years ago.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    My wife also grew up in Park Forest and my in-laws still live there. The value of their home is probably 1/2 of what it was 15 years ago. I spoke to my father-in-law several years ago and he assured me the value would return, I think he has finally accepted that it will not. There was a news report (20/20, Dateline, or some such show) were nearby Richton Park was advertising for White residents (with the approval of the Black residents who were concerned about the value of their own homes).

    I grew-up in Rockford, so I can't say much myself.
    , @Henry Bowman
    How did he reply?

    I want some of the bastard said.
  33. @another fred
    The question can be taken in two ways.

    1. The people we have now in the US vs the experts we have now? The people, of course. But I'm not sure I would give that answer after another few decades of decline towards 3rd world status.

    2. The people anywhere and any time at random? Probably the "experts" as they represent some kind of order, painful though it may be. Consider the people of Egypt, Sudan, Afghanistan, etc. ad nauseam. Not that they are evil, but I believe they are altogether incapable of establishing any kind of stable political order.

    This country was not founded on and did not prosper by universal suffrage.

    “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion…Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
    – John Adams

    Democracy is not magic. It does not transform people into something noble, or bestow a belief in the rule of law.

    • Agree: Auntie Analogue
  34. For better or worse, direct rule by Buckley’s 2,000 American citizens probably would mean a slower pace of immigration, less emphasis on free trade, more law and order politics, and a blunter form of nationalism in foreign policy.

    Sign me up. The country’s gone way, way too far in the globalist direction.

  35. Neither politicians nor academics qualify as experts. The former are usually ignorants and snake oil “salespersons” while the latter for the most part lack any kind of experience of the non-academic world, of what we mere mortals know as reality.
    On the other hand, some ordinary people do know a thing or two about how things actually work and are good at managing. It depends of what kind of people rule. Rule by the mob is always a bad idea. Meritocratic rule by ordinary citizens strikes me as a good proposition.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    BB753, My son retired at age forty after a career as a Market Analyst . I told him that an acquaintance of mine taught his expertise to small classes of MBA students at UB. I suggested that he approach a well regarded college in Cleveland and offer his expertise to them. He had an interview with the Dean of their business school who told him that the school had Phds. who taught their courses but expressed surprise that one could make a great living advising stock brokers and portfolio managers, as my son did. But again, his faculty were Phds.
    , @anonguy

    Meritocratic rule by ordinary citizens strikes me as a good proposition.
     
    The Meritocracy by definition is not ordinary citizens.

    Meritocracy is just a modern packaging of rule by divine right, especially insofar as the Meritocracy gets to define what is meritorious.

    Do you see the issue now?
  36. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    One problem is that the ‘experts’ aren’t all that they’re cracked up to be. People who went to prestigious schools and were advertised as being all that assured us that Iraq would be a cakewalk; the best and brightest were going to handle Vietnam. The list of disasters engineered by supposed ‘experts’ is endless, pretty much a history of tragic follies. Once one gets away from the hard sciences things get a little dicey. The Buckley statement holds truer today than ever before. There’s a lot of smart idiots at every university. They might give a good lecture but should be nowhere near any positions of power.

  37. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    What really put me off ‘experts’ were a couple of events in the UK both involving the EU, as it happens.
    First there was the insistence by all ‘expert’ opinion that the ERM was the best thing since sliced bread and the UK simply ‘had to’ join.
    Alas, the UK joined, and look how that turned out.
    The other event was the insistence that the UK join the Euro currency. I need not express here the bonum of that particular bullet being dodged.

    Suffice to say that the braying shout of The Economist magazine was *the* most rabid insistent squawk on both occasions.

  38. Anonymous [AKA "Evanstonian"] says:

    Steve, you are spot on about Evanston IL. Your inferences about wider societal trends drawn from the Chicago microcosmos, Austin, white flight, now Evanston are a pleasure.
    Please one day write about Hyde Park and why it is the only liveable area on the South Side. How the nimbys managed to keep the neighborhood from collapsing while virtue signaling the whole way. Very much like Malibu.

    Look up Jack Clark , hack writing. Writes about Austin pre 1970 from a white working class perspective. You’ll enjoy it.

    • Replies: @CrunchybutRealistCon
    Evanston is an SWPL-topia to be sure. Have the sense that it is so totally dominated by the plutocrat kids @ Northwestern, the bloated Northwestern faculty & admin plus the old money that it is a special case. The cost of living compared to other IL spots is high, but would bet that a huge component of the population loss that you have many empty nest couples or retirees living in 4 bedroom homes. 30 years ago there were probably a lot more families of 4 or 5 in those same spots. Also, it is really like 2 towns: the SW quarter is lower or middle income, more like Rogers Park, while the other 3/4s is quite affluent or at least upper middle class.
    One curious thing about is that there has been a lot of high end in-fill development along the rail lines (like 4 to 10 story luxury condos). Probably won't raise the population much, but the average income in the town will be going up, and real estate values there recovered way faster since 2007 compared to other areas in IL. The new condos are apparently drawing in wealthy retirees and some folks from affluent parts of Chicago. It is also common for parents of Northwestern students to buy a condo for their kid, with an eye to selling it after 4 yrs.
  39. @Arclight
    Interesting question, and I think I would agree with Cowan's general take that the experts have a tendency to look for gigantic problems to solve and inflict their prescriptions on a public that is not on the same page, with results that tend not to justify the cost.

    Right now it is popular in certain quarters to attribute the opposition Obama faced to racism on the part of the GOP, but that overlooks the fact that Obama immediately dove into trying to impose enormous changes on society. First was the stimulus, with it's mind-blowing size and laundry list of areas of the economy it was supposed to revive. Then, with the effects of that far from clear he plunged right into healthcare, an effort that no poll (except the Kaiser Family Foundation) ever showed majority public support for. Combine those with his apology tour of the Muslim world and stiff-arming of longtime allies and he signaled that he was determined to follow his vision no matter whether the public was inclined to follow. The GOP recognized that a significant amount of the public was put off by this and successfully ended the short-lived Dem majority in Congress and made huge gains at the state level through redistricting and tying the national Democratic party around the necks of candidates in areas that were much more politically moderate than Obama or his allies in Congress.

    To be fair we can also blame conservative experts for the enormous mistake of invading Iraq, who also decided to take on a huge and transformative project that didn't turn out at all like they said it would, and both parties have been enthusiastically conducting a massive social and economic experiment with their wholehearted embrace of large scale illegal immigration.

    Clear and concise, Arclight. And timely in this final week of the Obama presidency. We made it through.

    One thing that occurs to me in light of Steve’s post of Cowen and your comment concerns the factor of time. The 2016 election was in some ways a repudiation of the last 20 to 25 years of “expert” policies. It’s apparently taken that long for the popular will to harden against those policies in an effective way. By contrast, as you say, Obama (i.e. Rule of “experts”) could work quickly to effect changes. The comparative advantage of the latter over the former must have a lot to do with the leftward ratchet effect the country’s experienced over the last couple of generations.

  40. That photo caused the theme from Two and a Half Men to start playing in my head.

  41. Ted Turner owns more land in these United States than any other person.

    Now there’s a triple bankshot joke for you.

  42. The intelligent, a fascinating subject. I like most who attended a university met very intelligent fellow students. My impression was they were self-centered and showed noticeably bad judgement socially. Perhaps mild autism is the cause. The Economics Detective has a piece on how diversity lowers productivity, the exceptions are the highly intelligent. They work well together regardless of race or ethnicity. I am reminded of this quote, “an idea so stupid only an intellectual would believe it.” It is probably a Churchill. Dalrymple pointed out the intellectuals as a class did not oppose Hitler or Lenin. Or think of Swift’s intellectuals floating in their cloud creating weapons to pour down on helpless humanity while discussing the pro’s and con’s of abstractions. As they are socially isolated, likely financially successful, and socially stunted, it is a recipe for disaster to consult them on politics.

    • Replies: @Bugg
    Everyone defers to letting everyone have their say, and nothing productive ever happens. You can readily imagine any meeting in the Obama administration obsessing over making sure every group and perspective is aired, most of them redundant and predictable, to the point it all goes on forever. And not much gets done ever.

    How does any university in the business of getting young adults ready to get into the workforce waste resources on gender and race studies. Boggles the mind. Ans Cowan, Murray and their ilk have been in this nonsense for so long they've become immune to it's stupidity. it's a day at the office.
  43. @jtgw
    Not necessarily, though I see why you would think so. There is only a fixed amount of land in the US, but the increased demand would also incentivize more efficient uses of real estate. People's ability to afford real estate might also not be affected negatively, provided that the costs of other goods go down to balance the higher costs of real estate. E.g. people move to expensive cities because they earn so much more in the city that they can afford the higher rent. As you note, however, legal restrictions on housing development clearly put a limit on the market's ability to allocate real estate more efficiently.

    There is only a fixed amount of land in the US, but the increased demand would also incentivize more efficient uses of real estate.

    I’m less and less sanguine that incentives will solve such problems. The horizon keeps receding; each “more efficient use” gets swallowed up by more people until the dysfunction discourages any more activity.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    While I wouldn't rule out your objection a priori, I think it's a good idea to look at current government policies and disentangle those disincentives that have their origin in statist intervention from those disincentives that are inherent in the natural order of things. It's hard to answer such questions with more than just theory, since the government affects the market in so many ways, both directly and indirectly.
  44. @JohnnyWalker123
    Steve, how do you feel about Santa Rosa? Would you live there?

    How do you feel about Rosa Schwartz? Would you go there?

  45. @JohnnyWalker123
    More immigration pushes up real estate prices all over the country.

    Restrictions on housing development pushes up housing prices in a typical affluent person's neighborhood.

    If you combine high levels of immigration with restrictions on housing development, you get a very hot real estate market that's good for wealthy homeowners.

    I suspect this is why many elites don't seem that disturbed by our increasing population.

    If America adds 100 million more people and Malibu housing prices double, Malibu homeowners won't be too unhappy.

    We need some sort of final solution to the baby boomer problem.

    These people didn’t create but inherited a golden goose from the sweat of their ancestors. They had the temerity to just slaughter it.

    Then they doubled down on their crimes against their ancestors; stealing from their children and future generations by hoarding more golden eggs bought with future debt and enslavement.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
    Well said.
  46. What about Cambridge, MA? The population has been increasing and it is getting less white, down to 66% now according to the 2010 Census.

    http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/factsandmaps/demographicfaq

  47. I grew up in the slums of Beverly Hills in order to attend its excellent “public” schools.

    Of course, Beverly Hills maintains a full time police force to stop “undocumented” students from outside of district from sneaking in.

    It’d be comical if the accident of being born in a Beverly Hills hotel would automatically confer the lifetime right of attending K-12 in the district for the lucky infant.

    It was a very nice place to go to school but being able to live in a normal sized apartment would have been great.

  48. “An expert is an idiot with an agenda.”

    The problem is that there are two kinds of experts.

    1. Experts with actual demonstrable skills. Surgeons, airline pilots, carpenters, structural engineers. When these people make mistakes it is visible and acted on.

    2. Fake experts, who have only a fancy cv, a big ego, and, most importantly, powerful friends whose agenda they will push in exchange for money and exposure. Economists, journalists, senior government and ‘think tank’ employees. Hillary Clinton. When these people make ‘mistakes’ they are showered with yet more money and honors – because one person’s ‘mistake’ is another person’s desire…

    If you are in the basement of a building and you want to know if it’s raining outside, who do you ask? A PhD meteorologist whose job depends on saying that it is sunny? Or an average person with no vested interest and a track record of honesty?

    Experience and intelligence should be respected – in the real world Forest Gump will not run a successful business – but integrity and a lack of conflicts of interest are vital as well.

    • Agree: jacques sheete
  49. @JohnnyWalker123
    More immigration pushes up real estate prices all over the country.

    Restrictions on housing development pushes up housing prices in a typical affluent person's neighborhood.

    If you combine high levels of immigration with restrictions on housing development, you get a very hot real estate market that's good for wealthy homeowners.

    I suspect this is why many elites don't seem that disturbed by our increasing population.

    If America adds 100 million more people and Malibu housing prices double, Malibu homeowners won't be too unhappy.

    Basically that is the situation in South East England (Greater London & Home Counties); burgeoning population coupled with strict planning.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    The fastest way to decrease housing costs in London and its environs would be to cut off all immigration while simultaneously having the Bank of England raise interest rates to 6 or 8 percent. The money-grubbing asset bubble strivers would be obliterated.

    What happens if Putin and Trump force the oligarchs in Russia, Europe and the United States to avoid doing business with the City of London? London and its environs would be decimated, that's what.
  50. @Arclight
    Interesting question, and I think I would agree with Cowan's general take that the experts have a tendency to look for gigantic problems to solve and inflict their prescriptions on a public that is not on the same page, with results that tend not to justify the cost.

    Right now it is popular in certain quarters to attribute the opposition Obama faced to racism on the part of the GOP, but that overlooks the fact that Obama immediately dove into trying to impose enormous changes on society. First was the stimulus, with it's mind-blowing size and laundry list of areas of the economy it was supposed to revive. Then, with the effects of that far from clear he plunged right into healthcare, an effort that no poll (except the Kaiser Family Foundation) ever showed majority public support for. Combine those with his apology tour of the Muslim world and stiff-arming of longtime allies and he signaled that he was determined to follow his vision no matter whether the public was inclined to follow. The GOP recognized that a significant amount of the public was put off by this and successfully ended the short-lived Dem majority in Congress and made huge gains at the state level through redistricting and tying the national Democratic party around the necks of candidates in areas that were much more politically moderate than Obama or his allies in Congress.

    To be fair we can also blame conservative experts for the enormous mistake of invading Iraq, who also decided to take on a huge and transformative project that didn't turn out at all like they said it would, and both parties have been enthusiastically conducting a massive social and economic experiment with their wholehearted embrace of large scale illegal immigration.

    To be fair we can also blame conservative experts for the enormous mistake of invading Iraq

    But they weren’t experts.

  51. @Arclight
    Interesting question, and I think I would agree with Cowan's general take that the experts have a tendency to look for gigantic problems to solve and inflict their prescriptions on a public that is not on the same page, with results that tend not to justify the cost.

    Right now it is popular in certain quarters to attribute the opposition Obama faced to racism on the part of the GOP, but that overlooks the fact that Obama immediately dove into trying to impose enormous changes on society. First was the stimulus, with it's mind-blowing size and laundry list of areas of the economy it was supposed to revive. Then, with the effects of that far from clear he plunged right into healthcare, an effort that no poll (except the Kaiser Family Foundation) ever showed majority public support for. Combine those with his apology tour of the Muslim world and stiff-arming of longtime allies and he signaled that he was determined to follow his vision no matter whether the public was inclined to follow. The GOP recognized that a significant amount of the public was put off by this and successfully ended the short-lived Dem majority in Congress and made huge gains at the state level through redistricting and tying the national Democratic party around the necks of candidates in areas that were much more politically moderate than Obama or his allies in Congress.

    To be fair we can also blame conservative experts for the enormous mistake of invading Iraq, who also decided to take on a huge and transformative project that didn't turn out at all like they said it would, and both parties have been enthusiastically conducting a massive social and economic experiment with their wholehearted embrace of large scale illegal immigration.

    The GOP recognized that a significant amount of the public was put off by this

    Epic retconning there.

    The GOP recognizes nothing and remembers nothing, it’s full of well-groomed idiots, monstrous statists and neocons. It’s fully onboard with invading the next country for TODITME (the only democracy in the middle east) , fellate Saudi Arabia, kickstart a hard war with Russia or sell out to the slimiest lobbyists alive.

    Hell, they are still wondering why Trump won in spite of all their own efforts to stick the knife in.

    Everything hinges on whether Trump policy will manage to be significantly different from GOP fever dreams.

  52. I wonder what it would be like to be ruled by experts who actually manage to make correct predictions.

    That is, economists who would have predicted clearly the huge downside for American workers of globalization, and who would have predicted the tremendous rise in inequality across the decades. Social scientists who could see and acknowledge that diversity is damaging to the social fabric; that certain minorities simply will not approach in academic and economic performance that of whites or Asians; that certain minorities will always engage in a greatly disproportionate amount of violent and other crime.

    Maybe the biggest problem with being ruled by experts is that we have been cursed with the wrong sort of experts.

    • Replies: @bomag

    ...experts who actually manage to make correct predictions.
     
    i

    Our "experts" have a hard time incorporating zero and negative numbers into their thinking, cf. the housing bubble. They tend to admire their graphs as the lines soar high into the sky, bringing unicorns and skittles to us all in mass quantities.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "I wonder what it would be like to be ruled by experts who actually manage to make correct predictions.

    That is, economists who would have predicted clearly the huge downside for American workers of globalization, and who would have predicted the tremendous rise in inequality across the decades."

    Maybe they do know that and just don't care.
    , @Desiderius

    Maybe the biggest problem with being ruled by experts is that we have been cursed with the wrong sort of experts.
     
    The capacity for and inclination toward abstract thought divorced from the concrete has been ruinously overselected.
    , @SFG
    I agree 100%. The elites are pretty smart, they just pursue policies that favor them--high immigration lowers wages and ethnic diversity divides the working class. How come Harvard is a 'nonprofit' and doesn't pay taxes even though it contributes hugely to social stratification and hoards huge sums in its endowment? The only thing it doesn't do is pay dividends.
    , @Lugash
    While not as easy as Steve's Ctrl+F Immigration technique, the Google "$ECONOMISTNAME housing bubble" works well to see if an economist is full of shit.

    Here's Mr. Cowen from April 2005:

    Housing can be lived in, most buyers have only one home, transaction costs are relatively high, and rarely are homes sold and resold in a matter of days. All those features militate against a housing bubble. Yet it is scary to see how high prices have risen in the Washington D.C. area. Prices in my overall region are up 73 percent in the last four years, can houses be worth so much more? Plus rent-buy ratios have reached apparently unsustainble levels, inconsistent with traditional assumptions about discount rates.

    Let’s say you think there is no bubble, what are your options?

    1. It has quickly become much better to live in good areas. I can go to Wegman’s now. Prices reflect this fact.

    2. Traffic is getting much worse, and very rapidly. People are paying more to be close to the action. The price movement is lasting, though it does not reflect a true increase in real value, all things considered.

    3. When you are trying to decide how much a house in worth, you also care how much other people think the house is worth. Yet the entire slope of the demand curve is hard to observe. The real estate market goes through a groping process. Only as prices and quantities move does everyone realize what the market demand curve looks like. Suddenly, over the last four years, many people have realized that many other people are willing to pay lots for a quality home. Price has moved upward rapidly accordingly, but this need not be a bubble.

    4. The higher housing price indices are a trick. In reality some homes are worth a lot more and others are worth a lot less. But prices move quickly in the upwards direction; in the downwards direction, housing quantity first adjusts and stays slow for a long time. That is, if you can’t sell your family hearth in Kansas for a decent price, you simply wait for now. So overall indices appear high but much of this move is a sectoral shift within the housing market from low quality to high.

    I put the least stock in #1 and the most stock in #3 and then #4.

    I am not yet convinced there is a housing bubble. But since I bought close to the peak — had to buy close to the peak — perhaps I am deluding myself.

    Addendum: Here is my earlier post on the topic. Here is Alex. Here is Brad DeLong. Here is some Austrian economics.
     
    Every single point he makes is wrong. He only conducts a facile first order analysis. Full of shit.
    , @Yak-15
    The "experts" are convinced that growing a nation's population is the only means to ensure economic growth, continue the social welfare system and perpetuate the positive feedback loop of a never ending prosperous debt cycle.

    They tend to ignore that not all are capable of contributing the same economically and become dependents rather than contributors to the system. It completely passes over their heads to consider that extending debt to people terminally incapable of ever repaying it lends itself to bubbles and economic crises.

    So, we are essentially doomed to a downward sloping economic decay with interludes of hyper-pronounced boom and bust cycles. All the while, our social fabric deteriorates and we become as corrupt as the Roman Empire.

    What is the over/under on number of years before a major civil war (Muslims vs whites) occurs in a core European country? 10? 15? 20?
  53. The first 2000 would potentially contain a worrying preponderance of Achmeds, Alis, Abduls, etc.
    http://indiachildnames.com/surname/muslimsurnames.aspx
    Seriously bad idea, Buckley.
    Make it an award, for not picking up a traffic ticket for four years or something.
    [ed.] oh oh, wait, scratch that, we’d be ruled by old ladies. And cops.

    • Replies: @PapayaSF
    Of course, when Buckley made his comment (early '70s?) there were only a minuscule number of Muslims in the country. And in fact, I am old enough to remember someone criticizing Buckley for his suggestion: by starting at "A" he was racist, because that supposedly left out the more "ethnic" Eastern European names more likely to start with letters at the end of the alphabet! (Maybe the critic was thinking of names beginning with "Z", but he seemed to ignore common Anglo-Saxon names like Thompson and Wilson.)
    , @Old fogey
    "Make it an award, for not picking up a traffic ticket for four years or something.
    [ed.] oh oh, wait, scratch that, we’d be ruled by old ladies. And cops."

    I'm an old lady and I resent that insinuation (or was it a microaggression - I get so confused nowadays).
  54. Other things being equal, I think it’s better to be ruled by the smart people. That’s the natural order of things. The problem is when the smart people lose their freaking minds on important issues, which I guess just happens sometimes.

    In Buckley’s day it was their sympathy for Communism. They were on the wrong side of the major issue of the twentieth century.

    Now it’s all the various white-guilt driven crazy ideas:
    * Support for uncontrolled mass Third World immigration, opposition to any enforcement of immigration law, and even denial that the country has any right to decide who moves here.
    * Always seeing minority criminals as the victims, to the point of absurd denialism of the facts (e.g. Michael Brown case, Clock Boy, Muslim “refugees” in Europe).
    * Blaming all average group differences on discrimination, denying even the possibility of cultural much less biological differences between groups. (I think that’s the Achilles heel of multi-cultural societies: some groups always do better than others).

    I also think the economics profession has lost its freaking mind with all the zero and negative interest rates business.

    Again, overall I really would rather be ruled by the smartest and best-educated people. I’m really hoping they come to their senses sometime soon.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    I’m really hoping they come to their senses sometime soon.

    Don't hold your breath. If anything, they seem to be going even more insane.
    , @Desiderius

    Again, overall I really would rather be ruled by the smartest and best-educated people. I’m really hoping they come to their senses sometime soon.
     
    If they had sense, they wouldn't be the smartest and best-educated. The mental resources required for good sense are different from those required to be best-educated and/or smartest. The three are in competition with one another.
  55. On Evanston, I thought it settled matter that key component of modern liberalism is pathological hypocrisy.

  56. @Zachary Latif
    Basically that is the situation in South East England (Greater London & Home Counties); burgeoning population coupled with strict planning.

    The fastest way to decrease housing costs in London and its environs would be to cut off all immigration while simultaneously having the Bank of England raise interest rates to 6 or 8 percent. The money-grubbing asset bubble strivers would be obliterated.

    What happens if Putin and Trump force the oligarchs in Russia, Europe and the United States to avoid doing business with the City of London? London and its environs would be decimated, that’s what.

  57. Aaron, Abrams, Abdul – perhaps we could go for the Simmons-Smith-Sutherland section instead?

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    Cripes! At least somebody's on the ball here.
    I identify as Ms. Apostrophe-Apostrophe-Aaaaaa-Arrrrgh-muh-Asshole. At least for landline purposes. Just checkin' my alphabetic roman priv'lidj an' 'ting.
  58. Its a close call with the Boston phone book…which would be half minority and overwhelmingly Democrat. But a phone book in Worcester County, or New Hampshire? Definitely.

  59. @candid_observer
    I wonder what it would be like to be ruled by experts who actually manage to make correct predictions.

    That is, economists who would have predicted clearly the huge downside for American workers of globalization, and who would have predicted the tremendous rise in inequality across the decades. Social scientists who could see and acknowledge that diversity is damaging to the social fabric; that certain minorities simply will not approach in academic and economic performance that of whites or Asians; that certain minorities will always engage in a greatly disproportionate amount of violent and other crime.

    Maybe the biggest problem with being ruled by experts is that we have been cursed with the wrong sort of experts.

    …experts who actually manage to make correct predictions.

    i

    Our “experts” have a hard time incorporating zero and negative numbers into their thinking, cf. the housing bubble. They tend to admire their graphs as the lines soar high into the sky, bringing unicorns and skittles to us all in mass quantities.

  60. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    For better or worse, direct rule by Buckley’s 2,000 American citizens probably would mean a slower pace of immigration, less emphasis on free trade, more law and order politics, and a blunter form of nationalism in foreign policy.

    Indeed.

    As a side note, in my municipality about 10% of the vote went for Trump. So it’s a pretty liberal place. Recently, a developer has been pushing for low income housing. This made everyone go completely berserk. A lot of people in the neighborhood have been pushing for lawsuits to stop this. So liberal logic seems to be “diversity is a strength, just not in my neighborhood”. I don’t think these people are fully aware of their contradictory thinking. On local matters these people seem to be fairly pragmatic and hardheaded, but they believe in typical Ellis island schmaltz when it comes to immigration/multiculturalism etc.

  61. As far as I can tell, the actual quote by Buckley is:

    “I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.”

    Notice the difference between this and what Cowen remembers:

    “…..entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory….”

    vs.

    “…….ruled by the first 2,000 people listed in the Boston telephone directory…..”

    We have a government. We do not have, or at least we were not supposed to have, rulers. It is telling that our hostile elite, of which Cowen is a small part, views the relationship of government to citizenry as that of ruler to ruled.

  62. @candid_observer
    I wonder what it would be like to be ruled by experts who actually manage to make correct predictions.

    That is, economists who would have predicted clearly the huge downside for American workers of globalization, and who would have predicted the tremendous rise in inequality across the decades. Social scientists who could see and acknowledge that diversity is damaging to the social fabric; that certain minorities simply will not approach in academic and economic performance that of whites or Asians; that certain minorities will always engage in a greatly disproportionate amount of violent and other crime.

    Maybe the biggest problem with being ruled by experts is that we have been cursed with the wrong sort of experts.

    “I wonder what it would be like to be ruled by experts who actually manage to make correct predictions.

    That is, economists who would have predicted clearly the huge downside for American workers of globalization, and who would have predicted the tremendous rise in inequality across the decades.”

    Maybe they do know that and just don’t care.

  63. One interesting conundrum is that the Harvard higher-ups haven’t been all that enthusiastic about admitting more undergraduates.

    Has the size of Harvard undergraduate classes even kept pace with the population? I don’t think they have – U.S. population is twice what it was in 1950, making a slot in one of those classes twice as scarce if you assume meritocracy (which is probably a bad assumption). I suppose it’s part of why tuition and fees have been able to get so out of hand. (A study of Ivy class sizes vs. U.S. Population vs. tuition and fee inflation over time would be interesting).

    If you eschew the fantasy of meritocracy and consider Harvard a networking club for the kids of the wealthy and well-connected, keeping the class sizes static and raising tuition and fees over inflation makes more sense – it’s actually getting more elite relative to the general population. In 1950 there were 46 Senators to have sons with which to befriend and network at Harvard, today there are 50, while the U.S. population has more than doubled. Al Gore muddled through as a Senator’s son in the 60s, then all four of his kids did in the 90s-2000s.

  64. We’ve been ruled by “experts” for decades and all the working and middle-class have gotten out of it is decimation.

    Fact is the average person is better at predicting consequences than some high IQ Ivy League graduate. Take NAFTA, widely supported by the white managerial and professionals, touted by Wall Street gurus as something that would help America economically. The blue collar in some machine shop knew it was going rape him and so did millions of others.

    They weren’t listened to because they weren’t economic experts with Ivy League degrees who “knew better”. Hell economists who were opposed to it were almost impossible to find at the time.

    Look at what “experts” did to our foreign policy, make it a instrument of near constant war since the end of WWII. The “intelligence experts” at the CIA have failed at everything from even noticing when the Berlin Wall fell to the end of the Warsaw Pact, to ignoring all the lead ups to 9/11 and the rise of Islamic Jihad, to outing lying about Saddam’s WMD’s program, to ignoring reports about Chechen terrorists living in Boston or that Deobandi Mosque in San Bernadino.

    God save us from experts.

  65. Anonymous [AKA "right right"] says:

    Steve,

    Are mentioning Evanston because of the video just released of their police roughing up a black grad student whom they mistook for a car thief?

    http://abc7chicago.com/news/evanston-police-dashcam-video-released-of-northwestern-students-arrest/1700756/

  66. Experts > average people > Harvard “experts”

    • Agree: AndrewR
  67. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Best is experts mindful of the people’s identity and interests.

    Politics is about expertise serving certain interests. But whose interests?

    It’s like the military. Its weapons must be built by experts. And soldiers must be trained and led by experts.

    But whose interests does the military serve? The people of the nation or the glabal(global cabal)?

  68. @candid_observer
    I wonder what it would be like to be ruled by experts who actually manage to make correct predictions.

    That is, economists who would have predicted clearly the huge downside for American workers of globalization, and who would have predicted the tremendous rise in inequality across the decades. Social scientists who could see and acknowledge that diversity is damaging to the social fabric; that certain minorities simply will not approach in academic and economic performance that of whites or Asians; that certain minorities will always engage in a greatly disproportionate amount of violent and other crime.

    Maybe the biggest problem with being ruled by experts is that we have been cursed with the wrong sort of experts.

    Maybe the biggest problem with being ruled by experts is that we have been cursed with the wrong sort of experts.

    The capacity for and inclination toward abstract thought divorced from the concrete has been ruinously overselected.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Right. Because in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, whereas in practice there is.
  69. @candid_observer
    I wonder what it would be like to be ruled by experts who actually manage to make correct predictions.

    That is, economists who would have predicted clearly the huge downside for American workers of globalization, and who would have predicted the tremendous rise in inequality across the decades. Social scientists who could see and acknowledge that diversity is damaging to the social fabric; that certain minorities simply will not approach in academic and economic performance that of whites or Asians; that certain minorities will always engage in a greatly disproportionate amount of violent and other crime.

    Maybe the biggest problem with being ruled by experts is that we have been cursed with the wrong sort of experts.

    I agree 100%. The elites are pretty smart, they just pursue policies that favor them–high immigration lowers wages and ethnic diversity divides the working class. How come Harvard is a ‘nonprofit’ and doesn’t pay taxes even though it contributes hugely to social stratification and hoards huge sums in its endowment? The only thing it doesn’t do is pay dividends.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The elites are using the military for their own ends while simultaneously destroying it from within through affirmative action, women in combat, LGBTQ empowerment, etc. Incidentally, this makes the military more sympathetic to any emerging populist like Trump, making it impossible to stay in power by raw force. (Thank God for that!)

    They are obviously lunatics, at least half believing their own propaganda and ideology.
    , @Chris Mallory

    The elites are pretty smart
     
    Most of the "elites" could not pour urine from a boot if you wrote the instructions on the bottom.
  70. The problem is not experts vs. the people. It is “Whose Side are you on?”

    The experts are mostly upper class Whites who view themselves as GoodWhites, the divinely chosen few exempt from White Original Sin and the Bad God who created Whites, there to usher in the divine new utopia by erasing BadWhites from existence and creating a multicultural society. White males from BadWhites excepted.

    OF COURSE they will push mass third world immigration, feminism, anti-White male discrimination, and more. They’re the Upper Class. Why wouldn’t they do that? And it is entirely predictable by CLASS. Nicholas Stix of VDARE.com is a Jew. A working class one — and he’s not too fond of the ghetto Black dudes he has to deal with who are hostile innately to White (Men). He’s also well aware that Upper Class Jews like say David Frum hate him worse than Hitler. Since Stix’s mere existence is an affront to every Upper Class person intent on creating a multicultural heaven on earth RIGHT NOW! Its why the Left Wing in Israel, is both exclusively Upper Class and hates hates hates Bibi with a burning passion. A Jewish person’s support for the New Time Gnostic Religion or the Old Time one (the New Time is very, very bad for Jews) is entirely predictable based on class. The Upper Classes are eagerly castrating themselves and waiting for the Space Aliens hiding behind that comet.

    THE major issue in Western Society is class division and the RELIGIOUS WARS between GoodWhites who believe in a mish-mash of Gnostic anti-material Albigensianism and Puritan / Calvinist Select-ism, and BadWhites who bitterly cling to their guns and old-time religion.

    Since I am a BadWhite I’d choose BadWhites to rule; because they will be on my side and not the enemy’s.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "The problem is not experts vs. the people. It is “Whose Side are you on?”"

    Indeed. And whose side are you on, Whiskey? Because it is not at all obvious.

    And why are your examples about class rivaly exclusively about how certain Jews feel about other Jews? Another post by this supposed son of Caledonia (or is it Erin?), and not a word about them born-fightin' Scots-Irish? Or about WASPs? What's up with that Jock-Paddy Mc-ScotsIrishman? Do you actually know any gentiles, Whiskey? Or are you - as most of us have long suspected - nothing but a lying, contemptible fraud?
  71. That’s a hard choice. I want to ble governed by myself and those with whom I choose to associate and who choose to associate with me.

  72. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “One interesting conundrum is that the Harvard higher-ups haven’t been all that enthusiastic about admitting more undergraduates. While Harvard professors may support mass immigration for you and me, they haven’t done much to support dropping the average SAT of freshmen by 20 points in order to confer the Harvard brand upon more people.”

    Or perhaps eliminating the SAT altogether for a certain percentage of its students.

  73. @candid_observer
    I wonder what it would be like to be ruled by experts who actually manage to make correct predictions.

    That is, economists who would have predicted clearly the huge downside for American workers of globalization, and who would have predicted the tremendous rise in inequality across the decades. Social scientists who could see and acknowledge that diversity is damaging to the social fabric; that certain minorities simply will not approach in academic and economic performance that of whites or Asians; that certain minorities will always engage in a greatly disproportionate amount of violent and other crime.

    Maybe the biggest problem with being ruled by experts is that we have been cursed with the wrong sort of experts.

    While not as easy as Steve’s Ctrl+F Immigration technique, the Google “$ECONOMISTNAME housing bubble” works well to see if an economist is full of shit.

    Here’s Mr. Cowen from April 2005:

    Housing can be lived in, most buyers have only one home, transaction costs are relatively high, and rarely are homes sold and resold in a matter of days. All those features militate against a housing bubble. Yet it is scary to see how high prices have risen in the Washington D.C. area. Prices in my overall region are up 73 percent in the last four years, can houses be worth so much more? Plus rent-buy ratios have reached apparently unsustainble levels, inconsistent with traditional assumptions about discount rates.

    Let’s say you think there is no bubble, what are your options?

    1. It has quickly become much better to live in good areas. I can go to Wegman’s now. Prices reflect this fact.

    2. Traffic is getting much worse, and very rapidly. People are paying more to be close to the action. The price movement is lasting, though it does not reflect a true increase in real value, all things considered.

    3. When you are trying to decide how much a house in worth, you also care how much other people think the house is worth. Yet the entire slope of the demand curve is hard to observe. The real estate market goes through a groping process. Only as prices and quantities move does everyone realize what the market demand curve looks like. Suddenly, over the last four years, many people have realized that many other people are willing to pay lots for a quality home. Price has moved upward rapidly accordingly, but this need not be a bubble.

    4. The higher housing price indices are a trick. In reality some homes are worth a lot more and others are worth a lot less. But prices move quickly in the upwards direction; in the downwards direction, housing quantity first adjusts and stays slow for a long time. That is, if you can’t sell your family hearth in Kansas for a decent price, you simply wait for now. So overall indices appear high but much of this move is a sectoral shift within the housing market from low quality to high.

    I put the least stock in #1 and the most stock in #3 and then #4.

    I am not yet convinced there is a housing bubble. But since I bought close to the peak — had to buy close to the peak — perhaps I am deluding myself.

    Addendum: Here is my earlier post on the topic. Here is Alex. Here is Brad DeLong. Here is some Austrian economics.

    Every single point he makes is wrong. He only conducts a facile first order analysis. Full of shit.

  74. @JohnnyWalker123
    Steve, how do you feel about Santa Rosa? Would you live there?

    The guy who got shot on top of Twin Peaks in SF last winter was from Santa Rosa

    http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5239537-181/suspect-arrested-in-san-francisco?artslide=1

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    FWIW: Santa Rosa's outskirts are okay; vineyards mostly. The city itself has a lot of drifters, druggies, and shiftless layabouts, though generally not of the dangerous sort.

    Bonus: There are cool statues of characters from Schultz' Peanuts scattered about town.
  75. Just “Imagine” how much better a world we would have if we were ruled by our top songwriters like Sir Paul:

    Someone’s knockin’ at the door
    Somebody’s ringin’ the bell
    Someone’s knockin’ at the door
    Somebody’s ringin’ the bell
    Do me a favor,
    Open the door and let ’em in
    Sister Suzie, brother John,
    Martin Luther, Phil And Don,
    Brother Michael, Auntie Gin,
    Open the door and let ’em in.
    Someone’s knockin’ at the door
    Somebody’s ringin’ the bell
    Someone’s knockin’ at the door
    Somebody’s ringin’ the bell
    Do me a favor,
    Open the door and let ’em in.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    Last of the grammar-school-boy-made-good generation, our Paul. Liverpool Institute, like the wife's old man. He died in harness, BAT and Pfizer, at the highest echelon, having seen his docker dad pawn clothes for food ( "blind" lobbies/ blind scouse, no doubt).
    Shirley "I'm not a fuckin' baroness" Williams did for them. Never again. Keep 'em poor, keep 'em onside. Like your Dems.
  76. @SFG
    I agree 100%. The elites are pretty smart, they just pursue policies that favor them--high immigration lowers wages and ethnic diversity divides the working class. How come Harvard is a 'nonprofit' and doesn't pay taxes even though it contributes hugely to social stratification and hoards huge sums in its endowment? The only thing it doesn't do is pay dividends.

    The elites are using the military for their own ends while simultaneously destroying it from within through affirmative action, women in combat, LGBTQ empowerment, etc. Incidentally, this makes the military more sympathetic to any emerging populist like Trump, making it impossible to stay in power by raw force. (Thank God for that!)

    They are obviously lunatics, at least half believing their own propaganda and ideology.

    • Replies: @BenKenobi
    Whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad.
    , @Desiderius

    They are obviously lunatics, at least half believing their own propaganda and ideology.
     
    No, they don't. They don't even believe in belief.
  77. OT, but next time you are tempted to quote Snopes, just remember that they seem to be obsessed with fact checking whether or not hookers/escorts have vaginas:

    https://twitter.com/AmishRakeFighte/status/820053971620401152

    HT To Gab.

    • Replies: @guest
    He payed over $60,000 for "entertainment?" Over how long a period of time? That's either hundreds of sessions, or overly generous.
    , @Mr. Anon
    Thanks for the info. Here's a more detailed story (from the Daily Mail, of course) on the whole sordid affair:

    Snopes Hooker/Fraud Scandal

  78. “Maybe the biggest problem with being ruled by experts is that we have been cursed with the wrong sort of experts”

    Somewhere in my reading I stumbled across the idea that American-style democracy (as originally designed, not necessarily how it is practiced in the 21st century) is not about empowering the best and brightest – it is about preventing the worst from doing too much damage. It guarantees that while the U.S. will never have the “best” government, neither will it have the worst.

    Therefore, starry-eyed idealists will forever be chafing at its limitations.

  79. @reiner Tor
    The elites are using the military for their own ends while simultaneously destroying it from within through affirmative action, women in combat, LGBTQ empowerment, etc. Incidentally, this makes the military more sympathetic to any emerging populist like Trump, making it impossible to stay in power by raw force. (Thank God for that!)

    They are obviously lunatics, at least half believing their own propaganda and ideology.

    Whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad.

  80. @Desiderius

    Maybe the biggest problem with being ruled by experts is that we have been cursed with the wrong sort of experts.
     
    The capacity for and inclination toward abstract thought divorced from the concrete has been ruinously overselected.

    Right. Because in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, whereas in practice there is.

  81. Some have always had an irrational hatred of ” experts” because deep down they know that the cognitive elite in the west is almost completely jewish.

    But this hatred is not shared by upper-middle class whites or elite whites. In fact You would be surprised at how many non-jews try to get their daughters married to jewish men.

    Its like a class upgrade for their daughters , with trump being a perfect example.

    As things get worse in the west, more and more people will demand jewish technocratic rule.

    • Replies: @guest
    The cognitive elite in the West is almost completely Jewish? Whence derives this nonsense?
    , @Olorin
    Hey there, Tiny!
  82. I wouldn’t mind being ruled by the elites if they identified with the rest of the population. It’s becoming more and more obvious that our elites despise a great percentage of the population (i.e. the deplorables).

  83. @Whiskey
    The problem is not experts vs. the people. It is "Whose Side are you on?"

    The experts are mostly upper class Whites who view themselves as GoodWhites, the divinely chosen few exempt from White Original Sin and the Bad God who created Whites, there to usher in the divine new utopia by erasing BadWhites from existence and creating a multicultural society. White males from BadWhites excepted.

    OF COURSE they will push mass third world immigration, feminism, anti-White male discrimination, and more. They're the Upper Class. Why wouldn't they do that? And it is entirely predictable by CLASS. Nicholas Stix of VDARE.com is a Jew. A working class one -- and he's not too fond of the ghetto Black dudes he has to deal with who are hostile innately to White (Men). He's also well aware that Upper Class Jews like say David Frum hate him worse than Hitler. Since Stix's mere existence is an affront to every Upper Class person intent on creating a multicultural heaven on earth RIGHT NOW! Its why the Left Wing in Israel, is both exclusively Upper Class and hates hates hates Bibi with a burning passion. A Jewish person's support for the New Time Gnostic Religion or the Old Time one (the New Time is very, very bad for Jews) is entirely predictable based on class. The Upper Classes are eagerly castrating themselves and waiting for the Space Aliens hiding behind that comet.

    THE major issue in Western Society is class division and the RELIGIOUS WARS between GoodWhites who believe in a mish-mash of Gnostic anti-material Albigensianism and Puritan / Calvinist Select-ism, and BadWhites who bitterly cling to their guns and old-time religion.

    Since I am a BadWhite I'd choose BadWhites to rule; because they will be on my side and not the enemy's.

    “The problem is not experts vs. the people. It is “Whose Side are you on?””

    Indeed. And whose side are you on, Whiskey? Because it is not at all obvious.

    And why are your examples about class rivaly exclusively about how certain Jews feel about other Jews? Another post by this supposed son of Caledonia (or is it Erin?), and not a word about them born-fightin’ Scots-Irish? Or about WASPs? What’s up with that Jock-Paddy Mc-ScotsIrishman? Do you actually know any gentiles, Whiskey? Or are you – as most of us have long suspected – nothing but a lying, contemptible fraud?

  84. I would rather be “ruled” by neither. In America people select representatives to administer a limited government. For example, no officer of the federal government could tell you what to say or not say. Until 75 years ago, your financial dealings were your own business and not reported or disclosed to government agents. Until 80 or so years ago you could buy all the narcotics you desired at the local drug store. Until 8 years ago you could go without health insurance if you so desired, just as you can go without life insurance today.

    In America personal sovereignty was maximized to the greatest extent the people constituting it could manage. Why would any member of the elite even be interested in such a thing. Peculiar byproduct of the enlightenment and the Scottish enlightenment I would say. Never to be repeated. Of course a libertarian total individual sovereignty absent the initiation of force was impossible, but by today’s standards, the freedom of an individual for nearly 150 years was profound.

  85. “Yet, is Evanston enthusiastic about mass immigration by, say, fellow Americans, such as, says, Chicagoans?

    Nah. Evanston’s population is down roughly 5,000 since 1970.”

    It’s probably worth noting that Chicago’s population is also down since 1970—by roughly 636,000.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Chicago
    http://population2016.com/population-of-chicago-2016.html

  86. @bomag

    There is only a fixed amount of land in the US, but the increased demand would also incentivize more efficient uses of real estate.
     
    I'm less and less sanguine that incentives will solve such problems. The horizon keeps receding; each "more efficient use" gets swallowed up by more people until the dysfunction discourages any more activity.

    While I wouldn’t rule out your objection a priori, I think it’s a good idea to look at current government policies and disentangle those disincentives that have their origin in statist intervention from those disincentives that are inherent in the natural order of things. It’s hard to answer such questions with more than just theory, since the government affects the market in so many ways, both directly and indirectly.

  87. More homogeneous societies are often more generous to their fellow citizens however. There is no voter effort to restrict housing supply growth in Japan or Korea.

  88. We need rule by real fathers.

    Bring back patriarchy.

  89. @Zoodles
    What defines an expert?

    I know my mechanic is an expert, because my car gets fixed. I know a carpenter is an expert because he builds stuff. But the technocrats and economists...how do we know they are experts? By what metric are they measured? It seems to me the only metric used is a scrap of paper from a prestigious university and their proximity to the oligarchy.

    Zoo, Years ago I stood with my middle child in front of an abstract painting at Buffalo’s world renowned Albright-Knox art gallery. My daughter looked at the painting and asked, “Dad, is that really art?” Before I could reply a nearby woman turned and snapped….”Of course that is art.” When I asked how she could be so sure, she replied,” Because I studied art.” So there you have it. See how easy it is to be an expert.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    Joe, liked the boots'n'bags tip. The real experts are people who say "Sure. It'll cost yea much, and here's how we do it. Half upfront (or materials at least, if I like your sisterrr/ daughterrr").
    Like the carpenters cited, they may not ever get a chance to do it in their entire careers, but if called on, and it's made of wood, they can. Any damn thing, that has ever been made of timber. And not over 10% gash.
    Experts. Can do, don't talk.
    And definitely don't go spilling their guts in the public prints. Could cost a guy money, that.
    , @Jim Don Bob
    Years ago, I was driving past this piece of modern art (http://www.rosslynva.org/go/cupids-garden-1994-chris-gardner) with my three year old daughter. She said, "Look, Dad. It's broken".
  90. @The Z Blog
    Tyler is a pretty good example of how the modern college campus is an adult daycare center. Most of what goes on is entirely inconsequential. The persons in the Womyn's Studies department, for example, could spend all day doing acid and no one would notice or care. There are very few places on campus where the work counts for anything outside the campus or has to comport with nature. In those cases, you see little of the silliness and it is usually attached to some private sector venture or the military.

    As a result, most everyone on campus are free to indulge in make believe. It's an interesting study in what happens to people when they no longer have responsibilities. In the Godfather, Don Corleone says, “I spent my whole life trying not to be careless. Women and children can afford to be careless, but not men.” There are no men on campus. Everyone can afford to be careless because they are insulated from reality. The money keeps flowing no matter what they do so they are free to do what they like.

    Another interesting aspect here is Cowen, Pinker and Murray and others have lately been making a big show of the fact they are not on board with the Resistance. Pinker increasingly sounds like he is about to go Bruce Jenner on us. Murray sounds like a sneering snob hanging out on John Forbes Kerry's yacht. I suspect some version of the Committee for Public Safety is popping up on our campuses to root out enemies of Progressive virtue. That means everyone with a penis better remove all doubt.

    The persons in the Womyn’s Studies department, for example, could spend all day doing acid and no one would notice or care.

    The guys who receive the rape charges would care.

    (I otherwise agree)

  91. @Yak-15
    Why be ruled by anyone? I thought the idea was that US government finds its authority through consent. I do not believe that gels with "ruling" which implies arbitrary decisions over the powerless.

    Perhaps an argument over semantics, idk, but I am disgusted by the notion in Washington that they "rule."

    Yak, well stated. Here in New York Andrew Cuomo acts and speaks like he is our ruler. Unfortunately his party in deeply embedded in our state.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    Here in New York Andrew Cuomo acts and speaks like he is our ruler.
     
    Isn't he?
  92. @anon
    wisdom of crowds - which is influenced by "experts" but not exclusively so

    question is how do you translate "the people" into wisdom of crowds?

    democracy is admittedly a pretty poor first attempt whenever the number of citizens exceeds an Athenian size town

    (i.e. when the citizens can all directly debate each other without filtering by interested parties who control the means of mass communication)

    so personally i think a free internet will *eventually* create wisdom of crowds out of billions of individual arguments

    might take a while though

    Crowds are only wise on certain subjects . On others, they’re as stupid as experts. No one knows where one ends and the other begins.

  93. @BB753
    Neither politicians nor academics qualify as experts. The former are usually ignorants and snake oil "salespersons" while the latter for the most part lack any kind of experience of the non-academic world, of what we mere mortals know as reality.
    On the other hand, some ordinary people do know a thing or two about how things actually work and are good at managing. It depends of what kind of people rule. Rule by the mob is always a bad idea. Meritocratic rule by ordinary citizens strikes me as a good proposition.

    BB753, My son retired at age forty after a career as a Market Analyst . I told him that an acquaintance of mine taught his expertise to small classes of MBA students at UB. I suggested that he approach a well regarded college in Cleveland and offer his expertise to them. He had an interview with the Dean of their business school who told him that the school had Phds. who taught their courses but expressed surprise that one could make a great living advising stock brokers and portfolio managers, as my son did. But again, his faculty were Phds.

    • Agree: BB753
  94. @Detective Club
    Self-proclaimed "political" experts are just running a long con, thanks to the MSM.

    John Podesta isn't an expert. His password is [email protected] He's an idiot.

    Hillary Clinton isn't an expert. She shook down foreign dictators to the tune of $350 million while in office and destroyed 33,000 government documents after receiving a Congressional subpoena. She's a crook.

    John McCain wants to start a war with Russia for no apparent reason. Nobody in their right mind would consider him an expert of anything on God's Green Earth because he's obviously either senile or insane or a bit of both.

    John McCain’s not exactly insane
    But gird your loins: he’s worse
    He has sold his soul, as our host does post –
    He’s a psychopath chained by a purse.

    But wait there’s more now he’s reached fourscore,
    And his neurons assuredly dwindle.
    As you suggest, his brain should rest,
    Instead, he doubles down on his swindle.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Jack, I look forward to your portrait hanging in some Ivy league English Department, and then being taken down and replaced by some obscure vibrant's photo. Funny comment.
  95. @ThreeCranes
    The question "Would you rather be ruled by the people or the experts?" forms the very backbone of Plato's philosophy. Again and again Socrates asks in The Republic whether, in any particular field of endeavor be it horse breeding or navigating a ship, the breeder's or pilot's opinion is to be heeded or that of the passengers in steerage. Should we, in the midst of a terrifying tempest, respond to the panicked screams of the passengers or obey the experienced voice of the captain and crew?

    Adrift in a life raft, would we allow the navigator, equipped as he is with knowledge of stars, winds and currents and trained in the proper use of compass and sextant, to guide our course or would we heed the advise of anyone who offers an opinion? Should we take a vote? Should we submit to the person who can back their opinion up with the threat of violence?

    And so Plato rejects the so-called wisdom of the masses and along with that democracy as the best form of government. Invariably, the majority of people know little to nothing about any one thing in particular. Each of us knows one thing fairly well, but each of us is ignorant of most things and should therefore, keep silent.

    This attitude doesn't sit well with SJWs who find fault with everything around them and fancy themselves capable of reorganizing society so as to optimize outcomes.

    Today's system is so infinitely complex that it is virtually impossible for any one person--with a few exceptions--to know enough to prescribe any change that could improve things. The parts must be allowed to seek their own level of optimum functioning while establishing an equilibrium with the other parts. Prescribing just how to achieve this is practically impossible. It must be left to work itself out but in doing so, excess is inevitable. Waste seems to be integral to optimization.

    There are experts but no one Expert. So, oligarchy of and by those who know. Aristocracy of knowers, which today means Technocracy.

    There are no experts in governing. Socrates’ (the character) solution, an insane community for the breeding of a ruling philosopher class, was just that: insane. The simplest child could tell you it’s a stupid idea, but it is fun to think about.

  96. @ThreeCranes
    The question "Would you rather be ruled by the people or the experts?" forms the very backbone of Plato's philosophy. Again and again Socrates asks in The Republic whether, in any particular field of endeavor be it horse breeding or navigating a ship, the breeder's or pilot's opinion is to be heeded or that of the passengers in steerage. Should we, in the midst of a terrifying tempest, respond to the panicked screams of the passengers or obey the experienced voice of the captain and crew?

    Adrift in a life raft, would we allow the navigator, equipped as he is with knowledge of stars, winds and currents and trained in the proper use of compass and sextant, to guide our course or would we heed the advise of anyone who offers an opinion? Should we take a vote? Should we submit to the person who can back their opinion up with the threat of violence?

    And so Plato rejects the so-called wisdom of the masses and along with that democracy as the best form of government. Invariably, the majority of people know little to nothing about any one thing in particular. Each of us knows one thing fairly well, but each of us is ignorant of most things and should therefore, keep silent.

    This attitude doesn't sit well with SJWs who find fault with everything around them and fancy themselves capable of reorganizing society so as to optimize outcomes.

    Today's system is so infinitely complex that it is virtually impossible for any one person--with a few exceptions--to know enough to prescribe any change that could improve things. The parts must be allowed to seek their own level of optimum functioning while establishing an equilibrium with the other parts. Prescribing just how to achieve this is practically impossible. It must be left to work itself out but in doing so, excess is inevitable. Waste seems to be integral to optimization.

    There are experts but no one Expert. So, oligarchy of and by those who know. Aristocracy of knowers, which today means Technocracy.

    Technocracy is the Managerial State, which was the dream of progressivism. See how well that turned out. It could be done both better and worse. But it’s a precarious endeavor in any case, with a suicidal downside.

    Take race. (Please.) I think our ruling technocratic class is wrong on the subject, but more to the point, whatever they believe they’ve jiggered it wrong, simultaneously maintaining race doesn’t matter and is the most important thing ever. Which has alienated both the majority population, which holds the keys to civil society upon which successful governance is based, and various minority populations, which are probe to violence.

    Not that there’s going to be a race war, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what the ruling class wants. Of course, if they were trying they’d probably do a much worse job of it.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Technocracy is the Managerial State, which was the dream of progressivism.
     
    It was more like the opposite. Dewey fought Lippmann's efforts to establish government by experts. Even Wikipedia says, "Early progressive thinkers such as John Dewey and Lester Ward placed a universal and comprehensive system of education at the top of the progressive agenda, reasoning that if a democracy were to be successful, its leaders, the general public, needed a good education."
  97. Experts tend to believe they know what they’re doing. Common people doubt more. Doubt works.

  98. @27 year old
    I met Tyler Cowen, but I can't remember his face, but I'm sure he has a very punchable face.

    Is Tyler really anti-expert here? It sounds like he just thinks Harvards experts are the wrong one. I sure as shit don't want to be ruled by the George Mason Econ faculty any more than the Harvard faculty.

    I think rule by random citizens could work well. The legislative body could be selected at random (semi random) on a per decision basis, vote on the decision, and then be dissolved. Next vote, pick a new bunch of congressman for a new 1 issue term. Nobody is in "power" long enough to get corrupt or harden into an elite. We already have the technology for this.

    I think rule by random citizens could work well.

    Moldbug had a thought experiment where he advocated rule by airline pilots (which is now ironic given the late New Yorker cartoon about the election). He made a strong case that it would be an improvement on present arrangements.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    Sully, or that Germanwings asshole?
    Sully yes. Old school. Any day. Like my dad (he learned on stringbag biplanes).
    The other twat? Pfft.
    , @Anonymous
    Years ago I read ( Apollo 11 astronaut) Michael Collins' autobiography and he made an excellent point. All the astronauts were pilots and flew around in NASA's fleet of T-38 Talons to meet vendors, get from Houston to the Cape, or sometimes just to screw off. They had a few fatal crashes along the way, plus the T-38 is not pocket change to fuel and maintain.

    So this garnered a lot of criticism. However, he believed that flying the Talon made the astronauts better decision makers, which contributed to the fact that the US had, until after the book was published, never lost an astronaut in space itself. Flying military jets requires judgment and the ability to make decisions, sometimes inconvenient ones, in a short amount of time.

    There is something to be said for the idea that presidents should be successful aviators.
  99. @Buffalo Joe
    Yak, well stated. Here in New York Andrew Cuomo acts and speaks like he is our ruler. Unfortunately his party in deeply embedded in our state.

    Here in New York Andrew Cuomo acts and speaks like he is our ruler.

    Isn’t he?

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Desi, Yes he is, at least in his own mind. Find a video of him speaking from on high for an agita inducing dose of pomposity.
  100. @Arclight
    Interesting question, and I think I would agree with Cowan's general take that the experts have a tendency to look for gigantic problems to solve and inflict their prescriptions on a public that is not on the same page, with results that tend not to justify the cost.

    Right now it is popular in certain quarters to attribute the opposition Obama faced to racism on the part of the GOP, but that overlooks the fact that Obama immediately dove into trying to impose enormous changes on society. First was the stimulus, with it's mind-blowing size and laundry list of areas of the economy it was supposed to revive. Then, with the effects of that far from clear he plunged right into healthcare, an effort that no poll (except the Kaiser Family Foundation) ever showed majority public support for. Combine those with his apology tour of the Muslim world and stiff-arming of longtime allies and he signaled that he was determined to follow his vision no matter whether the public was inclined to follow. The GOP recognized that a significant amount of the public was put off by this and successfully ended the short-lived Dem majority in Congress and made huge gains at the state level through redistricting and tying the national Democratic party around the necks of candidates in areas that were much more politically moderate than Obama or his allies in Congress.

    To be fair we can also blame conservative experts for the enormous mistake of invading Iraq, who also decided to take on a huge and transformative project that didn't turn out at all like they said it would, and both parties have been enthusiastically conducting a massive social and economic experiment with their wholehearted embrace of large scale illegal immigration.

    “Right now it is popular in certain quarters to attribute the opposition Obama faced to racism on the part of the GOP,”

    Heck the Left calls GOP voters racist for not voting for Crooked Cankles even though she is not even dark by Caucasian standards, let alone dark by People Of Color standards. Richard Nixon looks more ethnic than she does. So if you were of voting age in 1968 or 1972, and you didn’t vote for Richard Nixon than you are even more racist than the voters in 2016 who did not stand with her.

    The Left is applying Transracialism to Crooked Cankles.

  101. The funny thing is that technology has finally made democracy a viable prospect, and none of the people who constantly tout democracy actually want it. They all seem to love the ancient agrarian hack of representative democracy, wherein democratic power is concentrated into one, easily-bribed, “representative.”

    Funny how that works.

    Personally, I wouldn’t mind the occasional plebiscite.

    (i) Nobody has ever devised a way that allows any sizeable country to be ruled by the people. Perhaps Switzerland comes closest.

    What are you, kidding? It’d be easy as pie. It would certainly be easy to modify representative democracy to pare the power of the representatives waaaaaaaaaaaay back, and give that power to the voters. Trivial. Silicon valley could have something for you by the end of the month.

    • Replies: @scrivener3
    I have no interest in being ruled by a majority of my fellow citizens. I should be ruled by myself to the extent it is feasible.

    Think if science was a product of majority vote. Perhaps the sun would still revolve around the earth.

    Think if business was a product of majority vote. Think of the things not produced that you could not buy because they were not politically correct or popular. You might be relegated to 150 mile range expensive electric cars when I can have 700+ miles in my diesel suv.

    Think if a simple majority determined if a web site should exist or not. Goodby iSteve.
  102. @reiner Tor
    The elites are using the military for their own ends while simultaneously destroying it from within through affirmative action, women in combat, LGBTQ empowerment, etc. Incidentally, this makes the military more sympathetic to any emerging populist like Trump, making it impossible to stay in power by raw force. (Thank God for that!)

    They are obviously lunatics, at least half believing their own propaganda and ideology.

    They are obviously lunatics, at least half believing their own propaganda and ideology.

    No, they don’t. They don’t even believe in belief.

  103. Would you rather be led or ruled?

    Elevated or suppressed?

    Globalism rules than leads white masses in white nations.

    Globalism suppresses than elevates the white masses.

  104. @The most deplorable one
    OT, but next time you are tempted to quote Snopes, just remember that they seem to be obsessed with fact checking whether or not hookers/escorts have vaginas:

    https://twitter.com/AmishRakeFighte/status/820053971620401152

    HT To Gab.

    He payed over $60,000 for “entertainment?” Over how long a period of time? That’s either hundreds of sessions, or overly generous.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome


    He payed over $60,000 for “entertainment?”

     

    That would buy a lot of hot dogs.
    , @The most deplorable one
    I guess he had to fact check a considerable sample before he could ascertain that it is a fact that women have vaginas.
  105. “Would You Rather be Ruled by the People or the Experts?””

    Forget the experts, like The Doobie Brothers say you have to listen to the people.

  106. @Buffalo Joe
    Zoo, Years ago I stood with my middle child in front of an abstract painting at Buffalo's world renowned Albright-Knox art gallery. My daughter looked at the painting and asked, "Dad, is that really art?" Before I could reply a nearby woman turned and snapped...."Of course that is art." When I asked how she could be so sure, she replied," Because I studied art." So there you have it. See how easy it is to be an expert.

    Joe, liked the boots’n’bags tip. The real experts are people who say “Sure. It’ll cost yea much, and here’s how we do it. Half upfront (or materials at least, if I like your sisterrr/ daughterrr”).
    Like the carpenters cited, they may not ever get a chance to do it in their entire careers, but if called on, and it’s made of wood, they can. Any damn thing, that has ever been made of timber. And not over 10% gash.
    Experts. Can do, don’t talk.
    And definitely don’t go spilling their guts in the public prints. Could cost a guy money, that.

  107. @Desiderius

    I think rule by random citizens could work well.
     
    Moldbug had a thought experiment where he advocated rule by airline pilots (which is now ironic given the late New Yorker cartoon about the election). He made a strong case that it would be an improvement on present arrangements.

    Sully, or that Germanwings asshole?
    Sully yes. Old school. Any day. Like my dad (he learned on stringbag biplanes).
    The other twat? Pfft.

  108. @Austrian
    Notice how Tyler Cowen perceives himself as an outside observer and not as a member of the lunatic, ivory tower elite, but not as a member of the masses either. The reality of the matter is that he is just sitting in a different ivory tower as Bernie Sanders and his lunacy is evident in his expressed views.

    We could call his perspective “florentine”, but I hate to drag down one my favorite cities.

  109. The begging of Wisdom is fear of the Horde. Who said that? You’d naturally want to consult an Expert. OR—you could just ask, Who knows?

    I do, if you want to beg the question to me.

    Actually I’ve spent the better part of a year waiting for one of the Experts on Infinite Jest to acknowledge that I put their expertise to shame and taught them the subject they teach, without doing just that as best as I could. But that’s what saying so much as Nice Work to me would amount to. I might say they said it, and another expert might see I did, and then they would be with me, as good as a non-Expert.

    This has happened before, by the way, and is why there are what they call Joyceans, who have been guardians over a book of the sacred arts as the Irish understand it for a century five years from now. “If an intellectual community exists, it is among the Irish scholars” a sage went so far as to say. Most of those scholars are not academics. But Ireland being a strange small place they can be spoken of as a “community.” But to know THAT— you’d have to know that.

    An expert can never admit an oversight much less an egregious oversight because that’s to say he was never an expert til now, but wait what? He can never say he was wrong because now he’s right, if only because his critics would just say he admitted he was wrong, and that’s why they’re right.

    The last place in the world a person would speak up from and say that my scholarship was right is Harvard.

    And does anyone really want to argue that Charles Murray is intellectually honest about the way reality works?

    One time I said let’s instill Ron Unz as Ceasar, and a big reason my gut knows that’s a good idea is because he admits he used to be wrong all the time.

    • Replies: @SFG
    And does anyone really want to argue that Charles Murray is intellectually honest about the way reality works?

    He opened his mouth once (Bell Curve), and remember what happened?
  110. @bomag

    I am more of a globalist, and also a professional academic
     
    IOW, he hates the People.

    IOW, he hates the People.

    No, he hates White people.

  111. Anonymous [AKA "bigslick"] says:
    @MikeTB
    Evanston's population has dropped, but it's low income black population has increased. The town is another beneficiary of former Chicago Mayor Daley's 20 year plan to remove low income people from the more choice real estate locations that their crumbling housing projects happened to be built upon, and relocate them to the surrounding suburbs.*
    My brother, a genuine vacuum sealed, globalist zealot, lives in nearby white oasis Glencoe. Despite all of his moral grandstanding about diversity, unchecked immigration, free trade, blah blah blah, when asked about how many Somali immigrants should be communally housed near his residence in Lilywhiteland, the mask of equality unknowingly comes off.

    *The town of Park Forest, where my wife grew up, has been completely turned over in one generation from quiet working class white neighborhood to just 'hood. There are reports of shootings at her former high school and there was even a riot there a couple years ago.

    My wife also grew up in Park Forest and my in-laws still live there. The value of their home is probably 1/2 of what it was 15 years ago. I spoke to my father-in-law several years ago and he assured me the value would return, I think he has finally accepted that it will not. There was a news report (20/20, Dateline, or some such show) were nearby Richton Park was advertising for White residents (with the approval of the Black residents who were concerned about the value of their own homes).

    I grew-up in Rockford, so I can’t say much myself.

  112. @Buffalo Joe
    Zoo, Years ago I stood with my middle child in front of an abstract painting at Buffalo's world renowned Albright-Knox art gallery. My daughter looked at the painting and asked, "Dad, is that really art?" Before I could reply a nearby woman turned and snapped...."Of course that is art." When I asked how she could be so sure, she replied," Because I studied art." So there you have it. See how easy it is to be an expert.

    Years ago, I was driving past this piece of modern art (http://www.rosslynva.org/go/cupids-garden-1994-chris-gardner) with my three year old daughter. She said, “Look, Dad. It’s broken”.

  113. @Tim Howells

    "...and too many humanitarian interventions abroad"
     
    It astounds me that anyone (even a highly indoctrinated academic) still buys in to such transparent BS as the "humanitarian intervention" crap.

    I agree.

    “Humanitarian” if the humans are senior executives of defense contractors, mercenary organizations and hedge funds. A few two faced flatterers like Chalibi and leaders of non-existent rebel groups do pretty well, too.

  114. @Elli
    Aaron, Abrams, Abdul - perhaps we could go for the Simmons-Smith-Sutherland section instead?

    Cripes! At least somebody’s on the ball here.
    I identify as Ms. Apostrophe-Apostrophe-Aaaaaa-Arrrrgh-muh-Asshole. At least for landline purposes. Just checkin’ my alphabetic roman priv’lidj an’ ‘ting.

  115. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    Just "Imagine" how much better a world we would have if we were ruled by our top songwriters like Sir Paul:

    Someone's knockin' at the door
    Somebody's ringin' the bell
    Someone's knockin' at the door
    Somebody's ringin' the bell
    Do me a favor,
    Open the door and let 'em in
    Sister Suzie, brother John,
    Martin Luther, Phil And Don,
    Brother Michael, Auntie Gin,
    Open the door and let 'em in.
    Someone's knockin' at the door
    Somebody's ringin' the bell
    Someone's knockin' at the door
    Somebody's ringin' the bell
    Do me a favor,
    Open the door and let 'em in.

    Last of the grammar-school-boy-made-good generation, our Paul. Liverpool Institute, like the wife’s old man. He died in harness, BAT and Pfizer, at the highest echelon, having seen his docker dad pawn clothes for food ( “blind” lobbies/ blind scouse, no doubt).
    Shirley “I’m not a fuckin’ baroness” Williams did for them. Never again. Keep ’em poor, keep ’em onside. Like your Dems.

  116. @ThreeCranes
    The question "Would you rather be ruled by the people or the experts?" forms the very backbone of Plato's philosophy. Again and again Socrates asks in The Republic whether, in any particular field of endeavor be it horse breeding or navigating a ship, the breeder's or pilot's opinion is to be heeded or that of the passengers in steerage. Should we, in the midst of a terrifying tempest, respond to the panicked screams of the passengers or obey the experienced voice of the captain and crew?

    Adrift in a life raft, would we allow the navigator, equipped as he is with knowledge of stars, winds and currents and trained in the proper use of compass and sextant, to guide our course or would we heed the advise of anyone who offers an opinion? Should we take a vote? Should we submit to the person who can back their opinion up with the threat of violence?

    And so Plato rejects the so-called wisdom of the masses and along with that democracy as the best form of government. Invariably, the majority of people know little to nothing about any one thing in particular. Each of us knows one thing fairly well, but each of us is ignorant of most things and should therefore, keep silent.

    This attitude doesn't sit well with SJWs who find fault with everything around them and fancy themselves capable of reorganizing society so as to optimize outcomes.

    Today's system is so infinitely complex that it is virtually impossible for any one person--with a few exceptions--to know enough to prescribe any change that could improve things. The parts must be allowed to seek their own level of optimum functioning while establishing an equilibrium with the other parts. Prescribing just how to achieve this is practically impossible. It must be left to work itself out but in doing so, excess is inevitable. Waste seems to be integral to optimization.

    There are experts but no one Expert. So, oligarchy of and by those who know. Aristocracy of knowers, which today means Technocracy.

    The problem with Plato’s view is that the experts he cites are all people of whom layman have a choice not to engage with. You don’t have to ride steerage or get caught in a lifeboat, or fly in a plane, or deal with navigators and horse breeders. The layman controls the engagement and disengagement with these experts. They only factor into the lives of the masses when the masses choose to deal with them.

    Heck, even experts submit to experts by choice, for example, when a pilot chooses to fly on someone else’s plane.

    But none of this “spot-transaction” expertise justifies a permanent oligarchy from which one cannot disengage, that is ubiquitous, and that plans to run your life, or control the environment in which you are forced to make decisions.

    So, Plato is wrong and he misunderstands the problem.

    • Replies: @guest
    You must allow for Plato's arguing metaphorically, "ship of state" and all that. Plus, I don't know how much of any of his dialogues you can take seriously. Did he actually want a permanent oligarchy, ruling by way of a noble lie tricking the lower classes? Or is it a thought exercise?
  117. @candid_observer
    I wonder what it would be like to be ruled by experts who actually manage to make correct predictions.

    That is, economists who would have predicted clearly the huge downside for American workers of globalization, and who would have predicted the tremendous rise in inequality across the decades. Social scientists who could see and acknowledge that diversity is damaging to the social fabric; that certain minorities simply will not approach in academic and economic performance that of whites or Asians; that certain minorities will always engage in a greatly disproportionate amount of violent and other crime.

    Maybe the biggest problem with being ruled by experts is that we have been cursed with the wrong sort of experts.

    The “experts” are convinced that growing a nation’s population is the only means to ensure economic growth, continue the social welfare system and perpetuate the positive feedback loop of a never ending prosperous debt cycle.

    They tend to ignore that not all are capable of contributing the same economically and become dependents rather than contributors to the system. It completely passes over their heads to consider that extending debt to people terminally incapable of ever repaying it lends itself to bubbles and economic crises.

    So, we are essentially doomed to a downward sloping economic decay with interludes of hyper-pronounced boom and bust cycles. All the while, our social fabric deteriorates and we become as corrupt as the Roman Empire.

    What is the over/under on number of years before a major civil war (Muslims vs whites) occurs in a core European country? 10? 15? 20?

    • Replies: @Bugg
    If we are a more mechanized economy, why would simply having more people necessarily be better? Fewer but more productive people using the same resources would seem to make more sense. Simply bringing in more technologically backward nonhackers makes no sense.
  118. @SFG
    I agree 100%. The elites are pretty smart, they just pursue policies that favor them--high immigration lowers wages and ethnic diversity divides the working class. How come Harvard is a 'nonprofit' and doesn't pay taxes even though it contributes hugely to social stratification and hoards huge sums in its endowment? The only thing it doesn't do is pay dividends.

    The elites are pretty smart

    Most of the “elites” could not pour urine from a boot if you wrote the instructions on the bottom.

    • Replies: @anon
    They are smart. The problem is they're evil.
  119. this is why we need to expand the house…we have too many “experts” in congress, lifetime politicians with little experience in the private sector.

    Each house seat once represented 100,000 constituents, while today each member represents 700,000 people. Expanding the House from 435 members to 870 would be a good start. Would reduce the power of lobbyists , as it they would need to wine and dine and bribe hundreds more members to get special interest projects passed.

  120. Evanston has substantially increased its housing stock over the past 17 years or so, with a number of new, large apartment complexes, and one huge one that was killed by the housing crash instead of local opposition (although there was quite a lot of that to it)

    edit: all upper income housing, though

  121. Also, Harvard could vastly expand its student population without dropping its SAT averages an iota. They’re rejecting the large majority of people with 1540s

  122. @Jacob Goldstein
    Some have always had an irrational hatred of " experts" because deep down they know that the cognitive elite in the west is almost completely jewish.

    But this hatred is not shared by upper-middle class whites or elite whites. In fact You would be surprised at how many non-jews try to get their daughters married to jewish men.

    Its like a class upgrade for their daughters , with trump being a perfect example.

    As things get worse in the west, more and more people will demand jewish technocratic rule.

    The cognitive elite in the West is almost completely Jewish? Whence derives this nonsense?

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "The cognitive elite in the West is almost completely Jewish? Whence derives this nonsense?"

    White nationalists believe Jews run everything. If that's true than Jews are the true master race, not the loser White nationalists who still live with their parents because they are either unemployed or have a minimum wage job that doesn't pay them enough to leave the nest.
  123. @map
    The problem with Plato's view is that the experts he cites are all people of whom layman have a choice not to engage with. You don't have to ride steerage or get caught in a lifeboat, or fly in a plane, or deal with navigators and horse breeders. The layman controls the engagement and disengagement with these experts. They only factor into the lives of the masses when the masses choose to deal with them.

    Heck, even experts submit to experts by choice, for example, when a pilot chooses to fly on someone else's plane.

    But none of this "spot-transaction" expertise justifies a permanent oligarchy from which one cannot disengage, that is ubiquitous, and that plans to run your life, or control the environment in which you are forced to make decisions.

    So, Plato is wrong and he misunderstands the problem.

    You must allow for Plato’s arguing metaphorically, “ship of state” and all that. Plus, I don’t know how much of any of his dialogues you can take seriously. Did he actually want a permanent oligarchy, ruling by way of a noble lie tricking the lower classes? Or is it a thought exercise?

  124. I don’t really buy into this American libertarian idea that the experts/elites are in favour of high taxation, and the masses are in favour of low taxation. Most rich people and most upper middle-class professionals tend to be in favour of lower taxes. They may compromise and support other economic freedoms such as low tariffs in exchange for slightly higher income tax, but overall, they still veer in a classically liberal direction. It’s only the left-liberal artists, intellectuals and government workers that support high taxation and a lot of government intervention in the economy.

    Elite policies: relatively low taxation, free trade, open borders, limited financial regulation, relatively liberal social policies

    Left-liberal policies: relatively high taxation, open borders, liberal social policies, increased spending on urban infrastructure

    Populist policies: moderate taxation, moderate protectionism, restricted immigration, moderate financial regulation, relatively tough law and order policies, increased spending on national infrastructure

    The policy packages of today’s western governments are basically a compromise between what the urban liberal right wants and what the urban liberal left wants, will little input from anyone in flyover country.

  125. “Expert” like “elite” is now a meaningless term. It may as well be a title you get for joining a club, which in fact it is. Like George Carlin famously remarked, “Its all a big club, and YOU ain’t in it!” Lets not kid ourselves, everyone has known for years, its not what you know, its WHO you know. Who’s who is the shopping list for club members to find each other and “achievement” is simply blue ribbons given at ivies for meaningless activities.
    The latest flop female “Ghostbusters” was a meaningless sermon to the converted about womyn. Have they gotten a bicycle yet? That equality makes them look fat. Anyway, the old guy flick “Ghostbusters” gives an interesting take on our erstwhile self-professed “betters”. The team of academic losers studying weird but meaningless drivel all get booted cause Venkman nearly kills a guy trying to impress a girl. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
    However, that part about how all of them are afraid of life outside of College because the “Real World” is different and demands results for their money was an interesting look inside that bubble of unreality where these “experts” want and plan to live their whole lives are coming from. They don’t care about what they say or do. They get paid to look busy. As long as they stay out of the way, and toe the line, their little sinecure as a system toadie is secure. They hope.

    Enjoy some video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU

  126. @Chris Mallory

    The elites are pretty smart
     
    Most of the "elites" could not pour urine from a boot if you wrote the instructions on the bottom.

    They are smart. The problem is they’re evil.

    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    They are smart. The problem is they’re evil.
     
    They are "smart" with no practical knowledge or common sense.
  127. @dearieme
    The headline question offers a false dichotomy.

    (i) Nobody has ever devised a way that allows any sizeable country to be ruled by the people. Perhaps Switzerland comes closest.

    (ii) The "experts" in question tend to be expert in academic disciplines that are junk: Macroeconomics, Sociology, Political Science, .... or downright dangerous e.g. Law, Criminology ....

    Nobody really proposes that a country be run by physicists, engineers, chemists, surgeons, dentists ..... For what little it's worth, I suggest the best bet for running a country by experts from just one academic discipline is Veterinary Surgeons. They tend to know a bit of science, and a hell of a lot about mammals, in theory and practice. We are mammals.

    I understand Singapore comes close to being run by technocrats of the kind you mention (scientists, engineers, etc.) and they seem to do pretty well by their people and in competing internationally.

    A lot less personal freedom there than here, though.

  128. @The Z Blog
    Tyler is a pretty good example of how the modern college campus is an adult daycare center. Most of what goes on is entirely inconsequential. The persons in the Womyn's Studies department, for example, could spend all day doing acid and no one would notice or care. There are very few places on campus where the work counts for anything outside the campus or has to comport with nature. In those cases, you see little of the silliness and it is usually attached to some private sector venture or the military.

    As a result, most everyone on campus are free to indulge in make believe. It's an interesting study in what happens to people when they no longer have responsibilities. In the Godfather, Don Corleone says, “I spent my whole life trying not to be careless. Women and children can afford to be careless, but not men.” There are no men on campus. Everyone can afford to be careless because they are insulated from reality. The money keeps flowing no matter what they do so they are free to do what they like.

    Another interesting aspect here is Cowen, Pinker and Murray and others have lately been making a big show of the fact they are not on board with the Resistance. Pinker increasingly sounds like he is about to go Bruce Jenner on us. Murray sounds like a sneering snob hanging out on John Forbes Kerry's yacht. I suspect some version of the Committee for Public Safety is popping up on our campuses to root out enemies of Progressive virtue. That means everyone with a penis better remove all doubt.

    There are very few places on campus where the work counts for anything outside the campus or has to comport with nature.

    Oh, I don’t know. Private sector industry depends heavily on the men who deliver infrastructure and related services on campuses, which are small cities.

    The private sector can’t monetarize their services to their satisfaction for these settings. So they depend on public institutions to underpay workers on campuses to deliver them contracts that they service at bottom dollar (and quality). It’s welfare to the private sector and frequently the only way that skilled white men who build good things well can also have family lives and not be ground up and spat out by age 40. Many of them having come from the private sector themselves.

    There are no men on campus.

    Like you’d know or they’d out themselves to you.

    • LOL: The Z Blog
  129. @Jacob Goldstein
    Some have always had an irrational hatred of " experts" because deep down they know that the cognitive elite in the west is almost completely jewish.

    But this hatred is not shared by upper-middle class whites or elite whites. In fact You would be surprised at how many non-jews try to get their daughters married to jewish men.

    Its like a class upgrade for their daughters , with trump being a perfect example.

    As things get worse in the west, more and more people will demand jewish technocratic rule.

    Hey there, Tiny!

  130. @415 reasons
    The guy who got shot on top of Twin Peaks in SF last winter was from Santa Rosa

    http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5239537-181/suspect-arrested-in-san-francisco?artslide=1

    FWIW: Santa Rosa’s outskirts are okay; vineyards mostly. The city itself has a lot of drifters, druggies, and shiftless layabouts, though generally not of the dangerous sort.

    Bonus: There are cool statues of characters from Schultz’ Peanuts scattered about town.

  131. Hi Steve, you might enjoy this:

    https://sendvid.com/fi74g7lc

    I figured out how to upload the Pinky and the Brain “Mouselope” snippet featuring Martin Sheen and Malibu. It’s perfect.

    It’s kind of funny that Steven Spielberg executive produced this. Pinky and the Brain was a great series.

  132. @OilcanFloyd
    I'd rather be ruled by experts who share my ethnic background, and who aren't hostile towards me and my interests. Is that too much to ask?

    “I’d rather be ruled by experts who share my ethnic background, and who aren’t hostile towards me and my interests. Is that too much to ask?”

    You are anti-Semite.

  133. @Svigor
    The funny thing is that technology has finally made democracy a viable prospect, and none of the people who constantly tout democracy actually want it. They all seem to love the ancient agrarian hack of representative democracy, wherein democratic power is concentrated into one, easily-bribed, "representative."

    Funny how that works.

    Personally, I wouldn't mind the occasional plebiscite.

    (i) Nobody has ever devised a way that allows any sizeable country to be ruled by the people. Perhaps Switzerland comes closest.
     
    What are you, kidding? It'd be easy as pie. It would certainly be easy to modify representative democracy to pare the power of the representatives waaaaaaaaaaaay back, and give that power to the voters. Trivial. Silicon valley could have something for you by the end of the month.

    I have no interest in being ruled by a majority of my fellow citizens. I should be ruled by myself to the extent it is feasible.

    Think if science was a product of majority vote. Perhaps the sun would still revolve around the earth.

    Think if business was a product of majority vote. Think of the things not produced that you could not buy because they were not politically correct or popular. You might be relegated to 150 mile range expensive electric cars when I can have 700+ miles in my diesel suv.

    Think if a simple majority determined if a web site should exist or not. Goodby iSteve.

  134. @27 year old
    I met Tyler Cowen, but I can't remember his face, but I'm sure he has a very punchable face.

    Is Tyler really anti-expert here? It sounds like he just thinks Harvards experts are the wrong one. I sure as shit don't want to be ruled by the George Mason Econ faculty any more than the Harvard faculty.

    I think rule by random citizens could work well. The legislative body could be selected at random (semi random) on a per decision basis, vote on the decision, and then be dissolved. Next vote, pick a new bunch of congressman for a new 1 issue term. Nobody is in "power" long enough to get corrupt or harden into an elite. We already have the technology for this.

    Sounds a bit like the jury system.

    • Replies: @scrivener3
    Sometimes the ancient Greeks selected rulers by lot. When I learned that, I was already indoctrinated and thought why not select experts or representatives by popular vote. Then the leaders would be wise or rule by the will of the majority.

    Of course who is an expert is just an exercise in who controls the megaphone or the credential process. Many breakthroughs in knowledge were from people who would not be accepted as experts before the breakthrough became undeniable. Many people supported by a majority are not beneficial to any single supporter but represent a cotillion with divergent interests that they juggle never satisfying any one but gaining support of them all.

    A randomly drawn group of people could probably run a limited government quite well. Most people are decent and wish to do well.
  135. I think that the entire North Shore of Chicago would be a better example than just Evanston itself. There are a lot of areas of Evanston that are very inner city. The area of Evanston near Northwestern is sort of the gateway to the North Shore and is very elitist, along with the rest of the North Shore.

  136. @guest
    He payed over $60,000 for "entertainment?" Over how long a period of time? That's either hundreds of sessions, or overly generous.

    He payed over $60,000 for “entertainment?”

    That would buy a lot of hot dogs.

  137. I have no interest in being ruled by a majority of my fellow citizens. I should be ruled by myself to the extent it is feasible.

    Think if science was a product of majority vote. Perhaps the sun would still revolve around the earth.

    Politics isn’t science. Science is a minority enterprise, and doesn’t inherently tread on peoples’ lives.

    Business, too, is opt-in.

    I’m not a fan of democracy either, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s eminently feasible, with today’s technology.

    Think of science, if it were a product of representative votes. Anthropogenic Global Warming would be real.

    Think of business, if it were a product of representative votes. Think of all the things that would not be produced.

    What’s good about representative democracy, over and above pure democracy? There is nothing better about the former that springs immediately to my mind. On the contrary, it seems worse to me.

    The only bit of our system that I’m really a fan of is the Constitutional Republic part; that a lot of good stuff isn’t subject to a majority vote. Personally, if I were designing a country from scratch, I’d load a hell of a lot of stuff into the Constitutional Republic part, and make it immune to revision altogether. Starting with hard limits on the size and scope of gov’t.

    • Replies: @anonguy

    Science is a minority enterprise, and doesn’t inherently tread on peoples’ lives.
     
    Fake News.

    The "settled science" of AGW has as its purpose treading upon people's life.

    For starters...

    Few things have affected people's lives like Science for the past 100 years at least.
    , @scrivener3
    "Politics isn’t science. Science is a minority enterprise, and doesn’t inherently tread on peoples’ lives."

    If politics inherently treads on peoples' lives lets us limit the scope of politics to the minimum possible.

    "I’m not a fan of democracy either, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s eminently feasible, with today’s technology."

    Total despotism is essentially feasible with today's technology. Says nothing about whether anyone would desire it. Why do you think it is a good state of affairs if 51% can do anything to 49% by force? The" it is better than anything else" excuse does not work for me, we can simply carve out areas where the individual is immune from political force and may do as he sees fit."

    "Think of science, if it were a product of representative votes. Anthropogenic Global Warming would be real."

    So you think AGW is not real and are somehow arguing for a restructuring of my time, effort and money to act as if it were otherwise?

    "The only bit of our system that I’m really a fan of is the Constitutional Republic part; that a lot of good stuff isn’t subject to a majority vote. Personally, if I were designing a country from scratch, I’d load a hell of a lot of stuff into the Constitutional Republic part, and make it immune to revision altogether. Starting with hard limits on the size and scope of gov’t."

    almost sounds like the constitution.

  138. I think I would take straight democracy of the right half of the bell curve, over what we have now. 150 IQ weirdos voting don’t matter, there aren’t enough of them.

    • Replies: @anon
    I think there's two parts: executive function and balancing interests.

    When it comes to executive function then yeah a property owning or min IQ tested voter base would probably work reasonably well.

    The only problem with it imo is unless everyone's interests are balanced then sooner or later you get a schism - so i think you'd need some kind of brake, like the Roman tribune of the plebieans, to prevent that.
    , @SFG
    You just doubled the political clout of the Jewish population. (Less than doubled as a lot relies on money, but it still is increased).

    More seriously a lot of the right half of the bell curve are yuppie liberal SWPLs. A lot of the blue-collar white population (which probably has the closest views to yours) is in the second quartile from the bottom and would thus be disenfranchised.

  139. @OilcanFloyd
    I'd rather be ruled by experts who share my ethnic background, and who aren't hostile towards me and my interests. Is that too much to ask?

    11. Oilcan Floyd > I’d rather be ruled by experts who share my ethnic background, and who aren’t hostile towards me and my interests. Is that too much to ask?

    What zionist history teaches me, is that you don’t get what you ask for… you get the facts-on-the-ground that you create.

    Show me a kindergarten which teaches children that they were born to build a Pioneering Little Europe – i’ll send it a donation. I’m not joking.

    • Replies: @Ivy
    Experts, ex-pats, or why not both?
  140. @anonymouslee
    We need some sort of final solution to the baby boomer problem.

    These people didn't create but inherited a golden goose from the sweat of their ancestors. They had the temerity to just slaughter it.

    Then they doubled down on their crimes against their ancestors; stealing from their children and future generations by hoarding more golden eggs bought with future debt and enslavement.

    Well said.

  141. @BB753
    Neither politicians nor academics qualify as experts. The former are usually ignorants and snake oil "salespersons" while the latter for the most part lack any kind of experience of the non-academic world, of what we mere mortals know as reality.
    On the other hand, some ordinary people do know a thing or two about how things actually work and are good at managing. It depends of what kind of people rule. Rule by the mob is always a bad idea. Meritocratic rule by ordinary citizens strikes me as a good proposition.

    Meritocratic rule by ordinary citizens strikes me as a good proposition.

    The Meritocracy by definition is not ordinary citizens.

    Meritocracy is just a modern packaging of rule by divine right, especially insofar as the Meritocracy gets to define what is meritorious.

    Do you see the issue now?

    • Replies: @BB753
    Out of ordinary citizens, you choose the best. That's meritocracy in my book.
  142. @Svigor

    I have no interest in being ruled by a majority of my fellow citizens. I should be ruled by myself to the extent it is feasible.

    Think if science was a product of majority vote. Perhaps the sun would still revolve around the earth.
     
    Politics isn't science. Science is a minority enterprise, and doesn't inherently tread on peoples' lives.

    Business, too, is opt-in.

    I'm not a fan of democracy either, but that doesn't change the fact that it's eminently feasible, with today's technology.

    Think of science, if it were a product of representative votes. Anthropogenic Global Warming would be real.

    Think of business, if it were a product of representative votes. Think of all the things that would not be produced.

    What's good about representative democracy, over and above pure democracy? There is nothing better about the former that springs immediately to my mind. On the contrary, it seems worse to me.

    The only bit of our system that I'm really a fan of is the Constitutional Republic part; that a lot of good stuff isn't subject to a majority vote. Personally, if I were designing a country from scratch, I'd load a hell of a lot of stuff into the Constitutional Republic part, and make it immune to revision altogether. Starting with hard limits on the size and scope of gov't.

    Science is a minority enterprise, and doesn’t inherently tread on peoples’ lives.

    Fake News.

    The “settled science” of AGW has as its purpose treading upon people’s life.

    For starters…

    Few things have affected people’s lives like Science for the past 100 years at least.

  143. @guest
    He payed over $60,000 for "entertainment?" Over how long a period of time? That's either hundreds of sessions, or overly generous.

    I guess he had to fact check a considerable sample before he could ascertain that it is a fact that women have vaginas.

  144. @MikeTB
    Evanston's population has dropped, but it's low income black population has increased. The town is another beneficiary of former Chicago Mayor Daley's 20 year plan to remove low income people from the more choice real estate locations that their crumbling housing projects happened to be built upon, and relocate them to the surrounding suburbs.*
    My brother, a genuine vacuum sealed, globalist zealot, lives in nearby white oasis Glencoe. Despite all of his moral grandstanding about diversity, unchecked immigration, free trade, blah blah blah, when asked about how many Somali immigrants should be communally housed near his residence in Lilywhiteland, the mask of equality unknowingly comes off.

    *The town of Park Forest, where my wife grew up, has been completely turned over in one generation from quiet working class white neighborhood to just 'hood. There are reports of shootings at her former high school and there was even a riot there a couple years ago.

    How did he reply?

    I want some of the bastard said.

  145. @Anonymous
    Steve, you are spot on about Evanston IL. Your inferences about wider societal trends drawn from the Chicago microcosmos, Austin, white flight, now Evanston are a pleasure.
    Please one day write about Hyde Park and why it is the only liveable area on the South Side. How the nimbys managed to keep the neighborhood from collapsing while virtue signaling the whole way. Very much like Malibu.

    Look up Jack Clark , hack writing. Writes about Austin pre 1970 from a white working class perspective. You'll enjoy it.

    Evanston is an SWPL-topia to be sure. Have the sense that it is so totally dominated by the plutocrat kids @ Northwestern, the bloated Northwestern faculty & admin plus the old money that it is a special case. The cost of living compared to other IL spots is high, but would bet that a huge component of the population loss that you have many empty nest couples or retirees living in 4 bedroom homes. 30 years ago there were probably a lot more families of 4 or 5 in those same spots. Also, it is really like 2 towns: the SW quarter is lower or middle income, more like Rogers Park, while the other 3/4s is quite affluent or at least upper middle class.
    One curious thing about is that there has been a lot of high end in-fill development along the rail lines (like 4 to 10 story luxury condos). Probably won’t raise the population much, but the average income in the town will be going up, and real estate values there recovered way faster since 2007 compared to other areas in IL. The new condos are apparently drawing in wealthy retirees and some folks from affluent parts of Chicago. It is also common for parents of Northwestern students to buy a condo for their kid, with an eye to selling it after 4 yrs.

    • Replies: @anon
    The conservative verison for Trump with money is Huntington Beach, Newport Beach and Yorba Linda. Trump got as high as 67 percent in Yorba Linda which is 50 percent college graduated and median household income around 120,000.
  146. @27 year old
    I met Tyler Cowen, but I can't remember his face, but I'm sure he has a very punchable face.

    Is Tyler really anti-expert here? It sounds like he just thinks Harvards experts are the wrong one. I sure as shit don't want to be ruled by the George Mason Econ faculty any more than the Harvard faculty.

    I think rule by random citizens could work well. The legislative body could be selected at random (semi random) on a per decision basis, vote on the decision, and then be dissolved. Next vote, pick a new bunch of congressman for a new 1 issue term. Nobody is in "power" long enough to get corrupt or harden into an elite. We already have the technology for this.

    I think rule by random citizens could work well. The legislative body could be selected at random (semi random) on a per decision basis, vote on the decision, and then be dissolved. Next vote, pick a new bunch of congressman for a new 1 issue term. Nobody is in “power” long enough to get corrupt or harden into an elite. We already have the technology for this.

    I’ve thought along these lines recently, too. As someone noted – we already do something similar, in the form of jury selection.

    A Citizen’s Legislative Council, randomly selected from the same pool as juries. With the same obligation to serve if selected.

    To serve for 12 months. Strong protections against them losing their jobs or damaging their careers. A premium paid over whatever was their income before selection (double?).

    Large enough to capture the general ‘everyman’ stability (1000 members?)

    It removes political parties. Political parties inherently encourage division, ‘us vs them’ thinking, and may be driving liberal democracies toward civil war. Ie, multi-party democracies may be inherently unstable, because they harness deep, atavistic tendencies to divide into teams, and defeat ‘the other’, for the sake of defeating the other.

    Removes the waste and carnival of campaigns.

    Makes it considerably harder to lobby behind the scenes, or to target career politicians for corrupting influence.

    Perhaps with the added flourish of weighting the vote of those chosen for the council, by their contribution to paying the bills, in the form of cumulative taxes paid in their lives to date (as a brake on reckless generosity with ‘other people’s money. Also as a rough proxy for IQ). A logarithmic weighting scale, to prevent dominance by the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world.

    So many possibilities haven’t been tried yet.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    But that ignores the contention of Publius Decius Mus that the US is an "administative state" where the executive branch and the bureaucracy, staffed by "progressives" do what they want.

    An interesting article on Publius Decius Mus is here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/09/intellectuals-for-trump
    , @27 year old
    12 month terms are way longer than I had in mind. I was thinking more like Ann Coulter's Tinder immigration vetting system.
  147. Would you rather be ruled by the people or by experts

    By rules.

    • Replies: @guest
    You want rule by rules? Who shall rule the rules?
  148. @Svigor

    I have no interest in being ruled by a majority of my fellow citizens. I should be ruled by myself to the extent it is feasible.

    Think if science was a product of majority vote. Perhaps the sun would still revolve around the earth.
     
    Politics isn't science. Science is a minority enterprise, and doesn't inherently tread on peoples' lives.

    Business, too, is opt-in.

    I'm not a fan of democracy either, but that doesn't change the fact that it's eminently feasible, with today's technology.

    Think of science, if it were a product of representative votes. Anthropogenic Global Warming would be real.

    Think of business, if it were a product of representative votes. Think of all the things that would not be produced.

    What's good about representative democracy, over and above pure democracy? There is nothing better about the former that springs immediately to my mind. On the contrary, it seems worse to me.

    The only bit of our system that I'm really a fan of is the Constitutional Republic part; that a lot of good stuff isn't subject to a majority vote. Personally, if I were designing a country from scratch, I'd load a hell of a lot of stuff into the Constitutional Republic part, and make it immune to revision altogether. Starting with hard limits on the size and scope of gov't.

    “Politics isn’t science. Science is a minority enterprise, and doesn’t inherently tread on peoples’ lives.”

    If politics inherently treads on peoples’ lives lets us limit the scope of politics to the minimum possible.

    “I’m not a fan of democracy either, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s eminently feasible, with today’s technology.”

    Total despotism is essentially feasible with today’s technology. Says nothing about whether anyone would desire it. Why do you think it is a good state of affairs if 51% can do anything to 49% by force? The” it is better than anything else” excuse does not work for me, we can simply carve out areas where the individual is immune from political force and may do as he sees fit.”

    “Think of science, if it were a product of representative votes. Anthropogenic Global Warming would be real.”

    So you think AGW is not real and are somehow arguing for a restructuring of my time, effort and money to act as if it were otherwise?

    “The only bit of our system that I’m really a fan of is the Constitutional Republic part; that a lot of good stuff isn’t subject to a majority vote. Personally, if I were designing a country from scratch, I’d load a hell of a lot of stuff into the Constitutional Republic part, and make it immune to revision altogether. Starting with hard limits on the size and scope of gov’t.”

    almost sounds like the constitution.

  149. @Loveofknowledge
    Other things being equal, I think it's better to be ruled by the smart people. That's the natural order of things. The problem is when the smart people lose their freaking minds on important issues, which I guess just happens sometimes.

    In Buckley's day it was their sympathy for Communism. They were on the wrong side of the major issue of the twentieth century.

    Now it's all the various white-guilt driven crazy ideas:
    * Support for uncontrolled mass Third World immigration, opposition to any enforcement of immigration law, and even denial that the country has any right to decide who moves here.
    * Always seeing minority criminals as the victims, to the point of absurd denialism of the facts (e.g. Michael Brown case, Clock Boy, Muslim "refugees" in Europe).
    * Blaming all average group differences on discrimination, denying even the possibility of cultural much less biological differences between groups. (I think that's the Achilles heel of multi-cultural societies: some groups always do better than others).

    I also think the economics profession has lost its freaking mind with all the zero and negative interest rates business.

    Again, overall I really would rather be ruled by the smartest and best-educated people. I'm really hoping they come to their senses sometime soon.

    I’m really hoping they come to their senses sometime soon.

    Don’t hold your breath. If anything, they seem to be going even more insane.

  150. @Ben Gunn
    The intelligent, a fascinating subject. I like most who attended a university met very intelligent fellow students. My impression was they were self-centered and showed noticeably bad judgement socially. Perhaps mild autism is the cause. The Economics Detective has a piece on how diversity lowers productivity, the exceptions are the highly intelligent. They work well together regardless of race or ethnicity. I am reminded of this quote, “an idea so stupid only an intellectual would believe it.” It is probably a Churchill. Dalrymple pointed out the intellectuals as a class did not oppose Hitler or Lenin. Or think of Swift’s intellectuals floating in their cloud creating weapons to pour down on helpless humanity while discussing the pro’s and con’s of abstractions. As they are socially isolated, likely financially successful, and socially stunted, it is a recipe for disaster to consult them on politics.

    Everyone defers to letting everyone have their say, and nothing productive ever happens. You can readily imagine any meeting in the Obama administration obsessing over making sure every group and perspective is aired, most of them redundant and predictable, to the point it all goes on forever. And not much gets done ever.

    How does any university in the business of getting young adults ready to get into the workforce waste resources on gender and race studies. Boggles the mind. Ans Cowan, Murray and their ilk have been in this nonsense for so long they’ve become immune to it’s stupidity. it’s a day at the office.

  151. @Roland
    Sounds a bit like the jury system.

    Sometimes the ancient Greeks selected rulers by lot. When I learned that, I was already indoctrinated and thought why not select experts or representatives by popular vote. Then the leaders would be wise or rule by the will of the majority.

    Of course who is an expert is just an exercise in who controls the megaphone or the credential process. Many breakthroughs in knowledge were from people who would not be accepted as experts before the breakthrough became undeniable. Many people supported by a majority are not beneficial to any single supporter but represent a cotillion with divergent interests that they juggle never satisfying any one but gaining support of them all.

    A randomly drawn group of people could probably run a limited government quite well. Most people are decent and wish to do well.

    • Replies: @guest
    Ancient Athenians never left what they considered the important offices--in religion and the military--to the lot.
  152. @Loveofknowledge
    Other things being equal, I think it's better to be ruled by the smart people. That's the natural order of things. The problem is when the smart people lose their freaking minds on important issues, which I guess just happens sometimes.

    In Buckley's day it was their sympathy for Communism. They were on the wrong side of the major issue of the twentieth century.

    Now it's all the various white-guilt driven crazy ideas:
    * Support for uncontrolled mass Third World immigration, opposition to any enforcement of immigration law, and even denial that the country has any right to decide who moves here.
    * Always seeing minority criminals as the victims, to the point of absurd denialism of the facts (e.g. Michael Brown case, Clock Boy, Muslim "refugees" in Europe).
    * Blaming all average group differences on discrimination, denying even the possibility of cultural much less biological differences between groups. (I think that's the Achilles heel of multi-cultural societies: some groups always do better than others).

    I also think the economics profession has lost its freaking mind with all the zero and negative interest rates business.

    Again, overall I really would rather be ruled by the smartest and best-educated people. I'm really hoping they come to their senses sometime soon.

    Again, overall I really would rather be ruled by the smartest and best-educated people. I’m really hoping they come to their senses sometime soon.

    If they had sense, they wouldn’t be the smartest and best-educated. The mental resources required for good sense are different from those required to be best-educated and/or smartest. The three are in competition with one another.

  153. Can I choose none of the above. I would prefer rule of the accountable. If Detroit was owned by a person or organization which only profited if Detroit was a better place to live, then Detroit would no longer look like Detroit. As our courts and official governing bodies start to fail shadow governments pop up because they are useful. Ebay is an example. Sell damaged goods on ebay and you won’t last long as a seller. Ebay has a better system for redress of grievances than the court system. Ebay must enforce truthful transactions or it does not profit. Of course ebay is not sovereign. Ebay cannot hang a person by the neck until dead for selling stolen motorcycle parts. What if ebay, or a similar profit seeking entity, owned the country? Oooosh! We just re-invented monarchy. A King is sovereign and owns his country.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    Hoppe writes extensively on this in "Democracy: The God that Failed". Publicly owned government is treated as any other publicly-owned asset: whoever is temporarily in charge gets as much out of it as possible, with no concern whatsoever for the condition of the asset when they're finished. A monarch wants to pass something of value to his/her heirs.

    There is not only no incentive whatsoever for elected officials to govern responsibly, there are powerful incentives to be as irresponsible as possible. You can't steal and line your pockets when you're out of office so you better get going while you have the chance.

    LBJ (though Hoppe does not touch on him) went into office (TX state legislature) essentially penniless yet died worth close to $100mm (in today's dollars).
  154. @Yak-15
    The "experts" are convinced that growing a nation's population is the only means to ensure economic growth, continue the social welfare system and perpetuate the positive feedback loop of a never ending prosperous debt cycle.

    They tend to ignore that not all are capable of contributing the same economically and become dependents rather than contributors to the system. It completely passes over their heads to consider that extending debt to people terminally incapable of ever repaying it lends itself to bubbles and economic crises.

    So, we are essentially doomed to a downward sloping economic decay with interludes of hyper-pronounced boom and bust cycles. All the while, our social fabric deteriorates and we become as corrupt as the Roman Empire.

    What is the over/under on number of years before a major civil war (Muslims vs whites) occurs in a core European country? 10? 15? 20?

    If we are a more mechanized economy, why would simply having more people necessarily be better? Fewer but more productive people using the same resources would seem to make more sense. Simply bringing in more technologically backward nonhackers makes no sense.

    • Replies: @Yak-15
    I agree completely. Bringing in others makes little sense. Especially when looking at it from a global perspective.

    Liberals have it put together that it would take 10 earths to provide the resources for everyone to live like an American. However, they also think that we must import hundreds of millions so they too can reach our level of prosperity. The fact they don't see the complete disconnect between these ideas is telling.
  155. @Expletive Deleted
    The first 2000 would potentially contain a worrying preponderance of Achmeds, Alis, Abduls, etc.
    http://indiachildnames.com/surname/muslimsurnames.aspx
    Seriously bad idea, Buckley.
    Make it an award, for not picking up a traffic ticket for four years or something.
    [ed.] oh oh, wait, scratch that, we'd be ruled by old ladies. And cops.

    Of course, when Buckley made his comment (early ’70s?) there were only a minuscule number of Muslims in the country. And in fact, I am old enough to remember someone criticizing Buckley for his suggestion: by starting at “A” he was racist, because that supposedly left out the more “ethnic” Eastern European names more likely to start with letters at the end of the alphabet! (Maybe the critic was thinking of names beginning with “Z”, but he seemed to ignore common Anglo-Saxon names like Thompson and Wilson.)

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Under an alphabetical system, Hank Aaron would be president.
  156. @mobi

    I think rule by random citizens could work well. The legislative body could be selected at random (semi random) on a per decision basis, vote on the decision, and then be dissolved. Next vote, pick a new bunch of congressman for a new 1 issue term. Nobody is in “power” long enough to get corrupt or harden into an elite. We already have the technology for this.
     
    I've thought along these lines recently, too. As someone noted - we already do something similar, in the form of jury selection.

    A Citizen's Legislative Council, randomly selected from the same pool as juries. With the same obligation to serve if selected.

    To serve for 12 months. Strong protections against them losing their jobs or damaging their careers. A premium paid over whatever was their income before selection (double?).

    Large enough to capture the general 'everyman' stability (1000 members?)

    It removes political parties. Political parties inherently encourage division, 'us vs them' thinking, and may be driving liberal democracies toward civil war. Ie, multi-party democracies may be inherently unstable, because they harness deep, atavistic tendencies to divide into teams, and defeat 'the other', for the sake of defeating the other.

    Removes the waste and carnival of campaigns.

    Makes it considerably harder to lobby behind the scenes, or to target career politicians for corrupting influence.

    Perhaps with the added flourish of weighting the vote of those chosen for the council, by their contribution to paying the bills, in the form of cumulative taxes paid in their lives to date (as a brake on reckless generosity with 'other people's money. Also as a rough proxy for IQ). A logarithmic weighting scale, to prevent dominance by the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world.

    So many possibilities haven't been tried yet.

    But that ignores the contention of Publius Decius Mus that the US is an “administative state” where the executive branch and the bureaucracy, staffed by “progressives” do what they want.

    An interesting article on Publius Decius Mus is here: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/09/intellectuals-for-trump

  157. @mobi

    I think rule by random citizens could work well. The legislative body could be selected at random (semi random) on a per decision basis, vote on the decision, and then be dissolved. Next vote, pick a new bunch of congressman for a new 1 issue term. Nobody is in “power” long enough to get corrupt or harden into an elite. We already have the technology for this.
     
    I've thought along these lines recently, too. As someone noted - we already do something similar, in the form of jury selection.

    A Citizen's Legislative Council, randomly selected from the same pool as juries. With the same obligation to serve if selected.

    To serve for 12 months. Strong protections against them losing their jobs or damaging their careers. A premium paid over whatever was their income before selection (double?).

    Large enough to capture the general 'everyman' stability (1000 members?)

    It removes political parties. Political parties inherently encourage division, 'us vs them' thinking, and may be driving liberal democracies toward civil war. Ie, multi-party democracies may be inherently unstable, because they harness deep, atavistic tendencies to divide into teams, and defeat 'the other', for the sake of defeating the other.

    Removes the waste and carnival of campaigns.

    Makes it considerably harder to lobby behind the scenes, or to target career politicians for corrupting influence.

    Perhaps with the added flourish of weighting the vote of those chosen for the council, by their contribution to paying the bills, in the form of cumulative taxes paid in their lives to date (as a brake on reckless generosity with 'other people's money. Also as a rough proxy for IQ). A logarithmic weighting scale, to prevent dominance by the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world.

    So many possibilities haven't been tried yet.

    12 month terms are way longer than I had in mind. I was thinking more like Ann Coulter’s Tinder immigration vetting system.

  158. @guest
    The cognitive elite in the West is almost completely Jewish? Whence derives this nonsense?

    “The cognitive elite in the West is almost completely Jewish? Whence derives this nonsense?”

    White nationalists believe Jews run everything. If that’s true than Jews are the true master race, not the loser White nationalists who still live with their parents because they are either unemployed or have a minimum wage job that doesn’t pay them enough to leave the nest.

    • Replies: @guest
    They think Jews rule through cunning, team spirit, and white weakness, not pure intelligence. Though obviously cunning takes some kind of intelligence. The cognitive elite and those actually in charge is not necessarily the same group, even in a society that values intelligence

    If it were true that Jews are in charge, and every single one of them, to the last man, were a genius, the cognitive elite still wouldn't be almost completely Jewish. For the West is large, and Jews are few.
  159. @anon
    wisdom of crowds - which is influenced by "experts" but not exclusively so

    question is how do you translate "the people" into wisdom of crowds?

    democracy is admittedly a pretty poor first attempt whenever the number of citizens exceeds an Athenian size town

    (i.e. when the citizens can all directly debate each other without filtering by interested parties who control the means of mass communication)

    so personally i think a free internet will *eventually* create wisdom of crowds out of billions of individual arguments

    might take a while though

    question is how do you translate “the people” into wisdom of crowds?

    And how do we avoid it becoming the “wisdom of mobs” instead?

  160. @Pat Casey
    The begging of Wisdom is fear of the Horde. Who said that? You'd naturally want to consult an Expert. OR---you could just ask, Who knows?

    I do, if you want to beg the question to me.

    Actually I've spent the better part of a year waiting for one of the Experts on Infinite Jest to acknowledge that I put their expertise to shame and taught them the subject they teach, without doing just that as best as I could. But that's what saying so much as Nice Work to me would amount to. I might say they said it, and another expert might see I did, and then they would be with me, as good as a non-Expert.

    This has happened before, by the way, and is why there are what they call Joyceans, who have been guardians over a book of the sacred arts as the Irish understand it for a century five years from now. "If an intellectual community exists, it is among the Irish scholars" a sage went so far as to say. Most of those scholars are not academics. But Ireland being a strange small place they can be spoken of as a "community." But to know THAT--- you'd have to know that.

    An expert can never admit an oversight much less an egregious oversight because that's to say he was never an expert til now, but wait what? He can never say he was wrong because now he's right, if only because his critics would just say he admitted he was wrong, and that's why they're right.

    The last place in the world a person would speak up from and say that my scholarship was right is Harvard.

    And does anyone really want to argue that Charles Murray is intellectually honest about the way reality works?

    One time I said let's instill Ron Unz as Ceasar, and a big reason my gut knows that's a good idea is because he admits he used to be wrong all the time.

    And does anyone really want to argue that Charles Murray is intellectually honest about the way reality works?

    He opened his mouth once (Bell Curve), and remember what happened?

  161. Few things have affected people’s lives like Science for the past 100 years at least.

    Same goes for the weather, since the dawn of time.

    Science and business are largely someone else’s business. Politics is everyone’s business, because it’s going to govern you, whether you like it or not. There’s way more buy-in for politics than science or business.

    Point being, it’s silly to draw parallels between politics/gov’t, and opt-in endeavors like business and science.

    Science is like a tool; it’s there if you want it. Gov’t is there, whether you like it or not, so people aren’t going to be okay with gov’t just going off the rails, or having no say. People get shot over this stuff. Get this through your thick skull.

  162. Total despotism is essentially feasible with today’s technology. Says nothing about whether anyone would desire it.

    I put it the way I did, because I was discussing feasibility with someone else, until you butted in and answered me as if the topic was desirability, which it wasn’t.

  163. @Yak-15
    Why be ruled by anyone? I thought the idea was that US government finds its authority through consent. I do not believe that gels with "ruling" which implies arbitrary decisions over the powerless.

    Perhaps an argument over semantics, idk, but I am disgusted by the notion in Washington that they "rule."

    Why be ruled by anyone? I thought the idea was that US government finds its authority through consent. I do not believe that gels with “ruling” which implies arbitrary decisions over the powerless.

    Indeed. That pretty well sums up Germanic political theory.

  164. @27 year old
    I met Tyler Cowen, but I can't remember his face, but I'm sure he has a very punchable face.

    Is Tyler really anti-expert here? It sounds like he just thinks Harvards experts are the wrong one. I sure as shit don't want to be ruled by the George Mason Econ faculty any more than the Harvard faculty.

    I think rule by random citizens could work well. The legislative body could be selected at random (semi random) on a per decision basis, vote on the decision, and then be dissolved. Next vote, pick a new bunch of congressman for a new 1 issue term. Nobody is in "power" long enough to get corrupt or harden into an elite. We already have the technology for this.

    I think rule by random citizens could work well.

    Athenians did it!

    In ancient Athenian democracy, sortition was the traditional and primary method for appointing political officials and its use was regarded as a principal characteristic of democracy.

    The Athenians believed sortition to be more democratic than elections and used complex procedures with purpose-built allotment machines (kleroteria) to avoid the corrupt practices used by oligarchs to buy their way into office.

    Both Aristotle and Herodotus (one of the earliest writers on democracy) emphasize selection by lot as a test of democracy,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition#Ancient_Athens

    Ancient writers would characterize our present system of representative democracy as a form of oligarchy. And rightly so.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
  165. @ThreeCranes
    The question "Would you rather be ruled by the people or the experts?" forms the very backbone of Plato's philosophy. Again and again Socrates asks in The Republic whether, in any particular field of endeavor be it horse breeding or navigating a ship, the breeder's or pilot's opinion is to be heeded or that of the passengers in steerage. Should we, in the midst of a terrifying tempest, respond to the panicked screams of the passengers or obey the experienced voice of the captain and crew?

    Adrift in a life raft, would we allow the navigator, equipped as he is with knowledge of stars, winds and currents and trained in the proper use of compass and sextant, to guide our course or would we heed the advise of anyone who offers an opinion? Should we take a vote? Should we submit to the person who can back their opinion up with the threat of violence?

    And so Plato rejects the so-called wisdom of the masses and along with that democracy as the best form of government. Invariably, the majority of people know little to nothing about any one thing in particular. Each of us knows one thing fairly well, but each of us is ignorant of most things and should therefore, keep silent.

    This attitude doesn't sit well with SJWs who find fault with everything around them and fancy themselves capable of reorganizing society so as to optimize outcomes.

    Today's system is so infinitely complex that it is virtually impossible for any one person--with a few exceptions--to know enough to prescribe any change that could improve things. The parts must be allowed to seek their own level of optimum functioning while establishing an equilibrium with the other parts. Prescribing just how to achieve this is practically impossible. It must be left to work itself out but in doing so, excess is inevitable. Waste seems to be integral to optimization.

    There are experts but no one Expert. So, oligarchy of and by those who know. Aristocracy of knowers, which today means Technocracy.

    And so Plato rejects the so-called wisdom of the masses and along with that democracy as the best form of government.

    Except that democracy isn’t rule by “the masses”. It’s rule by consensus of the “experts” and the “masses”.

  166. @guest
    Technocracy is the Managerial State, which was the dream of progressivism. See how well that turned out. It could be done both better and worse. But it's a precarious endeavor in any case, with a suicidal downside.

    Take race. (Please.) I think our ruling technocratic class is wrong on the subject, but more to the point, whatever they believe they've jiggered it wrong, simultaneously maintaining race doesn't matter and is the most important thing ever. Which has alienated both the majority population, which holds the keys to civil society upon which successful governance is based, and various minority populations, which are probe to violence.

    Not that there's going to be a race war, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's what the ruling class wants. Of course, if they were trying they'd probably do a much worse job of it.

    Technocracy is the Managerial State, which was the dream of progressivism.

    It was more like the opposite. Dewey fought Lippmann’s efforts to establish government by experts. Even Wikipedia says, “Early progressive thinkers such as John Dewey and Lester Ward placed a universal and comprehensive system of education at the top of the progressive agenda, reasoning that if a democracy were to be successful, its leaders, the general public, needed a good education.”

    • Replies: @guest
    What did that "education" consist of? Nothing traditionally associated with the word. It's goal was "socialization," with an end product that would have been perfectly acceptable to the Lippmanns of the world (theoretically).
  167. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    More immigration pushes up real estate prices all over the country.

    Restrictions on housing development pushes up housing prices in a typical affluent person's neighborhood.

    If you combine high levels of immigration with restrictions on housing development, you get a very hot real estate market that's good for wealthy homeowners.

    I suspect this is why many elites don't seem that disturbed by our increasing population.

    If America adds 100 million more people and Malibu housing prices double, Malibu homeowners won't be too unhappy.

    You can say that, both LA and OC have real estate listen on international real estate blogs. For example, there was a story in the Wall Street jouranl about a Chinese kid sent to school in Mission Viejo at a private christian school while the parents were still in China and the kid is grade school. Most of the price hike is international buyers, Chinese, Persians, Koreans, a few wealthy Mexicans, Canadians, Russians, you name it. During the Obama years it was decided to get out of the mess in Real Estate was to up Real Estate visas.

  168. Tyler needs to google these words: Long Term Capital Management.

  169. @CrunchybutRealistCon
    Evanston is an SWPL-topia to be sure. Have the sense that it is so totally dominated by the plutocrat kids @ Northwestern, the bloated Northwestern faculty & admin plus the old money that it is a special case. The cost of living compared to other IL spots is high, but would bet that a huge component of the population loss that you have many empty nest couples or retirees living in 4 bedroom homes. 30 years ago there were probably a lot more families of 4 or 5 in those same spots. Also, it is really like 2 towns: the SW quarter is lower or middle income, more like Rogers Park, while the other 3/4s is quite affluent or at least upper middle class.
    One curious thing about is that there has been a lot of high end in-fill development along the rail lines (like 4 to 10 story luxury condos). Probably won't raise the population much, but the average income in the town will be going up, and real estate values there recovered way faster since 2007 compared to other areas in IL. The new condos are apparently drawing in wealthy retirees and some folks from affluent parts of Chicago. It is also common for parents of Northwestern students to buy a condo for their kid, with an eye to selling it after 4 yrs.

    The conservative verison for Trump with money is Huntington Beach, Newport Beach and Yorba Linda. Trump got as high as 67 percent in Yorba Linda which is 50 percent college graduated and median household income around 120,000.

  170. @Karl
    11. Oilcan Floyd > I’d rather be ruled by experts who share my ethnic background, and who aren’t hostile towards me and my interests. Is that too much to ask?

    What zionist history teaches me, is that you don't get what you ask for... you get the facts-on-the-ground that you create.

    Show me a kindergarten which teaches children that they were born to build a Pioneering Little Europe - i'll send it a donation. I'm not joking.

    Experts, ex-pats, or why not both?

  171. @PapayaSF
    Of course, when Buckley made his comment (early '70s?) there were only a minuscule number of Muslims in the country. And in fact, I am old enough to remember someone criticizing Buckley for his suggestion: by starting at "A" he was racist, because that supposedly left out the more "ethnic" Eastern European names more likely to start with letters at the end of the alphabet! (Maybe the critic was thinking of names beginning with "Z", but he seemed to ignore common Anglo-Saxon names like Thompson and Wilson.)

    Under an alphabetical system, Hank Aaron would be president.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    We could do worse, and have.
  172. @Desiderius

    Would you rather be ruled by the people or by experts
     
    By rules.

    You want rule by rules? Who shall rule the rules?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    That's a secondary question. Where it belongs.
  173. @scrivener3
    Sometimes the ancient Greeks selected rulers by lot. When I learned that, I was already indoctrinated and thought why not select experts or representatives by popular vote. Then the leaders would be wise or rule by the will of the majority.

    Of course who is an expert is just an exercise in who controls the megaphone or the credential process. Many breakthroughs in knowledge were from people who would not be accepted as experts before the breakthrough became undeniable. Many people supported by a majority are not beneficial to any single supporter but represent a cotillion with divergent interests that they juggle never satisfying any one but gaining support of them all.

    A randomly drawn group of people could probably run a limited government quite well. Most people are decent and wish to do well.

    Ancient Athenians never left what they considered the important offices–in religion and the military–to the lot.

  174. @Jefferson
    "The cognitive elite in the West is almost completely Jewish? Whence derives this nonsense?"

    White nationalists believe Jews run everything. If that's true than Jews are the true master race, not the loser White nationalists who still live with their parents because they are either unemployed or have a minimum wage job that doesn't pay them enough to leave the nest.

    They think Jews rule through cunning, team spirit, and white weakness, not pure intelligence. Though obviously cunning takes some kind of intelligence. The cognitive elite and those actually in charge is not necessarily the same group, even in a society that values intelligence

    If it were true that Jews are in charge, and every single one of them, to the last man, were a genius, the cognitive elite still wouldn’t be almost completely Jewish. For the West is large, and Jews are few.

  175. @ben tillman

    Technocracy is the Managerial State, which was the dream of progressivism.
     
    It was more like the opposite. Dewey fought Lippmann's efforts to establish government by experts. Even Wikipedia says, "Early progressive thinkers such as John Dewey and Lester Ward placed a universal and comprehensive system of education at the top of the progressive agenda, reasoning that if a democracy were to be successful, its leaders, the general public, needed a good education."

    What did that “education” consist of? Nothing traditionally associated with the word. It’s goal was “socialization,” with an end product that would have been perfectly acceptable to the Lippmanns of the world (theoretically).

  176. @The most deplorable one
    OT, but next time you are tempted to quote Snopes, just remember that they seem to be obsessed with fact checking whether or not hookers/escorts have vaginas:

    https://twitter.com/AmishRakeFighte/status/820053971620401152

    HT To Gab.

    Thanks for the info. Here’s a more detailed story (from the Daily Mail, of course) on the whole sordid affair:

    Snopes Hooker/Fraud Scandal

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one
    Wow. Just Wow! They made up the San Fernando Valley Folklore Society.

    The divorce documents that WeSearchr provides are interesting.

    I guess Snopes is just another #FakeNews site. There seems to be a lot of money in #FakeNews.
  177. @Expletive Deleted
    The first 2000 would potentially contain a worrying preponderance of Achmeds, Alis, Abduls, etc.
    http://indiachildnames.com/surname/muslimsurnames.aspx
    Seriously bad idea, Buckley.
    Make it an award, for not picking up a traffic ticket for four years or something.
    [ed.] oh oh, wait, scratch that, we'd be ruled by old ladies. And cops.

    “Make it an award, for not picking up a traffic ticket for four years or something.
    [ed.] oh oh, wait, scratch that, we’d be ruled by old ladies. And cops.”

    I’m an old lady and I resent that insinuation (or was it a microaggression – I get so confused nowadays).

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    Wut? No ma'am. Quite the contrary. I'm an old man, and have noticed that my distaff side peers never have points on their licenses. Unlike me.
    "Poop poop!" [/mr toad]

    And cops don't because .. well .. you know. They're cops.

  178. Zoning rules etc are basically the sheriff of Malibu.

  179. @ThreeCranes
    The question "Would you rather be ruled by the people or the experts?" forms the very backbone of Plato's philosophy. Again and again Socrates asks in The Republic whether, in any particular field of endeavor be it horse breeding or navigating a ship, the breeder's or pilot's opinion is to be heeded or that of the passengers in steerage. Should we, in the midst of a terrifying tempest, respond to the panicked screams of the passengers or obey the experienced voice of the captain and crew?

    Adrift in a life raft, would we allow the navigator, equipped as he is with knowledge of stars, winds and currents and trained in the proper use of compass and sextant, to guide our course or would we heed the advise of anyone who offers an opinion? Should we take a vote? Should we submit to the person who can back their opinion up with the threat of violence?

    And so Plato rejects the so-called wisdom of the masses and along with that democracy as the best form of government. Invariably, the majority of people know little to nothing about any one thing in particular. Each of us knows one thing fairly well, but each of us is ignorant of most things and should therefore, keep silent.

    This attitude doesn't sit well with SJWs who find fault with everything around them and fancy themselves capable of reorganizing society so as to optimize outcomes.

    Today's system is so infinitely complex that it is virtually impossible for any one person--with a few exceptions--to know enough to prescribe any change that could improve things. The parts must be allowed to seek their own level of optimum functioning while establishing an equilibrium with the other parts. Prescribing just how to achieve this is practically impossible. It must be left to work itself out but in doing so, excess is inevitable. Waste seems to be integral to optimization.

    There are experts but no one Expert. So, oligarchy of and by those who know. Aristocracy of knowers, which today means Technocracy.

    Technocracy doesn’t mean what you think it does.
    The term originates with the idea, going way back, that technology will eventually make labor redundant.
    The goal of the technocrat is to find ways to employ people, no matter how wasteful or pointless in terms of allocation of resources.

  180. @anonguy

    Meritocratic rule by ordinary citizens strikes me as a good proposition.
     
    The Meritocracy by definition is not ordinary citizens.

    Meritocracy is just a modern packaging of rule by divine right, especially insofar as the Meritocracy gets to define what is meritorious.

    Do you see the issue now?

    Out of ordinary citizens, you choose the best. That’s meritocracy in my book.

  181. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Desiderius

    I think rule by random citizens could work well.
     
    Moldbug had a thought experiment where he advocated rule by airline pilots (which is now ironic given the late New Yorker cartoon about the election). He made a strong case that it would be an improvement on present arrangements.

    Years ago I read ( Apollo 11 astronaut) Michael Collins’ autobiography and he made an excellent point. All the astronauts were pilots and flew around in NASA’s fleet of T-38 Talons to meet vendors, get from Houston to the Cape, or sometimes just to screw off. They had a few fatal crashes along the way, plus the T-38 is not pocket change to fuel and maintain.

    So this garnered a lot of criticism. However, he believed that flying the Talon made the astronauts better decision makers, which contributed to the fact that the US had, until after the book was published, never lost an astronaut in space itself. Flying military jets requires judgment and the ability to make decisions, sometimes inconvenient ones, in a short amount of time.

    There is something to be said for the idea that presidents should be successful aviators.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    Alas, W flew the F-102 successfully (at least in the sense that he didn't kill himself).
    , @BB753
    Do you mean successful aviators like George W. Bush?
  182. Evanston is indeed an excellent example. It is obnoxiously hard to get to (no highways lead to Evanston… getting there means wading through a minimum of 30-60 minutes of stoplights), and posh as hell. Most of it is, anyway. There are some fringes of Evanston where minorities live, and there is actual crime, but you’re not supposed to talk about that…

  183. @Desiderius

    Here in New York Andrew Cuomo acts and speaks like he is our ruler.
     
    Isn't he?

    Desi, Yes he is, at least in his own mind. Find a video of him speaking from on high for an agita inducing dose of pomposity.

  184. @Jack Highlands
    John McCain’s not exactly insane
    But gird your loins: he’s worse
    He has sold his soul, as our host does post -
    He’s a psychopath chained by a purse.

    But wait there’s more now he’s reached fourscore,
    And his neurons assuredly dwindle.
    As you suggest, his brain should rest,
    Instead, he doubles down on his swindle.

    Jack, I look forward to your portrait hanging in some Ivy league English Department, and then being taken down and replaced by some obscure vibrant’s photo. Funny comment.

  185. @Bugg
    If we are a more mechanized economy, why would simply having more people necessarily be better? Fewer but more productive people using the same resources would seem to make more sense. Simply bringing in more technologically backward nonhackers makes no sense.

    I agree completely. Bringing in others makes little sense. Especially when looking at it from a global perspective.

    Liberals have it put together that it would take 10 earths to provide the resources for everyone to live like an American. However, they also think that we must import hundreds of millions so they too can reach our level of prosperity. The fact they don’t see the complete disconnect between these ideas is telling.

  186. @Mr. Anon
    Thanks for the info. Here's a more detailed story (from the Daily Mail, of course) on the whole sordid affair:

    Snopes Hooker/Fraud Scandal

    Wow. Just Wow! They made up the San Fernando Valley Folklore Society.

    The divorce documents that WeSearchr provides are interesting.

    I guess Snopes is just another #FakeNews site. There seems to be a lot of money in #FakeNews.

  187. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor
    I think I would take straight democracy of the right half of the bell curve, over what we have now. 150 IQ weirdos voting don't matter, there aren't enough of them.

    I think there’s two parts: executive function and balancing interests.

    When it comes to executive function then yeah a property owning or min IQ tested voter base would probably work reasonably well.

    The only problem with it imo is unless everyone’s interests are balanced then sooner or later you get a schism – so i think you’d need some kind of brake, like the Roman tribune of the plebieans, to prevent that.

  188. @Old fogey
    "Make it an award, for not picking up a traffic ticket for four years or something.
    [ed.] oh oh, wait, scratch that, we’d be ruled by old ladies. And cops."

    I'm an old lady and I resent that insinuation (or was it a microaggression - I get so confused nowadays).

    Wut? No ma’am. Quite the contrary. I’m an old man, and have noticed that my distaff side peers never have points on their licenses. Unlike me.
    “Poop poop!” [/mr toad]

    And cops don’t because .. well .. you know. They’re cops.

  189. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Thinking more

    legislature
    – rule by the people – either an actual meritocracy or given that the rich will corrupt it then drawn by lot from people who pass some kind of test of literacy / numeracy. on average the second option will be better than the first imo.

    executive
    – rule by the sheepdogs (in small groups so they control each other when they get hot-headed)

  190. @ThreeCranes
    The question "Would you rather be ruled by the people or the experts?" forms the very backbone of Plato's philosophy. Again and again Socrates asks in The Republic whether, in any particular field of endeavor be it horse breeding or navigating a ship, the breeder's or pilot's opinion is to be heeded or that of the passengers in steerage. Should we, in the midst of a terrifying tempest, respond to the panicked screams of the passengers or obey the experienced voice of the captain and crew?

    Adrift in a life raft, would we allow the navigator, equipped as he is with knowledge of stars, winds and currents and trained in the proper use of compass and sextant, to guide our course or would we heed the advise of anyone who offers an opinion? Should we take a vote? Should we submit to the person who can back their opinion up with the threat of violence?

    And so Plato rejects the so-called wisdom of the masses and along with that democracy as the best form of government. Invariably, the majority of people know little to nothing about any one thing in particular. Each of us knows one thing fairly well, but each of us is ignorant of most things and should therefore, keep silent.

    This attitude doesn't sit well with SJWs who find fault with everything around them and fancy themselves capable of reorganizing society so as to optimize outcomes.

    Today's system is so infinitely complex that it is virtually impossible for any one person--with a few exceptions--to know enough to prescribe any change that could improve things. The parts must be allowed to seek their own level of optimum functioning while establishing an equilibrium with the other parts. Prescribing just how to achieve this is practically impossible. It must be left to work itself out but in doing so, excess is inevitable. Waste seems to be integral to optimization.

    There are experts but no one Expert. So, oligarchy of and by those who know. Aristocracy of knowers, which today means Technocracy.

    This is part of the story. The rest is that Plato in the Republic believed he could produce true experts for governing, namely the people who could (at the very least) contemplate the forms. Such people would produce a perfectly just state since they would be able to compare their state to the form of justice.

    Of course, we can’t produce true experts in governing who know exactly what justice is. What Plato believes about states if we can’t find true experts is found in the Laws, that a state governed by laws (that are hard to change) that is between monarchy and democracy is acceptable.

  191. @Svigor
    I think I would take straight democracy of the right half of the bell curve, over what we have now. 150 IQ weirdos voting don't matter, there aren't enough of them.

    You just doubled the political clout of the Jewish population. (Less than doubled as a lot relies on money, but it still is increased).

    More seriously a lot of the right half of the bell curve are yuppie liberal SWPLs. A lot of the blue-collar white population (which probably has the closest views to yours) is in the second quartile from the bottom and would thus be disenfranchised.

    • Replies: @Desiderius

    A lot of the blue-collar white population (which probably has the closest views to yours) is in the second quartile from the bottom
     
    They may have been before the immigration wave. Assuredly this is no longer the case.
  192. @reluctantreactionary
    Can I choose none of the above. I would prefer rule of the accountable. If Detroit was owned by a person or organization which only profited if Detroit was a better place to live, then Detroit would no longer look like Detroit. As our courts and official governing bodies start to fail shadow governments pop up because they are useful. Ebay is an example. Sell damaged goods on ebay and you won't last long as a seller. Ebay has a better system for redress of grievances than the court system. Ebay must enforce truthful transactions or it does not profit. Of course ebay is not sovereign. Ebay cannot hang a person by the neck until dead for selling stolen motorcycle parts. What if ebay, or a similar profit seeking entity, owned the country? Oooosh! We just re-invented monarchy. A King is sovereign and owns his country.

    Hoppe writes extensively on this in “Democracy: The God that Failed”. Publicly owned government is treated as any other publicly-owned asset: whoever is temporarily in charge gets as much out of it as possible, with no concern whatsoever for the condition of the asset when they’re finished. A monarch wants to pass something of value to his/her heirs.

    There is not only no incentive whatsoever for elected officials to govern responsibly, there are powerful incentives to be as irresponsible as possible. You can’t steal and line your pockets when you’re out of office so you better get going while you have the chance.

    LBJ (though Hoppe does not touch on him) went into office (TX state legislature) essentially penniless yet died worth close to $100mm (in today’s dollars).

    • Agree: ben tillman
  193. @Anonymous
    Years ago I read ( Apollo 11 astronaut) Michael Collins' autobiography and he made an excellent point. All the astronauts were pilots and flew around in NASA's fleet of T-38 Talons to meet vendors, get from Houston to the Cape, or sometimes just to screw off. They had a few fatal crashes along the way, plus the T-38 is not pocket change to fuel and maintain.

    So this garnered a lot of criticism. However, he believed that flying the Talon made the astronauts better decision makers, which contributed to the fact that the US had, until after the book was published, never lost an astronaut in space itself. Flying military jets requires judgment and the ability to make decisions, sometimes inconvenient ones, in a short amount of time.

    There is something to be said for the idea that presidents should be successful aviators.

    Alas, W flew the F-102 successfully (at least in the sense that he didn’t kill himself).

  194. @Steve Sailer
    Under an alphabetical system, Hank Aaron would be president.

    We could do worse, and have.

  195. The soft eugenics of the urban elites is a kind of genetrification.

  196. @SFG
    You just doubled the political clout of the Jewish population. (Less than doubled as a lot relies on money, but it still is increased).

    More seriously a lot of the right half of the bell curve are yuppie liberal SWPLs. A lot of the blue-collar white population (which probably has the closest views to yours) is in the second quartile from the bottom and would thus be disenfranchised.

    A lot of the blue-collar white population (which probably has the closest views to yours) is in the second quartile from the bottom

    They may have been before the immigration wave. Assuredly this is no longer the case.

    • Replies: @SFG
    I'm actually not so sure about that. (Note that 'second quartile' isn't meant to be insulting, simply an attempt to get at the facts; second quartile people, with IQs in the 90s, are the base of any society and deserve a fair shake.) The US population is about 10% Black and 30% Hispanic out of a total of 300 million; assuming a mean Hispanic IQ of about 90 and a standard deviation of 15, 75% of Hispanics should have IQs below 100; there are about 60 million Hispanics, so that's 45 million. The mean black IQ of 85 gives 84%, or about 25 million, with IQs below 100. So there are 70 million traditional minorities with IQs below 100, or about a quarter of the population.

    Non-Hispanic whites make up about 63% of the population, or about 190 million people. Half of them, or about 85 million, have IQs below 100. So there are 155 million people with IQs below 100 in the USA, a little over half of whom are white. I'm going to assume more than half are in the second rather than first quartile (remember, from the bottom) given the higher mean white IQ.

    So, yeah, the second quartile still contains a lot of white people, though getting less so.

    At any rate if you disenfranchise them the American elite will show even more haughty disregard for the white working class than it does now. And Trump's victory would likely be impossible; remember he did particularly well among the white working class, and barely scraped out wins in those key Midwestern states. I'm not saying education perfectly indicates IQ but it does correlate.

  197. @guest
    You want rule by rules? Who shall rule the rules?

    That’s a secondary question. Where it belongs.

    • Replies: @guest
    Tell that to the Supreme Court.
  198. @Anonymous
    Years ago I read ( Apollo 11 astronaut) Michael Collins' autobiography and he made an excellent point. All the astronauts were pilots and flew around in NASA's fleet of T-38 Talons to meet vendors, get from Houston to the Cape, or sometimes just to screw off. They had a few fatal crashes along the way, plus the T-38 is not pocket change to fuel and maintain.

    So this garnered a lot of criticism. However, he believed that flying the Talon made the astronauts better decision makers, which contributed to the fact that the US had, until after the book was published, never lost an astronaut in space itself. Flying military jets requires judgment and the ability to make decisions, sometimes inconvenient ones, in a short amount of time.

    There is something to be said for the idea that presidents should be successful aviators.

    Do you mean successful aviators like George W. Bush?

  199. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38631847

    Facebook to roll out fake news tools in Germany

    The world’s largest social network said it would enable German users to flag potentially false stories.

    The stories will then be passed to third-party fact-checkers and if found to be unreliable, will be marked in users’ news feeds as “disputed”.

  200. @Desiderius

    A lot of the blue-collar white population (which probably has the closest views to yours) is in the second quartile from the bottom
     
    They may have been before the immigration wave. Assuredly this is no longer the case.

    I’m actually not so sure about that. (Note that ‘second quartile’ isn’t meant to be insulting, simply an attempt to get at the facts; second quartile people, with IQs in the 90s, are the base of any society and deserve a fair shake.) The US population is about 10% Black and 30% Hispanic out of a total of 300 million; assuming a mean Hispanic IQ of about 90 and a standard deviation of 15, 75% of Hispanics should have IQs below 100; there are about 60 million Hispanics, so that’s 45 million. The mean black IQ of 85 gives 84%, or about 25 million, with IQs below 100. So there are 70 million traditional minorities with IQs below 100, or about a quarter of the population.

    Non-Hispanic whites make up about 63% of the population, or about 190 million people. Half of them, or about 85 million, have IQs below 100. So there are 155 million people with IQs below 100 in the USA, a little over half of whom are white. I’m going to assume more than half are in the second rather than first quartile (remember, from the bottom) given the higher mean white IQ.

    So, yeah, the second quartile still contains a lot of white people, though getting less so.

    At any rate if you disenfranchise them the American elite will show even more haughty disregard for the white working class than it does now. And Trump’s victory would likely be impossible; remember he did particularly well among the white working class, and barely scraped out wins in those key Midwestern states. I’m not saying education perfectly indicates IQ but it does correlate.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "population is about 10% Black and 30% Hispanic"

    The U.S is 13 percent African American and Hispanics make up 17 percent of the population.
  201. @anon
    They are smart. The problem is they're evil.

    They are smart. The problem is they’re evil.

    They are “smart” with no practical knowledge or common sense.

  202. Anonymous [AKA "Regbs"] says:

    “they haven’t done much to support dropping the average SAT of freshmen by 20 points”

    That’s Affirmative Action. The faculty is very supportive.

  203. @Desiderius
    That's a secondary question. Where it belongs.

    Tell that to the Supreme Court.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    If the incoming President survives to do so, I believe that he will.
  204. Driving through the very wealthy area of Malibu, Point Dume, where many stars decorate the beautiful bluffs overlooking the “Queen’s Necklace” of the Pacific Coast, on every Stop Sign I saw graffitied TRUMP. STOP TRUMP. How original.

    Of course it was probably Martin Sheen’s grand kids or some other privileged Far Left, Hollywood offspring, who like their parents, would never have to face the repercussions of the Anti-White Politics they pushed on all of us little people.

    If only they were forced to live in the world they shill for.

    The best one could hope for, is that one of their spoiled kids winds up overdosing on some illegal narcotic smuggled in by one of their precious 3rd World brown pets.

  205. @guest
    Tell that to the Supreme Court.

    If the incoming President survives to do so, I believe that he will.

  206. Anonymous [AKA "Alphabetical order"] says:

    Rule by people with last names starting with “Aa” (e.g. Finnish names like Aaltonen or Danish ones like Aagaard) could be good. But if there are too few of them then you have to start reaching down into the “Ab”s (Ababou, Abdul, etc.) …

  207. @SFG
    I'm actually not so sure about that. (Note that 'second quartile' isn't meant to be insulting, simply an attempt to get at the facts; second quartile people, with IQs in the 90s, are the base of any society and deserve a fair shake.) The US population is about 10% Black and 30% Hispanic out of a total of 300 million; assuming a mean Hispanic IQ of about 90 and a standard deviation of 15, 75% of Hispanics should have IQs below 100; there are about 60 million Hispanics, so that's 45 million. The mean black IQ of 85 gives 84%, or about 25 million, with IQs below 100. So there are 70 million traditional minorities with IQs below 100, or about a quarter of the population.

    Non-Hispanic whites make up about 63% of the population, or about 190 million people. Half of them, or about 85 million, have IQs below 100. So there are 155 million people with IQs below 100 in the USA, a little over half of whom are white. I'm going to assume more than half are in the second rather than first quartile (remember, from the bottom) given the higher mean white IQ.

    So, yeah, the second quartile still contains a lot of white people, though getting less so.

    At any rate if you disenfranchise them the American elite will show even more haughty disregard for the white working class than it does now. And Trump's victory would likely be impossible; remember he did particularly well among the white working class, and barely scraped out wins in those key Midwestern states. I'm not saying education perfectly indicates IQ but it does correlate.

    “population is about 10% Black and 30% Hispanic”

    The U.S is 13 percent African American and Hispanics make up 17 percent of the population.

  208. @ThreeCranes
    The question "Would you rather be ruled by the people or the experts?" forms the very backbone of Plato's philosophy. Again and again Socrates asks in The Republic whether, in any particular field of endeavor be it horse breeding or navigating a ship, the breeder's or pilot's opinion is to be heeded or that of the passengers in steerage. Should we, in the midst of a terrifying tempest, respond to the panicked screams of the passengers or obey the experienced voice of the captain and crew?

    Adrift in a life raft, would we allow the navigator, equipped as he is with knowledge of stars, winds and currents and trained in the proper use of compass and sextant, to guide our course or would we heed the advise of anyone who offers an opinion? Should we take a vote? Should we submit to the person who can back their opinion up with the threat of violence?

    And so Plato rejects the so-called wisdom of the masses and along with that democracy as the best form of government. Invariably, the majority of people know little to nothing about any one thing in particular. Each of us knows one thing fairly well, but each of us is ignorant of most things and should therefore, keep silent.

    This attitude doesn't sit well with SJWs who find fault with everything around them and fancy themselves capable of reorganizing society so as to optimize outcomes.

    Today's system is so infinitely complex that it is virtually impossible for any one person--with a few exceptions--to know enough to prescribe any change that could improve things. The parts must be allowed to seek their own level of optimum functioning while establishing an equilibrium with the other parts. Prescribing just how to achieve this is practically impossible. It must be left to work itself out but in doing so, excess is inevitable. Waste seems to be integral to optimization.

    There are experts but no one Expert. So, oligarchy of and by those who know. Aristocracy of knowers, which today means Technocracy.

    There is a quite good and fairly sympathetic biography of Nicholas II (last tsar of Russia) by Dominic Lieven. What I took away from it was that while fifty to a hundred years earlier, it was still possible for an englightened autocrat with good advisors to run an empire, by the beginning of the twentieth century this had become simply impossible, no matter how reasonable and diligent the autocrat and no matter how expert the advisors. The problems had simply become too complex and the system of Russian autocracy was bound to fail. Similarly, I have been wondering more and more if our systems of representative democracy, designed in the late eighteenth century, are not similarly doomed.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2