So, What Are You?

I’m like a partial libertarian. I’m libertarian on market issues, neocon on fed and fiscal policy, and right of center on social and foreign policy issues. I also consider myself to be a utilitarian pragmatist, meaning I believe in policy that maximizes the creation of wealth, which is why I’m both a supporter fed (and government intervention during crisis) and free markets, or what some would call a Night-watchman state, with a well-educated, moneyed elite at the top. Besides interceding during crisis, the government can help maximize the creation of wealth by allocating resources in ways that private sector cannot or is unwilling to, for example, such as giving a loan to Tesla in 2008 or through the creation of a high-IQ basic income. The problem is we cannot simply abolish the welfare state all at once, which is why I recommend slowly introducing a eugenics program to help curb entitlement spending. I believe in social Darwinism and biological determinism. Analogous to a wildlife photographer not interceding when a lion ambushes prey, society and policy makers shouldn’t go out of its way to help those who are cognitively ‘unfit’ for survival. Although low IQ people make poor decisions, that doesn’t mean we have a moral obligation to prevent them from digging their own graves. If we let them fall between the cracks, the ground will seal and they will disappear. Like the Progressives of the 19th century, we believe science can make society better, but contemporary liberals who call themselves progressives, in their religious-like denial of individual cognitive differences, bear little to no resemblance to the Galtons of yesteryear. Unlike the progressives, we oppose the state regulating social justice or social welfare unless it’s in a manner that maximizes resources (such as the high-IQ basic income, defense spending, tax cuts, or bank bailouts during crisis), and we seek minimum regulation in the free market. Some of this may seem contradictory, and maybe that’s the way it should be. The enduring success of America – when others empires such as the Soviet Union have failed – is because of it’s flexibility compared to the more rigid and absolutist systems of government.

Comments are closed.