A dense article by Steve about the pursuit of truth, philosophy, ‘equality’ of man, conservatism, and god. At the end he writes:
Today, the extremism of our culture’s demands for attestations of faith in equality and transparency is a mask for the movement back toward censorship and esotericism. We live in a society in which the fundamental truths—such as, that talents are distributed unequally by genetics—are increasingly considered unfit for public discussion, and careers as eminent as that of as James D. Watson, codiscoverer of the structure of DNA, are destroyed for letting slip a lack of fidelity to the reigning taboos.
The left is uncomfortable with biological determinism because it goes against their nature/environment-centric worldview, that all ills in society can be ameliorated with tax payer dollars and regulation, when in fact biology renders many problems intractable to social fixes and good intention. The liberals may be losing ground, and because they can’t win on intellectual merit, they resort to censorship to defend their cherished worldviews.
Another theme is equality, whether by decree, god or natural law. Let’s be honest: as far as post-2008 America is concerned, big brains equals more money and more clout. People are technically born equal, but biology, for better or worse, supersedes some sacred document. Every individual is allowed ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’, it’s just that people with better genes get more mileage for their efforts, resulting in wealth inequality. And then the left comes along and says, ‘Yes, we’re all born equal, but we must all die equal, so if you have too much money we want you to spread your wealth.’ There is no such thing as ‘equality in the eyes of God or a creator’ because theism is an unfalsifiable, wishy-washy concept and hence we cannot draw inferences from it in a logically consistent matter. Look at the contradiction of the left’s logic: They want to believe everyone is an equal blank slate from birth, but as soon as some individuals become exceptional, they seek to redistribute their wealth and or deny such exceptionalim exists. Seems almost arbitrary, like the machinations of a madman. There is only equality under law, that under a fair society these laws be applied to everyone equally. “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets,..” – Anatole France
Continuing on the topic of equality, for any finite resource, it’s more efficacious to give priority to those with better ability. That’s the idea behind supply side economics in that you create economic environments of low taxes and low regulation where the best and the brightest can thrive. The left prefers malinvestment – more resources going to the least productive parasitic class. That’s why the 2008 bank bailouts were such a success versus the failed Obama stimulus; the former helped the owners of capital – the productive class- while the later was intended to help the masses. Within five months of the bailout, stocks surged and are still rising to this day six years later.
Neoconservatives were possibly wrong about Iraq, but their economic policy is pretty good, or at least compared to the alternatives on the left. If you own a home or stocks, for example, you are thankful for the bailout even if you don’t like it or oppose the other aspects of neoconservative economic policy. Pick your poison: doing too much and staving off crisis or doing too little and having things get worse. That’s why consequentialism and Minarchism is a superior system to pure libertarianism. We have free markets where individuals can create profits within the rule of law and government intervention in crisis.
To have absolute equality would mean no capitalism and no incentive for individuals to be exceptional; civilization would founder.
We’re still in the smartist era. It’s not a typo. The suffix ‘-ist’ alludes to a follower of an ideology or belief versus ‘-est’ which is a matter of degree.
In the hyper-competitive post-2008 economy, the Beta male is winning, or at least the tide is turning. Through stocks, real estate, technology, Wall St. and private equity, Betas seem to be making most of the money these days, while jocks with ‘good people skills’ are putting those skills to use in the low-paying service sector, because after high school no one cares how popular you were. Pop culture reflects the changing values of society. Every month it seems some tech company is being sold or valued at hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, and the high-IQ founders and investors are held in high esteem like yesteryear’s Henry Fords and Andrew Carnegies. But it’s not just instant-rich tech entrepreneurs that are on the top American society’s post-2008 hierarchy of importance; theoretical physicists, economists, programmers, policy wonks, the high-functioning autistic savant, quants and mathematicians – regardless of personal wealth – also occupy a lofty position. In more ways than one, The Bell Curve is not just a science book, but a prophetic glimpse into our more unequal future.