DISQUS

razib · 2 years ago

will,

i am not a mohist ;-)

TGGP · 2 years ago

In the same post, Razib says we need to batten the hatches to allow us to fully absorb the immigrants we have now. Is there any evidence that we are not successfully doing this already? Is there any evidence that we could not be doing this quite successfully if we doubled or tripled the rate of immigration? We can absorb many many more high wage and more low wage workers, and we should.

What should we be looking at to see if Mexican immigrants are assimilating to middle-class norms as they did in the past? How about crime, welfare dependency and illegitimacy. Bad news: they get worse from first to second generation and even worse from second to third. Education? It plateaus by third generation well below the national average.

Pro-immigration people rarely present any data against this evidence, they merely assert (as you did) that everything is going just dandy now or call their opponents "mad, bad & dangerous to know" or something to that effect. If that's what "morality" causes in people, I much prefer emotivism/Stirnerism.

TGGP · 2 years ago

Whoops, forgot to close html tags.

TGGP · 2 years ago

Even though I regard morality as a bunch of unfalsifiable pseudo-facts masking what are really subjective preferences, I find it interesting that Will and many liberals view such a limited set of concepts as the only possible morality and cannot conceive of alternatives as being anything other than "reject[ing] the idea of morality itself". Conservatives have a larger number of factors that play into morality in a more balanced (I am not trying to say they are correct or I approve, I mean they say they give things more equal weight while liberals are more apt to concentrate moral weight), as shown in the graph here. The majority of the world thinks more like conservatives than liberals in that respect (if one were to link it to liberals being more intelligent and most of the world being less intelligent than Americans I would not jump to disagree but I am not going to say that is the reason either). To most non-liberals ingroup-outgroup distinctions are an essential part of morality and ignoring them is rejecting morality. To Will the majority of humanity are not human beings. Just as every Christian that sins cannot be a "real Christian", suicide bombers are not "real Muslims", all dictatorships of the proletariat were not "real communism" and so on, we are all an unman to the liberal humanists because we do not have that "essence of humanity" so rare among actual homo sapiens.