Comments on: MacLean on Nutter and Buchanan on Universal Education Free Markets and Social Justice Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:32:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Rob Jarrett Fri, 15 Sep 2017 08:50:00 +0000 This would all be quite convincing, if it weren’t a defense of segregated schools in Virginia by the blog author.
Other than that. . . . it’s all good.

You’d almost think the blog author didn’t think that the Civil War and the equality amendments didn’t mean anything. Wait, that is what he thinks.

Good Lord, people; this guy is a nut case, although I’m sure most of you here are convinced that Brown vs. Board was the worst ruling against the slave owner lickers that the Supreme Court could ever have rendered.

Really sickening.

By: Nancy MacLean’s Segregationist Sins of Omission…and Commission | NewZSentinel Sun, 16 Jul 2017 05:29:30 +0000 […] to misreading and misrepresenting Buchanan’s work on school choice to make her argument (Steve Horwitz documents the issues here). To bolster her non-existent case, MacLean resorts to playing a game of six degrees of […]

By: The Juvenile “Research” of “Historian” Nancy McLean – The Skeptical Libertarian Thu, 06 Jul 2017 00:09:36 +0000 […] the past couple weeks, Steve Horwitz (2) (3), Phil Magness (2), Russ Roberts, Don Boudreaux, Jason Brennan, Christopher Flemming, […]

By: King Goat Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:32:00 +0000 Full circle!

By: King Goat Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:31:00 +0000 “But in 1936, anti-black racism was still more a Democratic than Republican thing.”

The mistake you’re making is that parties weren’t as ‘national’ as they are now. Anti-black racism was common for many Southern Democrats, but at the same time the most meaningful, radical anti-racism was coming from many Northern Democrats (again, think Eleanor Roosevelt or Henry Wallace). The switch to Democrats came at the Presidential level first, for example.

By: The Butcher with a Smile – More Mangling from Nancy MacLean - Bleeding Heart Libertarians Sat, 01 Jul 2017 16:49:36 +0000 […] scholars continue to try to “catch them all,” I offer yet another example of her butchering of quotes and arguments. And it’s a […]

By: Sean II Sat, 01 Jul 2017 13:58:00 +0000 1) “With “innate traits” do you mean purely inherited biological traits, or do you think that deep-seated cultural differences between ethnic groups could be relevant?”

I don’t think culture is ever really deep-seated. Much more likely: the traits are deep seated, and they broadly determine the culture, variation being mostly in the details.

Example: the middle east is probably not just some area that got super unlucky by having Islam come to visit. You probably couldn’t hop a time machine back to the 7th century, bring Pennsylvanian Quakerism to the Arabian peninsula, and expect it take root.

The people living there wouldn’t have liked those ideas. They would have discarded them, and found something they did like, some more lively creed that let them do all their favorite things, like waging clan war, keeping slaves, taking plural wives from among nieces and cousins, maybe even swearing oaths, etc.

A lot of people treat culture like some sort of magic primary. They use it to explain things, but never ask where it came from.
2) Out of interest, do you have any normative opinions on this matter?

I’ll answer that, but first a disclaimer: over the last few years I have grown very skeptical of normative opinion making. What triggered this for me was the painful experience of being wrong, on a whole bunch of issues. And of these many errors it turns out most were hiding under normative beliefs.

Examples: I like choice, so despite being well aware of education as signaling, I thought school choice must be good policy.

Let me state my mistake more cruelly: I simultaneously believed schools don’t do anything, AND that giving parents the power to choose schools would change everything.

There’s a whole series like that, but you get the idea. The common strain being: I blinded me with normative non-science!

And of course it’s not just my mistakes I was learning from. Recent history is replete with cases where facts got in the way of normative undertakings, and what followed was not re-assessment, but mass human sacrifice.

So, with the greatest reluctance, and with caveats growing upon caveats, I will confess…

Yes, it seems like a world without statistical discrimination would be morally preferable to what we have now. I see the appeal of “just treat everyone as an individual”, and I share the fantasy.

But I embrace this only with the same part of my mind which dreams of frivolous things like: a world without jealousy, or a life freed from the need for sleep, cheap talk daydreams like that.

By: Sean II Sat, 01 Jul 2017 13:19:00 +0000 Plus you’ll never get all the libertarians screaming.

Any minute now we should hear a virtue-signaling denunciation of Buchanan coming from inside the house.

By: D Hampton Sat, 01 Jul 2017 11:07:00 +0000 @SeanII:disqus

don’t judge people by innate traits until those have been laundered by some downstream marker or proxy!

With “innate traits” do you mean purely inherited biological traits, or do you think that deep-seated cultural differences between ethnic groups could be relevant?

I say: “The world looks like this…”

You say: “Oh, so what you want…”

Out of interest, do you have any normative opinions on this matter?

By: Octavian Sat, 01 Jul 2017 07:46:00 +0000 There’s an entire industry out there in the publishing of superficially ‘intellectual’ books designed to reaffirm the existing prejudices of not-quite-academics who want to feel smart and morally superior. This is just the latest product. It seems to be getting good reviews in all the places one would expect.

There’s no hope of bringing this book’s flaws into the mainstream unfortunately. I have to hand it to Maclean, she was smart to pick libertarians and Buchanan. If she’d picked Buckley or some conservative icon she might have faced some serious blowback, but all the libertarians in the country screaming about this at the same time amounts to a fart in the wind.