"Open-Minded-Urban-Cosmopolitans" are my "Dull-Hometown-Hicks-I-Grew Up-And-Escaped".
Joined November 2020
- Tweets9.3K
- Following623
- Followers1.2K
- Likes57.7K
NPCjak is wearing a conquistador helmet. That's the payload.
The sincere young man wants to be led to war and the older generation wants him to take his place serving the very regime he has come to overthrow.
2/17
The 1986 movie "Quicksilver" with Kevin Bacon has done more damage to American cities than 50 Robert Moseses.
The thing making legal insanity untenable is that historically we didn't have a class of experts who asserted the power to declare criminals "healed".
The criminally insane person of the past would still find themselves confined, usually indefinitely, not released after a few months or years. Being found incompetent in e.g. 1600 AD meant they chained you to a wall in a monastery or something instead of executing you the following day.
We don't even have proper 20th century Nurse Ratched asylums anymore. Modern psychologists and psychiatrists claim the deference given to medicine in general while having a mostly guesswork diagnostic system and a toolkit of treatments with single digit success rates. This isn't necessarily their fault; it may be mental illness is simply untreatable in most cases.
But finding someone not criminally responsible or not competent to stand trial kicks off a chain of formalist indirection which leads to their rapid release without consequences in most cases:
If they aren't convicted, they are *technically* innocent.
If psychiatry has done what little it can, then they are *by definition* cured.
If they are "cured" and "innocent", then let them go.
What's funny is that the very same Bay Area Libertarians advocating for importing talented third world immigrants had one of their Rationalist thought experiments about this very situation: "Murder-Ghandi"
You start with a Western population: High IQ, High conscientiousness, meritocratic, egalitarian, impartial, and industrious. The Westerner's culture and genetic predispositions reinforce each other such that the more their liberal market-oriented culture enriches them, the more of this eusocial behavior they exhibit. If you use this wealth to employ a high performing Western man, he inevitably uses that income to start a family and increase the supply of high performing Westerners.
Of course, high-performing Sports can arise in any culture, the West's uniqueness is in a particular arrangement of tendencies which encourage and propagate them.
Because of their predisposition to fairness and meritocracy and their faith that free markets lift all boats, the Westerners invite in such high performing non-Westerners as arise, confident that becoming 0.1% less Western will be recompensed with some greater gain to wealth, fairness, meritocracy, etc.
Except now you have a culture that is only 99.9% Western and 0.1% third worldists who, while admittedly smart and industrious, are egalitarian and impartial and use their newfound power and access to advocate for their own people and reproduce their own third worldist culture.
Naturally, as you repeat this experiment, your increasingly dishonest, nepotisitc, and caste-oriented culture always chooses to accept the next increment of third-worldification until the entire eusocial engine that made your system work in the first place ceases to function.
This is an excellent post from Palmer, but it only leads to more questions. Both of these appear to be true:
1) There are exceptional people around the world for which there are not ready American substitutes. America benefits from integrating these people.
2) Giving no concern to population makeup or immigration quantity represents an existential risk to America.
This implies the following:
1) There is a non-zero amount of immigration that is beneficial, but a certain amount that is damaging. What system allows the right amount?
2) We want to allow exceptional people to immigrate specifically, but this is currently done via the O-1 visa which is increasingly gamed. Many of America's best immigrants would not have been eligible. What's the best way to identify exceptional people?
3) How do we solve this problem without central planning? Any top-down system is likely to suffer from a Hayekian knowledge problem. An ideal system would allow bottom-up discovery of the most beneficial and compatible immigrants.
Many people seem to just be glad Palmer is owning Paul G in public. While that's enjoyable, it also highlights how tricky immigration is to get right.
If you're concerned about @freestatepty, maybe it's safest to just not vote.
