DISQUS

Good point "guest"!

All these twins lived in the same or similar countries presumably. I could see where the mix of personalities around a person might have a large effect on which personality "build" is best for happiness. An introvert in a nation of extroverts probably won't do as well as if he were surrounded by fellow introverts. Does this study get into that? Would Kevin still slap his forehead if it did?

Apparently not white men.

Let's just allow the irrationality to exist even if it harms the market. Just accept it.

This is all libertarians should ever write about.

Will comments:
"Just to be clear, you think Americans ought to get a better shake in life just because they’re Americans?"

First of all, it's not impossible that Americans mostly deserve what they have. Secondly, even if it's just a better shake Americans ought to be able to pass it on, at the national level, to whom they choose.

"... another year of decline in out-bound intra-U.S. migration rate ..."

LOL.

I'm not saying you're wrong because of it, but here you're just spinning a stat which doesn't support your argument to make it seem like it does. Californians are leaving their state and have been for several years now. Thanks for the info Will.

You're all into analogies lately.

Oh I get it. So when my factory closes and I'm forced to move away from kith and kin for a new job I should realize it's just the invisible hand "encouraging me to thrive" and I should smile. I actually agree with you here on building these houses somewhere else but I don't think you realize some inefficiencies can actually be good for people. I don't think you understand human beings, or take human nature into account. Your analysis of a situation concerning robots would not be any different.

Your Cato picture is better.

No, my point was based on the fact that they're not.

There's obviously more to it, whatever it is that's forcing Belgium apart, than that it's an unideal "public goods-providing jurisdiction."

Will, that people behave as though race were real is some of the best evidence that it is.

Why don't you examine yourself and what it is that makes you more willing to die in a war to save libertarianism than a war to defend your sisters?

The world is a giant competition Will. Teams are rational.

I don't think you've made a very good argument here Will, it's not at all as obvious as you would like it that free will exists.

Free will is by definition super-natural i.e. beyond, outside, or above the universe. The universe being everything which is within the realm of the laws of physics and accessible to science. Only if I were able to relive the exact same moment in time and make two different decisions would the touch your nose thing prove anything to me.

Babbling. It's a scientific question how much the genes or Britain lose out to immigrant Danes vs. immigrant Bantus; refute it scientifically.

Just because that's what it implies doesn't mean it isn't true.

Here's one way in which it "scales up" from the egregiously racist Kevin MacDonald:

"If 10,000 Danes emigrate to England and ultimately substitute for 10,000 English natives, the average Englishman loses the genetic equivalent of 167 children (or siblings) in the ultimate total population, because of the close genetic relationship between Denmark and England. This is not a great loss.

"However, if 10,000 Bantu emigrate to England and substitute for 10,000 English natives, the average Englishman loses the genetic equivalent of 10,854 children (or siblings)."

And don't you realize, the fact that it scales up at all is a deadly blow to your position's premise that there's nothing higher than the individual, that favoring some people over other people is morally repugnant. It's antithetical to idea that the only thing that should matter to a person is liberty for all.

What you write may to some extent be true of America but do you really think that, for example, Japan has an imaginary history and solidarity? Can you commit to saying that in print?

Families are real. Parents don't sacrifice for their children for imaginary unnecessary reasons. If you accept this then consider what happens when groups of families intermarry and produce many new generations of people with each other for long periods of time ...

Will, you think it's odious that people would rather die in wars fought for the benefit of their countrymen or nation, basically the norm since the beginning of history.

But it's not war per se that you find odious; here you are telling us all what we should be willing to die for:

"Let me just say that I would be willing to die in a war against a state that made it policy to deny me my natural liberty to enter into voluntary, mutually benficial exchanges with every other human being who does not happen to have a social security number."

Yeah, I'm sure that's why there are 150 million babies born every year, because parents hope to pass on their ... economic ideology.

[Wilkinson:] "As there is convergence in development over time, ever-widening multinational labor markets will not only be consistent with American liberty and well-being, but will enhance it."

But your support for a multi-national labor market is not actually contingent on a "convergence in development" is it? You want one NOW! don't you? Your moralistic argument for one certainly doesn't seem to require waiting for anything else to happen.

And who here really thinks "convergence in development" is so inevitable? There's plenty of reasons to believe that some nations on earth will just always be comparatively underdeveloped.

Here's a question I have about comparative advantage. The two groups are better off than they would have been by trading, correct? But not necessarily will they both be equally well off, correct?

Unless your plan is that the world becomes so mixed up and homogeneous there won't be any distinct nations left to compare?

Oh yeah that world sounds great for "American" liberty.

Because they don't think those things are higher.

If there's nothing higher than the individual, then perhaps there is no moral obligation to have a couple of children. But if you think things like your family name or nation or even species have a value - a transcendent value - then there's certainly some sort of obligation there for at least some people to have more than 1 kid.

I can't tell if Virginia Postrel is mocking the Catholic Church or not, but surely she doesn't believe they teach that everyone should remain celibate?