Utopia does not exist My differences with my esteemed peers at Libertarian Samizdata are both philosophical and practical. Permit me to treat philosophy first, and I assure you I will return to the practical, dealing with Dale's post first. Philosophy First things first: I am not a libertarian. Neo-libertarianism is the closest thing out there to my political views, as it redresses what are (in my opinion) the fatal deficiencies of the US libertarian party: the reflexive hostility to government and the unrealistic streak of romanticized isolationism. [1] But I am not really a neo-libertarian. If I could choose one self descriptive adjective it would be: pragmatic. As a pragmatist, I let facts rather than ideology dictate my choice of policy. Efficiency and results are what matter – not feelings or conventions. If Euro-style socialism somehow provided for a higher median standard of living than US capitalism, I would seriously consider advocating socialism in the United States. [2] If prayers could somehow be shown to have an effect on reality, I would prostrate myself on a regular basis. And if genetics were unimportant or negligible when formulating policy, I would be a determined follower of Locke. But genetics are important. This was Darwin’s conclusion, and it is marvelous in that it is simultaneously radical and unremarkable. No one seriously claims that humans have two ears because of nurture, or that any manner of pampering could enable a dolphin to speak or to solve differential equations. [3] No one denies that Downs’ syndrome is caused by trisomy of the 21st chromosome or that the human XY genotype causes a male phenotype. In these settings the importance of genetics is hardly worth remarking upon; in this sense Darwin’s conclusions are unremarkable. But the conclusions of Darwinism are also radical because they are inimical to the foundations of modern political philosophy:

• Conservatives hate Darwin because he challenges their belief in divinity.
• Liberals hate Darwin because he challenges their belief in victimization.
• Authoritarians hate Darwin because human nature is the last bulwark against extremism.
• Libertarians hate Darwin because he challenges their belief in individualism.

I wish to focus on the last of these statements today. The “moral core” of libertarianism is the assumption that individuals decide their own destinies. The exaltation of the “John Galt” figure is based upon the supposition that John Galt is responsible for his success. But is he? A moment’s thought reveals that a certain degree of innate intelligence and will is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for Galt-like success. No individual with a 200 SAT-M score would ever be able to design a Galt engine. Not everyone will be able to live up to the libertarian ideal. Rational thought is computationally expensive and not everyone is capable of it. Thus the groups that libertarians favor - the entrepreneur, the scientist, the engineer – are in a very strong sense partly hereditary groups. [4] And as I’ve explained at some length, these groups correlate with race and sex to a nontrivial degree. [5] Libertarians pride themselves on their rationality, but the fact is that their vision of rugged individualism is just as utopian as the liberals’ dream of a classless society. Both goals founder upon the same fact: humans are not biologically identical. Practicality As a pragmatist, I understand that a libertarian utopia is impossible. I’d much rather have half a loaf in real life than a full loaf in some fantasy world. I recognize that groups have genetic differences and willfully ignoring those differences will not make them go away. [6] This is why I oppose well-meaning but ill-conceived pieces of legislation like the Racial Privacy Initiative. The effect would be ludicrous – I can only compare it to Prince’s name changing. The people-formerly-known-as-Africans would still dominate entertainment and athletics. The people-formerly-known-as-Asians would still be disproportionately present in engineering and violin schools. Describing these groups would require contortions of euphemistic newspeak, and would accomplish nothing more than driving the discussion of racial differences further underground. Perhaps most importantly, doctors, police officers, and scientists recognize that racial differences have consequences. Ignoring them means that people die. It is for this reason that I cannot subscribe to the libertarian utopia that Dale outlines in his post. We both agree that individualism is important for one’s psychological well-being and for the health of the economy. Where we differ is on whether it is ever a good idea to consider groups in the formulation of policy. Let us consider his statements:

Individuals matter. Groups do not.

We disagree. In medical, military, scientific, and police considerations, groups do matter. When push comes to shove, we cannot afford to ignore the properties of groups. Do you think women should serve as foot soldiers? Do you think that we should risk a man’s life by giving him an organ transplant from a more distant population group? When lives are on the line, we cannot close our eyes.

Group politics in whatever form it appears is the Tranzi philosophy.

The philosophy you propound has the same philosophical root as the Tranzis: the willful disregard of innate group differences.

If you could absolutely and scientifically prove one group genetically inferior to another you would accomplish nothing except establish that group for eternal victimhood under their philosophy. You succeed in making entire "racial" groups into "the genetically challenged" who then "obviously" must by protected and helped by - you guessed it – government!

I don’t like the loaded terms “inferior” or “superior”. Establishing genetic differences between groups is not meant to prove a group to be “inferior”. Do we consider men inferior to women or vice versa? No – we recognize that they have different and complementary strengths. As for marking a group for “eternal victimhood”, I am quite aware that identification of genetic differences is controversial because people believe that genes are immutable. That’s why I believe that genetic differences will only be acknowledged when genetic engineering is possible – which is soon. I favor regulated free market solutions to genetic engineering – not government intervention. Finally, there seems to be an underlying hostility to scientific inquiry. It seems to me that you are saying: “Don’t look at genetic differences. If you can prove them beyond a reasonable doubt, the consequences will be disastrous”. As I’ve written before, this is the attitude that Galileo confronted. People opposed his science because they were afraid to have the basis of their morality uprooted. Needless to say, the world did not end after Galileo’s revelations were made public.

The libertarian sees a person, not a member of a group, however scientific that grouping is purported to be.

Again, this is not true. When push comes to shove, sometimes you need to look at people as members of groups rather than individuals. Again: Do you think women should serve as foot soldiers? Do you think that we should risk a man’s life by giving him an organ transplant from a more distant population group? If not – WHY not?

Someday there will be enough genetic data from sequencing to calculate the true clusterings in gene space. We may at that time find humaniity is broken into separate point clouds (races)

We already know this. See here.

The rates of interracial marriage in America, if extended over a reasonable time frame, say a thousand years, will lead to a unique "American race". It will not sit at any of the current points in gene space of any of the current "races" It will reside at a unique new spot in that genetic n-space. … If I were to bet on any long term trend, it is that in ten thousand years the ease of travel will have made earth's gene pool rather homogeneous.

First, I’m not at all opposed to interracial marriage, but it will not create a homogeneous population and it will not calm racial tensions. It seems like the reduction of racial tensions is something you are tacitly hoping for, but one look at Brazil or Mexico should convince you that interracial marriage is no panacea. Second, a thousand year extrapolation is unwarranted. Genetic engineering and cybernetics are in our immediate (<30 years) future, and their effect on race and human differences will be substantial enough to render extrapolation meaningless. Conclusion As far as possible, we should accomodate individualism. It provides economic efficiency and social freedom. But we cannot willfully neglect innate group differences when formulating policy. An ideology that leads us to do so – whether radical nurturism or rugged individualism or divine creationism – will have consequences both costly and lethal. Only an ideologue would believe that women should serve in combat positions, or that organ transplants should be conducted in a race-blind fashion, or that the police should ignore the race profile of perpetrators. Ideology is scant comfort when the bodies begin to pile up. Ignorance is not strength. [1] Perhaps more fundamentally, neo-libertarianism (as I understand it) jettisons the outmoded concept of the non-initiation of force and replaces it with a muscular foreign policy. Just as the paleocon/neocon split was over race, the paleolibertarian/neolibertarian split is over foreign policy. [2] Euro-socialism, of course, is not sustainable without the military shield and scientific engine provided by US capitalism. [3] Conversely, no one seriously contends that (say) Vin Diesel was genetically destined to be famous. Genetic influences are all important in some cases, non-genetic environmental (NGE) influences are paramount in others, and genes and NGE share time in yet others. Those attacked as “genetic determinists” are usually nothing of the sort, as they all acknowledge the role that non-genetic environment plays. [4] For more on the heritability of intelligence and brain structure, see here. (Paul Thompson). [5] By race, I mean genetically clustered groups, but the fact is that our day-to-day understanding of race comports well with the genetic evidence. In other words, while there are exceptions, self identification of race generally matches the molecular data. [6] Genetic engineering might, but that’s a topic I’ve already covered in great detail.