Wednesday, July 13, 2016

The principle interest

Ruth Ginsburg attacks Trump. Weeks ago Trump was bombed from outer space for suggesting that a judge presiding over the Trump University case might have it out for him. Well, in either his capacity as a real estate developer or as president, he could find himself in a situation where Ginsburg, who clearly has it out for him, would be able to act on that.

My point isn't to reveal as myth the idea of isonomy in practice, or even, increasingly, in the abstract. Another justice, Clarence Thomas, has pointed out that died some time ago. Richard Posner's advice for those in the legal profession--that they not spend even mere "seconds" studying the US constitution--is vocationally solid. Of course Trump's judge, Gonzalo Curiel, will put his finger--and anything else he can grab with heavy hand--on the scale. Ginsburg will too if she's given the chance. This is a corollary to what the late Lee Kwan Yew famously observed about mulitracial democracies.

Parenthetically, the point isn't to chide Trump for dropping the subject, either. I'd rather him win the election than die fighting this battle. He's already slayed a thousand untruths. Now he needs to win the war.

The point is to realize that the universal principle Trump is supposed to adhere to isn't adhered to by any of his opponents. He's been nuked by the sitting president, the Pope, now the supreme court. All these branches of the Cathedral expect to be protected by clerical immunity. They won't be held to the same expectations Trump will be be held to. It doesn't matter that they're all punching down from positions of power that exceed his (at least for now). The direction of the punch doesn't matter. Who? Whom? are the only things that do.

If the heathens abandon unrequited principle in favor of their own interests, the Cathedral will be in serious trouble. Its very edifice is dangerously exposed to Alt Right sappers. Besides these unrequited principles, what argument is there against Vox Day's idea of an American state opening itself up to settlement by whites, exclusively? It won't work? Doubtful. As Vox notes, the number of people who'd move to said state would be staggering. Anyway, that's beside the point. What does it have to do with making the option available?

The only thing that keeps the option--and countless others like it--from being practically discussed and considered is our predilection for and deference to principle, to WEIRDO morality, to pathological altruism.

Shorn of that, we turn to our own interests. We do what non-Europeans have always done. We discard the Kantian categorical imperative. We act instead on nothing more than what benefits ourselves and our posterity.


Mil-Tech Bard said...

The issue at hand is that "Diversity" as defined by federal law court rulings and policy is a threat to American civil order.

The only way America will be safe at home from both imported Muslim terrorism and BLM urban guerilla warfare is to take down "diversity."

The political hot potato is that the American Left is entwined with the civil and governmental "Diversity" construct that all the Left's power bases will have to go down to get civil order against those two threats.

Justice Ginsberg going nuts on Trump is her recognition of the process that Trump's election will kick off WRT the removal of "Diversity" from the American political landscape.

Black Death said...

The comments by Ginsburg and Posner are truly outrageous; but there's one area in which I would agree with Posner. Let's "ignore" (well, OK, amend) Article 3, Section 1 of the constitution, which grants federal judges lifetime tenure. Make these arrogant SOB's run for election and reelection, and then term-limit them, just like most state judges. (BTW, most state governors and legislators are term-limited, as is the preseident himself, so members of Congress should get the same treatment). Yes, I know why the founding fathers set it up this way. In colonial times, the judges were appointed by the king and served at his pleasure. If he didn't like the way they decided cases, he got rid of them. Well, that was then, this is now. Let's take Posner's critique to heart and make him defend his comments to sceptical voters. Another amendment to "modernize" the outdated constitution would be one allowing any decision by any branch of the federal government to be overturned by a two-thirds vote of the state legislatures. BUt maybe that's a story for another time.

Dan said...

@Black Death --

We disagree on term limits.

I favor lifetime terms, preferably with cryogenic life extensions, as a way of preventing the current population of college students from ever filling Federal judgeships.

If the ratchet only turns left, then I imagine term limits would only speed things up. Posner probably gets this. Remember, Posner is a communist. If you find yourself agreeing with Posner on anything, you should have a rethink. I'm sure his actual reasons for supporting term limits for judges have nothing to do with whatever reasons he gives, and everything to do with his leftist objectives.

Dan said...

I take that back about Posner being a communist. I've been studying Posner a bit more and he seems like a Libertarian. He is an independent thinker, which is good, and honest, which is also good.

Maybe his thing about term limits actually comes from an honest place.

Read the last paragraph of this blog post. Posner is HBD-aware and plainspoken on the subject.

"Finally, I am not clear what we should think the problem of American education (below the college level) is. Most children of middle-class (say upper quartile of households, income starting at $80,000) Americans are white or Asian and attend good public or private schools, usually predominantly white. The average white IQ is of course 100 and the Asian (like the Jewish) almost one standard deviation higher, that is, 115. The average black IQ is 85, a full standard deviation below the white average, and the average Hispanic IQ has been estimated recently at 89. "

This from a sitting Federal appeals judge in Chicago.

On term limits though, I am firm: I believe that attendance at an American university in any recent year should be automatically disqualify one from Federal judgeships for life, so we'll need to keep the old guys around. In this way, human judges would gradually be phased out in favor of A/I software which regurgitates old precedent.

Mil-Tech Bard said...

We need an elective Federal judiciary.

If the constitution and precedence does not bind the Federal judiciary, let the people do so.

Dan said...

My final view of Posner is that he is a great legal thinker who is fatally libertarian. Libertarians are fatally detached from the real world.

For example, Posner is an open borders guy even though he is HBD-aware. Obviously his Libertarianism reaches the level of religion.

Audacious Epigone said...

Mil-Tech Bard,

Exactly. This is why the CultMarx left hates Trump so much more viscerally than they ever could Cruz, Kasich, or any of the other cuckservatives.

Black Death,

That would seem to be a natural extension of the logic he's employing. Does he need the constitution to keep his cushy job? Practically, he probably doesn't. At any rate, it's not anything he'll have to worry about between now and retirement. He's almost 80.


Right, Posner is more like Bryan Kaplan or Tyler Cowen. Intelligent and often insightful, but also equipped with huge blinders that no amount of cognitive dissonance seems capable of removing. Charles Murray, too--he thinks the evidence for a strong genetic basis in IQ along with every other human behavioral trait is just a few short years from being incontrovertible. He knows Amerindians, Arabs, North Africans, south Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans have lower average IQs than people of European descent do. Yet he's still effectively an open borders absolutist.

Dan said...

There is a non-selfish case for strong borders, which is the argument from ecology. I have never heard this argument made, but consider ocean ecology.

The open ocean is, relatively speaking, uniform, bland and mostly barren. If you take a square km of open ocean, there will be some life but it will not be very pretty or diverse.

Contrast this with a reef (whether natural or man-made). It is teeming with colorful life of all kinds, with incredible variety and beauty. One square km of reef contains orders of magnitude more life and much more diversity than the open ocean ever could. This is naturally achieved with coral but you can achieve the same effect by sinking a ship or even dropping a rusty city bus in the ocean.

What achieves this? Simply, borders, walls, barriers. If you suddenly made all the walls vanish in a reef ecosystem, surely 99% of all its life would be dead within a week, even though the climate would be the same in all other respects.

Barriers are the stuff that ecosystems are made of, and this is just as true of humans as it is of marine life.

Saint Louis said...

OT, but I saw someone link to your blog today in the comments of an article on the ABA Journal site. It was nice to see.

Audacious Epigone said...


That's a lot more eloquent than the Thanksgiving dinner analogy I sometimes use in person with people who haven't thought much about these sorts of issues. Dinner is great because of all the distinct courses, turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, etc. Would it be better if we dumped everything into a big blender and served everyone a big bowl of Thanksgiving gruel?

Saint Louis,

Thanks for letting me know, that is motivating. There are so many things that can be investigated empirically but that aren't. I'm glad to know that some of what I'm able to put a spotlight on is utilized. Knowledge is good.