Quote:
But I believe in the past and possibly on this thread (correct me if I"m wrong) that only virtuous people can live up to and be compatible with a government/society our founders envisioned. I believe you also said that non-whites genetically cannot live up to this on a large scale. So, what's the plan for the almost 100 million non-white citizens of this country going forward? Or is it possible in your opinion that they can be virtuous and capable of creating a model society you envision?
Is the fact that our system of government requires virtuous people even debatable? Our founders literally said as much, and the political writers and philosophers they drew upon did as well, they took it for granted.
As for non-whites - I don't think anyone here has said that. I certainly don't believe it. What matters on a population scale is intelligence and cultural ethic or worldview. Some things are facts - there is an observed correlation between race or geographic origin and intelligence on a population level. Asian people on a population basis have a higher average IQ than white people, for example. This holds true when controlled for socioeconomic factors. And white Europeans are on average more intelligent than, say, people from India. If you nodded happily at the first sentence and gasped in horror at the second, maybe we should ask why?
There is a certain level of intelligence required for any role or function. For example, you are unfit for military service in this country if your AFQT is too low. By law no more than 20% of recruits can come from the range that corresponds to 81-91 IQ and you cannot enlist at all with an IQ of around 80 or less. Typically accepted minimum is around 92. There are de facto IQ requirements for every job - you can't teach math at MIT if you are broadly unintelligent. But the same moron (in the medical sense of the word) who can't be trained to be useful for the army is given political agency in our system. There is a minimum average IQ required for our political system to function. I don't know what that number is, but it absolutely exists. Which, speaking on a population basis alone, means there also exist demographic makeups that are also incompatible with our system of government.
Our system also takes for granted certain moral or ethical worldviews. Things we find "self-evident" like the right to life, liberty, property, are secular western post-Christian ideals of the enlightenment. They are not self-evident universals for all people who live on the earth. Never mind other taboos like a general distaste for corruption, or tribalism. We inherit our reverence for the law over family ties from (for example) the Romans, who honor the first consul Lucius Junius Brutus (the founder of the Republic) for ordering and presiding over the execution of his own sons for treason. This was considered the defining act of Roman virtue - subordination of private emotion and motivations to public duty. If a worldview that causes tribal, familial, or racial ties prevents a person from being capable of following the law - for example, rendering them unable act as an impartial juror - they are unfit for our system of government in an extremely real and pragmatic way. They cannot share in the rule of others, they lack the sufficient virtue our system expects.
All that being said - we do not interact with
populations. We interact with
persons. And
persons exist on such an extremely broad spectrum that there are morons and geniuses, angels and demons alike in all populations.
A person who can't grapple with the population-level differences in culture, ethics, morality, and intelligence is either naive, suffering from massive cognitive dissonance, or is himself a fool.
A person who allows such realities to control his interaction with his fellow citizens without regard for other information is an *******.
How this plays out in a public policy perspective is dealing with the realities that if we do not take care of our immigration policy, there is a real chance that we destroy our system of governance by allowing an intransigent or intolerant minority to destabilize our system of government (at the local or national level) or reducing the functional ethical or intellectual capacity of our body politic below the necessary minimums. Or, similarly, if we are unwilling to enforce the law without regard for persons - because, for example, we find it distasteful that such blind justice will inevitably result in population-level differences in outcomes - our system of governance will not work.
That's the discussion that needs to happen.
