I think Bryan does not give some of the liberal writers enough credit. For example Yglesias, who Bryan mentioned during the chat, literally has a book on having a billion Americans - making a strong case for allowing substantially more immigration - and has another book on the rent being too high - with the same type of arguments as Bryan against regulation of construction.
Obviously being of a left-wing persuasion, Yglesias (like me) is concerned about inequality. But the biggest policy changes advocated to increase equality are things Bryan and similar thinkers should be able to support (i.e. cheaper housing). If Bryan and other libertarians cannot make common cause on these issues with liberals, it seems that the prospects of success of these ideas are diminished.
I don't see Bryan saying he can't make common cause with Yglesias on immigration or housing.
But even if he makes common cause with Yglesias on these issues, Yglesias still wouldn't consider him "on the left". For Bryan to be "on the left" he would need to adopt all of the lefts core beliefs. If he doesn't then he can't be part of the club.
So for instance, Yglesias is in favor of building more housing, but he's not against low income housing subsidies even if he doesn't think they are THE SOLUTION (Bryan probably is flat out against them).
And of course a lot of housing regulation is a backdoor way to protect oneself from crime and keep the demographics of ones school district good. Bryan is probably in favor of being tough on crime (Yglesias would be mixed at best) and in favor of total school choice (Yglesias is against and has stated so clearly recently). Housing de-regulation gets a lot easier when who your neighbors are isn't automatically who your kids classmates are, but that means attacking a core leftist constituent (K-12) and core leftist ideological beliefs (several, just look how nonsensical Yglesias ed reform essays are because he can't mention IQ).
Most of the "pro market" things you could get Yglesias to say are just "the market should be brought to bear against right wing constituencies." People with houses in the suburbs are certainly right wing constituencies. Change the topic to education and Yglesias will fight to the death against vouchers.
So Bryan's argument that the left is anti-market is wrong (or simplistic). You are allowed to be pro-market *if it hurts your enemies*. If it hurts your friends you are supposed to be anti-market.
Peter Thiel probably had a more accurate view here. People in a perfect free market get crushed. Even if they create a lot of value, it all goes to their customers and not profits. Politics is mostly about applying the free market to your enemies and protecting your allies from it.
Now, the left has been way more successful than the right at this, so the general attitude that the left is anti-market is mostly true. And some of the rights anti-market tendencies are just defense and often shared by many leftists (not wanting your neighborhood or schools to go to shit).
Caplan’s simplistic theory of the right and left applies better to the historical left than the modern left. You never see them lead a cancel campaign against someone for being against social security. They oppose economic conservatism, the oppose inequality and many outcomes of free markets, but the real rage comes out when a comedian makes fun of transgender people.
So, the explanation for why the biologically inferior support Leninism is obvious.
And in the early 20th century there were enough "intellectuals of the proletariat" as C.S. Lewis called the RAF pilots and mechanics that the "working class" could have intelligent champions even from within their own ranks (the SAT took care of this).
So why do the non Dalits support it?
I'd say within castes there are people that are relatively unworthy. Often on some non intellectual dimension (like attractiveness). So smart ugly people support the left and smart attractive people support the right.
Race also matters. Richard's "Englighetened Centrists" are approximately 100% gentile on the right, 50% jewish in the center, 100% jewish on the left. Amazing coincidence. But in Israel where Jews are the majority rather then the minority it's a right wing state. Amazing.
There is also an issue of sexual norms. The middle class support chastity and strong marriage. The upper class supports sexual experimentation (at least before one settles down, and maybe an affair or two on the side) and the lower class is basically animalistic on this matter.
Desire for children is a factor too. The society you want when you have 3+ kids is different then the one when you have none or one.
The middle class supports a rules based order and the upper class supports anarcho-tyranny (anarcho for the underclass, tyranny ruled by the upper class).
So why does the left resist school vouchers but support YIMBYism (sort of, at least the intellectual left, folk leftism is mostly NIMBY)? Well, homeowners and homebuilders are a middle class constituency and teachers (like most credentialed professionals) are a leftists constituency. That's why teachers were essential workers that got the vaccine before old people, even if they weren't teaching. One supports the market against ones enemies and regulation to protect ones friends. Besides, it's mainly the middle class that needs zoning to keep out crime and dysfunction. The well off can use prices to discriminate so they don't have to.
Just start asking "who/whom" and work out the natural equilibrium of the faction constituencies. The policies fall out from that and not so much ideology (within limits).
If man wants to live, the rationally basic political alternatives are individualism and collectivism. Ignoring or evading this yields only varieties of mysticism and subjectivism, ie, mad science. See _Atlas Shrugged_ for more.
I think Bryan does not give some of the liberal writers enough credit. For example Yglesias, who Bryan mentioned during the chat, literally has a book on having a billion Americans - making a strong case for allowing substantially more immigration - and has another book on the rent being too high - with the same type of arguments as Bryan against regulation of construction.
Obviously being of a left-wing persuasion, Yglesias (like me) is concerned about inequality. But the biggest policy changes advocated to increase equality are things Bryan and similar thinkers should be able to support (i.e. cheaper housing). If Bryan and other libertarians cannot make common cause on these issues with liberals, it seems that the prospects of success of these ideas are diminished.
I don't see Bryan saying he can't make common cause with Yglesias on immigration or housing.
But even if he makes common cause with Yglesias on these issues, Yglesias still wouldn't consider him "on the left". For Bryan to be "on the left" he would need to adopt all of the lefts core beliefs. If he doesn't then he can't be part of the club.
So for instance, Yglesias is in favor of building more housing, but he's not against low income housing subsidies even if he doesn't think they are THE SOLUTION (Bryan probably is flat out against them).
And of course a lot of housing regulation is a backdoor way to protect oneself from crime and keep the demographics of ones school district good. Bryan is probably in favor of being tough on crime (Yglesias would be mixed at best) and in favor of total school choice (Yglesias is against and has stated so clearly recently). Housing de-regulation gets a lot easier when who your neighbors are isn't automatically who your kids classmates are, but that means attacking a core leftist constituent (K-12) and core leftist ideological beliefs (several, just look how nonsensical Yglesias ed reform essays are because he can't mention IQ).
Most of the "pro market" things you could get Yglesias to say are just "the market should be brought to bear against right wing constituencies." People with houses in the suburbs are certainly right wing constituencies. Change the topic to education and Yglesias will fight to the death against vouchers.
So Bryan's argument that the left is anti-market is wrong (or simplistic). You are allowed to be pro-market *if it hurts your enemies*. If it hurts your friends you are supposed to be anti-market.
Peter Thiel probably had a more accurate view here. People in a perfect free market get crushed. Even if they create a lot of value, it all goes to their customers and not profits. Politics is mostly about applying the free market to your enemies and protecting your allies from it.
Now, the left has been way more successful than the right at this, so the general attitude that the left is anti-market is mostly true. And some of the rights anti-market tendencies are just defense and often shared by many leftists (not wanting your neighborhood or schools to go to shit).
To whom it may concern:
I would be interested in elaborating my take on right and left. Features of it:
* Pinker's concept of the left pole, which gets us to see that "right" means non-left.
* The greater diversity of the non-left, as compared to the left. (Note that we speak of "leftism" but not "rightism.")
* The principle that people's policy positions on issues are in large measure received from their partisan attachment.
* The sources and underlying nature of leftism.
* The semantic history of "left."
Caplan’s simplistic theory of the right and left applies better to the historical left than the modern left. You never see them lead a cancel campaign against someone for being against social security. They oppose economic conservatism, the oppose inequality and many outcomes of free markets, but the real rage comes out when a comedian makes fun of transgender people.
I prefer Spandrell's Biolenenism as an explanation of the left. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be online anymore.
Moldbugs caste system is also pretty good.
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/05/castes-of-united-states/
So, the explanation for why the biologically inferior support Leninism is obvious.
And in the early 20th century there were enough "intellectuals of the proletariat" as C.S. Lewis called the RAF pilots and mechanics that the "working class" could have intelligent champions even from within their own ranks (the SAT took care of this).
So why do the non Dalits support it?
I'd say within castes there are people that are relatively unworthy. Often on some non intellectual dimension (like attractiveness). So smart ugly people support the left and smart attractive people support the right.
Race also matters. Richard's "Englighetened Centrists" are approximately 100% gentile on the right, 50% jewish in the center, 100% jewish on the left. Amazing coincidence. But in Israel where Jews are the majority rather then the minority it's a right wing state. Amazing.
There is also an issue of sexual norms. The middle class support chastity and strong marriage. The upper class supports sexual experimentation (at least before one settles down, and maybe an affair or two on the side) and the lower class is basically animalistic on this matter.
Desire for children is a factor too. The society you want when you have 3+ kids is different then the one when you have none or one.
The middle class supports a rules based order and the upper class supports anarcho-tyranny (anarcho for the underclass, tyranny ruled by the upper class).
So why does the left resist school vouchers but support YIMBYism (sort of, at least the intellectual left, folk leftism is mostly NIMBY)? Well, homeowners and homebuilders are a middle class constituency and teachers (like most credentialed professionals) are a leftists constituency. That's why teachers were essential workers that got the vaccine before old people, even if they weren't teaching. One supports the market against ones enemies and regulation to protect ones friends. Besides, it's mainly the middle class that needs zoning to keep out crime and dysfunction. The well off can use prices to discriminate so they don't have to.
Just start asking "who/whom" and work out the natural equilibrium of the faction constituencies. The policies fall out from that and not so much ideology (within limits).
I found a Bioleninism download at the below link. There's many format options, including pdf.
https://archive.org/details/spandrell-biological-lenninism
Caplan is Jewish and on the right.
But he doesn't want to be on the right, it's been imposed on him against his will.
If man wants to live, the rationally basic political alternatives are individualism and collectivism. Ignoring or evading this yields only varieties of mysticism and subjectivism, ie, mad science. See _Atlas Shrugged_ for more.