The most important reason to exclude non-whites from our countries is to keep our countries white. That way, in-person judgment concerning safety becomes a non-issue. In this way white nationalism is actually less “racist” than the kind of civic nationalism to the effect of “A-rabs are A-ok; we just don’t want those goat-fucking Muslims!”
While exclusion can be a form of punishment, it usually isn’t, including exclusion in immigration policy.
For most of their history actual classical liberals have understood this just fine.
Yes, I'd argue that base rates are permissible to use by individuals and by the government when there is a sufficiently high stake in the matter--a compelling interest, so to speak--especially if the use of this data can be narrowly tailored to fulfill this compelling interest. If one was a cop, and someone refused to cooperate with you, argued with you, and reached for something in their pocket or car, then it makes sense for cops to shoot now if it's a young black man and to wait and see what this person will actually pull out of their pocket (a gun? a cigarette? a cell phone? a piece of bubble gum?) before deciding whether or not to shoot if it's an old Asian woman. This might be unfair to young black men, but the statistical odds of cops being confronted with a potential killer when they are dealing with young black men is unfortunately much higher than it is when cops are dealing with old Asian women.
This is why it also very likely makes sense to prevent people who are attracted to minors, especially when this attraction is dominant (as opposed to it existing but being much less than their attraction to other adults), from ever being allowed to adopt any children. This might be unfair to virtuous minor-attracted people, but children's safety is more important.
If you're interested in some writing tips, read on - otherwise just ignore this comment.
First try to avoid typos like "A murder committed in your neighborhood." Fortunately, that was the only example I noticed.
Second, I think the article could be improved with references to some Classical Liberal making the referenced claims about judgement in particular cases, like immigration, rather than simply about "judging people," in general.
Third, it would be interesting to explore the murkier elements of judging. For example, you state that:
>It would not be ok to send someone to prison merely because of the fact that they came from a demographic with a high rate of crime.
But incarceration will always have some false positives. What if 99% of a demographic were criminals. Would it make sense to lock them all up?
While that's a thought experiment with little relation to the real world, a more real world question would be whether discrimination should be allowed in insurance. If an insurer knows that different races create different levels of risk, can they price that in, or must they force the other races to subsidize the riskier races.
And what about discrimination in employment? It's easy to say that credentials obviate the need for racial proxies, but in reality, given distinct distributions, candidates of different demographics with the same credentials will differ in average quality (this is even more true in a world of affirmative action, in which the credentials are afforded more readily to members of some races, but it would even be the case in a world without it). Unlike something like incarceration, employment is zero sum, hiring one person necessitates not hiring someone else. Perhaps race shouldn't be used in incarceration, since not incarcerating one person doesn't necessitate locking someone else up, but since employment requires rejecting someone, why shouldn't employers use all the information at their disposal?
While someone may think that those are unacceptable - the innocent person seeking a job or insurance policy shouldn't be penalized for the behavior of others of his race, why is it fundamentally different from profiling in an airport? That too imposes costs (of time) on an individual for the betterment of those imposing them on the basis of statistics.
And does profiling in airports differ fundamentally from police profiling in general, such as racially motivated pretextual traffic stops knowing that they'll be likelier to turn up illegal weapons or other evidence of crimes? The latter is at least nominally rooted in some pretextual traffic violation, while the traveler has committed no crime, at all.
And what about considering demographics in criminal sentencing and parole hearings, given the implications on the risk of reoffending? Here the subjects aren't innocent and aren't merely guilty of a pretextual violation, but of the crime, itself.
Also worth considering is the relation between age-based legal considerations and race-based ones. In both cases, the potential justification would be statistical differences between populations. While some 13 year olds are far more intelligent, mature, and responsible than the average adult, most are not. The same goes for members of different races.
Perhaps may be more sympathetic to the former, since the subjects will age out of it, but that doesn't address the core issue.
well said brother
The most important reason to exclude non-whites from our countries is to keep our countries white. That way, in-person judgment concerning safety becomes a non-issue. In this way white nationalism is actually less “racist” than the kind of civic nationalism to the effect of “A-rabs are A-ok; we just don’t want those goat-fucking Muslims!”
While exclusion can be a form of punishment, it usually isn’t, including exclusion in immigration policy.
For most of their history actual classical liberals have understood this just fine.
Yes, I'd argue that base rates are permissible to use by individuals and by the government when there is a sufficiently high stake in the matter--a compelling interest, so to speak--especially if the use of this data can be narrowly tailored to fulfill this compelling interest. If one was a cop, and someone refused to cooperate with you, argued with you, and reached for something in their pocket or car, then it makes sense for cops to shoot now if it's a young black man and to wait and see what this person will actually pull out of their pocket (a gun? a cigarette? a cell phone? a piece of bubble gum?) before deciding whether or not to shoot if it's an old Asian woman. This might be unfair to young black men, but the statistical odds of cops being confronted with a potential killer when they are dealing with young black men is unfortunately much higher than it is when cops are dealing with old Asian women.
This is why it also very likely makes sense to prevent people who are attracted to minors, especially when this attraction is dominant (as opposed to it existing but being much less than their attraction to other adults), from ever being allowed to adopt any children. This might be unfair to virtuous minor-attracted people, but children's safety is more important.
If you're interested in some writing tips, read on - otherwise just ignore this comment.
First try to avoid typos like "A murder committed in your neighborhood." Fortunately, that was the only example I noticed.
Second, I think the article could be improved with references to some Classical Liberal making the referenced claims about judgement in particular cases, like immigration, rather than simply about "judging people," in general.
Third, it would be interesting to explore the murkier elements of judging. For example, you state that:
>It would not be ok to send someone to prison merely because of the fact that they came from a demographic with a high rate of crime.
But incarceration will always have some false positives. What if 99% of a demographic were criminals. Would it make sense to lock them all up?
While that's a thought experiment with little relation to the real world, a more real world question would be whether discrimination should be allowed in insurance. If an insurer knows that different races create different levels of risk, can they price that in, or must they force the other races to subsidize the riskier races.
And what about discrimination in employment? It's easy to say that credentials obviate the need for racial proxies, but in reality, given distinct distributions, candidates of different demographics with the same credentials will differ in average quality (this is even more true in a world of affirmative action, in which the credentials are afforded more readily to members of some races, but it would even be the case in a world without it). Unlike something like incarceration, employment is zero sum, hiring one person necessitates not hiring someone else. Perhaps race shouldn't be used in incarceration, since not incarcerating one person doesn't necessitate locking someone else up, but since employment requires rejecting someone, why shouldn't employers use all the information at their disposal?
While someone may think that those are unacceptable - the innocent person seeking a job or insurance policy shouldn't be penalized for the behavior of others of his race, why is it fundamentally different from profiling in an airport? That too imposes costs (of time) on an individual for the betterment of those imposing them on the basis of statistics.
And does profiling in airports differ fundamentally from police profiling in general, such as racially motivated pretextual traffic stops knowing that they'll be likelier to turn up illegal weapons or other evidence of crimes? The latter is at least nominally rooted in some pretextual traffic violation, while the traveler has committed no crime, at all.
And what about considering demographics in criminal sentencing and parole hearings, given the implications on the risk of reoffending? Here the subjects aren't innocent and aren't merely guilty of a pretextual violation, but of the crime, itself.
Also worth considering is the relation between age-based legal considerations and race-based ones. In both cases, the potential justification would be statistical differences between populations. While some 13 year olds are far more intelligent, mature, and responsible than the average adult, most are not. The same goes for members of different races.
Perhaps may be more sympathetic to the former, since the subjects will age out of it, but that doesn't address the core issue.