Privilege existed in France when a noble's word surpassed any commoner's in a court of law. Common law in England seems to originate in a King's court system being devised to counter aristocratic power. This opposition to ascriptive hierarchy, as opposed to meritocratic one. Meritocracy is the "special recipe" of the West since the Enlightenment.
It seems to me that the US committed an original sin of having double standards. Tocqueville pondered whether black people should be allowed to own property, whereas women in the US always could own property. So there was an undeniable racism. Tt was so marked in the antebellum south that free blacks chose not to live there: the place was unsafe. When Jefferson Davis writes in favor of slavery, his view also was aligned withn Lincoln's that slavery was a political problem for the South. According to him, it was identified ever since the first meetings of congress in the 1780s. A moratorium on the import of slaves had the full support of southern states, and the hope was that the black population would dwindle over the long run without influx, but it increased in the next 80 years. After the civil war, the old south was still enacting laws against black, so that blacks with the most agency would choose to leave to the north. After 100 years, there still was a large poor, segregated black population in the south, and the US federal government imposed desegregation of the south in the 60s following some unrest.
It took less than 2 generations for Jews or Vietnamese or illiterate catholic Irish to integrate in American society, but the integration of blacks is not as good. The Latin Americans also have lower income, although this issue is muddled through constant influx (it arguably takes two generations for uneducated people to integrate).
After 60 years of civil rights, the hysteria about privilege since 2010 seems to be surpassing any discussion as a colony of his majesty George III. One of the reason is a grievance study industry that grew up out of the civil rights and that seems to feed on cancel meritocracy. They promote ascriptive identity groups, indigenous science, and push all kinds of social desirable biases and luxury beliefs. This is a threat to meritocracy.
At the same time, arguments such as "black do not succeed as well because of their genetics" is also anathema to the principle of democratic equality, which is predicated on the equality of the people. If some people are genetically better and intermarrying, this leads to a hereditary aristocracy.
All this is happening in a context of elite overproduction.
>the US federal government imposed desegregation of the south in the 60s following some unrest.
Neither government-imposed segregation or desegregation is desirable. People should be left to freedom of association instead.
>One of the reason is a grievance study industry that grew up out of the civil rights
Yes, but the so-called “civil rights” grew out of overcorrection for past state racism.
>This is a threat to meritocracy.
Strictly speaking, “meritocracy” is rule (or power) based on merit. But no one should have the right to rule or even to a job based on their alleged merit. There has to be agreement between employer and employee.
>At the same time, arguments such as "black do not succeed as well because of their genetics" is also anathema to the principle of democratic equality, which is predicated on the equality of the people.
But people aren’t equal and “democracy” in any form is undesirable.
>If some people are genetically better and intermarrying, this leads to a hereditary aristocracy. All this is happening in a context of elite overproduction.
Hereditarily superior people sound good to me. And the more the better. But why suppose that they will thereby rule other people?
This is an interesting disambiguation from you. If I may add a few points...
> Meritocratic
"Meritocratic" was meant as a distinction to as "ascriptive" elite (see comparison of the Igbo and Hausa-Fulani tribe in Nigeria in Shaw & Wong https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-97555-000). In a Meritocracy, people can join the elite based on the performance of their action rather than based on an arbitrary socially preset criteria. It seems to me that this openness is fundamental to the American identity.
>Democracy
Democracy has become the symbolic legitimation for the US. It used to be a Republic with taxation based representation, but electoral franchise has been gradually enlarged long ago. The problem was acknowledged long ago and yet the US does not seem to have a path out of Democracy that has broad support in the current political discourse. The latter seems stuck on whether identification should be presented for voting.
> Heredity
There are trappings to socially recognising hereditary superiority. Galton argued that mean reversion could mean a heir is incompetent, but the next one might revert to the mean of the lineage. That Charles II should become king shows that the admission of hereditary superiority quickly turns into an "ascriptive factor". The superiority claim ends up with no basis in fact and is
apparently made with a rent seeking motive. While mankind had much success with breeding pigs and horses, we didn't have much success with aristocracy, most likely due to patrimonial incentives.
Joining the elite based on merit does not make that elite a literal “meritocracy” if there is no political rule or power involved with being a member of the elite.
Given sufficient voluntary eugenics, humans can improve on a libertarian basis. Whether this involves any “socially recognising” of the process is a separate matter. As is the occasional reversion to the mean.
I get your point for meritocracy, (except for US presidents who are the pinnacle of human performance and embody the highest merit and power in the nation if you believe what the media says).
Concerning democracy, I read your article and was thinking of the book by Hans Adams Iii state in the third millenium, I w seems to me his state is democratic. He people gets direct votes and right to secede. I wrote an article on this in French which I’ll translate to substack, but you can see the ideas here: https://www.hoover.org/research/hsh-prince-hans-adam-ii-state-third-millennium
Liechtenstein has aspects of democracy because of the referenda. But even the results of referenda will often be interpreted and implemented by a small politically-motivated group. Hence, Robert Michels' "iron law of oligarchy" is likely to operate even with referenda.
Many whites don’t succeed (relative to other whites) because of their genetic limitations but nobody cares. Wokels care about blacks because they are perhaps psychologically inclined to wildly overcorrect for past injustices (real or imagined). Amusingly, many Wokels are certain of their intellectual and moral superiority over the deplorables, so they are like “inverse fascists” (Lester). They click their Birkenstock heels together in unison. Of course, if slavery had never happened, which is what any good wokel would want, we would have “white supremacy” because there would be very few blacks in the US today. Who laments slavery more than white nationalists? But I’m sure there would be some kind of neo-Puritan nonsense under statism with or without black pets.
One example of woke privilege I have often heard is that whites are less likely than non-whites to be followed around in stores by security. In some places in the US, this problem has been solved by no longer persecuting shoplifters. Ta da!
The first sentence describes alleged white privilege, but it is really prudentially following the statistical reality of shoplifting. The second sentence describes de facto woke privilege.
I am not a US person.
Privilege existed in France when a noble's word surpassed any commoner's in a court of law. Common law in England seems to originate in a King's court system being devised to counter aristocratic power. This opposition to ascriptive hierarchy, as opposed to meritocratic one. Meritocracy is the "special recipe" of the West since the Enlightenment.
It seems to me that the US committed an original sin of having double standards. Tocqueville pondered whether black people should be allowed to own property, whereas women in the US always could own property. So there was an undeniable racism. Tt was so marked in the antebellum south that free blacks chose not to live there: the place was unsafe. When Jefferson Davis writes in favor of slavery, his view also was aligned withn Lincoln's that slavery was a political problem for the South. According to him, it was identified ever since the first meetings of congress in the 1780s. A moratorium on the import of slaves had the full support of southern states, and the hope was that the black population would dwindle over the long run without influx, but it increased in the next 80 years. After the civil war, the old south was still enacting laws against black, so that blacks with the most agency would choose to leave to the north. After 100 years, there still was a large poor, segregated black population in the south, and the US federal government imposed desegregation of the south in the 60s following some unrest.
It took less than 2 generations for Jews or Vietnamese or illiterate catholic Irish to integrate in American society, but the integration of blacks is not as good. The Latin Americans also have lower income, although this issue is muddled through constant influx (it arguably takes two generations for uneducated people to integrate).
After 60 years of civil rights, the hysteria about privilege since 2010 seems to be surpassing any discussion as a colony of his majesty George III. One of the reason is a grievance study industry that grew up out of the civil rights and that seems to feed on cancel meritocracy. They promote ascriptive identity groups, indigenous science, and push all kinds of social desirable biases and luxury beliefs. This is a threat to meritocracy.
At the same time, arguments such as "black do not succeed as well because of their genetics" is also anathema to the principle of democratic equality, which is predicated on the equality of the people. If some people are genetically better and intermarrying, this leads to a hereditary aristocracy.
All this is happening in a context of elite overproduction.
https://polsci.substack.com/p/the-role-of-informal-institutions
A few brief responses follow quoted text.
>the US federal government imposed desegregation of the south in the 60s following some unrest.
Neither government-imposed segregation or desegregation is desirable. People should be left to freedom of association instead.
>One of the reason is a grievance study industry that grew up out of the civil rights
Yes, but the so-called “civil rights” grew out of overcorrection for past state racism.
>This is a threat to meritocracy.
Strictly speaking, “meritocracy” is rule (or power) based on merit. But no one should have the right to rule or even to a job based on their alleged merit. There has to be agreement between employer and employee.
>At the same time, arguments such as "black do not succeed as well because of their genetics" is also anathema to the principle of democratic equality, which is predicated on the equality of the people.
But people aren’t equal and “democracy” in any form is undesirable.
>If some people are genetically better and intermarrying, this leads to a hereditary aristocracy. All this is happening in a context of elite overproduction.
Hereditarily superior people sound good to me. And the more the better. But why suppose that they will thereby rule other people?
This is an interesting disambiguation from you. If I may add a few points...
> Meritocratic
"Meritocratic" was meant as a distinction to as "ascriptive" elite (see comparison of the Igbo and Hausa-Fulani tribe in Nigeria in Shaw & Wong https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1990-97555-000). In a Meritocracy, people can join the elite based on the performance of their action rather than based on an arbitrary socially preset criteria. It seems to me that this openness is fundamental to the American identity.
>Democracy
Democracy has become the symbolic legitimation for the US. It used to be a Republic with taxation based representation, but electoral franchise has been gradually enlarged long ago. The problem was acknowledged long ago and yet the US does not seem to have a path out of Democracy that has broad support in the current political discourse. The latter seems stuck on whether identification should be presented for voting.
> Heredity
There are trappings to socially recognising hereditary superiority. Galton argued that mean reversion could mean a heir is incompetent, but the next one might revert to the mean of the lineage. That Charles II should become king shows that the admission of hereditary superiority quickly turns into an "ascriptive factor". The superiority claim ends up with no basis in fact and is
apparently made with a rent seeking motive. While mankind had much success with breeding pigs and horses, we didn't have much success with aristocracy, most likely due to patrimonial incentives.
Joining the elite based on merit does not make that elite a literal “meritocracy” if there is no political rule or power involved with being a member of the elite.
There is no democracy in the US (or anywhere else). There is a popularly elected oligarchy. https://jclester.substack.com/p/democracy-a-libertarian-viewpoint
Given sufficient voluntary eugenics, humans can improve on a libertarian basis. Whether this involves any “socially recognising” of the process is a separate matter. As is the occasional reversion to the mean.
I get your point for meritocracy, (except for US presidents who are the pinnacle of human performance and embody the highest merit and power in the nation if you believe what the media says).
Concerning democracy, I read your article and was thinking of the book by Hans Adams Iii state in the third millenium, I w seems to me his state is democratic. He people gets direct votes and right to secede. I wrote an article on this in French which I’ll translate to substack, but you can see the ideas here: https://www.hoover.org/research/hsh-prince-hans-adam-ii-state-third-millennium
Do you think Liechtenstein is a democracy?
Liechtenstein has aspects of democracy because of the referenda. But even the results of referenda will often be interpreted and implemented by a small politically-motivated group. Hence, Robert Michels' "iron law of oligarchy" is likely to operate even with referenda.
Many whites don’t succeed (relative to other whites) because of their genetic limitations but nobody cares. Wokels care about blacks because they are perhaps psychologically inclined to wildly overcorrect for past injustices (real or imagined). Amusingly, many Wokels are certain of their intellectual and moral superiority over the deplorables, so they are like “inverse fascists” (Lester). They click their Birkenstock heels together in unison. Of course, if slavery had never happened, which is what any good wokel would want, we would have “white supremacy” because there would be very few blacks in the US today. Who laments slavery more than white nationalists? But I’m sure there would be some kind of neo-Puritan nonsense under statism with or without black pets.
Inverted fascism, by analogy with inverted snobbery.
Indeed, woke is hysterical puritanism. You nailed it.
One example of woke privilege I have often heard is that whites are less likely than non-whites to be followed around in stores by security. In some places in the US, this problem has been solved by no longer persecuting shoplifters. Ta da!
The first sentence describes alleged white privilege, but it is really prudentially following the statistical reality of shoplifting. The second sentence describes de facto woke privilege.
I think I meant to write “alleged white privilege as claimed by Wokels” in the first sentence.
That seemed likely but I thought it best not to let it stand without challenge.