The problem with pro-market/pro-growth policies is that they *also* destroy local communities in the same way immigration does. 'Free movement' of money and people systematically erodes local rule and local values. The 'indigenous' population of all these 'red' states are ignored and displaced by 'red state' policies.
Why not seek to adopt more pro-free market policies through another mechanism: Specifically IVF, IVG, and mass embryo selection for intelligence? Aren't smarter people more likely to be pro-free market, after all?
Doubtful. In fact, it's more likely the opposite, or something along the lines of "midwit" theory where people at the tails of the distribution prefer a stronger state than those in the middle.
A free market provides better returns for the whole of society on average, but *reduces* individual returns for the highest performers. You need a high level of intelligence to understand the artificial systems created by government, and to insinuate yourself into government networks. Likewise, people with high intelligence are better at cheating, lying, manipulating, etc., all of which are much more useful with greater government control.
In a free market there is no such thing as intellectual property. So even if you are highly intelligent and that gives you an advantage in the marketplace, eventually people of average intelligence will still be smart enough to simply copy you, even if they would never have figured out your strategies by themselves.
In short, the benefit of a free market is that technological progress has widespread positive externality. The whole purpose of anti-free market policy is to prevent exactly that from happening.
"Why not seek to adopt more pro-free market policies through another mechanism: Specifically IVF, IVG, and mass embryo selection for intelligence? "
I personally think this is the way forward. A government program incentivizing parents to conceive in that manner would yield one of the greatest returns on investment ever. Poorer couples would likely opt for the program due to financial insecurity. Then, a generation later, the fruits of the program would become obvious and more people who were previously ambivalent on the issue would feel more inclined towards eugenic IVF. The free market could then be expected to meet demand and start pouring resources into IVF research and potentially work on inventing other techniques like iterated embryo selection. Eventually a positive feedback loop would progress to the point at which nearly everyone would do IVF in order to keep up. This is somehow portrayed negatively in media like "Gattaca" as though we should sacrifice the boundless potential of possible future civilizations over some religious people's disgust response.
"Aren't smarter people more likely to be pro-free market, after all?"
Yes, but I'm not sure if this is due to a higher intelligence leading to pro-market views simply as a result of the intellectual merits of free markets. Smarter people may support free markets since they tend to perform well in them. No matter how smart a population becomes on average, there will always be significant variance in IQ which could lead to the bottom quintile always having more sour views on markets even if they exist in a future in which the IQ distribution has been shifted rightwards by two standards deviations.
People on the left hand of the IQ curve will be more anti-market relative to people on the right hand of the IQ curve, but if the left hand of the IQ curve will have an average IQ of, say, 120 or 150 or 200 by today’s standards, then even it will be very pro-market by today’s standards, I would suspect.
The problem with pro-market/pro-growth policies is that they *also* destroy local communities in the same way immigration does. 'Free movement' of money and people systematically erodes local rule and local values. The 'indigenous' population of all these 'red' states are ignored and displaced by 'red state' policies.
Californication...
Yeah, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s time to move to Florida. And I don’t even live somewhere as bad as California.
The school vouchers really clinched it for me.
Even if we call housing a wash, moving to Florida is worth over a million dollars to me.
Why not seek to adopt more pro-free market policies through another mechanism: Specifically IVF, IVG, and mass embryo selection for intelligence? Aren't smarter people more likely to be pro-free market, after all?
Doubtful. In fact, it's more likely the opposite, or something along the lines of "midwit" theory where people at the tails of the distribution prefer a stronger state than those in the middle.
A free market provides better returns for the whole of society on average, but *reduces* individual returns for the highest performers. You need a high level of intelligence to understand the artificial systems created by government, and to insinuate yourself into government networks. Likewise, people with high intelligence are better at cheating, lying, manipulating, etc., all of which are much more useful with greater government control.
In a free market there is no such thing as intellectual property. So even if you are highly intelligent and that gives you an advantage in the marketplace, eventually people of average intelligence will still be smart enough to simply copy you, even if they would never have figured out your strategies by themselves.
In short, the benefit of a free market is that technological progress has widespread positive externality. The whole purpose of anti-free market policy is to prevent exactly that from happening.
"Why not seek to adopt more pro-free market policies through another mechanism: Specifically IVF, IVG, and mass embryo selection for intelligence? "
I personally think this is the way forward. A government program incentivizing parents to conceive in that manner would yield one of the greatest returns on investment ever. Poorer couples would likely opt for the program due to financial insecurity. Then, a generation later, the fruits of the program would become obvious and more people who were previously ambivalent on the issue would feel more inclined towards eugenic IVF. The free market could then be expected to meet demand and start pouring resources into IVF research and potentially work on inventing other techniques like iterated embryo selection. Eventually a positive feedback loop would progress to the point at which nearly everyone would do IVF in order to keep up. This is somehow portrayed negatively in media like "Gattaca" as though we should sacrifice the boundless potential of possible future civilizations over some religious people's disgust response.
"Aren't smarter people more likely to be pro-free market, after all?"
Yes, but I'm not sure if this is due to a higher intelligence leading to pro-market views simply as a result of the intellectual merits of free markets. Smarter people may support free markets since they tend to perform well in them. No matter how smart a population becomes on average, there will always be significant variance in IQ which could lead to the bottom quintile always having more sour views on markets even if they exist in a future in which the IQ distribution has been shifted rightwards by two standards deviations.
People on the left hand of the IQ curve will be more anti-market relative to people on the right hand of the IQ curve, but if the left hand of the IQ curve will have an average IQ of, say, 120 or 150 or 200 by today’s standards, then even it will be very pro-market by today’s standards, I would suspect.