 Okay You can ask questions addressed to a specific individuals on the panel or to the panel in general Please wait until the microphone is given to you because all things let me just at the beginning make one briefly mark about Queens and kings Now Economics is the queen of the social sciences and the king of the social science for a very elementary reason That is because economics is the science more akin to logic There are pure arguments that are used whereas the psychology is of course an empirical science It is in the same sense that mathematics or logic for instance would be Ranking supreme over the natural sciences physics and chemistry in the same sense Of course economics ranks supreme over any of the empirical social sciences if you have statements such as If out of your income The demand for one good increases the demand for another good necessarily has to go down This is something that does not require any type of empirical testing. It is just a simple logical statement Psychology does not have statements of this kind. So in this sense I do have to disagree with with my friend Richard Lynn He is a king in his own realm But but we are then we are then the kaisers I have a Question and the critical remark for Marco Bassani First my question. What is the difference between what you critically call the current Libertarian illusion? That you only have to destroy the dichotomy between the public and the private sphere in the mind and your own recommendation in the end that You mainly have to overcome the state in in your mind And my critical remark is you Said that Libertarianism was in a way a reaction to the failure of classical liberalism I'm wondering isn't it rather the case that originally Libertarianism started out as a revival of classical liberalism, but only because classical liberalism had to become Absolutely useless to the state and thus effectively protected Libertarians from any political influence And that's does fostered Research tradition which helped to bring back to the surface certain insight such as the utter fail of classical liberalism Early on. Thank you great question Next No, right just on the second part I totally agree you're probably right that's I would just follow your analysis on the first part no, I didn't say that The state exists only in the mind of the people and then it's over you just tell them The dichotomy of public sphere and private law makes no sense And then they realize it wake up the next morning and the state is gone No, that was not what I was what I meant by that you see many times I debate this things about the historicity of the state and And one thing you have to keep in mind the state is two things an intellectual construction and an institutional reality and they both always go together You cannot have a state where there's no intellectual intellectual construction So when I talk about sovereignty Jean Baudin and so on There's always some idiots that says well sovereignty was working 5,000 years ago in China Right, but as if sovereignty actually existed so you can go around and look for Sovereignty to just operate and operates normally. It's not sovereignty It's the theories on sovereignty that are the actual and real thing And they are as real as sovereignty itself But the only problem is you cannot have sovereignty without the theories of sovereignty So you cannot go around and just watch the Roman Empire and he said yeah here this Empire Marcus Aurelius Sovereignty because sovereignty did not exist. Nobody talked spoke in those terms and actually Jean Baudin was Was not there yet with the six books on the state. So that's exactly what I meant It's in the mind of the people, but it's also in the mind of the politicians a politician could never rule Without reference to the state and to that what karsh meet called the use public a mayor opium to all that Tradition, you know even Adolf Hitler by the way, somebody told me that in Britain There was a program where where people asked what was the aim of Hitler and the answer was Hyland that was Pretty amazing, but anyway, so even Adolf Hitler who didn't care too much about the state But he was a little bit obsessed by other concepts like race and so on Had to use during the political struggle all this The whole of the construction of the state of this artificial person that basically represents nobody Neither the rulers nor the ruled it doesn't represent anybody, you know It's just there and it's a machine and it goes on by itself And also it's nurtured by a lot of myths and the first myth is the idea That it always existed and that's one myth that libertarians haven't gotten rid of What you're saying If I understand this correctly It's basically that you say Yes, of course if the people don't believe in the legitimacy of the state in the existence of the state Then it would not have any power over them But if and as long as they do believe in it, then it does have power over them, right? It or do I misunderstand what you are saying? No, of course not. No, no, it's perfect I mean the only thing it is such a big if That I'm ready to give it to you. The only thing we have to realize it's a big if it took 500 years to build this idea of the state as an artificial person and It's not gonna take a couple of books to destroy it Hans Hans when you speak of This limited government has been an impossibility Absolutely believe that But here at both LRC and Mises org We are supporting a Ron Paul and a Rand Paul He has a political choice and they do Speak to strict construction of the Constitution They do speak of this minarchist a state that could be okay, and Yet from your views, can you tell me just directly is this not more dangerous more dishonest and more? harmful for us to kind of Do little tiny baby steps towards trying to limit a government as opposed to just speaking Openly as you do About how Impossible it would be to limit a state and can you tell me what would that kind of? Discussion and movement look like as a Again Ron Paul and Randall Paul are politicians I'm I'm a scholar I'm committed to the truth. They don't have to be committed to the truth. They have strategic Strategic objectives It's I think What they basically Promote is the same sort of thing that people say that we turn Some We still turn stones into Into bread or what the alchemists try to do use Certain materials in order to create gold or to some people still try to work on squaring the circle Yes, the fact that some people Pursue certain things of which we know this is an impossible goal does not Change the fact that it isn't impossible. Well, many people pursue some things that are absolutely Impossible to do and in this sense, I think they pursue an impossible Impossible goal and as scholars it is our obligation to point to point this out question for Mr. Richard Lennon now I am curious is You were correlated a visitor. Could this be what you're taking as correlation or causality might be actually be correlation Because there are two or three things that make me think that there might be errors in your conclusion One is that all the low IQ Low IQ places are warmer countries. That's very difficult and I grew up in a warm country It's it's very people usually have in a hot climate when you're outside during the daytime here in the afternoon You're thinking is cloudy. You can't think clearly anymore So is that genetics which leads to low IQ or is it hot climate which is Temporary thing which leaves which might lead to low IQ and the other thing is and I've definitely complete this thing Is another issue which I was just thinking about Is public education? I mean I have been coming living in and out of the West for the last 20 years And I have seen that the IQ of the Western people has dropped Significantly in the last 20 years the last generation when I came here in early 90s was you know passionate curious Freedom-loving people compared to what we have today in in in the Western countries in the UK in Canada in America I see very stupid of early 20s and late teens People who are down to down version of humanity a result of public education. So all I'm sorry In short my question is is it a genetics which leads to low IQ or there are many other temporary social factors which resulted in Two questions raised there one is the climate climate question as Was observed there's a climatic Dimension to this it's the people in the cooler climates of northern of Europe in the Northeast Asia Have the highest IQs and as you go down into warmer climates North Africa through the South Asia they fall a bit and as you get into the hotter climates They fall so further this observation was first made by Montesquieu in 1748 in his book less pre-déloire He drew attention to this and he made very much kind of suggestions that you did it's the heat it's exhausting there are more tropical diseases which impair people But I Think this a Serious problem for this analysis is Singapore which actually it lies on the equator But of course is mainly inhabited by Chinese but 78th population of Chinese Singapore is a very prosperous country same per capita income roughly as in Western Europe So they don't this is kind of experiment you might say the Chinese move Came for some reason rather to Singapore in the 19th century They because they have these high IQs. They made it into a very prosperous country And they're not to don't suffer from these climatic problems. So I think we might say this is a beautiful theory spoiled by one ugly fact as for the Second point of whether IQs have fallen off declined in the last 20 years or so in the West That is not the case We monitor there's a lot of work monitoring IQs year by year a little of industry on this and IQs have been static In many countries this last 20 years or so To the to the climate question So if we assume there are genetic differences Then the next question would why are there genetic differences between People high in the north and people in the south and they are I think climate does Does seem to play a role Obviously this the select the Selection the pressure of selection so to speak is To select for a higher intelligent the pressure is higher if you live into live in regions that are challenging regions Life in the Mediterranean region for instance is already far easier Then it is let's say in Finland or Norway or nor is on Germany So if you want to become successful as a person You have to be The selection tends to be more in favor of higher intelligence in northern in northern region and Being intelligent is less important in more southern regions Where even if you are not particularly intelligent you can lead a decent life In northern in northern region it is almost impossible, especially if you just imagine a pre-industrial society It would be almost impossible To just lays around do nothing have no foresight and so forth You will simply die out in order to survive there must be a selection a stronger selection in favor of Developing higher degrees of intelligence That's what what I think is a plausible explanation For the genetic differences that exist the genetic differences will also have a cause and the cause is Different skills are necessary in order to become a successful Successful person who raises brings up the next generation who brings up the next generation in some general in in some territories Then then in other territories obviously none of these mechanism nowadays Works anymore as they did thousands of years ago. I mean now we have air conditioning And so forth But all the breeding and so forth has of course taking place under entirely different Under and if the entirely different circumstances that are now long gone For Richard Well since about 1880 The genetic quality of the population for intelligence and probably also for personality qualities has deteriorated in economically developed countries and the reason for that is that Intelligent people have been having fewer children than unintelligent people So obviously it follows that each generation. There are more unintelligent because intelligence is transmitted down through families More unintelligent children are being born in successive generations This occurred about 1880 and we have to blame our German cousins for this Because it was some clever German in about 1870 who invented the modern latex condom as we know it today And once that had been invented This disgenic fertility became inevitable. It was inevitable that intelligent people would use this more efficiently than unintelligent people and so it came about and So this has progressed over six generations or so since the 1880s and So our genetic intelligence is decreasing But this is compensated by some rise in intelligence because of improved environment Intelligence is determined both by our genes and by our environment particularly by the quality of nutrition So these two things have to some degree set each other off So There's Richard said this is to some degree exacerbated by welfare states because the welfare state Sustains less intelligent people even encourages them to have children as Charles Murray pointed out in his well-known book loosing ground. It was a We all feel very sympathetic to the poor living on welfare and single mothers It would be very nice to give them more money You'd all be in favor of that But the more money we give them the more these people essentially have a choice between having children and remaining on welfare Or not having children going to work. So more money we give them through welfare state The more these people who have this choice will opt for welfare and will have children so the welfare states undoubtedly exacerbates this Disgenic trend Okay, yeah, but add one one additional consideration. We had for most of mankind We lived in the Malsusian in a Malsusian age. There's a people dying out on us We only have since the so-called industrial revolution a situation Were the average standard of living rises and the population size rises at the same time For most of for most of mankind there was practically no increase in average standards of living People in ancient Rome were not fundamentally richer than people in ancient Babylon people in Let's say 1750 in England were on the average not richer than people were in Rome The largest number of people were simply wiped out due to economic constraints that existed in under those under those conditions The people who did survive and did bring up offspring successfully brought up offspring were the Economically successful people who had more surviving offspring and so over time you bread So to speak a higher average intelligence in the population Since the industrial revolution and that is so to speak a very unique moment in in human history We live in the under these conditions only for 250 years So since since the industrial revolution It is no longer the case as it used to be before that the economically more successful Which are by and large the also the brighter people Have a larger number of children surviving offspring now It is possible has become possible because of the success of the industrial revolution that people Even if they are Not Economically successful and less bright can bring up children Who have again children and so forth so since the industrial revolution? I think a dysgenic effect has somehow Taken Become important that did not exist prior to to the event of the industrial revolution Yeah, but can I say one thing just I think intelligence and Richard Lynn's perspective and Is much overrated? First of all, we just we very simply neat neat idiots to fill up academic positions and Journalists and so on and then the other thing is I know a guy who's got probably 191 and IQ and you probably know him as well, and I won't say the name but I'd rather be an idiot a savage idiot living in a land, you know plenty a very Warm climate and so on then then this guy so Just my point is It's much overrated intelligence and an idiocy is certainly underrated. So we should which is just We should put things in perspective in a different perspective kush It seems to me that they are They're elements sort of the IQ picture which can certainly be called into question and What one of the things that I fact I've discussed with Richard is you know Why is it that Jews score very high in the United States and score a bit lower than? than white Europeans in Israel and his answer is well There's some sort of Sephardic Jews or something in the in the racial mixture who are not quite as bright and My response is they don't study very much there. They're mostly in the military. There's very little emphasis on education and I suppose his response would be well IQ tests really don't test for this, you know and educational environment isn't that that important but To me even if you know in some cases the data would seem inadequate Especially looking at a very very large country and so I think that examinations of cognitive genetic differences is very important A because there seems to be at least some truth in this Probably a good deal of truth B we have been so brainwashed in the United States in Europe to attribute everything to oppression racism sexism Cultural variables which are never the fault of people who are not doing as well Then we also get these simplistic views about culture which I know Richard likes to parody that we're going to give you an injection of the Right values and this is going to improve you and I Also sort of like it's almost a kind of Calvinist view that that Richard presents that as hard as you work You cannot get salvation Because it's all sort of faded. I like that. I like the the fatedness of things As opposed to my anti egalitarian prejudice that makes me like that, but But but there are things that you really cannot change I think of course I would not want to tell people who do have lesser cognitive abilities They shouldn't work hard. They should work hard, but they're not going to do as well in the end Maybe you don't really tell them that But I think I think it is important for people who are savvy to understand that there are natural cognitive differences And that they are inherited within restricted gene pools and it may not be the whole picture in explaining Inequality and achievement, but it does explain something explains perhaps a good deal And at the very least, you know, it's something that we should be allowed to discuss openly Which we are not allowed to do in the United States because we have to accept cultural Marxist explanations for everything Or else the silly neo-conservative alternative we have to give people injections of values or cultural values and I think we have to recognize there are things beyond those injections of cultural values In beating up on the dominant white culture which explains why people are not going to have the same achievements One one additional remark to this to me. Why are we discussing these sorts of things? On the one hand because they are absolutely taboo subjects This the second thing is if you start with a premise that all people are equal and then you see different outcomes Then immediately the cry is something is wrong here. There must be discrimination There must be mistreatment of this group or that group as soon as we recognize what everybody knows From kindergarten on there are some people are good at things and others just don't hack it As soon as we realize there are tremendous differences among people We expect that the outcome should be tremendously different and then we can say so what if people just Isn't that terrible that these people have achieved this and these other people have achieved something far greater That's the way life is there is nothing bad about it. Nothing wrong about it It doesn't follow that people who are not intelligent should be treated in any way different differently It we just recognize the fact and and say so what? But if we take the assumption that Everybody is equal and then are astonished How can if everybody is equal the outcomes be so different and then conclude from that something must be done about it Then we are obviously on an entirely wrong path So these things have to be spoken about I know that libertarians are also terrible when it comes to the subject I have many libertarian enemies who just say Hopper talks about these types of things We shouldn't talk about these sorts of things. No, we have to talk about everything that is true That it doesn't help us to just blind ourselves to something that is obvious to everyone Who just walks around the street and sees how people do in class how they do in in various jobs How successful some are and how lousy others are What's wrong with it? It's easy to recognize and nobody is allowed to talk about it Presentation is that on now, okay At the risk of repeating myself The left thinks about race much more than Richard Lynn does The left the left that's all they think about race I think this is a very important aspect to to what Paul talks about of the the transition from that kind of older Stalinist communists left to this new multi-culti globalist global American, you know, fun time left of we're gonna all be together interchangeable and you know gay and whatever You know, this is a very important aspect and race is really the most fundamental aspect This is the way they're attacking people at universities This is a way to solve the income and achievement And education gap between blacks and whites I mean think of how many billions of dollars is spent on that in in California across the country I mean it is the dominant Engine that's motivating the state and I mean it would be nice not to talk about these things because they're kind of nasty I mean when someone tells me that, you know, Asia East Asians have a higher IQ than than, you know, Anglo-Saxons I'm not deeply offended. I don't go home and cry inside. Oh, I guess I can never achieve, you know, that level You know, I don't think any culture needs to to act like that at every culture has its own own destiny its own You know its own, you know powers But you know, this is where the battle is and you can't choose how you defend yourself I mean if someone is attacking you if they they're sending ships and they're attacking you by sea You have to attack them by sea. You can't just decide that we owe we is, you know paleo conservative Catholics We don't we don't talk about that stuff and therefore we're gonna we're gonna go have a land battle. You can't do it You have to address the race issue Yes, I will have a question to Professor Bassani and to Professor Lynn later Professor Bassani in your talk you In your deconstruction of the libertarian view of the state You accept it. However, the view that there is from the day is a fundamental distinction between voluntary exchange and Violent acquisition of property between economic means and political means of acquiring property But then you mentioned that this is not really the essence of the state that I understood it as Saying that the monopoly over the political means is not the essence of the state But you did not really in my opinion Explained what the essence of the state would be then could you expand on this point and say what in your opinion? Is the essence of the state and also you mentioned that a historical analysis would be fundamental for grasping this Could you clarify a little bit there? No, you're right. I said I said that that was part. It was true It was very important the idea of plunder and property That's the basic idea of the libertarian explanation of the state what What I meant It's that the state has got an historical dimension that is totally forgotten by most Libertarians that is somehow forgotten by very many libertarians I will I will write a long article about the what the essence is the state But the only way to get that essence is To go and study history. It's not a sociological model. That's good for a Babylon Rome the Greek Poles and the Middle Ages it's it came up and During a certain time and a certain period the state and and this is exactly the reality We're facing right now. That's personal this artificial person that was created actually the essence of the state Was best defined by karsh mit which is to give? juridical To give the juridical dresses to the political Right, so the idea is to transform all that is political Into the into juridical facts legal everything becomes legal and that was Part of the modernity of the state and that's that is what happened to the with the modern state And in my opinion most libertarians still analyze the state as a political phenomenon They have no grasp of The legal and theoretical legal framework that's behind it not only not only I'm not only talking about the Political philosophy or luck Thomas Hobbes John Locke and so on they of course know all that but the core the essence of the state is I will Encompass all the political reality with laws So the laws will be everything will be determined by the juridical system the juridical becomes the political, but you know we could Marco I Addressing Nikolai's question wouldn't you still say it is a necessary part of the Definition of a state that they are acquiring property through non-productive means Even if you would not go as far as to say this is a sufficiently Detailed definition of the state isn't that always part of the definition? It is it is it's part of the definition It is true, but it's like the archaic part of the state it's the new part of the state is much more important and it's it's there and it's the juridical and So but but the you know like it's part of the the ancient it's like it would be like talking about the Catholic Church of the beginning and it's still important though the bishops They used to get married Everybody you know in the primitive Church and the primitive teaching yeah, everything is important It's still there But if you want to talk about the Catholic Church as it is you shouldn't talk about the Catholic Church under the Roman Empire But you should talk about the Catholic Church after the 1500s, right? So I would say that that's part that's part and parcel and it's very important of the state But it's my in my opinion. It's certainly not the core I would like to add to this since I have actually written a lot on this on this history of the state And I think Marco is right when he stresses the modernity of the state and by modernity I mean that it comes into existence basically in the 1615 16th centuries and It is based on the acquisition of land Which is unified by the crown which is unified under Eventually under uniform juridical system and a uniform bureaucracy Which sort of extends down into regions and brings everything under royal jurisdiction What happens to that state in time? And I think it's a kind of continuing development into the 19th century is that it becomes more and more a limited state John Locke is not the exception John Locke is writing to defend a particular political order and It is even if he talks about states of nature a natural right He's simply using the language of 16th century Presbyterians and others who also talked about natural rights states of nature and the same thing with Jesuits in Spain Who did the same thing and the reason is they were trying to place limits on sovereignty on royal sovereignty Hobbes In a sense is also defending a limited state. It is limiting to protect it limited to the function Primary function of protecting life. I think the major difference in the state is when you get to the democratic welfare state Because for the first time the state has I mean to use the I think that the language of oak shot Which applies here. It's a telecratic Kind of state it exists to achieve an egalitarian goal It is going to redistribute income. It is gonna give some expose everyone to the same kind of socialization process right Develops family policies it interferes in civil society Massively in the end as it does in our time right and this is a very different It also in terms of the reach of bureaucracy. There's no way you can compare The governments of the 17th century to to modern-day governments the the bureaucracy have far more and part of it is based on the legitimacy of democracy itself I mean, this is not government that most people oppose. They're quite happy to have the government look after them So that in terms of its reach In terms of its having an aim Toward which the entire state organization is going to be built up This is a very different state the the from what the state of me for the other point I think that Marco may be alluding to is that the state is a theoretical construct at first people like Bodin and Others even Machiavelli are writing about The state as a kind of of course Hobbes not only has a Theoretical justification for sovereignty in the state, but has you know has the image of it as Leviathan a mortal God But what has to keep in mind that the state that they're talking about is very primitive in comparison to the modern state Yes, but but it's a very natural development My point is it's very natural from from from from that kind of state to the welfare state The only thing is for the very first time in the 1500s with the absolute monarch is in Europe They really tried to reach what was called the plenitude of potestades that is to control society and people as well and they did that Not at a stroke. I mean it took the French Revolution It took a Napoleon and it took everything else to go on and then finally you get to the stage Which you you can say yeah, I wish we were back then but but that's part of the logic of the state There was no change if you take a look the only thing is they couldn't get there that total Total potestades in the 1700s There had to be a revolution and there was the French Revolution and then that put the state again above society so but the the whole idea is the state that controls society actually if you take a look at Toxation, let's say the state begins or could begin the idea of the state or so on it could begin the 1400s or so and then you take a look at the taxation and up to 1910 it goes from 3.5 to 7 that goes down and then it goes up But it's never more than 10% of the gross national product and then even in 1960 Do you know what the average taxation was and then rich countries? Take a wild guess 13 all right, it's in your book all right. It's in your book. So don't take a wild guess No, all right, so it was it was it was all right. It was nothing let's say 13 14 15% of the very most So actually what happened was between? 1960 and 1990 and there are not there's not a single explanation for what happened, but the only point would be that It's it's a natural growth of all this idea So the artificial person and it follows the line of Machiavelli Boudin Hobbs and and certainly not that of all who's use Thomas Jefferson or the other view of the political community I Big to disagree with you on this point I think that this you like to disagree no, I I know but I know that in order to be polite I'd say I beg to disagree with you But if you look at the state in the 19th century it is very different from the state in the 20th century as I argue My book on after liberalism it is the intro it is the science of government or the pseudoscience of government Which the French and later the Germans develop and then the Americans take over with profound gratitude in the end and democracy what you have in the 19th century is usually a very limited franchise together with limited powers that are accorded to the state and And 19th century sort of conservative liberals like guizot François guizot in France Says that you know power should rest with the class capacitors by which it means the yeah the educated middle class And but the powers of the state are also very limited It is the expectation of people in a democracy that the government will look after them Equalized fortunes and to other things that are seen to be part of a kind of democratic mandate And that it will be carried out you know not by mass action, but by scientific Administrators that I think are the distinguishing marks of the state since the 20th century All right very short. I have written on this of course Subject also the transition from traditional monarchies To democracies gradually expanding the franchise in the 19th century and that goes hand-in-hand So to speak with the expansion of support democracy is so to speak the invention In order to make people put up With the fact that you have people people ruling over you Bertrand de Juvenel used the example Yes, of course you hate the the kings and so forth because you know that you will never be able to become King because of this you resisted If he tries to expand his power on the other hand if everybody has a chance to become king So to speak what prime minister or senator or whatever it is. You have a consolation price You still don't like it if they rip you off, but on the other hand You might end up on the other side of the whole deal and this then explains a dramatic expansion of of Government sectors as part of the overall economy that takes place Especially since world since World War one World War one The end of World War one was so to speak The big the big divide Before that you still had traditional Authorities kings the aristocracy and so forth most of that disappears after after World War one The world becomes fully democratized Men and women can vote in some countries. It starts a little bit later Switzerland did Extremely well as long as the women did not have the right to vote as soon as that was introduced Switzerland also increased the speed with which they went down the drain in in 1914 No, no country in Europe That took more than 15 percent in taxes as compared to GDP or GNP whatever you look at By by 19 by 1960 by the late 1960s Yes, you have in Europe everywhere reaching a level of 50 percent is it cannot go up much faster Because obviously the economies will collapse if you go further than this. They they do have internalists Internalized some of the insights in the officer left a curve Realizing you cannot raise the tax rate indefinitely without the tax revenue Tax revenue declining. So I think my my explanation would be because traditional societies monarchical society is Clear-cut hierarchies which recognize that humans are different They put a definite limit on the possibility of expanding state power and democracy was Invented in order to overcome the problems that monarchies had in making the state grow Everybody can become king and because of this You are willing to put up with far more than you would put up if you know There is no way that I can get into that position. I will always be a low life But nowadays that everybody can go any place Everything has become possible so to speak Just just one one thing So from from the point of view of the story of the state actually what would you say is all true? but it the answer is that The very concept of sovereignty, which is the key concept of the state Theoretical framework Actually works better with the people than the body of the king It was invented for the body of the king and then somehow This is the real mystery of the state Something really personal that was constructed around one figure The king as it is in Machiavelli, you know politics is just to get power and maintain power From one per for one person and the little entourage of that person But then the whole story of the state was to develop the most Impersonal command of them all, you know you see John Adams in the United States He says our dream is for a governor government of laws not of man And if you ask classical liberals nowadays And you tell would you rather be governed by good man or bet loss and they would all go for bet laws Not us because we know better but So the idea is That sovereignty was very flexible and finally found its best Locusts the body of the people could be the people the nation and so on but So my answer still is it's a very natural Development from the doctrine of the state Regarding Singapore as an exception We've moved on since then, but I guess I put my hand up a little too early I I remember Professor of mine at university saying that there's a theory that the introduction of air conditioning Has changed Some areas somewhat dramatically the most I guess the most The most notable example the southern states of the US how they've risen economically since the end of the second And and and the same argument is made for Singapore And I'm just wondering whether or not the exception really is an exception when you consider the Singapore now if it is being a city state It's almost entirely in an air conditioned City and the people working there live in fairly, you know climate controlled Offices and stores and things like that whether or not you given that the city is now almost entirely a condition I'm glad I don't have to play their electricity bill whether or not you think that Singapore is actually an exception given given that Was that addressed to me? The way I understood whether the case that you gave of Singapore being an exception Is indeed true or not given the fact that Singapore exists as it exists now only because of Highly developed technology, especially air conditioning, but Under previous conditions where you where you did not have these sorts of things If things might have been different then Is that roughly right? Yes. Well, I see you have a point there I Conditioning keeps the temperature down in Singapore. So they aren't really adversely affected by tropical climates As we might suppose they would be I think there. I mean, so if you discount them The whole climatic factor is so highly correlated with the IQ factor Such as the IQ is a higher in the cool temp cool latitudes and then they decline and decline further They're so confounded. It's difficult to isolate Which is whether climate actually has an effect or whether this is Some genetic effect where I take the view that Hannah's hoppy Outlined but the reason for these IQ differences is that human beings evolved in in Equatorial Africa About hundred and twenty thousand years ago and some of them migrated northwards into the cooler latitudes of North Africa and some migrate further into Europe and East Asia and there Conditions of living were much more cognitively demanding either had to they had to evolve higher intelligence In order to survive up there in these cold latitudes particularly during the ice ages Of course, well a lot of this new Europe was covered in was just below the ice sheets And it was much more difficult to survive then than this in this warm period that we live in today so I Think that is as hands-on be said very the most plausible explanation for these differences But definitely we should should not look forward to global warming, but for global cooling Hi there, my question is to mr. Spencer and mr. Lynn Regarding this whole issue about looking at groups in terms of IQ My question is How does it tempting to prove genetic differences amongst groups of millions of people on an IQ test? advance the cause of individual liberty and Private property I Suspect everybody here is against Collectivism, you know razor ham it if you're not against collectivism take a quick poll Okay, so nobody so everybody here is against collectivism and group ism And so I I'm in my mind struggling to find the the I see the value of open intellectual inquiry and everything and so every nothing should be taboo as a topic of Investigation but my question is as it relates to the property and freedom You know context that we're here. Where is the the link? Is there any prescription from this research in other words should I look at an individual that I don't know On the street differently based on the fact that their group may score differently than the group that I'm a part of Okay, and and no, but I have to at this point. I have to intervene sure for a second Look if you look what is the cause or one of the major causes for the diminishing rights of private property owners that we see going on for decades and the and the answer is precisely all Humans are equal and we have to do something about it if the outcomes are not the same So if you want to protect private property rights if you want to protect individual rights Then you have to make a point. Yes, they are not equal. They are unequal and the fact that the results are different We just don't care about this So it does have tremendous tremendous direct connection with With property and freedom our freedoms are threatened precisely by those people who always claim we are not allowed to talk about these subjects and Discrimination is a cause for all of these different results that we see so I do not that I Do Recognize some slight criticism there of just talking about the sourcing No, not willing to accept that my actual to my bottom line question is if I assume that the research is correct And that amongst these different groups there is in fact these IQ differences and that they explain Income differences if I just accept them as true, and I don't know the research But let's assume they're true. My question is won't the state use that proof as a justification for Egalitarianism as a justification for more wealth redistribution as a justification Further affirmative action that's hey these people now we prove that these people are different and it's really unfortunate But now we know it's a fact these people are not as Smart as these people so we need extra help. We need to subsidize their education more We need to make sure they have better job opportunities Because who wants to live in a world, you know where you keep people down with just because they have a disability I mean, you know nobody says that somebody who's in a wheel chair shouldn't be allowed access, right? So my concern is will this reinforce the state's agenda? Okay, you make a very good point, and I think I agree with With Hans that in some ways it talking about IQ differences This doesn't have a great positive effect as I mentioned my talk I don't think there's gonna be any great consciousness raising by talking about IQ like we whites have a 100 IQ go us That's just that's ridiculous, but but it is defensive in the sense that there are people who are the tax eaters There are people who are federal employees of the government, and if we actually do it are able to get rid of this Socialist welfare order that we have they are not going to benefit. It's not going to be good for them I think so much of the black middle class really exists due to federal employment And sadly, that's not going to exist anymore if we can it win the United States government's collapse due to its You know massive debt and foreign wars and things like that. So you you have to be able to say Something and as Hans is pointing out that that people are equal are unequal Unequal outcomes, but that's fine because you know you need to for a society to function you need bankers We also need cement layers. You need roofers. You need Shopkeepers and you need you need novelists. You need a whole spectrum and that is that is actually a very humane and Way of viewing the world that we you know we all have an individual destiny. That's a different you can do it that way I think it's a good point. There's actually one person who criticized Charles Murray and Harnstein's bell curve and I if I I can't remember his name in the moment, but I he basically made a kind of Rawlsian argument of I'm not sure whether IQ differences between races is true But if it were since how you you know, which race you were born into is so arbitrary That that would be a very strong justification for socialism and therefore we need to ramp up Socialism because of Charles Murray, so I mean I think the way I would answer this is that just that you know I IQ differences, it's not the whole thing. I mean this is an important component. It can be an important Defensive component, but no one would ever base a political movement or a movement of identity or you know European consciousness or a new right-wing on IQ, you know, I mean, it's it's it's one component That's important. We should study, but it's not and as you can say, you know, you can make in a you can make a IQ IQ wise egalitarian argument, you know Let me speak first. I was I have been considering your question for about 40 years and I think it's an excellent question and and I had the same thought. I mean why Are the leftist social engineers the bureaucrats the the media everything? Why are they so terrified of saying people are born with different IQs And their achievements are going to are going to be varied And we have to adopt some eugenics policy or something to change this or give like special Rights to those who have lower IQs You know, why don't they do something like me that this way there are people in the pre-world one period who believe the exact key things like that And the usual answer is we saw how bad the Nazis were or that's something I well this I think is none It's propaganda The reality is we've seen how bad the Soviets are they killed even more people and yet we engage in massive social engineering and income Distribution so it's highly selective lessons from the past that we seem to be taking And you know the Nazis as far as as someone pointed out they did not consider Jews to be slouches They thought they were very bright, but they killed them anyhow So I mean they say that people have lower higher IQs is not going to be turn you into a Nazi What they all do respect it to I don't know The American media and the European media even more But it seems to me that once you make the argument that people have different IQs You're saying there's natural inequality This is something the left and the neoconservatives I cannot live with and The politically than the political spectrum in Europe respectable. You cannot live with the idea that people are not equal You can't accept the fact that some are handicapped You know and you do things for them at the same time you say that this is good or maybe better than than others But there's something about IQ that that's really A definitive mark Among people and it has been used in the past to make moral qualitative distinctions Between people so one that once you buy into that it would seem to be that you're you're you're accepting a very very dangerous In terms of the left's understanding Well, it's a very dangerous kind of therefore we have to totally suppress any discussion point number two Once you have done this you can have a totalitarian regime Which of course the left is always in trend in the name of equality so anyone who brings up this this this topic which is which is Strenghtens verboten once you mention this we are going to kick you out of your job send you to retraining programs And I think as Richard also pointed out there was a very large Minority middle class in the United States which lives off white guilt You know and people are guilty because we didn't give this group enough or that group enough and these are all artificial differences were told and state administrators and Particularly and disproportionately minority members the middle class who do not serve other blacks. They serve They basically serve white liberals and they enrich themselves through the state They are taking advantage. They are there to help equalize us fight discrimination and teach political correctness So there's a very large professional economic social investment in maintaining this fictitious situation But I but beyond that I think there's also the the basic commitment of the left to Inherent egalitarian and once you deny that people are cognitively equal The whole structure of ideas may fall apart Yeah, but I just want to say one thing You I think your question is good and the answer is not that you don't do anything with these things Because for freedom to enhance freedom or anything it's just because all your answers were well We talk about it because our enemies hate it and it's it's a good thing You know we could start using all sorts of words that our enemies hate But we're talking an ideal world because the major what I can see from Richard's work If the major prescription that comes out policy prescription is that it's a waste of money to give certain people Welfare but in the in our world there would be no welfare to give anybody We wouldn't give hunts one dollar of welfare or anybody who we consider somehow intelligent or stupid we wouldn't give welfare to anybody so as far as Your question is concerned. I think yes, it's good We can talk about IQs and we can measure them although Albert Eisen did not believe in you know he never took an IQ and the same time Joseph Goebbels did and it was 164 so Pretty amazing. Anyway, it's that's To some of the answers that you just gave and to your point about you actually have to confront your critics When they bring up the topic and talking about it. It seems like The conversation is being defined by the critics and they're saying egalitarianism is the way it is and and we need groups to be equal and people to be equal but sort of the Responses to say well groups are unequal and and these groups believe this then it's back to groups again and Maybe the answer is in going down to the individual level and trying to put people in nation states I mean for goodness sakes you're talking to me about IQs of people in nations the whole points We don't believe in nation states. We're like the astronauts and we don't even see these borders We're Meeting them on their battlefield talking about their terms and their ideas when they don't even fit the problem that you're trying to solve and define All individuals are different everyone knows like Han says in kindergarten individuals are different maybe by coming at this on the group angle and Lumping the IQs of nation states and these people and these people were messing up by Joining a collective discussion Groups are very important You also shouldn't conflate a nation state with a group you can very much think that the welfare warfare nation state is a terrible thing And I would agree with you But that's something very different than an identity someone might have as someone who's Scottish or the identity that someone might have as someone Who's European or Jewish or anything like that there? They're certainly nations that have no state and and their forms of identity that have no state also as an Austrian Libertarian I mean you basically think that value is subjective that I mean you could make a purely rational argument that For open borders and that you know we should have populations to migrate to they could make adjustments with wages and salaries and prices and and that would be most ideal for the production But it doesn't I think as you know as an austral libertarian you the value is subjective It's something that you can make and that groups are Extremely important. I mean the you know You can't get away from the idea that identity and and and these kind of associations Form a basis of authority for people that they might very well might want to choose You know it might be in an economically inefficient for someone to have a community that they decide is going to be Jewish And it's just not a good idea. I I don't want to stop them from doing that You know that is their you know subjective understanding of value and so, you know That's what answer, you know the the authority that comes from a certain kind of identity and group is very different than the welfare state It's on on the similar topic But basically one of the main things that Austrian economics is trying to suggest is that the root of progress in society is entrepreneurial creativity and Entrepreneurship in general and I don't see how any of this can be linked to IQ because it's such a one-dimensional Measure of intelligence. I mean a brilliant artist like IQ essentially measures logical capacity a brilliant Artist may not have the capacity for logical thought in the strictly IQ sense It doesn't mention your ability to perceive and understand language your ability to learn new languages Your ability to be a creative individual and I think as a as a proxy for intelligence It's a similar thing to what GDP is to prosperity. It gives you a figure, but it doesn't exactly tell you what is there It's it's just a proxy and I think a very bad one because I mean people that are Successful in life like basketball players for example or ballet dancers or famous artists They may not be capable of solving a very simple mathematical equation, but that doesn't make them unintelligent But I think there you underestimate what these types of tests try to Measure you can take any profession that you want a bricklayer or a mathematician a tailor or a plumber You will always find in any profession you will find some people who are better at it and some people are not as good even on the layer level of Digging holes in the ground Or laying one brick on top of CSR even there you find difference And yes When it comes in who of all the brick layers in the world will become a more successful brick layer Who might actually become an entrepreneurial brick layer? Who of all the plumbers in the world will be a Plumber that has more clients and who will have less clients. It always boils down essentially to Those who do better on these tests in any profession will tend to be Rising to the top of their profession and those who do bad on these tests will not rise to the top of their profession Whatever the profession is Also, you know There okay, also, I mean I think this is you know one way of saying you know like you know Einstein He never took an IQ test and so it doesn't tell it so therefore IQ tests are invalid It doesn't follow. I mean the other thing in terms of Beethoven. I mean as a you know I did some composition when I was in you know an undergrad Beethoven's you know ability to compose music that's sublime is is you know 1,000 IQ points greater than my meager ability, but you know we we probably have a pretty similar IQ I mean you can't measure Beethoven's Genius for the IQ test his ability to compose than I symphony, but I guarantee you he did not have an IQ of 85 You know, I mean there's a there's a basic There's a kind of basic ground that you need for for for someone like You know for Beethoven to to exist. There's actually One more point that I've lost might come to me. I think you should just stop stop right now We've reached our time. I just want to make one remark these types of discussions Whether you agree with all the points or don't these types of discussions who you will not hear any place And I think it is of utmost importance that these things are discussed I hope that even those who are Not in agreement here appreciate at least the fact that Open discussion takes place about these subjects because you can go far and wide And you will not find a place where this is possible. Thank you Just want to let you know that I got nothing against IQs. It was just a general proposition actually the IQ