Charles Murray on Forcing Classes to Mix

In a recent New York Times op-ed piece, Charles Murray, who not so long ago was explaining What It Means to Be a Libertarian, advocates two policies that interfere with freedom of contract in the name of a goal he admits they will not achieve. The goal: narrowing "the divergence between the professional and working classes in white America," the subject of Murray's new book Coming Apart. Toward that end, Murray recommends "four steps that might weaken the isolation of at least the children of the new upper class." Two of these steps—replacing the SAT with achievement tests and ethnic with socioeconomic affirmative action in college admission decisions—seem to rely on private action. But the other two would be implemented by force. Murray says "we should get rid of unpaid internships," requiring nonreligious organizations with more than 10 employees to pay the minimum wage for summer work. The idea is to make internships at "places like the Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute (where I work) or a senator’s office" more accessible to middle- or working-class kids. Murray also argues that employers should not be allowed to demand a bachelor's degree as a condition of employment:

The bachelor's degree has become a driver of class divisions at the same moment in history when it has become educationally meaningless. We don't need legislation to fix this problem, just an energetic public interest law firm that challenges the constitutionality of the degree as a job requirement.

After all, the Supreme Court long ago ruled that employers could not use scores on standardized tests to choose among job applicants without demonstrating a tight link between the test and actual job requirements. It can be no more constitutional for an employer to require a piece of paper called a bachelor's degree, which doesn't even guarantee that its possessor can write a coherent paragraph.

It's a mystery how a private employer's educational requirements can be unconstitutional. Presumably Murray is referring to Griggs v. Duke Power Co., which dealt not with the Equal Protection Clause but with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The former applies only to the government, while the latter bans racial discrimination in employment and authorizes class action lawsuits against alleged violators. By advocating such lawsuits against employers who hire only college graduates, Murray is recommending government intervention, via the courts, to achieve the outcome he wants. The fact that it would not involve new legislation does not make the meddling less objectionable.

Worse, Murray concedes these measures "won't really make a lot of substantive, immediate difference," which is why he did not suggest them in his book. He adds that "there may, however, be a symbolic value in these reforms." So Murray is saying two common employment practices that violate no one's rights—hiring unpaid interns and requiring job applicants to have a B.A.—should be forcibly abolished because doing so might have a symbolic effect. 

Murray does reject "a compulsory civilian national service program"—not on principled grounds but because it would dragoon "young people who mostly didn't want to be there, without being able to enforce military-style discipline." He worries that it "would probably create more resentment than camaraderie." Is that really the main problem with forced labor as means of promoting social cohesion?

More on unpaid internships hereherehere, and here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Bee Tagger||

    The goal: narrowing "the divergence between the professional and working classes in white America,"

    I probably shouldn't hold my breath at the prospect of ridding the world of jealous assholes and condescending assholes.

  • ||

    "What comes out of one end we feed to the other."

  • Sudden||

    Human centipede!

  • ||

    Human ouroboros.

  • ||

    are you trying to discriminate against centipedes that aren't born with their head connected to their tail?

  • Barfman||

    *barf*

  • ||

    *slurp*

  • zz||

    If you can appreciate the beauty in both men and women and find yourself attracted to the person regardless of their gender, then Datebi*cO'M is the site for you. Here you can find hundreds of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.fujip[o

  • ||

    To what degree has the increasing demand for a college degree in jobs that don't really require one been driven by Griggs? Are employers using a bachelor's degree as a proxy for IQ or some other quality they could test for but fear a lawsuit if they did?

  • robc||

    Yes. Actually, its primarily being used to test "can they complete a task".

    If you have a degree, you have some basic ability to complete tasks and follow instructions.

  • Bitter Little Middle-class Man||

    I guess something Bill Gates and Steve Jobs lack.

  • protefeed||

    If you create your own jobs, then impressing a prospective employer with a piece of paper becomes less important.

  • ||

    Just about everywhere but IT, which is still competency based, although that, too is fading as the MBAs colonize that section of the org chart.

  • wareagle||

    in some cases, it's used as a screening criterion - if you have one, you move to the next round; if not, have some lovely parting gifts and the home version of our game.

  • ||

    As someone who has turned down applicants without a college degree, I must say that the sheepskin is a strong signalling device. You don't need it, but without it you need a hell of a lot of other stuff to make up for it.

    Frankly, I don't care if the degree is from Harvard or from Podunskie State or even some trade school. Getting the degree shows that you can put up with the bullshit for four years. If you can't handle the college for four years, what makes you think you can last four years in the corporate world?

    In my case I was hiring software developers. Absolutely nothing in the job required a four year degree in CS. Hell, I'm a Lit Major so I should know. But the guys I turned down didn't have any experience behind them, not even work on open source projects. So I don't care how mad their skillz are.

    The bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma, like it or not.

  • ||

    p.s. I have recommended hiring those without degrees, but they've all had stuff to make up for its lack.

    I really do think that those who can make up for a missing degree end up being better hires. But the catch is that you have to have gold in the rest of your resume to make up for it.

  • Kwanzaa Cake||

    Getting the degree shows that you can put up with the bullshit for four years.

    ____________

    Assuming you mean "bullshit" to include partying, hanging out, occassionally reading something and then riding the curve to a Gentleman's B-, then ok.

  • ||

    My friends who went to a 4 year college and never finished are nearly unemployable. They have no ability to stick with long term projects and are very unreliable (I've tried gettin' them jobs).

  • Loki||

    Some fields such as engineering or tech based careers may honest to God require knowledge that one would gain in college studying the field, but most jobs don't. See robc's comment above.

  • ||

    Does this mean that What It Means to Be a Libertarian was ghost-written?

  • Trespassers W||

    I heard it was really written by Lew Rockwell.

  • kilroy||

    requiring nonreligious organizations worth more than 10 employees

    How do you calculate that?

  • ||

    (jobs * employees) / companies^2

    duh.

  • anarch||

    challenges the constitutionality of the degree as a job requirement

    Including college-teaching jobs?

  • Jeff||

    Or they could stop regulating vices, that might help.

  • ||

    We don't need legislation to fix this problem, just an energetic public interest law firm that challenges the constitutionality of the degree as a job requirement.

    So, what this idiot wants is to make it illegal to take a bachelor's degree into account when filling a job.

    Of course, there is no conceivable Constitutional basis for such a ban, as not having a college degree is not a protected class and could not possibly be one.

    So, he exhibits his ignorance, in one paragraph, of (a) the job market, (b) Constitutional law, and (c) principles of free association and contract.

    What is it about spending your life in academia that fills you with a burning desire to fuck up the lives of as many people as possible, preferably with liberal use of the jackboot and the nightstick?

  • ||

    What is it about spending your life in academia that fills you with a burning desire to fuck up the lives of as many people as possible, preferably with liberal use of the jackboot and the nightstick?

    The comforting knowledge that you will be able to survive what you advocate by virtue of being deep in the snug omphalos of academia.

  • MNG||

    Charles Murray has probaby taken shits that have done more for libertarianism than your life-time efforts RC. The guy has consistently, persuasively and eloquently argued for libertarianism for decades.

    Iirc Murray has not "spent his life in academe." He works for conservative think tanks and is largely supported by grants from conservative foundations.

  • Sparky||

    So you start with libertarian, then move to conservative, now he's advocating non-libertarian ideas. BUT, since he was libertarian at the beginning he should never be questioned. Got it.

  • MNG||

    He's an adamant libertarian, but yes, he takes grant money and works for organizations that are primarily conservative but have historically supported libertarian ideas and scholars, yes.

  • Sparky||

    So are we just falling back to credentialism here? He can't be questioned because of his libertarian cred?

  • MNG||

    Yes Sparky, of course that is what I'm saying.

    Sheesh.

  • ||

    defending a guy denouncing credentialism, with credentialism. only you MNG, only you.

  • T||

    Okay, so he's an admant libertarain except when he's advocating coercive policies to fuck with people to achieve his social engineering goals.

    Is that really your position here, MNG?

  • MNG||

    No, I'm saying that IF you have any inkling about this guy's life work, both in a political sense of what he's labored to promote and stand for, and in the sense of what he's written, then you can probably read what he's written as reflecting the following stance on his part: "The government should not have stuck its nose into private employment matters as it did when in Griggs it forbid using tests for employment because it might have a disparate impact, but if it's going to do that it should bar hiring based on degrees because according to that logic there is going to be a disparate impact (especially given that because of Griggs the BA has taken the place of the tests)."

    If you know anything about Murray you know he'd like to see the frigging tests allowed.

  • Paul||

    He's an adamant libertarian

    Define "adamant".

  • MNG||

    "ad·a·mant/ˈadəmənt/Adjective: Refusing to be persuaded or to change one's mind."

    Since the 1970's every radio, tv or print outlet I've seen him appear on he usually stands up and promotes libertarianism by name.

  • Paul||

    Except where he changed his mind here. Or, maybe he didn't change his mind here, maybe he was just never really a libertarian.

    Maybe he's utilitiarian? Because, you know, forced mixing of the races classes will work, even if a few freedoms get crushed along the path.

  • protefeed||

    He's an adamant libertarian

    "Adamant" does not mean what you think it does. He's at best a "small-l" libertarian, with a lot of statism in his thought processes, to come up with what this article is criticizing.

  • ||

    Charles Murray has probably taken shits that have done more for libertarianism than your life-time efforts RC.

    Francis Fukuyama did a lot for libertarianism as well...then he wrote the steaming pile of shit known "Our Posthuman Future".

  • MNG||

    Yes JC, it's probably a good idea for a minority philosophy in a democratic polity to forget all the work someone has done for their cause in the name of attacking over the smallest breah of ideological purity. Good idea.

  • ||

    People change and sometimes for the worse. It is a good idea to recognize it when it happens.

  • MNG||

    Given the man's decades of efforts promoting libertarianism you might want to, I dunno, familiarize yourself with his work and then try to give him the most fair reading possible before trying to shit all over him for what you, absent a knowledge of all that, see as a deviation from your ideological purity.

  • Paul||

    Wait, are we defining "libertarianism" here the same way Bill Maher defines libertarianism?

  • MNG||

    I mean libertarianism as in worked for Cato for a long time, longtime member of the LP, has written books and done speaking engagements defending libertarianism.

    That kind of thing.

    He wrote a book on nothing but how great he things libertarianism is, check it out if you want to know how pure he is in your eyes.

  • Paul||

    He wrote a book on nothing but how great he things libertarianism is, check it out if you want to know how pure he is in your eyes.

    It's not about purity per se, MNG. It's about something that's so disturbingly not libertarian that would make one question the rest of it.

    This policy proposal he's making is so unlibertarian, it leaves me (to borrow from RC) gobsmacked.

    There are lots of things that libertarians disagree about, but this (to me) seems so fundamentally anti-libertarian, that yes, I do question his motives.

    Or is it that people change and maybe he's not quite as adamant as you suggest above?

  • MNG||

    Or is it that what he wrote could be fairly interpreted in a more libertarian friendly way given his life's work on these subjects, the audience he was writing for, etc? And that maybe one who has done so much for a movement you claim to back should be cut that slack before shitting on him as an "academic elitist who has never walked in a walmart in his life"?

    Nahh, that can't be a possibility. Let's crucify the heretic!

  • Paul||

    No one needs to crucify him. We just need to point out that his idea that congressional action is needed so people can find different friends than the ones they currently hang out with is weapons grade stupid.

    Now, Mr. Murray, please return to your regularly scheduled libertarian-ness.

  • protefeed||

    Or is it that what he wrote could be fairly interpreted in a more libertarian friendly way given his life's work on these subjects

    No, this can not be interpreted away. Maybe much of the rest of his work has been libertarian, but on this one topic he's not libertarian in any meaningful sense.

    People have blind spots -- I will be charitable here and suggest that this is one such blind spot for Murray, and that the rest of his thinking might be considerably less statist.

  • Ben Bernanke||

    I remember when Alan Greenspan was a libertarian too.

  • ||

    I like Hitchens and even though i like him i have no problem taking shits on his fundamentalist atheism.

    Don't see why Murry is so fucking special.

  • ||

    Charles Murray has probaby taken shits that have done more for libertarianism than your life-time efforts RC.

    Could be. But his proposal to have the Supreme Court ban employers from considering BA degrees is radioactive-level stupid, and so far out toward the "progressive" end of things I am gobsmacked.

    Seriously, I thought he did some interesting stuff, and actually liked his thesis in "Coming Apart". But this reflexive run to the courts for social engineering to promote "equality" without regard to the freedoms trampled and with apparent knowledge it will fail just stinks like fish left out in the sun.

  • horselips||

    They already ban giving IQ tests. Given that employers are frequently using the degree as a proxy for IQ, why shouldn't it be equally fair game?

    It's no more disingenuous than libertarians who claim to want to get government out of marriage, and then turn around and support gay marriage claiming it as an interim solution.

  • wareagle||

    getting govt out of marriage does not entail the elimination of marriage as a concept, just an end to the state running it. As it is, marriage exists in a form that is controlled by the state; "pursuit of happiness" leads some to believe Steve and Bob can define happiness in the same terms as Muffy and Tyler.

  • Paul||

    It's no more disingenuous than libertarians who claim to want to get government out of marriage, and then turn around and support gay marriage claiming it as an interim solution.

    What? That's a pretty good contortion. So let me see if I get this straight. Government currently recognizes and certifies marriage.

    Gay people are banned from getting that certification. So libertarians should demand the ban be upheld because they ultimately believe that the government shouldn't be in marriage?

    Yeah, no, that's not disingenuous at all. That's libertarianism upholding the idea that all are equal before the law.

  • MNG||

    If you've read Murray's work I think the reading you should give this op-ed is as I describe @ 1:45. Something like this: "If the Supreme Court is going to intefere in employment matters, as it did in Griggs, on the grounds that the tests cause disparate impact on races and such, then on that same basis it should ban internships, because that does the same thing, only more so."

    I'm pretty sure if asked Murray would say the ideal response would be to simply overturn Griggs and allow internships too.

  • Sparky||

    If the guy is such a genius, why didn't he just write what your interpretation is? If I wrote "MNG, you're such a stupid, fuckhead windbag without an original thought in your head" why would anyone be inclined to believe I actually meant "MNG, I think you're a smart guy but sometimes I disagree with you"?

  • MNG||

    He's writing for the NYT, likely aiming at different folks than yourself. What better way to make a dig at Griggs to that audience than the way he just did?

    He was probably hoping that any libertarians out there would, I dunno, be aware of the work of one of the most prominent libertarians in the past few decades and that his work would kind of demand reading this in a more fair way. But of course he should have known better than to have such high expectations for someone like you I guess...

  • Sparky||

    But of course he should have known better than to have such high expectations for someone like you I guess...

    LOL, stay classy MNG. I may be a member of Mensa but I'm obviously still too stupid to get it.

    He's writing for the NYT, likely aiming at different folks than yourself. What better way to make a dig at Griggs to that audience than the way he just did?

    But he's an adamant libertarian, you said so. Why would he give a shit what the people who read the NYT care if he's so hard core.

  • MNG||

    Maybe he thinks he better serves libertarianism by persuading people ultimately towards libertarianism rather than, I dunno, getting on a website and strutting how libertarian he is to other libertarians?

  • Sparky||

    And he's convincing non-libertarians to be more libertarian by putting for non-libertarian ideas? Well, how could we not see that?

  • Sparky||

    *putting forth

  • FreeMan||

    And Jonathan Swift genuinely believed that the English should dine on Irish babies.

  • protefeed||

    He's writing for the NYT, likely aiming at different folks than yourself. What better way to make a dig at Griggs to that audience than the way he just did?

    So, if you're writing for an audience of mostly hardcore statists, you should make hardcore statist proposals because that will incline them to embrace libertarianism?

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

  • ||

    so far out toward the "progressive" end of things I am gobsmacked.

    Invent a non-problem then come up with liberty crushing policies to combat it.

    Walks like a progressive sounds like a progressive and looks like a progressive.

  • MNG||

    He starts his discussion with an attack on the initial government intererence found in Griggs. It's plain his position is similar to the "right to work" supporting libertarian who might have to concede that right to work laws infringe contract rights but feels like it is an appropriate response to combat the ills that came from a prior government intrusion (the NLRB).

    But hey, go ahead and call this guy a "progressive."

  • ||

    I think libertarians are luke warm with right to work.

    They agree that Unions have their fingers pushing down on the scale...but i think most would have those fingers removed form the scale rather putting pressure on the other end like "Right to work" does.

  • ||

    He starts his discussion with an attack on the initial government intererence found in Griggs.

    But then goes on to extend it, exponentially, by somehow conflating "not having a bachelor's degree" with "being born black".

  • MNG||

    Of course, that's the analogy. You don't see that?

    He's saying "If you follow the logic of Griggs that we can't use employment tests because blacks tend to do worse on them, then you should know that if you use degrees that blacks tend to get them at an even worse rate compared to whites."

    It's the perfect send up of the supporters of Griggs.

    And you can bet that is what he's getting at because he's been a loud opponent of Griggs for decades.

  • protefeed||

    He's saying "If you follow the logic of Griggs that we can't use employment tests because blacks tend to do worse on them, then you should know that if you use degrees that blacks tend to get them at an even worse rate compared to whites."

    Got a link to him saying those exact words? Or are you interpreting him saying that as an attempt to rationalize what he actually said?

    And, such a statement would have to be followed with something like this to be libertarian: "So, this is why Griggs is unconstitutional, and SCOTUS trying to defend it is going to lead to even more government coercion. So let's get rid of Griggs."

  • Sudden||

    The funny thing is that I generally agree with his overarching thesis that the B.A. is the most utterly worthless piece of paper one can acquire and that I'd generally be more apt to hire someone lacking one that I feel can write a coherent sentence than hire someone with one that didn't write nearly so well. But having said that, to compel employers to disregard the B.A. is B.S. If the B.A. is truly as worthless as it seems, the market will over time reveal that and successful companies will no longer seek such accreditation.

  • Sidd Finch||

    to compel employers to disregard the B.A. is B.S.

    It can be no more constitutional for an employer to require a piece of paper called a bachelor's degree...

  • Sudden||

    A private company can require whatever accreditation they want to.

    It can be no more constitutional for GOVT to mandate that an employer require a piece of paper, but ultimately the decision should be made only by the employer. If some want to be rigid about their requirement for a B.A., that's their prerogative.

  • Sidd Finch||

    I'm not making a philosophical argument. You said "compel employers to disregard." Murray said "require." There's plenty of space between the two.

  • Sparky||

    What is it about spending your life in academia that fills you with a burning desire to fuck up the lives of as many people as possible, preferably with liberal use of the jackboot and the nightstick?

    They've been in academia so long that now they know what is best for everyone. Anybody who disagrees is just to stupid to understand. Don't you get it?

  • Sidd Finch||

    So, what this idiot wants is to make it illegal to take a bachelor's degree into account when filling a job.

    WTF is your problem? Two sentences later:

    It can be no more constitutional for an employer to require a piece of paper called a bachelor's degree...

  • ||

    How do those two things not line up? He said it should be unconstitutional for an employer to require a piece of paper...

    That means they shouldn't, by law, be able to take a bachelor's degree into account. Where's the issue?

  • Sidd Finch||

    I see a big difference between "require" and "take into account"? I'm having trouble understanding how others don't.

    "Applicants for this job should have two years experience, a college degree, or 4 years of military service."

    "This job requires a college degree."

  • ||

    Ahhh, I see what you mean now.

  • protefeed||

    Sidd: so you're saying that if an employer wants to use the latter as the screening process, the employer ought to have to use the former as a euphemism, and hope some lawyer doesn't sue them?

  • Sidd Finch||

    Where did you get the idea that I support Murray's proposal?

  • wareagle||

    What is it about spending your life in academia that fills you with a burning desire to fuck up the lives of as many people as possible, preferably with liberal use of the jackboot and the nightstick?
    -------------------
    and the answer is: the goal of the professoriat. Alex, I'll take Higher Ed for $800.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Worse, Murray concedes these measures "won't really make a lot of substantive, immediate difference," which is why he did not suggest them in his book.

    He shouldn't be so modest. At the very least it would have the immediate impact of doing away with internships.

  • ||

    I suspect Murry has not walked into a WallMart lately....if ever.

    Anyway if he really is worried about rich white elites avoiding the rest of America then I suggest he makes moves to shut down Washington DC...the rest of the country does not have this illusionary problem.

  • MNG||

    Unlike most elites Murray actually relocated his family to a middle class neighborhood because of his principles.

  • ||

    MNG I hate to break it to you but everyone here lives in a middle class neighborhood.

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

    When you see an elitist prick talking bullshit is your first reaction to always get on your knees and suck it?

  • Sparky||

    When you see an elitist prick talking bullshit is your first reaction to always get on your knees and suck it?

    The problem is that MNG is also and elitist prick. Experts are just better than everyone else and should never be questioned.

  • MNG||

    You guys are getting hard to caricature. You do realize that this book of his is a straight up critique of elitism, right? No, you don't, you're talking out of your ass so that a guy who critiques elitism and even relocates his family to a neighborhood with market values below what he can afford is now to be criticized as being elitist.

  • Sparky||

    Even smart people can have stupid ideas. And when they do it is no crime to call them out on it.

  • MNG||

    By all means call the idea stupid, call him stupid. I'm saying, if you are a libertarian you might, before you shit on another self-professed libertarian, try to give the guy the benefit of the doub by familiarizing yourself with his actual work and actions in order to give a perhaps fairer reading of his proposal. This holier than thou crap among some here is amusing, but doubly so when it leads to people ignorantly here denouncing Charles fucking Murray as a "progressive."

  • Tony||

    MNG, you have to realize that believing in evolution and that Obama is not a Muslim makes you an elitist in these parts.

  • ||

    There are no elites MNG.

    Just poeple who think they are...and some of these self anointed see themselves as saviors of the dirty masses....and they always propose to limit the choices of the unwashed as their solution to salvation.

  • MNG||

    Jesus christ, you obviously have never read a word this guy has written, so just make up stuff on your own dude, I'm not going to argue with you about it anymore.

  • ||

    You are saying that Murry does not perceive himself as elite?

    If he does not then why does he need to move to Middle America to keep himself grounded?

  • MNG||

    He detests elitism, it's pretty obvious from his books.

    Which of course you have never read.

    Which of course begs the real question, Why am I talking to you about him?

  • protefeed||

    Jesus christ, you obviously have never read a word this guy has written

    I've read some of Murray's books -- are you now going to move the goalposts and say that unless you've read ALL of his books you can't criticize him for what he is proposing here?

    Familiar with the fallacy of arguing from authority?

  • ||

    You guys are getting hard to caricature.

    Classic.

  • protefeed||

    MNG I hate to break it to you but everyone here lives in a middle class neighborhood.

    Mines more like a lower-upper class neighborhood -- may be some here living in a full-on upper class neighborhood, complete with beachfront property or gated communities.

  • Paul||

    Unlike most elites Murray actually relocated his family to a middle class neighborhood because of his principles.

    MNG is on to something. I'd like to be moved to an upper class neighborhood. To, you know, mix my pedestrian working class attitudes with their high-falutin' polo games.

  • MNG||

    Let me get this straight: if he had stayed in a posh elitist Georgetown neighborhood he would not be an elite, but because he wanted to move away from elites that makes him worthy of being mocked as an elite?

    Ok, whatever.

  • Paul||

    I'm not mocking him as an elite. In fact, I haven't ready every post on this thread, but is anyone here mocking him as an elite?

    Ok, maybe RC swings close in his last line about a lifetime in academia.

    It's not his 'eliteness' which bothers me. Its his ridiculous prescription for a problem which probably doesn't really exist.

    Because to first accept Murray's prescription, we must first accept that degreed professionals aren't mixing enough with their working class (which no one has ever given me a proper definition of) bretheren- and therefore congressional action is required.

  • MNG||

    JC @ 1:44 and 1:53?

  • Paul||

    JC @ 1:44 and 1:53?

    Let's say for a minute that I take Joshua Corning's post at face value, and compare it with your assertion that Murray moved to a middle class neighborhood to put his money where his mouth is?

    One need not "move to a middle class neighborhood" to walk into a WalMart. Murray could mix quite a bit with his middle class study subjects without having to move next to them. Because we live in a country where, you know, a lot of mixing already occurs.

    In the course of a single day, I mix with monied lefties (my daughter's school) and yet live in a lower-middle class neighborhood with rental housing, and work in a neighborhood where the streets are lined with pregnant teenagers. And I never sit and consciously worry about the mixing of the classes. Because they're mixing right now, before our very eyes. Non problem, MNG. Non problem.

  • Paul||

    Hint: degreed and non-degreed people are mixing right now. On a medium that some politicians refer as "a series of tubes".

  • MNG||

    Given Murray's life-time of work on behalf of libertarianism and his long time positions about Griggs I think his proposal on internships should, to be fair, be read as "well, if the government is going to stick its nose in employment matters and bar hiring tests then it should also bar unpaid internships to undo the negative effects of the former intrusion." That's not much different than libertarians who want to pass right-to-work laws that bar the making of union-labor only contracts between unions and employers in response to the government intrusion of the NLRB. It's not perfect but let's be fair to the guy.

  • adam||

    If he has such long held positions on Griggs, why is it that he seems not to understand the legal basis for its holding?

  • ||

    No, I think he should be called out for writing something stupid, taken exactly as he wrote it.

  • Sparky||

    It's only because the rest of us are too dumb to understand what he really meant. He was talking to dumb people via the NYT so he had to make his message dumb so they would understand. The rest of us smart people should have been smart enough to pick up on that and interpret his message properly. Or something.

  • Fluffy||

    The rapid spread of the Bachelor's requirement into situations where it's not really necessary for the position is itself an artifact of existing employment discrimination law.

    Employers assume that if they hire someone with a college degree they won't be getting a hood rat.

    It's controlling for culture much more than it's controlling for any actual skill set relevant to any given non-technical position.

    Get rid of existing employment discrimination law, and I think the bachelor's requirement would start to rapidly wither, because employers could do what they want to do without going through the motions of demanding a degree: hire the clean-cut white kid.

  • MNG||

    I think one thing employers use degrees for is as a shorthand for assuming the employee can committ to something for four years, do the requirements and not get kicked out. That does separate some of the riff raff out, and probably a lot that an achievement test might not actually.

  • Ska||

    That is a hefty price tag for a substitute aptitude test or jerkoff weeder-outer...

  • sarcasmic||

    Jobs in my field generally require a B.S. or equivalent experience.

  • ||

    The law firm I used to for required a bachelors for secretarial positions. They called it an "indicator of character."

  • ||

    How DARE they discriminate based on character.

  • ||

    That's a pretty expensive way of cultural signaling. And it it is already starting to fade. When everyone has a BA/S, only a Master's means anything.

  • ||

    That's a pretty expensive way of cultural signaling.

    Yes Yes it is. And we have a higher education bubble to show just how expensive it is.

  • ||

    I'll bet they even required that their staff write in compete sentences. I didn't notice until now that I left out the word, "work."

    That's a pretty expensive way of cultural signaling. And it it is already starting to fade. When everyone has a BA/S, only a Master's means anything.

    It was a very tony firm. They recruited only from Tier 1 schools.

    Yep, pretty soon everyone will be above average.

  • ||

    I'll bet they even required that their staff write in compete sentences.

    God. Damn. Child. Rapists.

  • Fluffy||

    WRT Murray, I don't think this should be surprising.

    The Bell Curve essentially holds that voluntary assortative action by intelligent people will produce an Idiocracy dystopia.

    Implicit in that analysis is the conclusion that voluntary action will destroy us all. If that's your assumption, abandoning whatever libertarian instincts you may have previously shown is just a matter of time.

  • MNG||

    If you read the last few chapters of the Bell Curve he sketches an explicitly libertarian political philosophy as his preferred response to address that problem, largely based on Richard Epstein's work.

  • ||

    But Fluffy as you point out above what is happening is not really voluntary actions. These actions are actions taken in response to government interference in the job market.

    Why is there such an obsession with BAs? Because discrimination law left employers no other way to discriminate based on intelligence or perceived work ethic.

    Why do we have so many unpaid internships? Because minimum wage laws preclude businesses from hiring young workers at low wages.

    I think you are a bit hard on Murray. He admits that these "solutions" are not perfect. Indeed he dismisses mandatory national service. I don't think he is wrong to point out the increasing stratification of our society and the problems it is creating.

  • Sidd Finch||

  • Tony||

    It sounds like a good idea, but no amount of interaction with educated people can fix the kind of stupid found in Republican voters.

  • Tony||

    Over 70% of Republican voters in Mississippi and Alabama either don't believe or aren't sure that evolution is real. You can't fix this level of herp derp.

  • MNG||

    That's scary, but what's far more incredible to me is that Romney may win Alabama according to polls.

    It's one thing for Alabamans to believe things I think are stupid. It's another for them to believe themselves conservatives and go pull the lever for the least conservative of the available candidates. WTF?

  • ||

    Darwin also explained how atolls can't sink....put I would guess that 99% of all progressives think atolls are threatened by man made global warming and sea level rise.

    You can find stupid anywhere. Hell even the elite of the elite Obama thinks increasing the deficit will lower the deficit.

  • ||

    How many liberals refuse to believe that minimum wage laws don't cause unemployment or that price controls don't cause shortages?

  • MNG||

    You think the idea that minimum wage law cause unemployment is as solidly proven as evolution?

    Well, I guess you do actually...

  • ||

    I would say yes. And more importantly, that idea affects a hell of a lot more lives and things that actually matter than some esoteric culture war.

    And the fact that price controls cause shortages is proven more than evolution if that is possible. And again that belief directly affects my life much more than evolution.

    We have a President who has based his entire energy policy on the superstition that "green energy" can replace fossil fuels. That is a real problem. The day we get a President who bases his policy on waiting for the last judgment, I will worry about evolution. In the mean time, there are other forms of ignorance that are a lot more dangerous.

  • MNG||

    "I would say yes."

    Well, of course you would, I think I called that...

  • ||

    And you calling it doesn't make it any less correct.

  • ||

    solidly proven as evolution

    unemployment due to min wage can be observed in real time while evolution is generally inferred from similarities in DNA and the fossil record.

    So the quality of the proof is better for min wage.

  • ||

    You think the idea that minimum wage law cause unemployment is as solidly proven as evolution?

    As a biologist and a libertarian, I would say yes.

  • MNG||

    Actually, as an empirical matter is where the effects of the minimum wage are most murky in the economic journals I've seen. It's at the theoretical level that it should result in what you point out, and most economists agree that "in theory" it should work like that. But empirically that's being untangled. It's not uncommon to get an economics symposium on "the true impact of minimum wage laws" and lively debate. You'd get no such debate about whether evolution has occurred among biologists.

    But I don't think this is an area where argumentation is going to sway many minds, so I'll leave it at that.

  • ||

    I gave two examples MNG. I am sure there are plenty of liberals and other assorted nitwits for that matter who do not think price controls cause shortages.

  • MNG||

    Hell, I'll give you a better example given our topic here: liberals are very anti-science when it comes to IQ tests, what they mean and whether performance is heritable. Murray showed that with one of his past books. They want everyone to be equal so they stick their head in the sand to the empirical findings on these subjects.

    But, how come people here can't just say "yup, it's stupid of so many Republicans to deny evolution" without having to add "but you know, the Dems are dumb on X and Y!"

    If people here weren't so attachd to the GOP they would feel no need to do so.

  • Sidd Finch||

    You'd get no such debate about whether evolution has occurred among biologists.

    I'd bother to disagree with you on this, but you did so yourself.

    Hell, I'll give you a better example given our topic here: liberals are very anti-science when it comes to IQ tests, what they mean and whether performance is heritable.

  • ||

    Yeah why can't we just criticize conservatives without criticizing liberals? We're so biased!

  • ||

    But, how come people here can't just say "yup, it's stupid of so many Republicans to deny evolution" without having to add "but you know, the Dems are dumb on X and Y!"

    It is a game we play with Tony. You chose to to hitch your wagon to his evolution bullshit...expect consequences.

    Also I did say there is stupid all around.

  • ||

    The irony is that JFK did know it would keep blacks out of the work force...in fact that is why he supported it.

    He did not want cheap black labor taking away white jobs.

    On the whole both republicans and democrats hold a bunch of stupid in their heads...the difference is that creationism has zero negative consequences in terms of government policy while the Democrat's stupid economic policy limits liberty and destroys the economy.

  • Zeb||

    "creationism has zero negative consequences in terms of government policy"

    As long as government has a say in school curricula, I don't think that is true.

  • ||

    Only if your kid believes everything they are taught in school. And if that is the case, that is your fault.

  • Zeb||

    I'd say its your fault and the government's fault. But I agree it is a minor thing compared to things that actually affect daily life for most people.

    But as long as the religious conservatives keep such a war boner that they will vote for Papists and Mormons over a solidly conservative Southern Baptist, it doesn't matter to me, because most of them will vote for people I would never consider voting for. But sure, if Ron Paul came out as a young earth creationist, he'd still be the best thing going right now in the Republican party.

  • MNG||

    Zeb

    One reason the feds got so into education is that when Sputnik occurred and we seemed behind the Soviets they looked at scienc standards around the country and found that many kids were learning that Jesus rode a dinosaur (exagerration alert), and that this was a huge threat to our industrial and national security...

    I'd say science education is pretty important to a world power.

  • ||

    As long as government has a say in school curricula, I don't think that is true.

    You can say that about any class subject. I went to public schools in a blue state evolution teaching school and i can say without a doubt they taught evolution terribly along with all science curricula.

  • Zeb||

    "Darwin also explained how atolls can't sink"

    That doesn't mean that sea levels can't rise faster than atolls form.

  • ||

    That doesn't mean that sea levels can't rise faster than atolls form.

    Sure...but the super nova that would cause them to rise that fast would cause far bigger problems.

    The 3.1 mm per year sea rise we are experiencing right now is not a problem....and in the past 4000 years there are have been far faster (and higher) rates of sea rise...and the atolls did just fine.

  • ||

    And why the fuck should I care what a bunch of retarded ass Alabama and Mississippi rednecks don't believe?

    In case you forgot: For the thousandth time Tony, THIS IS NOT A A REPUBLICAN WEBSITE!

  • MNG||

    Tony, a lot of people here who loudly profess they are not GOPers get VERY ANGRY when people criticize the GOP around here. Because, you know, they are not GOPers.

    Or something.

  • ||

    Damnit MNG, I just defended you in the morning links thread as not being a yorkie. I would get just as upset if some mouth breather accused us of being a Democrat website when we talk about supporting gay marriage and abortion rights and being against the wars.

    But I've not once seen any of the more conservative commenters try to blanket the entire site and commentariat with the label of Democrat.

  • ||

    You and Tony bring up republicans more then John does.

    I thought this discussion was about Murry and his libertarian street cred?

    In fact one the major libertarian criticisms of Murry is that he is a conservative and not a libertarian.

    Perhaps RC should not have called him a progressive but instead a statist or a compassionate conservative

  • ||

    This particular proposal of his fits the progressive metier to a "T".

    Perception of inequality of outcome? check.

    Use of courts to social engineer a solution? check.

    Disregard of freedoms being trampled? check.

    And, as a bonus, recognition that this is all symbolic and won't really change much? check.

  • ||

    Perception of inequality of outcome? check.

    Use of courts to social engineer a solution? check.

    Disregard of freedoms being trampled? check.

    The first is solid progressive...the later two statist conservatives have no problem pushing.

  • ||

    Let me translate: When MNG says "defending GOPers" he means "pointing out liberal retardation when liberals make a big deal about conservative retardation."

  • MNG||

    Nope, and "gotcha" here. Tony simply said something about GOPers being stupid, that's all. Nothing about Dems at all.

    Why would that make "a ox on both their houses" libertarians so mad?

    But of course, around here it does.

  • Zeb||

    I don't see how putting oxen on houses woudl help.

  • ||

    Read what I wrote again, buddy. You didn't get it.

  • MNG||

    Let me ask you, if someone comes here and says something derogatory about the GOP or its voters, why would people react so strongly?

    Surely people who don't give two shits about either party can hear a criticism of one party without demanding "equal time?"

  • ||

    Anyone who criticizes GOPers gets smacked? OR just liberal hacks who are trying to make themselves look better by comparison, but fail?

  • MNG||

    So let me get this straight: if a commenter you like as a libertarian pointed this out then you would be fine, but if a liberal commenter you don't does you feel the need to do "equal time" criticism?

    Oooookay.

  • ||

    Try to read and respond to the entire sentence I wrote, not just one word.

    You might have to take off the partisan blinders to do that, though.

  • ||

    I could give two shits if you come here everyday and say the most vile things about republican voters. The only reason certain people continually bring up republicans here is to smear that shitstain on us as if libertarians = republican. It doesn't and the people that continue to say it (or imply it) damn well know it doesn't.

    I don't accuse you, or even Tony for that matter, of being a Democrat everytime I don't agree with you.

  • Tony||

    Yeah, it's pretty funny. Whenever someone posts a link to some stupid thing some liberal or progressive says in the comments, you never see white knights coming out to say, "Oh, but look at all these stupid things conservatives believe." You'll see that anytime someone attacks the GOP, though. This site proves more and more each day that libertarians are just Republicans who like to smoke pot.

  • MNG||

    I don't think that, I think it's better to say there are a lot of, shall we say, "right-leaning" or "Republican leaning" libertarians here...

    But yeah, your observation is right on the mark. If someone criticizes one of the (many imo) stupid things liberals say or do you don't see that reaction at all here, but for conservatives, you can bank on it.

  • ||

    This site proves more and more each day that libertarians are pussy liberals.

  • ||

    It's not about linking to stupid things that conservatives say or do. It's the implication that we are somehow exactly the same as those morons.

  • ||

    It is Tony's daily self affirmation. Things are hard for the Tonster these days. Reality disproves everything he believes nearly every day. You have to have something. And Tony's something is the constant belief that he is smarter and more worthy than the "other".

  • ||

    MISSISSIPPI DUMB DUMB DUMB

    TONY SMART SMART SMART

  • ||

    +1

  • Sidd Finch||

    How many liberals believe that human evolution is real?

  • ||

    Hey Tony, how many liberals believe that the vast majority of women have been victims of rape? If we are going to talk about believing in myths here, lets talk about believing in myths.

  • MNG||

    How come you can't see a criticism of GOP voters without demanding equal time for criticism of Dem voters?

    Can't you just admit it's retarded to think evolution is not true, regardless of who beleives whatever else?

  • ||

    Because this is irrelevant to the topic and an obvious attempt by Tony to look better by comparison to yokels in Mississippi.

    You're so fucking blind to trite partisanship, it's hilarious.

  • Tony||

    You're so fucking blind to trite partisanship, it's hilarious.

    Holy projection, Batman!

  • MNG||

    +1

  • ||

    So you aren't going to refute what I said, just falsely accuse me of the same?

    Show me an example of trite partisanship equivalent to what you've done in this thread.

  • MNG||

    It's trite partisanship to criticize GOP voters for not believing in evolution in astounding numbers without conjuring up an equal criticism of Dems?

    Because that's all Tony did....

  • ||

    No it's trite partisanship when it's a non-sequitur and an attempt to make you look smart without actually showing it.

  • ||

    I mean for fucks sake, read how he starts off his post and tell me that this isn't partisan:

    It sounds like a good idea, but no amount of interaction with educated people can fix the kind of stupid found in Republican voters.

    What does Murray's idea have to do with Republican voters??? Can you explain that to me MNG?

  • Tony||

    Because working class, white voters in the South are predominantly GOP voters. Murray's article is about trying to fix the divide between educated whites and working class whites. I don't know how much room for discussion there is between college educated, intelligent people and the kind of people who don't believe in evolution and think Obama is a secret Muslim.

  • ||

    And working class, white voters in the north are predominantly Dem voters. Big fucking deal you hack.

  • Tony||

    Show me the polls where Dem voters in the north say that evolution isn't true and Obama is a secret Muslim.

    you hack.

    Again with the projection.

  • ||

    That wasn't your connection to Murray's piece, dumbass.

    Because working class, white voters in the South are predominantly GOP voters.

    Democrats are just as stupid as GOPers, they just have different stupid ideas. Now fuck off.

  • Tony||

    This is John we're talking about. The guy who thinks former Bush and Jesse Helms staffers have a pro-Obama agenda. Notice none of the regulars ever call him on his bullshit, either. But hey, they're not Republicans. No, really.

  • MNG||

    +100

  • MNG||

    Notice even on this very thread: when faced with a criticism of the GOP, one that John even agrees with (iirc he says evolution is true), instead of agreeing John has to bring up at least three counterexamples where "the other side is as bad or worse." In comparison I actually offered an example of how "my side" is as bad.

    But it's me heller calls partisan.

    That says more about heller than me I'm afraid...

  • ||

    You were asking us to why we don't ignore the faults of liberals and focus only on republican faults. I don't know how much more partisan you can get. That's basically the definition.

  • MNG||

    "You were asking us to why we don't ignore the faults of liberals"

    Where did I say that, o logic challenged one?

    In fact, what I said was such the opposite that I actually supplied an equivalent Dem area of teh stupid myself!

    What I said though is, how come when Tony points out something dumb about the GOP people feel they can't just agree with it without adding an "equal time" criticism of the "other side?"

    See the difference?

  • MNG||

    I have to go so here is the difference: if someone brings up a Dem failing then it would be wrong of me to say "hey, you should know the GOP is bad on something else?" WTF, that would indeed be partisan. Why would I need to turn every criticism of the Dems into an equal one of the GOP?

    Likewise if you're not so fond of the GOP why can't you read a criticism of the them, one that doesn't mention the Dems in any way at all, without having to say "oh yeah, well look at this stupid thing the Dems do!"

  • ||

    Why do I have to keep repeating myself? You're acting like Tony's criticism was somehow part of the discussion and then we jumped to the defense of GOPers. When you go out of your way to insult others with the sole purpose of making yourself look smart, I am going to point out that you're stupid. It's that simple.

  • ||

    Um, the implied part of Tony's post is that Dem voters AREN'T stupid like republicans. But that's besides the point.

    I, and many others, have agreed on multiple occassions that republican voters are pretty damn retarded. I mean they keep voting for Santorum and Gingrich for god's sake.

    The point is that we aren't republican and it gets fucking annoying when certain people continue to imply that we are. And again, for the record, if any of the more conservative people in the commentariat were to call us all dems for being against the war or for gay marriage or whatever, I would remind them that this isn't a democrat website and to kindly fuck off.

  • ||

    Yeah, cause NOBODY here besides MNG has gotten into an argument and called him on bullshit. Not Evar!!!

    Holy shit, we regularly call each other on our bullshit all the time. Check out an abortion or war thread sometime.

  • Commentariat GOP Shill||

    Guys, guys - the fact that we're lambasting Murray here proves we're GOP Shills. *check out the name*

    Duh.

  • Tony||

    Ah, yeah, the abortion and war threads. I like those. John says some boilerplate GOP position, someone criticizes him, and then a bunch of people rush to back John up.

  • ||

    We must be reading different threads cause it seems pretty evenly split on both sides of those issues. But I'm sure you don't let your hatred of us cloud your judgement or anything.

  • protefeed||

    Over 70% of Republican voters in Mississippi and Alabama either don't believe or aren't sure that evolution is real. You can't fix this level of herp derp.

    Roughly 90% of Democratic voters everywhere don't understand basic economics, and think Keynesianism describes the real world and should be used in setting policy.

    So, voters in both major parties tend to have huge blind spots.

    The economic stupidity tends to result in political actions that harm my well being more than the stupidity re: evolutionary theory. One is more pernicious than the other.

  • ||

    I don't think employers should be able to evaluate prospective employees in any way shape or form, as it will inevitably lead to unfairness. I mean, the whole process is just a form of discrimination, which is bad.

    Either employers have to hire the first applicant they receive, or the gov't should create an agency that will perform hiring for all american businesses, in a fair, equal, and most importantly, non-discriminatory fashion.

    Obama 2012!

  • ||

    Choice is discrimination

    Freedom is unfair

    Libertarians are racists

  • sarcasmic||

    Choice is abortion.

    Discrimination basing decisions on unapproved criteria - thoughtcrime.

    And yes, libertarians are indeed racists. The only way that they can prove that they are not is to stop committing the thoughtcrime of believing in liberty.

  • WTF||

    Either employers have to hire the first applicant they receive

    No, that would be discriminatory against procrastinators. It must be completely random, only then will it be fair.

  • sarcasmic||

    Someone's feeling are still going to get hurt.

    No, the solution is for them to hire everyone who applies.

  • ||

    you're both wrong, because of something I completely overlooked:

    what about the people who didn't even apply for the job? only considering/randomly-choosing/first-serving those who apply for a job is the very height of discrimination.

    so they either have to choose randomly from the entire pool of humanity...sorry, the entire pool of legal american citizens,

    OR

    they just have to hire everybody (again, just legal americans. FUCK YOU FERRINERS!)

  • ||

    I disagree with the people on this thread who think this is a non problem. One of the reasons why our political elites are so breathtakingly ignorant is that they are increasingly disconnected from the rest of the country. And worse still, they are the product of an academic system that encourages dogmatic belief as a way to succeed.

  • ||

    It's definitely a problem. But jackbootery and using the SC to fuck with businesses even more isn't the solution. Fuck, if anyone should be forced to hobknob with us simple proles it is the Political Elite.

  • ||

    I agree. But we could at least get rid of the government interventions that are making worse.

  • sarcasmic||

    The only approved method of fixing the consequences of government interventions is more government intervention.

    You know that.

  • ||

    it's a non-problem in that it will solve itself eventually. you can only get so disconnected from reality before you can no longer afford to be.

  • ||

    It will solve itself eventually you are right. But what about the damage these idiots do before then?

  • Fluffy||

    Right, but when political elites used to be more drawn from all ranks of society, you had much greater petty corruption and machine politics.

    Is the white glove corruption of modern crony capitalism better or worse than Tammany Hall or Jimmy Hoffa style corruption? Tough call.

  • ||

    I would go with the former. Tammany Hall and Hoffa style corruption was smaller. Those people tried to skin their share off of the top. But they didn't want to change society. They just wanted their score. And at some level they understood that if you steal too much, there won't be anything left to steal later.

    The new style of corruption knows no such limits. And it seeks not just to skim a little graft off the top, but change all of society to fit their goals and desires. That is much worse.

  • MNG||

    Speaking of that kind of corruption, I'm just finishing Boarwalk Empire Season one on netflix and I can say: it is great.

    I hope season two is as good.

    Best line from season one is when Nucky Thompson, the Tweed-like machine boss, says of Harding "That fucking imbecile is going to the the next President of the United States."

  • ||

    I might put that on Netflix. Was it good?

  • MNG||

    It's very good. Iirc it's one of those few things Epi and I agree on.

    It does a great job of immersing you in those old machine politics days.

  • ||

    I will give a shot. My last netflix rental was Bridesmaids. Even my wife hated that. Most unfunny movie I have seen in years.

  • MNG||

    I avoided that one thankfully...

    Check out Drive on netflix as well. You'll be glad you did. (note, it's nothing like BE though)

  • ||

    What is remarkable about Bridesmaids is that it is frankly the most openly misogynistic movie I have seen in years. Every female character in it is a horrible cartoon of the worst aspects of women. I can't believe women liked it so much.

  • ||

    Check out Drive on netflix as well.

    I saw. I liked.

  • ||

    She shat in a sink, John. Hilarious. So glad she was nominated for an Oscar.

    Anyway... I also recommend Boardwalk Empire. The party the gangsters throw to celebrate the enacting of Prohibition may be the best comment on the drug war ever on TV.

  • ||

    I am not uptight about comedies. I have no problem with lowbrow humor. But that movie just wasn't funny.

  • Commentariat GOP Shill||

    Come on. I liked Bridesmaids, and the film, as compared to the other dreck, deserved an Oscar nom.

  • ||

    GOP Shill,

    I just didn't get it. There just wasn't anything funny about it. I found the protagonist to be annoying as hell. You are a hot skinny blond and the best you can do for yourself is some jackass who fucks you and kicks you out the door? Really? Everyone in that movie was just annoying.

  • Commentariat GOP Shill||

    John, attractive women, Believe It or Don't, have confidence issues too.

  • ||

    I am sure they do. I just don't find said issues interesting or funny.

  • ||

    One other thing fluffy. While the old Hoffa style corruption was horrible and we would have been better off without it, there is no denying things got done. Most of the infrastructure of the big cities in this country were built under that system. Now thanks to the new system, a snail darter can shut down construction of a dam.

  • ||

    I can haz social engineering?

  • ||

    He adds that "there may, however, be a symbolic value in these reforms."

    He means well, and that's what's important.

  • T||

    See, MNG is just a better judge of what libertarianism is than we are. He can tell, using his secret decoder ring, who here is a libertarain and who isn't. He'll also defend other libertarians (not us, though!) when we rightly call them out for making proposals that are fundamentally coercive.

    We should jsut give up and let MNG tell us what the correct libertarian position on each post is, seeing as how he's the expert and all.

  • MNG||

    No, I'm saying Charles Murray is a better judge of what libertarianism is than you are. Among other things, but you're going to say what you say, regardless of whether its grounded in anything, so let that flag fly dude.

  • sarcasmic||

    Experts!
    Authority!

  • ||

    Charles Murray is a better judge because he wrote a book and he's a libertarian. Don't let his non-libertarian positions fool you.

    Or something.

  • Sidd Finch||

    I thought he described himself as a "communitarian"? He definitely doesn't style himself as a Reason-type libertarian.

  • T||

    As opposed to your argument, which is that despite the fundamentally illibertarian position Charles Murray advocates here, he's still an adamant libertarian. Somewhere in there is the contradiction you can't seem to get past.

    You really do love your appeals to authority, though, I'll hand you that. So, if I can find a prominent libertarian, like one who's written books and stuff and makes more money than us, who thinks Charles Murray might not be as libertarian as you claim, will you concede we might have some grounds for complaint? Or will your expert trump any expert I can bring up?

  • T||

    As opposed to your argument, which is that despite the fundamentally illibertarian position Charles Murray advocates here, he's still an adamant libertarian. Somewhere in there is the contradiction you can't seem to get past.

    You really do love your appeals to authority, though, I'll hand you that. So, if I can find a prominent libertarian, like one who's written books and stuff and makes more money than us, who thinks Charles Murray might not be as libertarian as you claim, will you concede we might have some grounds for complaint? Or will your expert trump any expert I can bring up?

  • T||

    Fucking squirrels.

  • ||

    I'm saying Charles Murray is a better judge of what libertarianism is than you are.

    Based on your superior understanding of libertarianism, I suppose.

    It all makes sense, now.

  • ||

    No, it never makes sense when MNG is on the warpath. Never.

  • MNG||

    You know what I like about heller? As long as you agree with him he finds you to be very, very reasonable, despite your differences. It's only when you air your differences he finds you suddenly unreasonable...

  • ||

    That's crap. I can respect a reasonable argument based on premises different from mine.

    Arguing that Murray is a better judge of libertarianism, given the evidence right in front of us, is unreasonable regardless of favor or disfavor of Murray.

  • ||

    I see a big difference between "require" and "take into account"? I'm having trouble understanding how others don't.

    Maybe some of the rest of us have seen how this works out in practice.

    Sure, you can drop the "requirement" from your job listing.

    But, if you ask for it, you open yourself up to the question "Why do you want to know"?

    If you hire people for a position that only have the BA, you have now opened yourself up to a "disparate impact" lawsuit.

    The slope, it is slippery. And business, they are regime-risk averse. If you ban people from requiring X, you have effectively banned them from taking X into account.

    Substitute "white people" for "BA" (which is exactly what Murray is asking the courts to do), and you will see what I mean.

  • Sidd Finch||

    There's plenty of jobs now that only take a college degree into account. How many disparate impact lawsuits are filed against those employers?

  • ||

    None, because not having a college degree isn't a protected class. What Murray is proposing is making it a protected class, such that hiring practices with a disparate impact are violations.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Those wouldn't technically be disparate impact cases I suppose. But not having a college degree couldn't be a protected class subject to the EEOC's 80% rule either.

  • Bitter Little Middle-class Man||

    If someone can pass the MCAT or the LSAT or the GMAT/GRE, why do they need a Bachelor's degree to get an Advanced degree?

    I hire programmers, they truly don't require degrees as we give technical tests.

  • ||

    I hire programmers, they truly don't require degrees as we give technical tests.

    And when some bright spark notices that your technical tests don't result in the hiring of an approved mix of races, you might just be getting a visit from the Civil Rights Division.

  • Bitter Little Middle-class Man||

    Java/Sybase/Unix and Business knowledge technical interviews will pass.

    It is jobs where one can not do technical interviews were the problems lays.

    Like our Administrative Assistant position requires a bachelor's degree because ???

  • Commentariat GOP Shill||

    If someone can pass the MCAT or the LSAT or the GMAT/GRE, why do they need a Bachelor's degree to get an Advanced degree?

    Concur. If you can pass the bar, you shouldn't need a JD. If you have a JD, you shouldn't need to pass the bar. Both is burdensome (deliberately) and a way to protect the Holy Legal Field and milk more money from the Aspirants.

  • ||

    I'm saying Charles Murray is a better judge of what libertarianism is than you are.

    My definition of libertarianism has something to do with limiting the scope of government interference, not increasing it. Especially when the new government interference is justified based on the distortions of previous government interference.

    What a coincidence, innit, that the segregation into two classes happens over pretty much the same time frame as the explosion in the size and scope of the government.

  • ||

    Apple is moving to Austin and Boing to South Carolina.

    It is only in Academia and Washington DC were Elites are isolated. Both steeped in government funding and self importance.

    Take away the money and power from the federal government and if there is a problem it would go away.

  • ||

    I'm going to invent no-room technology so I can live as distantly from everyone else as possible.

  • ||

    MNG translation:

    "Don't look at the statist liberty trampling social engineering to solve the non-problem of Elites losing touch with the "common folk".

    look over here: See evolution...or Murry's past libertarian credentials....or he moved to a middle class neighborhood....or waaaahhhh you guys pick on the left more then the right..."

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Hollywood is the perfect place to see where John Edwards' Dos Americans never meet. The creative and dealmaking sides of the industry are 100% Ivy League/born into a family that owns the tracks on the poor side of town and don't you forget it!

    Yet, how many a Tinseltown flicks delves into the lives of the great unwashed and their travails against The Man?

  • ||

    Thread jack.

    We all know that gravity slows down time...but does time have an outward bound.

    Without gravity does time progress infinity fast?

    And if it does have an outward bound does this not imply that the big bang is bullshit?

  • ||

    "We all know that gravity slows down time...but does time have an outward bound."

    The fact that gravity slows down time in no way implies that time has an outward bound.

  • ||

    "without gravity" would seem to be a non-physical possibility in a universe full of matter.

  • Rick James||

    Hey, everybody, it's Charles Murray. Say hello to Darkness, people. [bam!] C-old bloodEd!.

  • Ron Paul won US Virgin Islands||

    United States Virgin Islands Republican caucuses, 2012
    Candidate Votes Percentage Unbound Delegates Delegates
    Ron Paul 112[3] 29.2% 1 1
    Mitt Romney 101 26.3% 6 7
    Rick Santorum 23 6.0% 0 0
    Newt Gingrich 18 4.7% 0 0
    Uncommitted 130 33.9% 2 1
    Unprojected delegates:[4] 0 0
    Total: 384 100% 9 9

  • ||

    I'm not fond of the concept of unpaid internships.

    However, let's admit that the unpaid ones aren't for engineering or scientific jobs. They are for the kinds of jobs for which the nation is currently churning out a huge oversupply of college grads: Liberal arts and humanities majors.

    Nobody who can hack code goes unpaid as an intern. The problem is that we're financing the education of people with skills that in oversupply, so they can't find work after graduation, are desparate enough to work for free to gain experience, and only people with family/class connections can get them, or afford to take them.

    If we'd stop giving people money to study useless subjects, they wouldn't be in that situation.

  • iamblichus||

    "If we'd stop giving people money to study useless subjects, they wouldn't be in that situation."

    The Academy
    The Lyceum
    The University of Paris
    Oxford

    The educational foundations of the western world consist of schools where they studied nothing but 'useless subjects'.

    I mean, sure, they also studied math and logic, but it was the useless kind that wouldn't even qualify you for a low level job at Seagate or Microsoft,

    Stupid, weren't they?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement