Who are libertarians?

Gucci Little Piggy asks why so few libertarians are women (GLP is a blogger who often has something interesting to say), but the high male-to-female ratio of libertarians is part of a more general observation that libertarians tend to be smart losers.

The most typical libertarian is a computer programmer (or “software engineer” if you want to give them a fancier name). This is a group of people that gets paid a decent above-average middle-class salary, but they are hardly rich. Very few rich and successful people are libertarians. Way back in 2006, the libertarian blog Samizdata noted that there are very few rich libertarians.

Libertarians tend to be smart, and they also tend to have bought into the idea that the free market rewards smart people, and they are libertarian because they optimistically believe that they are going to become rich in the future on account of their smartness and they don’t want no government taking their future wealth from them.

But the way the world really works is that people don’t become rich though self-directed value creation, they get rich from value transference, which usually involves schmoozing people. People who are good at schmoozing don’t espouse unpopular political philosophies like libertarianism. The best way to get ahead is to present the impression to others that you share their beliefs, and of course this is most easy to do if you actually do in reality share their beliefs.

Thus there’s the anomaly that the richest people, the people who according to theory have the most to benefit from libertarianism, are not very likely to be libertarian.

And why aren’t there very many female libertarians? The answer is that women are more conformist in their thinking and are less likely to be associated with fringe groups. Similarly, atheist groups are mostly ugly men. Good-looking people benefit more from the status quo, so they too are less likely to belong to fringe groups.

* * *

And in a strange coincidence, a reader presented me an article from today’s Washington Post, explaining that kids who are popular in high school earn more money in the long run. Although it needs to be pointed out that the study found a pretty small earnings boost, only 2%.

Comments

[Kurtosis]

I believed you have nailed it. Mark Cuban is the one-off outlier here.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"The most typical libertarian is a computer programmer (or “software engineer” if you want to give them a fancier name). This is a group of people that gets paid a decent above-average middle-class salary, but they are hardly rich."

Have you ever heard of Google and Apple?

[HS: The richest guy at Apple was Steve Jobs, a sales and marketing guy and not a computer programmer.]

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"HS: The richest guy at Apple was Steve Jobs, a sales and marketing guy and not a computer programmer."

So Jobs didn't create value for Apple's shareholders?

[HS: He transferred wealth to Apple shareholders.]

[Thursday]

Libertarians tend to be aspergery types. Their individualism is temperamental not as a result of them thinking they will be rich. The like the market cause they like it, not because they necessarily have any ubermensch fantasies, though there are some of those too.

Of course, richer people tend to be more social, which is because they have a social personality, which of necessity means being less individualistic.

[Andrew]

According to BLS, the average software engineer makes ~95K per year. A household with two software engineers would be in the 98th percentile of income earners; a household with one engineer and another normal income earner of around 40-60K would be ~88 percentile. I work in software and trust me I know software developers are in general beta nerds, but they are among the highest earning employment groups, especially per hour worked, as they typically work far fewer (and lower stress) hours than doctors or attorneys.

And the primary reason software professionals skew libertarian has nothing to do with income, but rather with how libertarian philosophy fits in nicely with the reductionist way of thinking required to develop software.

[Conquistador]

Good observations. I always knew that the idea that popular people (who are mostly good looking) have worse outcomes was a lie. A necessary illusion to keep people from going on shooting rampages. They can fall down the social ladder if their looks deteriorate but by and large they do well. Lots of positive reinforcement during their formative years is very critical. This is why you rarely see popular people into video games or other beta male type hobbies. They may dabble casually if they're male but by and large they're too busy getting invited to parties.

[JP]

"a survey of over 10,000 men and women who graduated from a Wisconsin high school in 1957."

OK, popular kids who graduated in ***1957*** beat the nerds of 1957.

What about the nerds of 1987, 1997, and 2007 -- i.e., post info-tech revolution?

[bluto]

Because libertarians are mostly guys who earn enough to be in high brackets, but don't have easy ways to avoid taxes. Thus government is to them something that enriches their status rivals (simplified as pork for bankers and unemployment for artists) and devalues their offerings to women (a high enough wage to raise successful offspring).

Very few women find themselves in that position, so the women libertarians are likely to be largely wives of libertarian men.

[RH]

I think libertarianism is definitely a minority philosophy, appealing to only one gender and probably at a rate of only about 10%. But very rich men seem to be more likely to be libertarians than your average male (Koch Brothers, Peter Thiel). I keep hearing that libertarians are supposed to be these dorky middle class nerds, but the vast majority of those types that I've met seem to be apolitical and tilting towards the left. Go to the University of Chicago law or business school, and a much higher percentage of males will be libertarian than the guys in the engineering department at the University of Illinois. Those are pretty good proxies for elites and middle class value producers, respectively.

[Bostonian]

"Atheist groups are mostly ugly men."

It's fun to make random generalizations.

[Matt in RTP]

"I believed you have nailed it. Mark Cuban is the one-off outlier here."

Peter Thiel, too.

[Kaz]

Athiests groups are most ugly men?

Athiests are the norm in Yurope

[Dreamer]

First, my understanding that you're a programmer or something in software making somewhere above the middle-class line. Are you calling yourself a smart loser with all the sense of shame in identifying with that line of thought?

Also you're oversimplifying libertarian thinking a bit. Many times it is not so much of libertarian identification because of free market rewards, but government ineptitude.

When someone hears news stories of regulation turns out to be helping rather than regular a bank or some corporation, then see something like a tax on soda justified because it is causing obesity but then hear how subsidies to corn is what made them cheap in the first place, then hear some kind of legal BS that generates a sense of outrage. Then sees that many times the only group that brings up falls with libertarians - many starts to think "these got a good point." Even though you and I (or so I read you before) both agree there's needs to be some regulation.

Basically, many lean libertarian because they bring up issues that other groups ignores or at least implicitly try very hard to ignore.

---

Also taking a quick look that that study. I need to ask about Wisconsin. They have a solid study with a large sample size, but how representative is it exactly. A thought to me that the idea that nerds do better in the long run might be of the idea that in a high school of the bottom to lower-middle class, nerds come out the best. When the standard operative is for people to graduate and work in a factory, or a teacher, or something similar (basically working class or lower-middle income jobs), the 6-figure engineer is king. Meanwhile upper middle to higher, where everyone is tracked to go on to professions that have something to climb, then the popular kids would be working in something that actually pays (averaging out to 2% higher however, though if my thinking is right, high schools with increasing rich families means an increasingly larger gap).

It could reasonably explain the stereotype of nerds will do well in the long run, but also allow the study to say popular kids do (slightly?) better instead of viewing the study demolishing the it as a total myth.

This have to ask of what exactly Wisconsin is like.

[popfop]

With a net worth somewhere in the billions, Peter Thiel is probably the richest libertarian. He's given millions to the Ron Paul campaign and supports seasteading. Of course, he's a Sillicon Valley VC so he's very much of this milieu. He's also a Straussian.

One thing I notice about libertarians is the congnitive dissonace between the way capitalism actually operates and their utopian free market ideology. Actual capitalists don't care about government intervention if it means increased profits, protection of private profits or socialized costs (i.e. the bank bailout) but libertarians, who profess to be *pure* capitalists, would ideologically find this anathema.

[Wade Nichols]

"Mark Cuban is the one-off outlier here."

Peter Thiel is the other one I can think of.

[Raymond Shaw]

Insightful post, very valuable advice for anyone trying to get ahead in what most of us are stuck w/ - a career. My career has primarily been technology based, and relationships and status rule here as well. Very little meritocratic rewards exist, which is always a surprise to the hard working engineer.

I would also include Peter Thiel as an outlier - even in tech circles people savage his "strange" beliefs when given the opportunity, although they have to acknowledge his intelligence since they're not in his league.

[asdf]

I don't think it's that computer programmers making low six figures think they will become rich. I think they look at their total taxes and compare it to what the proles they went to high school with are paying and conclude why the fuck am I paying for these people (who are mostly out using their money to compete with them in the social/sexual arena).

And as many of noted most government spending is men to women. Specifically from STEM types to welfare moms and public/non-profit sector women.

For a low six figure white collar professional you probably pay around 50% of your income in taxes and fees when you add it all up. Meanwhile you receive almost no government benefits. Imagine if say those rates got cut to the Singapore rate of around 20%. That's a 30% pay boost.

[Conquistador]

"It's fun to make random generalizations." - Bostonian

I'm an atheist and yes most are average to below average in appearance. The ugly ones tend to be super logical types that disregard social conventions and the average ones are SWPL who hate Christian proles especially evangelicals. Intellectual types in general tend to be not very attractive for whatever reason.

[John]

Computer science is right up there with engineering among the highest-paying undergraduate degrees... In the Valley, it now seems to be normal for compsci graduates from UC Berkeley to make $90K starting. And these are pretty cushy jobs too.

Software is probably the best industry to be an entrepreneur in. Look at the Forbes 400--software is represented very heavily, especially among the younger guys on the list. Also, read the book The Illusions of Entrepreneurship. Most industries suck for entrepreneurs. Software is one of the few good ones.

So what careers *do* you like, exactly?

[SteveBrooklineMA]

Asdf and Bluto are closer to the truth than HS here, I think. I don't think Libertarians view themselves as the future rich. They see government as inept, corrupt, and a giant rip-off for them. I don't see how they are wrong about that.

[Conquistador]

Anyone remember the Amazing Atheist guy on youtube? He was fat and whatnot and later a video came out of him naked on his bed putting a banana into his ass. This is why we need religion.

[Francis]

I'm loving your new wholly class-interest based analyses, Half Sigma, but I think Andrew is right with his reductionism theory.

Of course, Marxism is also reductionist...

[likesandyoutthere]

"That's a 30% pay boost." Actually, it would be a 60% take-home incease.

[Brendan Gilmartin]

I think you have some valid points but your reasoning here is incorrect;

"Libertarians tend to be smart, and they also tend to have bought into the idea that the free market rewards smart people, and they are libertarian because they optimistically believe that they are going to become rich in the future on account of their smartness and they don’t want no government taking their future wealth from them."

Figure that in a highly politicized economy like the one we have now, the people who get wealth and power are the ones who are the most social, verbal, and 'schmoozy' of sorts. So a libertarian-brained person might just see the alternative to a politicized economy operating more fairly for them.

In reality, people with good social skills will always be wealthier than those without; other things being equal. But it is valid to ask which kind of system exacerbates the effects of being very schmoozy.

I also believe that most forms of free market logic tend to be systematic and thus appeal to the kind of mind that a libertarian has at birth; the analytical highly left-brained sort of person. Whereas most forms of anti-free market argumentation are pathological or centered on notions of tribalism. Of course there are people who are systematic and anti-free market, as well as people who are highly pathological and pro-free market [For an example of this latter case I point you to Stefan Molyneux]

Women don't have to adopt all of the political ideologies of their partners, they certainly don't adopt all of the lifestyle preferences. In the case of libertarianism I think it's more a fact that women place a higher value on conformity and on what they see as compassionate legislation. Libertarians are perceived by all non libertarians as the least compassionate

Only Randians actually embrace and accept this label. Most libertarians charge welfarists of abusing human compassion for the benefit of the government, with no tangible long-term benefits to welfare recipients. However, because the libertarian view of welfare is, like other things, primarily systematic and 'cold reasoning' based, and the welfarists is not, neither side will make any headway with one another.

For more examples of touchy-feely libertarians I would point you to Mary Ruwart, Wayne Dyer, and Rod Long.

You also have Anarchists who are perhaps more tolerant of the free market than a mainstream conservative or liberal, but you are primarily referring to mainstream libertarianism. [To use the oxymoron]

I would caution you against bashing libertarians too harshly; they're probably one of the few groups of people with the kind of mentality that could read your blog regularly without foaming at what others would see as evil, racist, misogyninistic, etc. It was actually a libertarian who referred me to your blog.

[map]

The only way the free market rewards merit is if what is produced within it is a work of pure genius. The ideas have to be revolutionary and they have to have an obvious value.

The market does not reward perseverance and doggedness. Absent obvious genius, the free market will merely reward status, because status is an obvious short-cut to credibility.

[anon]

"For a low six figure white collar professional you probably pay around 50% of your income in taxes and fees when you add it all up. Meanwhile you receive almost no government benefits. Imagine if say those rates got cut to the Singapore rate of around 20%. That's a 30% pay boost."

It would be a 60% after-tax boost. Libertarianism isn't practical as it leads to a low-trust dog-eat-dog world, i.e. a smaller pie to be divvied up. Society needs some law and order to function at it's current level.

The adherents singularly focus on costs and restraints imposed by government and neglect weighing the benefits (or dismiss them outright).

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"He transferred wealth to Apple shareholders."

He created value because Apple produces Hardware and Software.

Didn't you say computer manufacturing and software engineering were "value creation" fields? That Jobs helped sell high quality manufactured goods with excellent marketing only helped his "value creator" engineers and computer specialists sell more of their hardware simply demonstrates "value transference" and "value creation" can work together.

[John]

"libertarians tend to be smart losers." Well, if anyone who makes less than $1 million a year is a loser, then yeah, most libertarians are losers. However if you define a loser as someone who doesn't support himself, I'm guessing very few libertarians are losers.

Libertarians are more likely to be geeks, and since geeks prefer jobs with more freedom to jobs that make lots of money, geeks avoid jobs that pay very highly. I have little doubt that I could get a higher paying job than the one I have, but since the job would mostly involve kowtowing to my superiors, I have no interest. I make enough to give my family a good standard of living, which is good enough for me.

[The Secret of NAM]

"Thus there’s the anomaly that the richest people, the people who according to theory have the most to benefit from libertarianism, are not very likely to be libertarian."

You also believe that the very richest use govt to transfer wealth to themselves, meaning they have the least to benefit from libertarianism.

Which one is it?

Women don't think about political philosophy. They just want strong leaders to give them stuff and protect them. This is also why Marxism is the favored "philosophy" of morons: "we'll take stuff from oppressors and give it to you until everyone is equal." This is basically the message of the entire Congressional Black Caucus.

[asdf]

"I have little doubt that I could get a higher paying job than the one I have"

The average person could raise their earnings 20-30% over a 5 year span (inflation adjusted). All they have to do is more of the same. However, this won't change your lifestyle at all. If you a loser earning X at an eight hour day and all of a sudden you earn X*1.3 working ten hours a day you're still a loser. To not be a loser you need to qualitatively change your life.

[Sean]

Gary Johnson started a construction firm, Big J, and grew it to one of the largest in the state of New Mexico. I assume he's a multimillionaire.

[Sanjuro]

Why so down on programmers? Look at Larry Ellison: started as a coder, brought Oracle database to market (based on Codd's research, granted), and is now worth 40 gigabucks. Ellison owns an entire Hawaiian island ($500M) and Japanese style mansion, huge slice of Malibu, etc.

Ellison does seem to have grown out of coding rather early, and transformed into something of a corporate Daimyo (i.e. feudal warlord) bent on conquest (for example suing bitter rival SAP for billions and absorbing Sun). Larry's hubris even extends to attempts at immortality through his gerontology institute (cf. Gates' charities - Ellison is much more self centered). Larry comes across as much less of a nerd when compared to rival Gates.

[Peter A]

"Thus there’s the anomaly that the richest people, the people who according to theory have the most to benefit from libertarianism, are not very likely to be libertarian."

No, think about it. An open market and open competition benefits the guys on their way up, not the people who are on top. Rich people have nothing to gain from libertarianism, open competition or free markets. Rich people prefer cartels, and government interfere with competition and make sucessful start-ups difficult. Notably rich libertarian types tend to be in the extraction industries where there are already high barriers to entry even without government interference due to the capital required to start an oil company or a coal mining operation. In those industries regulation is a real burden. But if you're running Microsoft, Procter & Gamble or ADM then regulation mostly hurts the little guys, but is an expense you can easily afford.

[Black_Rose]

"Thus there’s the anomaly that the richest people, the people who according to theory have the most to benefit from libertarianism, are not very likely to be libertarian." --

The wealthy are nominally libertarian in the sense they support free trade and deregulation in the sense that the government does not impose officious regulations on their business enterprises or their ability to conduct financial transactions. They are technically neoliberal as they support a government that is unresponsive the concerns of those lacking financial power domestically (they are small government in the sense that they do not support transfer programs and social insurance schemes) while pursuing a foreign policy that defends their political and financial interests by ensuring their access to financial and labor markets of the world and the natural resources of other sovereign nations.

"Women don't think about political philosophy. They just want strong leaders to give them stuff and protect them. This is also why Marxism is the favored "philosophy" of morons: "we'll take stuff from oppressors and give it to you until everyone is equal." This is basically the message of the entire Congressional Black Caucus"

Ask yourself how many real Marxists have low-g. In fact, one needs high g to understand the work of some Marxist-Leninists. High g is necessary to arrive at a Marxist position since it requires a highly abstract understanding of history and political philosophy and a degree of intellectual independence (since there are no actual Marxist positions being disseminated through mass media or in the education system -- liberal, yes; Marxist, no). The low-g people with a leftist orientation can only reiterate talking points from MSNBC or engage in identity politics.

[destructure]

"But the way the world really works is that people don’t become rich though self-directed value creation, they get rich from value transference, which usually involves schmoozing people." -- HS

Warren Buffet created value by investing in companies that needed the capital. Regardless, if the current system of wealth redistribution doesn't do enough to reward value creation what makes you think even more wealth redistribution would?

*

"The best way to get ahead is to present the impression to others that you share their beliefs" -- HS

And it doesn't change after you've made it, either.

*

"And why aren’t there very many female libertarians?" -- HS

Because more women have an entitlement mentality. See, it's not enough for Miss Fluke to do whatever she likes with her pie. She also wants you to pay for it.

[HS: Buffett got rich by investing OTHER people's money, which requires schmoozing.]

[Toad]

Wealth creation doesn't entirely come from talented individuals, the society and culture you live in plays a role. An infant Henry Ford, transplanted to India as a changeling would not have grown up and invented the assembly line. If he built his factory in present-time Detroit, he would have a hard time becoming rich from it.

A social network of competent people is as useful as individual talent.

Admiral of the Fleet Andrew Browne Cunningham:
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition."

[dk]

"Warren Buffet created value by investing in companies that needed the capital."

No, he didn't. He himself stated that he was lucky to live in a society that paid such rich rewards to those able to identify mispriced assets.

When WB buys a stock today for $1 that due to fear, doubt and a lack of market liquidity should be worth $2 based on it's cash flow, and sells it 3 years from now for $2 when the market has corrected to true value. No value has been created.

WB was simply smart enough to identify a mispriced asset and take advantage. This is not to say that buffet at times hasn't provided capital directly to a company because he has. However he usually accumulates already existing equity stakes or simply purchases whole companies.

[Alex]

"Insightful post, very valuable advice for anyone trying to get ahead in what most of us are stuck w/ - a career. My career has primarily been technology based, and relationships and status rule here as well. Very little meritocratic rewards exist, which is always a surprise to the hard working engineer."

A tip from a friend: stop seeking a salary (stop seeking a master, in more frank words) and go on business ventures whenever you can. The reason you're not satisfied by your life as a "nerd" is perhaps simply because corporate environments are not suited to "nerds" and more widely to the Info-Tech Revolution.

[Alex]

Halfsigma, please, tell us more about physical appearance. I'd terribly enjoy physiognomy analysis on political activists, high school pictures, dumb people VS smart people, etc.

I personally believe jealousy and power struggles are the true determinant, in fine, of human behavior, with religion and morals coming only in second.

And what is the greatest factor, what is the greatest data in jealousy and hierarchies if not looks?

It is the greatest taboo. More so than sex and death. But for some strange reason, nobody on the reactionary/HBD blogosophere has yet decided to tackle it seriously... only casual remarks once in a while.

NB: To "Kaz"

HalfSigma did not mean that all atheists were uglier than average, but that atheists in strongly religious countries are anticonformists, and anticonformists are uglier than average.

[Conquistador]

@ Alex

Are you the male or female Alex that comments here? Myself, Just Speculating, Insider, and a few others are the only ones who think looks matter. I've tried to get Half Sigma to discuss this stuff but he isn't interested. I do think it's rubbing off on him though because his posts mention looks a lot more now.

You're right that looks governs social interaction among males and females. Guys just rationalize a good looking dude as "cool" to hang out with. Personality is also largely driven by looks.

[Alex]

Conquistador -> I am male, 20 years old, and live in the Old World. An other "Alex" occasionally comments here once in a while, which can cause confusion.

It goes as a self-evident fact that I share personally your experience and thus your feelings.

I went to public school, junior high school and high school and had the opportunity (or misery, it depends on the POV) to witness strong diversity among my mates (diversity of social classes, looks, brains, ethnicities, talents, etc.)

If I were to draw a firm conclusion on all these years, I would say that looks are everything for girls, in the sense that a beautiful, poor and psychologically unstable girl (violent parents, lack of afterschool opportunities, etc.) will in fine fare better in life (in terms of raw happiness) than a spoiled girl afflicted otherwise with a very unattractive physique. Such a girl would, in my personal experience, drown into depression at some point and remain unsatisfied in life up to her death, while her prettier counterpart would experience in her teenage years a diversity of love and sexual partners, one of them marrying her and repairing the damage caused by her family.

I have many concrete examples of this in my memories. Of course, the ugly girls in question can find some solace in religious activities, workaholism, charities, or animal care, but it never replaces a loving husband and healthy beautiful little children.

For males, the picture is more complex, with personality and upbringing respectively playing to my mind a bigger role than looks in making friends and achieving educational and personal success. I've also noticed that contrary to girls, excessive beauty in a man attracted more trouble and bad stereotypes than good. But is *is* still important, of course. Nobody wants to associate with a red-haired lard-ass who stinks and has poor clothes, except perhaps to have him as the mascot of the group.

That were for my reminiscences.

As to the rest, the reason the subject is not more tackled than this in books, newspapers, blogs and forums is perhaps because pointing out that people are terribly more gifted than others at birth without proposing a solution to equalize this is regarded, in our Christian society, as a terrible faux pas. The looks taboo is very similar to the race taboo, when you think about it.

[destructure]

"Buffett got rich by investing OTHER people's money, which requires schmoozing." -- HS

So did Bernie Madoff. The difference is that Buffet's investors also got rich. But it doesn't matter whose money he invested. The point is that he did an excellent job of providing capital to companies that needed it. Surely, you can appreciate the value creation in that.

*

"No, he didn't. He himself stated that he was lucky to live in a society that paid such rich rewards to those able to identify mispriced assets." -- dk

So were you. Where is your 60 Billion?

[Rufus]

@Alex

Why would HBDers want to discuss the importance of (male) physical attractiveness? Being even more of a fringe movement than libertarianism, you can bet it ain't drawing people with all-American good looks.

[Alex]

@Rufus

"Why would HBDers want to discuss the importance of (male) physical attractiveness? Being even more of a fringe movement than libertarianism, you can bet it ain't drawing people with all-American good looks."

Myself I am not an exception, since what drew me originally to HBD is my ectomorphism and my fascination for the impact of genes on human metabolism.

Why discuss it? Simply for the purpose of truth and free-thinking.

[dk]

"So were you. Where is your 60 Billion?"

I'll say this again since you have apparently missed the point.

"He was lucky to live in a society that paid such rich rewards to those able to identify mispriced assets."

Most people can't do so at buffet's level. That was his point.

I am simply saying that financial speculation does not create wealth on a social level.

Not to be trite...but I'm assuming your 60 billion is already in your swiss accounts?

"The point is that he did an excellent job of providing capital to companies that needed it."

Again how does buying existing shares on the open market provide capital to a company? The companies the buffet buys tend to be solid stable underpriced cash machines with high book values. They don't need capital. That tends to be the entire reason he buys them. There are exceptions.

Is buffet smart? Yes.

Is buffet smarter than me (or you)? Almost certainly so.

Did buffet earn his $$ in a fair market in a fair contest with other investors? Most likely. Although it is reasonable to assume he had some inside connections along the way.

Do I hate buffet for the $$$ he has made? No. Other people sold low. No one forced them to.

Is buffet a libertarian hero personally contributing his capital to the technological progress of society? No. John Galt does not ****ing exist IRL.

[72Stingray]

HS, please expand on what you mean by loser in this post. Do you see yourself as a loser, winner, or something else?

[asdf]

72Stingray,

HS clearly sees himself as a loser. He has a boring job that he can't quit because he doesn't make enough money. He's middle aged but has no wife or children. He failed life. His blog seems to be an attempt to help other people not make quite the same mistakes he made.

[Black_Rose]

"HS clearly sees himself as a loser. He has a boring job that he can't quit because he doesn't make enough money. He's middle aged but has no wife or children. He failed life. His blog seems to be an attempt to help other people not make quite the same mistakes he made."

Yes, HS is a loser, even in his own classification system, although not as badly as "proles" and most NAMs, but he somewhat redeemed himself through his expertise on politics, cultural and demographic trends, social class, economics, and psychometrics. BTW, do you know anyone else, with the possible exception of Steve Sailer, that possesses his stunning expertise on NAMs and proles.

[asdf]

Black_Rose,

If a prole is really good at being a prole then he's not as much of a loser as HS. For instance, many muscle bound proles get laid a lot and have a lot of fun for most of there lives. Granted, their lives tend to suck progressively more once middle age sets in, but for the most part proles achieve levels of satisfaction in their youth HS can only dream of.

[Curtis]

Women aren't libertarian because its not in their interest to be.