Form: Reply

(this oughtta get me in trouble) —“Hi Curt … Regarding your post on natural law being sharia for whites … what would be the logical stance of natural law toward a nordic woman from Minnesota with a 125 IQ marrying an 85-IQ immigrant from Somalia? Would the negative externalities need to be incorporated into a natural law approach to this?”— A Friend Well first, putting aside that this example violates near universal demonstration of female hypergamy. But it does happen. Second, some group may choose NOT to invest in and insure their genetic commons, and some group might choose to invest in and insure their genetic commons. The longer term question of whether the dysgenic and the eugenic polities will eventually end up in conflict is a practical rather than legal question. Natural Law says only that we may not impose costs upon the investments others – particularly those that they choose to defend. So if you moved to a polity that didn’t insure the genetics of the group over the desires of the individual, then it’s not a violation. If instead you attempt to impose costs upon a group that insures the genetic commons of the group, then that’s a violation. I would say that it’s cause for exit or removal because (a) one cannot perform restitution for genetic dilution(pollution), and (b) one cannot perform restitution for the externalities created – all of which are bad. In fact, genetic disinformation (pollution) is perhaps the worst possible crime with the longest consequences. More so than murder. So the only form of restitution for those impositions of costs upon the genetic, cultural, and normative commons, is voluntary exist or forcible removal. My view is that reproduction under 92 should be prohibited, and under 100 limited to one child. (using current distribution numbers, where 106 is the ‘minimum median’). This is the only way reproduction is not damaging to the genetic commons for those groups that want to invest in the genetic commons, and pay the cost of insuring that commons.

(this oughtta get me in trouble) —“Hi Curt … Regarding your post on natural law being sharia for whites … what would be the logical stance of natural law toward a nordic woman from Minnesota with a 125 IQ marrying an 85-IQ immigrant from Somalia? Would the negative externalities need to be incorporated into a natural law approach to this?”— A Friend Well first, putting aside that this example violates near universal demonstration of female hypergamy. But it does happen. Second, some group may choose NOT to invest in and insure their genetic commons, and some group might choose to invest in and insure their genetic commons. The longer term question of whether the dysgenic and the eugenic polities will eventually end up in conflict is a practical rather than legal question. Natural Law says only that we may not impose costs upon the investments others – particularly those that they choose to defend. So if you moved to a polity that didn’t insure the genetics of the group over the desires of the individual, then it’s not a violation. If instead you attempt to impose costs upon a group that insures the genetic commons of the group, then that’s a violation. I would say that it’s cause for exit or removal because (a) one cannot perform restitution for genetic dilution(pollution), and (b) one cannot perform restitution for the externalities created – all of which are bad. In fact, genetic disinformation (pollution) is perhaps the worst possible crime with the longest consequences. More so than murder. So the only form of restitution for those impositions of costs upon the genetic, cultural, and normative commons, is voluntary exist or forcible removal. My view is that reproduction under 92 should be prohibited, and under 100 limited to one child. (using current distribution numbers, where 106 is the ‘minimum median’). This is the only way reproduction is not damaging to the genetic commons for those groups that want to invest in the genetic commons, and pay the cost of insuring that commons.