Some scientific facts are just in. They're settled questions. There is no authentic debate about them anymore. They are as solid as the periodic table of elements or the theory of continental drift. These include basic things like:
Children of stable, one father, one mother homes have better life outcomes on average than any other formula.
Normal, monogamous, heterosexual boys and girls have better life outcomes on average than any other sexual lifestyle.
Married people are happier than single people on average.
There are fundamental, enormous, genetic gaps in intelligence between the races.
And it's not just intelligence. These same gaps, also genetic, apply to personality, appearance, and behavior as well. And not just between the races, but between the sexes, ethnicities, and sexual orientations as well.
Some traits are better than others. It is better to be pretty than ugly, smart than dumb, empathetic than sadistic, courageous than cowardly, honest than deceitful, etc. Because of this, some races are simply better than others, because said traits vary at a genetic level between the races. You are more likely to find said good traits among, for instance, whites than blacks.
As a result, any merit based system will always have a disparate impact between said groups. This is not the fault of the grading procedure, the graders, or our desire for merit. It is solely the fault of the inferior groups for being inferior in the first place. In short -- Don't blame us, blame yourself or God.
Most of all, stop impeding the march of progress by chasing the phantom of racial, sexual, transgender, or whatever justice and allow plain simple Justice to rule once more. Infinite good would stem from this simple realization and reprioritization back to the Good.
Automation + cheap energy has made, or will soon make, almost all labor superfluous. Already, around 1/2 of the population in the USA doesn't have a job ( we have a 64% workforce participation rate, which already doesn't include children and seniors). Recently a New York Times article said only 1/7 of the world's population could possibly be employed with the jobs available in the world economy. There was a time when nearly 100% of people were employed via farming, hunting, gathering, or providing a valued service of some kind or other. That was before the dark times, before the machines. Now, matters are worse. We cannot continue applying old world philosophy or laws to new world circumstances. The square peg simply does not fit into the round hole.
Leisure is a valuable and desirable good. It allows intelligent people to, for instance, read books. Most great leaps forward of the mind, which have been and always will be the only source of improvements in people's standard of living, have been born due to men of leisure, not 'hard workers.' Jesus went around preaching, he had no day job. Socrates spent his days idly talking with friends in threadbare clothes. Leisure unlocks human potential, like how Pascal was able to develop his triangles solution to mathematical probability as a mere intellectual curiosity riddle with his fellow aristocrats and high minded European thinkers, while constant toil grinds it away, until people are nothing but machines themselves. "Units of production" that do nothing but work, then fall into bed lifelessly and listlessly until the relentless work cycle begins anew.
The life of a nobleman of leisure, that is bent around refining one's self and then embarking on deeds worthy of a refined soul, such as raising equally refined heirs, or hosting refined concerts or art galleries in order to reward refined geniuses their proper due, is infinitely preferable to the lives of 'quiet desperation' that haunt the poor, laboring classes. They are doomed to a meaningless life full of drudgery and abuse from either rude customers, superiors they dare not offend, or just by the media and society in general treating them in a universally derogatory way. They are unlikely to marry, unlikely to find any permanent career, unlikely to ever achieve any goals or dreams, and generally die an early death due to self-destructive compensations to all these disappointments like smoking, drinking, drugs, or overeating. As shown above, none of their labor is necessary anymore because it could all be automated by machines. Work does not ennoble people. If that were so, workers wouldn't lead such depressing, miserable lives. Forcing people to continue working for a roof over their heads and bread on their table is just torture for the sake of torture -- it does not serve any other end.
The life of a nobleman of leisure is also infinitely preferable to the fake middle class born of government makework jobs and regulations that employ the vast majority of the world's remaining workers. Honesty is preferable to deceit. Because of this, honestly accepting charity from true value producers is superior to dishonestly pretending to work for money, thus 'earning' your daily bread via bayonet point from said value producers, who otherwise never would have funded your job in the first place, but must do so anyway due to the threat of government force. For one thing, since the deception would no longer be necessary, all those people pretending to work could go home and enjoy themselves instead. For another, souls become more virtuous and upright when they are subordinate to Truth, but become poisonous, shriveled, and bent when they revolve around a known lie. The proper educators of children are their own parents, siblings, and extended family, as well as people personally selected by said parents like coaches, tutors, pastors, friends from approved neighboring families, the famous works of philosophers and artists they esteem, etc. Schools, especially public schools, are an abomination. 90% of health care is unnecessary if people lead normal healthy lives and die with grace and dignity at their appropriate hour. For the remaining 10%, the government could easily fund it, without the layers and layers of choking bureaucracy and lawyers' parasitic lawsuits, via a simple citizen's dividend, which would allow everyone to afford health care whenever they needed it from childhood to retirement. If we simply eliminated all government health care and education, what public spending would remain?
In today's world war is so catastrophic as to be a laughable solution to any problem. Weapons of mass destruction have permanently altered the cost-benefit analysis to be simply unthinkable. Therefore large standing armies full of troops wielding rifles and tanks are an archaic, wasteful jobs program that needs to be abolished just like health care and education. It's questionable whether piloted planes are any use now that we have drones, and ships are just laughably useless beyond all the other sections of the military. They are simply sitting, floating targets for anyone with a smart missile or torpedo who wishes to sink them. The trillion dollars that goes into the military and its associated arms industry is pure waste and needs to go.
If people are too stupid to lead the lives of capitalists (people who skillfully direct their machine laborers towards the production of valued goods by the people), or noblemen (people who direct their minds towards the Good and continuously cultivate it in their own souls and the souls of their neighbors), they should not be born in the first place. There isn't infinite space on this world. Resources are extremely scarce. They should go to the people who would enjoy life most, or make life most enjoyable for others, not to the dregs who are themselves miserable, and only spread misery wherever they go. Having a child is not the freedom loving act of an autonomous individual. You never received the child's consent, which means you automatically roped in one other person to your decision, and likewise you never received society's consent, which automatically must find a way to accommodate some new life even though the Earth hasn't grown any bigger since yesterday and there's no more room than there was before. Having a child who shouldn't have been born is a negative externality and just like pollution it is entirely proper for the government to regulate and control individuals to stop them from polluting the world with their ill-begotten brood.
Since we know that straight, stable families raise the happiest, most productive children, it stands to reason that no other group should have the right to reproduce. Likewise for healthy parents, intelligent parents, crime-free parents, vice-free parents, good looking parents, and so on. Children have a right to be born into the best family possible with the best genes possible. Simultaneously, the Earth is horrendously overpopulated (just look at the previous statistic saying there are only 1 billion jobs for the seven billion people (and rising) of this planet to work at). Combine these two elements and there is no reason why we shouldn't apply the strictest of standards for giving a couple the right to reproduce. Merely by barring reproduction to non-happily-married couples, we could provide a vast incentive for people to marry and not divorce, which would vastly improve their lives as well. Over time, evolution would even 'lock in' this desire to marry and stay married as only said married couples ever reproduced generation after generation, and broken homes would forever become a distant memory.
Once we have screened everyone born and know that, barring some drastic mutant aberration, they will all be natural born elites, a citizen's dividend that bestows an equal dignity and respect for all remaining humans is just common sense. This allows everyone to pursue their own dreams and support their own families however they see fit, whether it's financially rewarding or not. Remember, Socrates was not paid for his dialogues, nor was Jesus for his parables, nor was Pascal for his triangles.
The citizen's dividend could easily be funded by the money freed up by the cutting of previous government programs, the elimination of the underclass, and the surplus wealth generated by automation + cheap energy, which will only continue to improve every decade. For a much reduced world population, none of which is self-destructive, relying on modern technology, breeding for the intelligence necessary to develop and maintain said technology, wealth on level with the Pharaoh for all isn't impossible, much less a simple minimum standard of living.
Again, there is no reason to deny people goods made by machine labor, powered by the sun, or crops, powered by the sun, none of which was created by human labor in the first place, therefore none of which should belong to anyone but humanity in general in the first place. It's questionable whether any human labor is useful at this point, but at the very least it's well documented that the price of most goods is only 15% due to the wages of the workers involved. If, therefore, someone received $1 of free citizen's dividend money from the government, they would only be taking 15 cents from the sweat of someone else's brow. The rest they took from a machine, a plant, an animal, or a mineral. And as far as I know, 'stealing' or 'bloodsucking' off of plants, machines, animals, and minerals is still condoned by the vast majority of libertarian thinkers.
When you compare the marginal benefit of $1 worth of consumption for every 15 cents of expropriation, it is impossible to argue in good faith that taxes should not be levied on the productive class to aid the consumptive class. This is especially true given that the productive class also receives a citizen's dividend, and even more ridiculously, would still be far richer than any other group due to the high pay given to their highly productive work. Love of producers cannot justify the lack of a citizen's dividend, only hatred of consumers could possibly drive such a policy decision.
Hatred of consumers equals hatred of mankind. It is hatred of art, music, romance, friendship, sports, games -- essentially everything that makes life worth living. Production is something extremely inhuman, best typified by automated factories churning out endless tons of the same product with ruthless, unending efficiency. Consumption is the only time humans ever shine qua humans. And if the defining feature of humanity is a bug and only machine-like humans emulating machines in various factories or cubicle hives are admirable, the only inescapable conclusion is that mankind simply shouldn't exist at all. Hence, opposition to the citizen's dividend is tantamount to nihilism.
Since all of these statements are indisputable scientific facts, well documented by endless decades of studies, or logical statements that inescapably follow these facts, it is impossible for anyone to disagree with me about anything, without being ignorant, idiotic, or evil. All this world needs is two simple laws to be perfected: a citizen's dividend and birth licensing. It's absurd to disagree with either. The debate is simply closed.
If you wish to disprove my arguments, don't bother debating my facts or my logic, they are both proven beyond all doubt. Simply give me a country of my own with a suitable climate, resources, and living space, and dare me to run things as I have described. Simply don't interfere with my plan freely evolving along the lines I have set forth. If it fails then, and only then, will I admit I somehow made a mistake. But until I and people who think as I do are given this chance to prove ourselves, nothing anyone says against it matters in the least. In ten years, fifty at the most, it would be so clearly and evidently the best country on Earth, that the rest of the world would simply have to emulate us or face internal revolts. We would receive immigrants from the entire world as people flocked to have their families live within our law code. In ten years, fifty years at the maximum, this tiny experimental nation would rapidly expand to be the entire world -- because no one would wish to be anything but us, ever again.