Very thoughtful post, my good doctor. Let me throw a wrench through the eye of that needle ;-) If someone ever gives us the chance to reinvent immigration, I'd put a 5-yr pause on it, including college. Simultaneously, I'd like to end foreign ownership by corporations in other countries, states or counties (or by university regents in towns) and let every place be made, by its own inhabitants, into a place we'd want to go rather than leave. Those already there can develop the policies, including ownership, that work for them. THEN the question of immigration is just a matter of travel and adventure, not escaping oppression.
I think you are approaching the micro-nationalism I was talking about. A very involved government at extremely small levels. That might work, considering it was sort of standard for most of human history. I don't know how well it works to support modernity, or if it requires a historical level of wealth and technology to exist. Then again, who knows if human nature at all can support modernity?
I can see sort of a micro, Swiss Canton sort of federalism, with nearly all powers heavily devolved to the lowest points, working though. I don't know how far one can go with it... I kind of want to see it tried somewhere :D
Yes yes yes! I like that term, micro-nationalism, haven't heard it before. And indeed, when people say 'small gov't' they generally mean a large weak gov't, not a small strong one that gets to set their own rules. I know you've been following my posts of Davids Graeber & Wengrow's Dawn of Everything. It makes Western Civilization seem like a blip on the cosmic radar. Micro-nations are the main event.
I specifically cite Swiss Canton federalism in my book, with decisions made at the lowest levels possible. And technology makes the economics much easier. We just need The Current Thing to fall apart ... oh yeah, that's already happening.
Open-door immigration means that whatever population that can flood into a region with better resources/ more opportunities and create a local majority will be able to rewrite the identity of that locality at will. It means basically saying there's no such thing as distinct, sustainable cultures, just a rotating cast of invasions that native populations are morally obliged to suck up but hey, look at all these restaurants, we're so cosmopolitan now.
I kind of agree with this. Although I'm willing to hear Doc out on what he means by "pro-immigration." It's one of those umbrella terms where different folks could mean different things.
Generic disclaimer that it is not the "fault" of the individual immigrant, but that there are other ways of measuring societal impact beyond relative crime or ethnic restaurants per capita that native populations get no say in.
Well, yes and no. I think "pro-immigration" can mean "We have immigrants, but a reasonable number, and we enforce the rules of immigration, which aren't insane."
Rewriting the identity of a locality is a bit hard without force, and pretty easy with it. It is still quite doable, however, but I wonder about how well, with stable forms of law, the different cultures and identities coexist along side one another.
I think a fair amount of immigration is fine, but how much is a fair amount depends a good bit on how much your government gets involved in minutia, and how susceptible it is to changing. A government that does what it does pretty well and isn't very responsive will keep being pretty good even if the people's preferences shift, but one that is very responsive to the mob is going to go all over the place. The best bet is to have a government that is pretty hands off and very solid in its rules, despite the cries of the mob, no matter the language. Unfortunately that is not the government we have.
I do think the general cultural question is also important. In some sense, we want people to move from less successful areas to more successful areas, because that's a big way to tell if they are more successful, and also because why make people stay in worse spots? Then again, if those are worse spots exactly because of the people living there, then maybe they need to sleep in the bed they made. How do we distinguish between unsuccessful because it is a rough place to live, because economic trends shifted, because the government went crazy, or because the people have a really bad culture? What if it is a bit of both? Can we tell New Yorkers they can't leave their city and move to PA? Californians? Please?
If Emperor Wolfe decided he didn't want to stop being governor, are we stuck here till we overthrow him? Should dustbowl era farmers have been obligated to stay where they were instead of going somewhere else?
Maybe? It seems like there needs to be some freedom of movement to keep people from being trapped by circumstances like that. Plus, who should get to decide how many people are allowed to immigrate? I can't trust the local government to properly take care of the roads, so I am not optimistic they can handle that.
I don't know. I don't have the answers to what the optimal level is. I am pretty sure it isn't 0, and I am also pretty sure it is not "all the immigrants", especially with our current governmental structure. We need to get our house in order before we have a reasonable culture for immigrants to assimilate into. The optimal level is probably also not "X legal immigrants plus anyone who can sneak in."
I do think that using government to enforce culture is a bad idea, however. That's basically how we got here in Clown World.
You focus heavily on the idea that it's bad to give the government the authority to control where people may or may not go, and that's a fine outlook, broadly speaking.
Some of your examples are a bit facetious, though. Migrants from NY and CA- or Dust Bowl farmers- are still American citizens, still English-speaking, and still more likely to be culturally similar (even if that can be a big delta) to their new neighbors than Somali boat people.
And while it may be unpalatable to give the government the role to decide these things, it's no more reasonable to say that NO ONE should get to decide these things out of some sense of libertarian virtue. I return to my previous comment in that communities should, in some way, get at least some say- either directly or through a government protecting their interests- in whether or not they find their language, culture, manners, education system, and gender roles redefined by suddenly becoming minorities.
Your concern that there is no equitable way to turn people away who are in a hard situation seems to imply that no one should be turned away because they're in a hard situation, regardless of the impact on the people who live where they all show up who would also like their families to have schools and hospitals that aren't overcrowded, stable wages, etc. And this never seems to be part of the conversation- it inevitably devolves to discussions of racism or heartlessness.
And regarding Emperor Wolfe? Yeah, historically, if a ruler decides they're staying put, you ARE pretty fucked until you overthrow them.
I think there are two different prongs to the fork we are discussing here:
Prong 1: Should the government have a say in "language, culture, manners, education system, and gender roles"? Are they good at it?
Prong 2: Is it more or less conducive to good governance to have more or less immigration?
To Prong 1, I would say no, it really shouldn't, and we are partially in the state we are in because we let it have far too much of a say, and further we worry about future states largely because it has so much of a say. Consider that it is illegal to refuse to hire someone because they are an immigrant, or refuse to rent to them. (If not illegal exactly, imagine the lawsuit if it became known you did.) That is government taking away your say in what you want your community to be like.
Moreover, our culture in the USA today is being shifted exactly by a tiny minority, not the majority, and that is being done by the hand of government. I suspect that if one were to survey Somali boat people very, very few would have problems defining what a woman is, or be terribly supportive of drag queen story hour. The situation at the the Mexican border, or in certain other places might be very different, I don't know, but I think the calls from the culture killer are coming from inside the house.
I am not at all sure I would have more culturally in common with the average San Franciscan than the average Somali in Minnesota. I knew a few, and while I think the boys tended to get sucked into the dysfunctions of urban black culture, the girls had their shit together. Granted, it was a small sample at a college, so I could be really wrong.
When it comes to things like schools and hospitals, why are they overcrowded? Oh, right, they are all government controlled, and badly. They have issues whether an area has a lot of immigration or not, so I don't think immigration is the issue there.
Stable wages... this one is tough. There's a lot of mixed evidence on the effects of immigration on wages, and wages aren't all that stable even without it. I just don't know on this one.
Prong 2: The problem I see with everyone having closed borders is that it perpetuates bad governance, through a captive audience type system. The USSR had their wall preventing people from leaving, and I suspect CA would love to have something similar. I do agree it would be nice if people would fix their country before going somewhere else, but that isn't a practical choice for everyone. Hell, I know I have been keeping an eye out for next best option countries.
Does having more open borders do good things for a country's governance? I don't know. If someone wanted to argue that immigrants shouldn't get to vote even if naturalized I wouldn't have a good argument against that. I just don't know if that would be an improvement or not.
Seriously, this shit is hard! These aren't open and shut questions. The only thing I am pretty sure about is that most of the serious problems with immigration seem to be closely tied to us, as citizens, putting too much into the political realms. We've let government take too much power, and have too much say in our day to day lives, and now we live under constant threat of someone taking control of the government and changing the rules on us because we decided "eh... hell with all those constitutional restraints, let's just do what we want" long ago. As a result there no longer a point some large group of us can indicate as "this far, and no more" before we fire up the torches and pitch forks together.
I'm a libertarian and, iirc, I didn't agree with OWS because the pitchforks were directed at the private individuals who were beneficiary of the bailouts, plus everybody else in proximity; rather than at the government who provided the bailouts. Think of it thusly - when you find you have had some of your money stolen and then charitably given to someone else, you don't necessarily go after the recipients, and if you do, you do so after you have gone after the people who did the stealing.
Yes exactly so. Why OWS didn't realize the government was equally complicit is beyond me. Sure, the banks asked for bailouts, but that doesn't mean the government should have said yes! If your kid ask you to steal the neighbor kid's bike and give it to them, and you do it, you are the one in the wrong. Your kid is still an asshole, but you also failed in your duties on many levels.
I fault OWS mostly for not being able to make common cause. I think that it is important to notice that common cause was not made, regardless of why. That alone is telling.
That's a good point. I think that if two organizations or groups or people who have ostensibly similar goals cannot make common cause, it means they don't actually have similar goals.
I'm going to chime in on the immigration piece too. I'm one myself and can speak a little.
We bring fresh perspective and a thirst of life, ability to look forward and hustle, that locals have lost (as per some of Chris Arnade's writings). We bring a balance to the culture, economic vitality....
One: the large social welfare state isn't going anywhere. Given its size, infinite immigrants coming to take advantage of it are not sustainable.
Two: the citizens of a country do have an entitlement, I believe, over the rest of the world, to the attention of its government. Even if it's arbitrary, even if it was unfair when it happened. Even if it's an accident of who was born when and where and with what skills . Even if Soviet Jews suffered less than Congolese civil war refugees who have fewer economic skills than Chinese grad students, who are less loyal than Eastern Europeans buying into the Western Story.....etc. who deserves it, by merit or suffering or loyalty?
The government, when legitimate (and maybe you're an ancap, in which case replace "govt" with "voluntary regional mutual defense association") owes a duty to its current members. If your government is putting the needs of immigrants above your local population and giving them priority to certain limited resources, that breeds resentment (a pragmatic consideration) and feels extremely unfair, and it isn't. You don't have to choke off immigration but, as a previous commenter said, what there is now is unsustainable as it is it needs to be stopped, reassessed and fixed.
Yea, I don't really see anything there to disagree with.
The question of what the needs of the local population are, and how to balance them against the needs of immigrants, that's a tough one, but the general principle isn't wrong. I am leery of government being able to do that, but I don't think we should e.g. tax Americans to aid Syrians in Syria anymore than I think we should tax Americans to aid Syrians we have moved to America.
That government is so heavily involved in redistribution of resources is a huge problem. The way immigration laws are structured, and how they are executed de facto is another huge problem.
I am reminded of an Ayn Rand quote, something along the lines of "You can have open borders, a welfare state or unlimited democracy: pick two." I think even two might be optimistic.
"That government is so heavily involved in redistribution of resources is a huge problem."
Yes, this. Especially weird is when people defend programs that redistribute resources from relatively poor to relatively rich. People FREAK OUT when you attack Social Security and Medicare, but, broadly speaking, the cohort eligible for those programs is richer than all of the cohorts contemporaneously paying into them.
I fail to understand this obsession with immigration as if it is always, everywhere, and in any form a public good.
'In an apocryphal story, Milton Friedman debates a Swedish economist. The Swede says “In Scandinavia, we have no poverty”. Without skipping a beat, Friedman replies, “That’s interesting, because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no poverty, either.” '
I just picked immigration as an example of a commonly debated topic where lots of the problems are rooted in state assumption of power as much as the phenomenon itself. I am regretting that choice a bit, I must admit... I feel it is sort of sucking the oxygen out of things, and I don't personally have a strong opinion on immigration past "we should probably have some."
Of course, natives seem very inclined to vote for more as well. The problem is at root one of "people can vote for the government to take money away from some people and give it to them." That's my point.
A libertarian society will always work better if there is more cultural homogeneity and greater equality. If I am similar to my neighbours in many ways, and trust them highly, I am less in need of lots of law and order, government agencies, and big redistributive schemes. But libertarians won't have the sort of government that can protect that equilibrium, so even if you set it up initially, it won't last.
I think you are absolutely correct in the main point that there is no contradiction in the arguments, both are an argument for less government power. To play devil's advocate for the 'globalists' they would argue there are some big problems that require international cooperation to deal with, so we need things like the UN, WHO, WTO etc. I don't think they are wrong, but how to maintain any oversight and what degree of power any of these should have are issues, and because you can't have good oversight many people are suspicious of any power you give to them.
That's interesting, I had always thought that a libertarian society was the solution when you didn't have cultural homogeneity, whereas a small, homogeneous state like Sweden could get away with more socialism due to shared norms.
Could you elaborate on your thinking there? Possibly in a blog post I can respond to at length? :D
I think the big problems that globalists claim need fixing by international cooperation tend to either be non-problems, or most likely non-fixable period. That is to say, even if they tried to fix the problems, the scale and scope of the organization would spell its doom before it got halfway to the clouds.
Yeah there is always a big disconnect between "Is this a problem" and "Is government the right tool for fixing the problem/can it even be done." I am amazed by how quickly most people seem to jump from a considered yes to the first question to an automatic yes to the second question. Or how people who agree there is a problem but don't think the government is the right tool to fix it are often painted as believing there is no problem in the first place.
I think there are only two probable ways out of this massive bureaucracy mess we call our government.
One is a mass layoff of federal employees who don't really do much anyway. Kind of like Musk is doing at Twitter. That would require an executive with big enough balls to take on the beureucracy and be able to weather the legal and media shit storm that would be thrown at them. It would also require an effective communicator to show the public how their lives are improving while all those poor laid off government do nothing's are showcased on every TV news show not on OAN. I'm not sure who else is out there besides Trump that can or will do anything close to that and even then it's a long shot. Is he a strict free market capitalist who doesn't write mean Tweets and always acts "Presidential"? No. He is an orange bomb that at best will blow up inside the system and possibly create a path to right the ship. I want to light that fuse even if all I get out of it is another helping of leftist meltdowns like I saw in 2016.
The second possibility is the government collapses under its own weight. Hopefully that would happen before they disarm the populace and enact totalitarian controls but I'm guessing this nation will go full CCP style communism before that. In this scenario some of us may be fortunate enough to still be alive to have our grandchildren ask us how it all came to be. We can proudly state that we stuck to our free market principles and voted libertarian, a Romney/Kasich ticket, or didn't participate at all while the other side successfully elected socialist leaders who didn't have any principles at all.
The other side is too stupid to even be aware that they should be holding their noses while they mail in a vote for Biden and Fedderman. Hold your nose, vote for the lesser of two evils, get off your ass and get involved in local politics. Also, buy plenty of ammo for all those firearms you tragically lost on that fishing trip.
I am afraid you might be right. I don't think there is any political will to reform the bureaucracy by legislation, although that would be the easiest way to do it. There were plenty of opportunities over the past 30 years, and it just didn't happen. Hell, it expanded for the most part. Trump came close to making a dent, but the bureaus pushed back and kept it at just a dent, to be filled in shortly by Biden.
Maybe in 2024, if there is enough push from the voters, a regime change can get the legislation through, but I am not optimistic. My money is on collapse, and I agree that it won't be a pretty one.
As a British beneficiary of the 'post-war socialist settlement' (biggest government ever) now living in France (massive government) and an occasional visitor to the US (bigger government than half the people would like) I always enjoy this type of article and the comments therein. They represent thoughts from an alien world to me. The state even mandates when I clean my chimney here haha!
And yet, landing this summer in LAX and my friend in Lake Forest having to drive all the way there and back to pick me up because there is no public transport, reminded me how glad I am to live where government is big - even though we obviously pay a lot for it. The quality of life en general here is now so much better than in Britain, since that fateful Thatcher/Reagan time caused the latter became so much more like the US.
It's not that I think you're wrong (or right). It's that philosophically there's such a chasm between our ideas of what government is even for.
Also, the French would be rioting daily if our roads were as terrible as yours. That most basic infrastructure being in such poor shape is almost funny, as a visitor.
I recognise that none of this adds to the debate. It's just interesting to register how strange your preoccupation with government seems to many of us over here.
Yea, it's an odd point. On the one hand, European countries are very small compared to the US, closer to individual states (which makes sense), and US states vary wildly in both how much their governments do and how well. I noticed this particularly when I moved from northern VA just outside DC to MN. The local taxes were pretty comparable, but MN just blew NoVA out of the water when it came to how well those taxes were used by the local government. So I think when comparing outcomes we need to include both a "government size" and a "government priorities" axis. Often times American governments (at all levels) prefer to do 1,000s of things badly instead of a few core things well.
At the same time, it is worth noting that EU countries are a lot poorer than the US on average. Britain and France would be among the poorest states. Part of that is likely due to not being in a giant free(ish) trade zone, but part of it is also likely due to how the wealth that gets generated gets used, i.e. plowed into government projects and centralized planning instead of wealth producing businesses. It seems relevant to me that many places with e.g. the highest housing prices are in areas with the most government control of housing. Not 100% a clincher on the point of course, but it fits well with economic theory and so is very suggestive.
But, in all fairness, I am at heart a mountain man who would rather die burning in my bed than have anyone dictate to me when and how I have to get my chimney cleaned. So, you know, preferences vary :D
Then we get into the philosophical realm of 'wealth' vs 'wellbeing'. Those lists of the best countries to live in are dominated by us European pauper states. Give me a country with high quality universal health care and affordable comfortable trains that legally mandates me to mitigate the risk of house fires all day long.
Oh yea, I am not saying that everyone has to have the same preferences! There is definitely room for different regions/states to offer different mixes of government services. In fact, the more that happens at a smaller level, the better. In the US case I would be all for the federal government doing next to nothing other than defense and, well, what it is supposed to only be doing, while the states can do all sorts of stuff and see if it works. Even better, instead of states doing it, the cities and counties could focus on experimentation with service levels.
I will note that while wealth is not a great measure and has some sketchy data gathering, the "wellbeing" numbers are not much better than just making stuff up. Those super subjective measures are basically just asking for "researchers" to act like PR agents :)
Yup, it's all about priorities, and those of the people running the government are piss poor.
Very thoughtful post, my good doctor. Let me throw a wrench through the eye of that needle ;-) If someone ever gives us the chance to reinvent immigration, I'd put a 5-yr pause on it, including college. Simultaneously, I'd like to end foreign ownership by corporations in other countries, states or counties (or by university regents in towns) and let every place be made, by its own inhabitants, into a place we'd want to go rather than leave. Those already there can develop the policies, including ownership, that work for them. THEN the question of immigration is just a matter of travel and adventure, not escaping oppression.
I think you are approaching the micro-nationalism I was talking about. A very involved government at extremely small levels. That might work, considering it was sort of standard for most of human history. I don't know how well it works to support modernity, or if it requires a historical level of wealth and technology to exist. Then again, who knows if human nature at all can support modernity?
I can see sort of a micro, Swiss Canton sort of federalism, with nearly all powers heavily devolved to the lowest points, working though. I don't know how far one can go with it... I kind of want to see it tried somewhere :D
Yes yes yes! I like that term, micro-nationalism, haven't heard it before. And indeed, when people say 'small gov't' they generally mean a large weak gov't, not a small strong one that gets to set their own rules. I know you've been following my posts of Davids Graeber & Wengrow's Dawn of Everything. It makes Western Civilization seem like a blip on the cosmic radar. Micro-nations are the main event.
I specifically cite Swiss Canton federalism in my book, with decisions made at the lowest levels possible. And technology makes the economics much easier. We just need The Current Thing to fall apart ... oh yeah, that's already happening.
Open-door immigration means that whatever population that can flood into a region with better resources/ more opportunities and create a local majority will be able to rewrite the identity of that locality at will. It means basically saying there's no such thing as distinct, sustainable cultures, just a rotating cast of invasions that native populations are morally obliged to suck up but hey, look at all these restaurants, we're so cosmopolitan now.
I kind of agree with this. Although I'm willing to hear Doc out on what he means by "pro-immigration." It's one of those umbrella terms where different folks could mean different things.
Generic disclaimer that it is not the "fault" of the individual immigrant, but that there are other ways of measuring societal impact beyond relative crime or ethnic restaurants per capita that native populations get no say in.
Well, yes and no. I think "pro-immigration" can mean "We have immigrants, but a reasonable number, and we enforce the rules of immigration, which aren't insane."
Rewriting the identity of a locality is a bit hard without force, and pretty easy with it. It is still quite doable, however, but I wonder about how well, with stable forms of law, the different cultures and identities coexist along side one another.
I think a fair amount of immigration is fine, but how much is a fair amount depends a good bit on how much your government gets involved in minutia, and how susceptible it is to changing. A government that does what it does pretty well and isn't very responsive will keep being pretty good even if the people's preferences shift, but one that is very responsive to the mob is going to go all over the place. The best bet is to have a government that is pretty hands off and very solid in its rules, despite the cries of the mob, no matter the language. Unfortunately that is not the government we have.
I do think the general cultural question is also important. In some sense, we want people to move from less successful areas to more successful areas, because that's a big way to tell if they are more successful, and also because why make people stay in worse spots? Then again, if those are worse spots exactly because of the people living there, then maybe they need to sleep in the bed they made. How do we distinguish between unsuccessful because it is a rough place to live, because economic trends shifted, because the government went crazy, or because the people have a really bad culture? What if it is a bit of both? Can we tell New Yorkers they can't leave their city and move to PA? Californians? Please?
If Emperor Wolfe decided he didn't want to stop being governor, are we stuck here till we overthrow him? Should dustbowl era farmers have been obligated to stay where they were instead of going somewhere else?
Maybe? It seems like there needs to be some freedom of movement to keep people from being trapped by circumstances like that. Plus, who should get to decide how many people are allowed to immigrate? I can't trust the local government to properly take care of the roads, so I am not optimistic they can handle that.
I don't know. I don't have the answers to what the optimal level is. I am pretty sure it isn't 0, and I am also pretty sure it is not "all the immigrants", especially with our current governmental structure. We need to get our house in order before we have a reasonable culture for immigrants to assimilate into. The optimal level is probably also not "X legal immigrants plus anyone who can sneak in."
I do think that using government to enforce culture is a bad idea, however. That's basically how we got here in Clown World.
You focus heavily on the idea that it's bad to give the government the authority to control where people may or may not go, and that's a fine outlook, broadly speaking.
Some of your examples are a bit facetious, though. Migrants from NY and CA- or Dust Bowl farmers- are still American citizens, still English-speaking, and still more likely to be culturally similar (even if that can be a big delta) to their new neighbors than Somali boat people.
And while it may be unpalatable to give the government the role to decide these things, it's no more reasonable to say that NO ONE should get to decide these things out of some sense of libertarian virtue. I return to my previous comment in that communities should, in some way, get at least some say- either directly or through a government protecting their interests- in whether or not they find their language, culture, manners, education system, and gender roles redefined by suddenly becoming minorities.
Your concern that there is no equitable way to turn people away who are in a hard situation seems to imply that no one should be turned away because they're in a hard situation, regardless of the impact on the people who live where they all show up who would also like their families to have schools and hospitals that aren't overcrowded, stable wages, etc. And this never seems to be part of the conversation- it inevitably devolves to discussions of racism or heartlessness.
And regarding Emperor Wolfe? Yeah, historically, if a ruler decides they're staying put, you ARE pretty fucked until you overthrow them.
I think there are two different prongs to the fork we are discussing here:
Prong 1: Should the government have a say in "language, culture, manners, education system, and gender roles"? Are they good at it?
Prong 2: Is it more or less conducive to good governance to have more or less immigration?
To Prong 1, I would say no, it really shouldn't, and we are partially in the state we are in because we let it have far too much of a say, and further we worry about future states largely because it has so much of a say. Consider that it is illegal to refuse to hire someone because they are an immigrant, or refuse to rent to them. (If not illegal exactly, imagine the lawsuit if it became known you did.) That is government taking away your say in what you want your community to be like.
Moreover, our culture in the USA today is being shifted exactly by a tiny minority, not the majority, and that is being done by the hand of government. I suspect that if one were to survey Somali boat people very, very few would have problems defining what a woman is, or be terribly supportive of drag queen story hour. The situation at the the Mexican border, or in certain other places might be very different, I don't know, but I think the calls from the culture killer are coming from inside the house.
I am not at all sure I would have more culturally in common with the average San Franciscan than the average Somali in Minnesota. I knew a few, and while I think the boys tended to get sucked into the dysfunctions of urban black culture, the girls had their shit together. Granted, it was a small sample at a college, so I could be really wrong.
When it comes to things like schools and hospitals, why are they overcrowded? Oh, right, they are all government controlled, and badly. They have issues whether an area has a lot of immigration or not, so I don't think immigration is the issue there.
Stable wages... this one is tough. There's a lot of mixed evidence on the effects of immigration on wages, and wages aren't all that stable even without it. I just don't know on this one.
Prong 2: The problem I see with everyone having closed borders is that it perpetuates bad governance, through a captive audience type system. The USSR had their wall preventing people from leaving, and I suspect CA would love to have something similar. I do agree it would be nice if people would fix their country before going somewhere else, but that isn't a practical choice for everyone. Hell, I know I have been keeping an eye out for next best option countries.
Does having more open borders do good things for a country's governance? I don't know. If someone wanted to argue that immigrants shouldn't get to vote even if naturalized I wouldn't have a good argument against that. I just don't know if that would be an improvement or not.
Seriously, this shit is hard! These aren't open and shut questions. The only thing I am pretty sure about is that most of the serious problems with immigration seem to be closely tied to us, as citizens, putting too much into the political realms. We've let government take too much power, and have too much say in our day to day lives, and now we live under constant threat of someone taking control of the government and changing the rules on us because we decided "eh... hell with all those constitutional restraints, let's just do what we want" long ago. As a result there no longer a point some large group of us can indicate as "this far, and no more" before we fire up the torches and pitch forks together.
I'm a libertarian and, iirc, I didn't agree with OWS because the pitchforks were directed at the private individuals who were beneficiary of the bailouts, plus everybody else in proximity; rather than at the government who provided the bailouts. Think of it thusly - when you find you have had some of your money stolen and then charitably given to someone else, you don't necessarily go after the recipients, and if you do, you do so after you have gone after the people who did the stealing.
Yes exactly so. Why OWS didn't realize the government was equally complicit is beyond me. Sure, the banks asked for bailouts, but that doesn't mean the government should have said yes! If your kid ask you to steal the neighbor kid's bike and give it to them, and you do it, you are the one in the wrong. Your kid is still an asshole, but you also failed in your duties on many levels.
I fault OWS mostly for not being able to make common cause. I think that it is important to notice that common cause was not made, regardless of why. That alone is telling.
That's a good point. I think that if two organizations or groups or people who have ostensibly similar goals cannot make common cause, it means they don't actually have similar goals.
I'm going to chime in on the immigration piece too. I'm one myself and can speak a little.
We bring fresh perspective and a thirst of life, ability to look forward and hustle, that locals have lost (as per some of Chris Arnade's writings). We bring a balance to the culture, economic vitality....
One: the large social welfare state isn't going anywhere. Given its size, infinite immigrants coming to take advantage of it are not sustainable.
Two: the citizens of a country do have an entitlement, I believe, over the rest of the world, to the attention of its government. Even if it's arbitrary, even if it was unfair when it happened. Even if it's an accident of who was born when and where and with what skills . Even if Soviet Jews suffered less than Congolese civil war refugees who have fewer economic skills than Chinese grad students, who are less loyal than Eastern Europeans buying into the Western Story.....etc. who deserves it, by merit or suffering or loyalty?
The government, when legitimate (and maybe you're an ancap, in which case replace "govt" with "voluntary regional mutual defense association") owes a duty to its current members. If your government is putting the needs of immigrants above your local population and giving them priority to certain limited resources, that breeds resentment (a pragmatic consideration) and feels extremely unfair, and it isn't. You don't have to choke off immigration but, as a previous commenter said, what there is now is unsustainable as it is it needs to be stopped, reassessed and fixed.
Yea, I don't really see anything there to disagree with.
The question of what the needs of the local population are, and how to balance them against the needs of immigrants, that's a tough one, but the general principle isn't wrong. I am leery of government being able to do that, but I don't think we should e.g. tax Americans to aid Syrians in Syria anymore than I think we should tax Americans to aid Syrians we have moved to America.
That government is so heavily involved in redistribution of resources is a huge problem. The way immigration laws are structured, and how they are executed de facto is another huge problem.
I am reminded of an Ayn Rand quote, something along the lines of "You can have open borders, a welfare state or unlimited democracy: pick two." I think even two might be optimistic.
The entire world is about to find out what happens after unfettered immigration is followed by massive resource constriction.
"That government is so heavily involved in redistribution of resources is a huge problem."
Yes, this. Especially weird is when people defend programs that redistribute resources from relatively poor to relatively rich. People FREAK OUT when you attack Social Security and Medicare, but, broadly speaking, the cohort eligible for those programs is richer than all of the cohorts contemporaneously paying into them.
I fail to understand this obsession with immigration as if it is always, everywhere, and in any form a public good.
'In an apocryphal story, Milton Friedman debates a Swedish economist. The Swede says “In Scandinavia, we have no poverty”. Without skipping a beat, Friedman replies, “That’s interesting, because in America, among Scandinavians, we have no poverty, either.” '
Read the rest, many stats:
https://ideassleepfuriously.substack.com/p/why-do-migrants-change-culture
I just picked immigration as an example of a commonly debated topic where lots of the problems are rooted in state assumption of power as much as the phenomenon itself. I am regretting that choice a bit, I must admit... I feel it is sort of sucking the oxygen out of things, and I don't personally have a strong opinion on immigration past "we should probably have some."
This is the problem.
https://search.brave.com/search?q=immigrants+use+welfare+at+higher+rates+than+natives
Do you think they will vote for more, or less?
Until that's addressed, it will continue to be a negative.
Of course, natives seem very inclined to vote for more as well. The problem is at root one of "people can vote for the government to take money away from some people and give it to them." That's my point.
Dude, so good! (So far-- I'm only 1/3 of the way through) More later. Happy Thanksgiving!
A libertarian society will always work better if there is more cultural homogeneity and greater equality. If I am similar to my neighbours in many ways, and trust them highly, I am less in need of lots of law and order, government agencies, and big redistributive schemes. But libertarians won't have the sort of government that can protect that equilibrium, so even if you set it up initially, it won't last.
I think you are absolutely correct in the main point that there is no contradiction in the arguments, both are an argument for less government power. To play devil's advocate for the 'globalists' they would argue there are some big problems that require international cooperation to deal with, so we need things like the UN, WHO, WTO etc. I don't think they are wrong, but how to maintain any oversight and what degree of power any of these should have are issues, and because you can't have good oversight many people are suspicious of any power you give to them.
That's interesting, I had always thought that a libertarian society was the solution when you didn't have cultural homogeneity, whereas a small, homogeneous state like Sweden could get away with more socialism due to shared norms.
Could you elaborate on your thinking there? Possibly in a blog post I can respond to at length? :D
I think the big problems that globalists claim need fixing by international cooperation tend to either be non-problems, or most likely non-fixable period. That is to say, even if they tried to fix the problems, the scale and scope of the organization would spell its doom before it got halfway to the clouds.
Yeah there is always a big disconnect between "Is this a problem" and "Is government the right tool for fixing the problem/can it even be done." I am amazed by how quickly most people seem to jump from a considered yes to the first question to an automatic yes to the second question. Or how people who agree there is a problem but don't think the government is the right tool to fix it are often painted as believing there is no problem in the first place.
Challenge accepted!
I think there are only two probable ways out of this massive bureaucracy mess we call our government.
One is a mass layoff of federal employees who don't really do much anyway. Kind of like Musk is doing at Twitter. That would require an executive with big enough balls to take on the beureucracy and be able to weather the legal and media shit storm that would be thrown at them. It would also require an effective communicator to show the public how their lives are improving while all those poor laid off government do nothing's are showcased on every TV news show not on OAN. I'm not sure who else is out there besides Trump that can or will do anything close to that and even then it's a long shot. Is he a strict free market capitalist who doesn't write mean Tweets and always acts "Presidential"? No. He is an orange bomb that at best will blow up inside the system and possibly create a path to right the ship. I want to light that fuse even if all I get out of it is another helping of leftist meltdowns like I saw in 2016.
The second possibility is the government collapses under its own weight. Hopefully that would happen before they disarm the populace and enact totalitarian controls but I'm guessing this nation will go full CCP style communism before that. In this scenario some of us may be fortunate enough to still be alive to have our grandchildren ask us how it all came to be. We can proudly state that we stuck to our free market principles and voted libertarian, a Romney/Kasich ticket, or didn't participate at all while the other side successfully elected socialist leaders who didn't have any principles at all.
The other side is too stupid to even be aware that they should be holding their noses while they mail in a vote for Biden and Fedderman. Hold your nose, vote for the lesser of two evils, get off your ass and get involved in local politics. Also, buy plenty of ammo for all those firearms you tragically lost on that fishing trip.
I am afraid you might be right. I don't think there is any political will to reform the bureaucracy by legislation, although that would be the easiest way to do it. There were plenty of opportunities over the past 30 years, and it just didn't happen. Hell, it expanded for the most part. Trump came close to making a dent, but the bureaus pushed back and kept it at just a dent, to be filled in shortly by Biden.
Maybe in 2024, if there is enough push from the voters, a regime change can get the legislation through, but I am not optimistic. My money is on collapse, and I agree that it won't be a pretty one.
As a British beneficiary of the 'post-war socialist settlement' (biggest government ever) now living in France (massive government) and an occasional visitor to the US (bigger government than half the people would like) I always enjoy this type of article and the comments therein. They represent thoughts from an alien world to me. The state even mandates when I clean my chimney here haha!
And yet, landing this summer in LAX and my friend in Lake Forest having to drive all the way there and back to pick me up because there is no public transport, reminded me how glad I am to live where government is big - even though we obviously pay a lot for it. The quality of life en general here is now so much better than in Britain, since that fateful Thatcher/Reagan time caused the latter became so much more like the US.
It's not that I think you're wrong (or right). It's that philosophically there's such a chasm between our ideas of what government is even for.
Also, the French would be rioting daily if our roads were as terrible as yours. That most basic infrastructure being in such poor shape is almost funny, as a visitor.
I recognise that none of this adds to the debate. It's just interesting to register how strange your preoccupation with government seems to many of us over here.
Yea, it's an odd point. On the one hand, European countries are very small compared to the US, closer to individual states (which makes sense), and US states vary wildly in both how much their governments do and how well. I noticed this particularly when I moved from northern VA just outside DC to MN. The local taxes were pretty comparable, but MN just blew NoVA out of the water when it came to how well those taxes were used by the local government. So I think when comparing outcomes we need to include both a "government size" and a "government priorities" axis. Often times American governments (at all levels) prefer to do 1,000s of things badly instead of a few core things well.
At the same time, it is worth noting that EU countries are a lot poorer than the US on average. Britain and France would be among the poorest states. Part of that is likely due to not being in a giant free(ish) trade zone, but part of it is also likely due to how the wealth that gets generated gets used, i.e. plowed into government projects and centralized planning instead of wealth producing businesses. It seems relevant to me that many places with e.g. the highest housing prices are in areas with the most government control of housing. Not 100% a clincher on the point of course, but it fits well with economic theory and so is very suggestive.
But, in all fairness, I am at heart a mountain man who would rather die burning in my bed than have anyone dictate to me when and how I have to get my chimney cleaned. So, you know, preferences vary :D
Then we get into the philosophical realm of 'wealth' vs 'wellbeing'. Those lists of the best countries to live in are dominated by us European pauper states. Give me a country with high quality universal health care and affordable comfortable trains that legally mandates me to mitigate the risk of house fires all day long.
Oh yea, I am not saying that everyone has to have the same preferences! There is definitely room for different regions/states to offer different mixes of government services. In fact, the more that happens at a smaller level, the better. In the US case I would be all for the federal government doing next to nothing other than defense and, well, what it is supposed to only be doing, while the states can do all sorts of stuff and see if it works. Even better, instead of states doing it, the cities and counties could focus on experimentation with service levels.
I will note that while wealth is not a great measure and has some sketchy data gathering, the "wellbeing" numbers are not much better than just making stuff up. Those super subjective measures are basically just asking for "researchers" to act like PR agents :)