Christopher Caldwell At The Claremont Review Of Books: ‘The Hidden Costs Of Immigration’

The idea that immigration comes with costs and benefits is a pretty basic one.

The briefest sketch: On the top-end of the labor-market, let’s say a host country receives a talented, well-skilled couple willing to contribute to the economy, pay taxes, raise children and give them a good life.  The immigrant family raises their own overall standard of living, benefiting from relative political stability and economic opportunity, finding a way to both enjoy new freedoms and share in many new obligations (as mundane as mowing the lawn every weekend).  The economy grows, and barring some occasional tension, misunderstandings and mutual ignorance, both host country and immigrant family’s fates have been bettered.  A new, shared destiny is forged.

Hey, what’s not to like?

Let’s say, though, this particular immigrant family, because of the global labor market and host country incentives, eventually finds themselves doing pretty well.  They start to bring over more family members to the host country.  These family members often choose to segregate into certain parts of the host cities and keep speaking their own language and eating their own food as often as they can.  A few don’t care too much for the new place, though it’s safer than home.

Overall, despite the gains, social trust in the host city diminishes a bit. Intermarrying, it turns out, is frowned-upon in this particular family’s culture while the family’s religious beliefs (which they’re free to practice and whose practice keeps them in good stead in the home country) might eventually put them in serious crisis and conflict with many traditions and duties of the host country.

This is a rather reasonable-enough scenario I mean to present without too much in the way of value-judgment.  People are people, after all, and while some you want to have close, contributing much, others are better far, far away.  How do you know who’s who?

It seems the melting-pot model requires enough people already in the pot not hating the the pot on principle.

On that note, Christopher Caldwell highlights one of the prevailing turns of mind found throughout our academies and chattering classes these days (the ones often drafting laws and shaping public opinion around immigration):  Many promote a brand of secular humanism too easily passing the costs of immigration onto others (some of your security could well be traded for lofty goals and political promises at first…later on left unguarded by diminished choices, political expedience and mush-mouthed nonsense).

Such folks may also be cowed by the radical practitioners of the ideologies-which-function-much-as-religions these days, especially within our universities; those who claim ANY discussion of negative immigration outcomes is a violation of the sacred ‘-Isms’.

Caldwell:

‘Among academic economists, George Borjas, a professor at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, has a reputation as a debunker of pro-immigration myths and narratives. This is not out of any a priori hostility to immigration. Having left Cuba as a child in 1962 after the Castro government confiscated his family’s clothing factory, he is himself a beneficiary of American openness.

But four decades in academic life have convinced Borjas that most of those who claim to study immigration—in academia, journalism, and politics—are better thought of as advocates for it.’

Let’s find some balance and keep making good things better.

Any thoughts and comments are welcome.

On this site, see: From The NY Times: Review Of Christopher Caldwell’s Book “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West”

Speech And The Desire To Control The Language, Thoughts And Minds Of Others-Jordan Peterson Talking With Gad Saad

We are seeing some people in the social sciences use quantitative methodologies to try and understand what’s been going on in many universities, with regard to political philosophy, ideology, and collectivist movements.

The modern fields of psychology, evo and moral psychology, sociology, economics, etc all now seem to have practitioners addressing some threats that (R)eason enthroned can pose to all of our liberties, or at least, the radical and revolutionary ideologues who often profess Reason/Anti-Reason as their guide; seeking immediate social change and influence.

What kinds of people join social justice movements and believe/claim to believe righteously and truly in such causes?   How much of what they say is true?

How might they fit into a broader framework of ‘-isms,’ often seeking radical equality (of outcome) and collective liberation from dominatory oppression?  What potential cost is there to all of our liberties, traditions, and institutions regarding this particular raft of ideas?

—-

Intellectually, as this blog has noted, there is often a watered-down Hegelianism at work in many movements seeking radical and revolutionary freedom (the master/slave dialectic and the absolute idealism providing intellectual foundation for much of what is called cultural relativism these days, which provided foundation for the Marxism and post-Marxism found in such movements).

Here’s Peterson being questioned by a group as to the merits of his ideas:


As to demands for the use of non-gendered pronouns (which is currently trending): I will say that I have sympathy for people on the margins, people with few options and not many opportunities,  people who face uphill battles, and sometimes genuine threats of physical violence.

That said, I don’t enjoy the idea of playing a game I can’t win.  More speech, not less, is the means to arrive at more truth. Allowing the people you actually fear the freedom to express their ideas allows more sunlight into civil society. I loathe the use of force and the desire to control the thoughts, language and minds of others.

I loathe it even more when it is used as part of a program which attacks our institutions and the legitimate authority required to maintain our institutions, and thus, many of our freedoms.

I most loathe it when it is used to treat other individuals as objects of scorn and oppression, or to shout them down in righteous anger.

Have you learned nothing?

***One rebuttal to the above, of course, would be Hayekian:  There is no knowledge that would allow any person or group of persons to centrally plan a language any more than there is knowledge for anyone to centrally plan an economy (yes, you can compile a dictionary a la Samuel Johnson but, no, Esperanto is probably something of a top-down, rationalistic pipe-dream).


As to those Canadian Human Rights Commissions, as previously posted:

Here are {Ezra} Levant’s opening statements during his investigation:

———————————

Levant was fighting what he saw as an infringement upon his freedom of speech by the Human Rights Commission of Alberta. As editor of the Western Standard, Levant published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, and found himself investigated by, in his words, “a kangaroo court.”

Originally, a letter was written by Syed Soharwardy, an imam living in Alberta, to the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Soharwardy claimed that the cartoons were morally offensive to the religion of Islam. Levant believed his decision to publish the cartoons was protected by Canadian law, and that Soharwardy found a path to legal action (at the expense of Canadian taxpayers) through the Human Rights Commission because no one else would take Soharwardy’s claims seriously.

One of Levant’s main concerns seems to be the the way in which someone like Soharwardy, (with unchallenged religious beliefs, and illiberal ideas of social freedom), has infringed upon his freedoms through an institution like the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

———————————————–

Heading towards a theme, here’s Mark Steyn discussing complaints brought against Macleans, Canada’s largest publication, by the President of the Canadian Islamic Congress (who sent three representatives) to TVOntario. They were upset at the pieces Steyn had published there. The complaints went through the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for alleged “Islamophobia” and “promoting hate:”

————————————–

Pretty heated.

Again, the focus here is not whether Islam is a religion whose followers would eventually clash with the idea of separation of church and state, and/or identify with a larger global pan-Muslim population at the expense of their adopted countries. That’s a different debate. We know that here in America, they are granted a space created by our Constitution for freedom of religion in the public square and no specific religious test for office. They must follow our laws and are protected by them. Living and working alongside one another has its benefits and I generally favor the melting pot approach.

The debate here focuses on the effect that multiculturalism, the human rights crowd, and the public sentiment behind them can have upon freedom of expression when Human Rights Commissions are allowed legal recourse to settle this kind of dispute. This is one of the consequences of those ideas in action, and it’s not exactly liberal. It’s the multicultural solution, and it can be absolutely chilling on speech, placing onerous financial burdens on citizens, and it can create a sort of shadow court with aims of its own (if not jurisdiction) operating alongside the regular courts.

We’re not anywhere near Choudary territory yet, but remember that Nidal Hasan, the Ft. Hood shooter, had some problems with “workplace violence”. Most multiculturalists really don’t see a problem with their approach.

***A friend points out that the illiberal tendencies of the Muslim complainants in both cases and the illiberalism of the multiculturalists is a good fit. Just don’t be a Canadian on the receiving end.

***This also helps to confirm the libertarian contention that libertarians are the true classical liberals, and modern liberalism has followed the logic of moral relativism, a lot of Continental, New Left, neo-Marxist influences in feminism and race theory which lead to an unhealthy desire to control and be controlled by the State, which will grow larger and larger.

Also On This Site: From The BBC-Kurt Westergaard: ‘Cartoonist Attacker In Danish Court’

Repost-From Beautiful Horizons: ‘Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ramadan at the 92nd Street Y’

Virtual Philosophy has a series on free speech and some links and notes to J.S. Mill’s ‘On Liberty’ among others. Is Mill’s utilitarianism enough?: From virtual philosopher: ‘Free Speech: notes and links for course at Free Word Centre’

A British Muslim tells his story, suggesting that classical liberalism wouldn’t be a bad idea…as a more entrenched radical British Left and Muslim immigration don’t mix too well: From Kenanmalik.com: ‘Introduction: How Salman Rushdie Changed My Life’Via YouTube: ‘Christopher Hitchens Vs. Ahmed Younis On CNN (2005)’

Free speech (used both well and unwell) meets offended Muslims: Mohammad Cartoonist Lars Vilks HeadbuttedDuring Lecture’From The OC Jewish Experience: ‘UC Irvine Muslim Student Union Suspended’From Volokh: ‘”South Park” Creators Warned (Threatened) Over Mohammed’

Repost-Eugene Volokh At The National Review: ‘Multiculturalism: For or Against?’Theodore Dalrymple Still Attacking Multi-Culturalism In BritainFrom The Volokh Conspiracy: Multiculturalism As A Traditional American Value

The Woes Of Harrisburg-Boondogglin’ Away

From The City Journal: ‘The Lessons Of Harrisburg

It’s a little strange having spent many years growing-up near a place, and then hearing how badly it’s been managed:

‘A Pennsylvania newspaper once described Reed as a mayor who “never met a bond deal he didn’t like.” Give a politician the chance to pile up debt on favored projects without answering directly to voters, and no one should be surprised if he takes advantage of it. That’s why the history of state and local finance is filled with reform moments.’

Much of this transcends party politics and goes more to political power, bad management and collective fiddling…

As previously posted:

Full post here.

‘The Harrisburg School District, so impoverished that the state is helping it dig out of its financial and academic woes, has hit a mother lode of tax dollars, evidently due to several years of financial ineptitude.

In early October the district discovered it had nearly $12 million it didn’t know it had until someone started looking closely at the books.’

Perhaps that money will be put to better use than the incinerator and the Wild West museum boondoggle. Perhaps not.

Under new management again, Harrisburg might have a chance to not be as poorly run as Detroit.

Walter Russell Mead takes a look at similarly bankrupt Jefferson County, Alabama, where Birmingham is located:

‘Will the market still lend to cities after they’ve gone bankrupt?’

Promises made for public employees simply cannot be met in many cases.

Reason used Harrisburg as a model for fiscal failure.

—————-

As to my leanings:

It’s no surprise that Obama’s political and ideological allies are going to hold up California as a cultural/political model.  This lines up with a rather progressive vision of how society ought to be:  Dynamic, creative, tech driven, egalitarian/collectivist if not nearing planned models of equality.  Such a society has generous social programs, high taxes, and lots of environmental laws on the books.  Public sector unions are big and politically powerful and diversity for its own sake is often held as the highest ideal around.

At the end of the day, it’s a lot more to do with political ideology, money, and over-promising; and much less to do science, art, the next social program etc.

During the last election, a similar vision was sold to the broader electorate as the best way forward for America, for the ’middle-class,’ for the old democratic union base, for black folks, for minorities, for Northeastern democrats and the gentry liberal/multicultural elite in our cities, for the 60′s boomer idealists/NPR class/liberal youth vote in and around many universities and in the suburbs.

And from Michael Lewis’ piece in Vanity Fair, interviewing Vallejo, California mayor, it can get ugly:

“We’re all going to be rich,” he says. “We’re all going to live forever. All the forces in the state are lined up to preserve the status quo. To preserve the delusion. And here—this place—is where the reality hits.”

You can’t outrun that.

Related On This Site:  Walter Russell Mead takes a look at the blue model from the ground up in NYC to argue that it’s simply not working.  Check out his series at The American Interest.

Richard Epstein At Defining Ideas: ‘City Planners Run Amok’Virginia Postrel At Bloomberg: ‘How The Elites Built America’s Economic Wall’.

How much of a role does government have to play?:  Francis Fukuyama Interviews Peter Thiel-’A Conversation With Peter Thiel’

Dream big: Via Reason: ‘California’s Public Transportation Sinkhole’

A great city deserves great art extravaganzas…: L.A.’s New Public Art Piece ‘The Levitated Mass,’ Or As The American Interest Puts It: ‘A Moving Rock’

California’s anti-immigration, anti-union Democrat: Full video and background on Mickey Kaus here.

Richard Epstein At The Hoover Institution’s Defining Ideas: ‘California’s Kafkaesque Rent Control Laws’

California Dreamers From The Atlantic-A Brief Review Of Kevin Starr’s History Of California

A Few Links And Thoughts On Same-Sex Marriage

I think Richard Epstein, classically liberal/libertarian law/economics thinker, gets a lot of this right:

‘It doesn’t take a weatherman to tell which way public opinion blows. The huge uptick of support for same-sex marriage has been described as swift and broad, to which we can add, in all likelihood, lasting.

In my view, every time the defenders of the traditional view of marriage speak in public on behalf of a ban, they lose the support of neutral third parties. The problem is that they are trying to tell other people how they should lead their own lives, and are using the power of the state to do it. Their justifications are far from compelling. They talk about the need for procreation in marriage, though many straight married couples use contraceptives. They talk about the risks to parenting, when there is no evidence that suggests that gay and lesbian couples are worse parents, especially when compared to dysfunctional couples in traditional marriages or single parents of limited financial means. Their arguments against same-sex marriage thus fall flat to modern ears, so that the basic support for same-sex marriage only grows.’

Perhaps I’m more amenable than Epstein to laws stemming from the moral authority of those who remain principled actors upon religious belief (a less influential cohort in the higher rungs of American society these days).  Like Epstein, however, I find many of the reasons such folks give lacking, and falling on deaf ears.

While I may not agree with the Catholic view of homosexuality and really would prefer a live and let live attitude with more freedom for more people, I also think when it comes to how people actually behave, the importance of limiting principles regarding power and authority and having well-reasoned laws etc., the religious view of human nature can be quite accurate.

This may well stem from my own flaws, so naturally, take such paragraphs with a grain of salt.

============================

If I understand Michael Sandel at the end of this video as part of his online Harvard lecture series ‘Justice’ correctly,  perhaps there is no way to ultimately separate the teleological arguments (ends) from the practical ones:  Questions about justice, law, civic duty and obligation to future generations; questions about people’s beliefs examined and unexamined, reasons carefully reasoned and reasons blindly followed, all will contribute to the kinds of laws we have on the books.

Personally, I don’t know anyone who isn’t full of ‘oughts’, guiding principles, things they know that ain’t so, cherished beliefs and conflicting commitments in life.  To some extent, we’re all subject to sharing the prevailing opinions and ideas of the people we live around, even if those opinions aren’t enshrined in law nor shared by the majority.  Ideas have a logic and consequences of their own.

============================

Two reasons put forward in defense of traditional marriage are as follows (part of a smaller religious minority at Harvard, it seems):  For the sake of procreation and for the purpose of forming a union between man and woman.

Click through for the rest of the debate if you have the time.

As I suspect we’ve seen during the last few generations, the Catholic and more broadly Christian religious ideas woven into American culture, laws and institutions are much less woven than they have been.

Americans keep being assured of other teleological ends (progress, increasing tolerance and inclusion, ever-expanding freedom and rights etc.) but when it comes to how to live and be free, I’d rather observe what people do, not what they say, especially when they want/have power and authority.

Cathy Young At The Daily Beast-‘Columbia Student: I Didn’t Rape Her’

Full piece here.

You may remember the girl with the mattress.

The girl with the mattress is actually a ‘mattress artist.’ She appeared at the State Of The Union, at the invitation of U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, from NY, dragging the mattress along (with her, on campus, as a symbol of her alleged rape).

Precisely because rape is such a horrible crime, next to murder, really, is the main reason not to leave it in the hands of activists alone. Activism, with its roots in ideology, often relies on emotion and outrage to advance its aims, and tends toward questionable use of statistics, and well, can lead to outcomes which violate people.

I can’t speak to the facts, nor what happened, but let’s say it was the secular witching hour, and many media outlets up to the President have reasons to incentivize this kind of behavior.

Young:

‘Yet this case is far from as clear-cut as much of the media coverage has made it out to be. And if Nungesser is not a sexual predator, he could be seen as a true victim: a man who has been treated as guilty even after he has proved his innocence.’

***We’ll probably never know what happened.

Cathy Young At Minding The Campus: ‘The Brown Case: Does It Still Look Like Rape?

Gender equity feminists are what I take Thomas Sowell to mean by ‘intellectuals’ and include many ‘intellectuals’ who use statistics to often justify preconceived ideas….which is…often misusing statistics:

———————

These are pretty much the kinds of policymakers finding a listening ear and ideological ally in the White House right now:

——————–

Related LinksChristina Hoff Sommers (wikipedia) is trying to replacing gender feminism with equity feminism. She also wrote The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men.

Are You Man Enough? Nussbaum v. MansfieldFrom The Harvard Educational Review-A Review Of Martha Nussbaum’s ‘Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education.’

Defending Eliot Spitzer…as a man who ought to be free of prostitution laws…but didn’t he prosecute others with those same laws?: Repost: Martha Nussbaum On Eliot Spitzer At The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

A very Harvard affair: The Spelke/Pinker debate-The Science Of Gender And Science

Repost-Revisting Larry Summers: What Did He Say Again?

From The NY Times: ‘Harvard Business School Case Study: Gender Equity’

Why Not Just Ban The Burqa?-Some Links

Full post here.

A while ago, Dalrymple wrote concernedly about massive immigration to London, and even more about the British response. He went so far as to compare Britain unfavorably with France.

Britain:

“…is not an ideological state; it has no foundation myths that are easy to identify with…”

According to Dalrymple, French ideological rigidity through the laws may be quite useful in handling the ideological rigidity of the terrorists, and perhaps other not fully assimilated Muslim immigrants. The French have their own brand of integration, after all (making new Frenchman), particularly since the revolution. Eventually too, the enforcement of laws and the ideals of liberte, egalite, fraternite, have the force of the State behind them.

Evidently, some Muslims in France are being raised to believe Islamic laws of blasphemy trump those of the French Republic. Add large ghettos and relatively less social mobility, economic opportunity, and integration, and you’ve got potentially serious problems. Among them, the anti-semitism that Muslims often treat as their birthright, compacted under such pressure, simmering in neighborhoods large enough where a lot of customs from the home countries linger, mutual suspicions and conspiracy theories abound, and where Islam itself can be at odds with post-Enlightenment, post-revolutionary France.

Dalrymple:

“Multiculturalism, that is, is not compatible with the founding Enlightenment mythology of France; assimilation, not integration, is the goal “

And hey, listen, I don’t want to get between the British and the French, but there’s this:

Why do Frenchman piss on the sides of highways?

=========================================

Through American eyes, the French revolutionary esprit seems to manifest itself in different ways, bubbling up into eddies of libertinism, the-intellectual-as-rock-star, that particular brand of French colonialism, deep mistrust of authority, the monarchy, the aristocracy, the Catholic church etc. which the Charlie Hebdo folks kept alive.

On that note, here’s a drunk Serge Gainsbourg letting his intentions be known to Whitney Houston.

Smooth, Serge:

========================================

Well, the French did simply ban the burqa by law, so maybe Dalrymple had a point.

And what about the Anglo-American view?:

Another take: Walter Russell Mead discussed his then new book entitled God and Gold:  Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World.

Maybe there are other options besides Fukuyama’s Hegelian end point of history, and Huntington’s Clash Of Civilizations with regard to our current dealings with the Islamic resurgence and its anti-modern, anti-Western, theocratic impulses (liberal internationalism and Obama’s foreign policy have certainly created problems, but there are underlying issues the West will face):

Mead argues that religion, government, free-trade, capitalism, sport, and especially naval power have shaped our two cultures which have thus shaped the world (an [economic] model he suggests originally came from the Dutch).

Likely worth your time.

Related On This Site: It seems like one point of discussion is what kind of Western ideas lead the debate:  Some Quotations From Leo Strauss On Edmund Burke In ‘Natural Right And History’Paul Berman At The New Republic: ‘From September 11 to the Arab Spring: Do Ideas Matter?’…french Liberte?: Charlie Rose Episode On Libya Featuring Bernhard Henri-Levy, Les Gelb And Others

Yes, Edmund Burke opposed the French Revolution: Sunday Quotation: Edmund Burke On The French Revolution..

Surprise! Sex Sells, But Do We Need Legalized Prostitution?

Reihan Salam at Slate: ‘It’s Time For Legalized Prostitution:

Apparently, it’s not time:

‘So will Americans soon start clamoring for legalized prostitution? I doubt it, because it’s going to be very hard for people to stop looking down on those who buy and sell sex.’

Along the knife’s edge of sexual revolution can be found many an ideologue to whom the idea of liberation (sexual and otherwise) goes hand-in-hand with ideology. To them, your freedom to buy and sell sex would be part of a much larger project of ideological liberation from opposing historical forces and foes such as the Catholic church, the Puritan roots of America, the ‘Patriarchy,’ the squares, the bourgeoisie etc.

Apart from actual radicals, activists and ideologues, however, everyone’s got thoughts on prostitution. I’m guessing the idea of legalized prostitution is more popular amongst liberals and some libertarians, artists and the avant-garde, the younger generation and a steady band of older goats and ‘sex-positive’ types (my sympathies on your diagnosis).  Perhaps feelings run highest amongst those with a personal stake in the matter, after all, dear reader, hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.

It’s a complicated issue.

This blog remains open to empirical arguments from the data, and well-reasoned debate, with a lot of skepticism.

Some years ago, Martha Nussbaum tried to bail-out Eliot Spitzer after he was caught visiting a prostitute while also being in charge of prosecuting prostitution laws:

She writes:

“Spitzer’s offense was an offense against his family. It was not an offense against the public. If he broke any laws, these are laws that never should have existed and that have been repudiated by sensible nations.”

Maybe the U.N. could have drafted a hooker human-rights charter to trump local laws?

As usual, this blog is concerned with the potential for Statism, the deployment of not just science but scientism, not just reasonable arguments but a lot of rationalism as well, with a slavish devotion to experts, a trendy desire to be like Europe, brochures and bureaucrats to fill the hole (ahem).  Many secular humanist ideals are claimed to be universal ideals, which is enough to back our way into a lot of illiberal institutions.

There’s none quite so moralistic as those who’ve fought to overthrow some other forms of moral judgment.

On that note, here are some related videos for your viewing pleasure:

Did the 60’s counter-culture and the conservative counter-counter culture both win, in a sense?

Christopher Hitchens, William F. Buckley and Peter Robinson discuss below, including the sexual revolution:

—————————

Here’s a good cover of Simon & Garfunkel’s ‘The Boxer,’ which includes the lines:

‘Asking only workman’s wages I come looking for a job…but I get no offers…just a come-on from the whores on 7th avenue…’

Turns out Paul Simon was reading the Bible a lot while writing the lyrics.

James Delingpole At Richochet: ‘Adios Scientific Method’

Podcast here (~37.00 min long).

Delingpole, a British libertarian and anti-environmentalist, interviews Jim Steele, a conservationist who’s worked in the Sierra Nevada who has come to doubt the motives, science and incentives of many people claiming to speak for nature and science.

A heretic?

That’s probably too strong a word and there’s some hyperbole and some ideological rigidity on Delingpole’s part during the interview, but I found myself agreeing with both men often.

———————————

As this blog likes to point out, there are many ideological discontents to whom green is a good fit apart from the natural world and the sciences:  It’s become a touchstone for many secular humanists, statists and collectivists (including some extreme anti-humanists and radical activists). I’ve come across some anti-theists as well as ex-nihilists and rationalists who want to see (R)eason enthroned while flirting with dangerous totalitarian impulses. At environmental protests, it’s not hard to find your garden-variety anti-industrialists and anti-corportatists either.

The list is long.

I’m guessing there’s a large pool of sentiment that drives many to align their pre-existing emotional and ideological commitments to green causes. Some of these people knowingly or unknowingly seek to supplant even science in the name of progress and their ideology.

Whatever you may think about conservation and your relationship with the natural world (beyond value judgments?), the environmental movement has become big business, big politics, and big money.

 

From Youtube Via Reason: ‘Robert Zubrin: Radical Environmentalists And Other Merchants Of Despair’

——————-

How to separate reasonable environmentalism from the authoritarian impulses, the Malthusians and various other people who “know” how many people is enough?  Now that environmentalism is a primary focus in our schools, it’s probably worth thinking about.

Reason’s Hit & Run piece here.

Related On This Site:  Jonathan Adler At The Atlantic: ‘A Conservative’s Approach to Combating Climate Change’ Monbiot invokes Isaiah Berlin and attacks libertarians:  From George Monbiot: ‘How Freedom Became Tyranny’A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty”

Instead of global green governance, what about a World Leviathan…food for thought, and a little frightening…there are other sources rather than Hobbes: At Bloggingheads Steven Pinker Discusses War And Thomas Hobbes

Ronald Bailey At Reason: ‘Delusional in Durban’A Few Links On Environmentalism And Liberty

From Erica.Biz: ‘Dear California: I’m Leaving You. Here’s Why…’

Full post here.

It made the rounds a while back, but still worth a read.

‘California just isn’t worth it. My priorities have changed. I value income freedom and flexibility more than I value living near the beach. I value having a paid-off house I can call “home” more than I value having a half-million-dollar noose around my neck that declines in value by the day.’

The coast controls the legislature, and the public sector unions, greens, progressives and various lobbyists and activist groups have made living in California prohibitively expensive for many businesses, families, and the private sector.  In short, they’re hollowing out the tax base, and many people have chosen to leave.

Culturally, California has often been ahead of the curve, which would translate poorly for our nation’s fiscal health:  Environmentalism, multiculturalism and diversity, and the folks whom I call fiscally irresponsible egalitarians have been making cultural inroads across America.   They tend to define the public in Left-Of-Center fashion, heavy on the equality side of the equality/freedom equation for the sake of this discussion.

Thus, beneath such a definition of the public, public goods such as utilities, basic services, and education end up being controlled by those who can often end up free riding on the public good: public sector unions, a host of questionably important environmental regulators choking out businesses and jobs, and the worst kind of educrat who determines budgets and hiring.

The ideals guiding this definition of the public and public good clearly place impossible demands upon our institutions, which our institutions can’t practically live up to given the realities of human nature and economic scarcity.  Ironically, those who wanted more equality often end up with less equality.  Getting ahead for many people who end up in charge is still about who they know, luck, making political connections, and money, but now there are fewer people to know, more politicians and interest groups controlling the money supply while aiming for reelection, and less money all around because you’ve driven the productive people out.

More liberty isn’t a bad first step to remedy the situation, but don’t expect too much of California politics in the near future.

So goes California, so goes the nation?

———————-

-A link for Michael Lewis’ article about California politics, public pensions and Schwarzenegger’s time in office.

-A map from Immodest Proposals on how to divide California.  Topographic crime map of San Francisco. 

-California’s anti-immigration, anti-union Democrat: Full video and background on Mickey Kaus here.

Related On This Site: Neo-conservatism partially came out of the increasingly liberal trends in our society, as folks get ‘mugged by reality,” and the response to those liberal trends.  There is always a sharp edge to people, their affairs, and the groups they form:  Victor Davis Hanson Via Youtube Via Uncommon Knowledge: ‘The New Old World Order’Victor Davis Hanson At The City Journal: ‘California, Here We Stay’

Dream big: Via Reason: ‘California’s Public Transportation Sinkhole’ A great city deserves great art extravaganzas…: L.A.’s New Public Art Piece ‘The Levitated Mass,’ Or As The American Interest Puts It: ‘A Moving Rock’

Richard Epstein At The Hoover Institution’s Defining Ideas: ‘California’s Kafkaesque Rent Control Laws’

California Dreamers From The Atlantic-A Brief Review Of Kevin Starr’s History Of California

The people who promise solutions to poverty and homlessness seem to be engaged in a utopian cost-shifting exercise which favors their interests and overlooks crime, violence and personal responsbility…hardly a way to balance the budget: Repost-Heather MacDonald At The City Journal: ‘The Sidewalks Of San Francisco’

Some concentrated wealth on top, a stalled legislature with members who know how to play the game…and a service sector beneath…that probably can’t go on forever: …From The WSJ: ‘Joel Kotkin: The Great California Exodus’