Why do a very large percentage of U.S. economists register with and vote for the Democratic Party? Also, if a government has democratic elections, wouldn't that be an argument against letting very large numbers of people into the country who will likely vote to support people who are very socialistic and bring about more socialist and statist policies?
That makes some assumptions about immigrants and why they left. One of the common tropes is that left and right coastees abandon the states they have ruined with their progressive voting patterns, and instead of learning the lesson that progressive policies are what ruined their paradises, they infest their new states with the same policies which ruined the old ones.
This flies in the face of another trope which says immigrants are fleeing despots and will want to preserve the freedoms they came for.
I'd like to see some real studies on both propositions. Colorado has certainly traded its "rugged individualism" for California corruption. Austin has apparently always been weird, but the rest of Texas and most of Florida seem to have weathered the influx without changing.
Regarding pollution, the choices are not limited to government regulation or government taxation.
A book on the history of New York City oysters, details of which I have forgotten but may be "The Big Oyster" by Mark Kulansky, tells of New York City sniffer squads, from the 1800s into the 1900s, tracking down pollution sources and analyzing evidence such as soot on clothes drying outside to show who to sue. This individual responsibility began to be outlawed by courts and legislatures on the grounds it did not take the public good into account; it was up to the government to decide how much pollution the nation could tolerate, and woe betide any individual who thought otherwise (Supreme Court of Georgia, Holman v Athens Empire Laundry Co., 1919: "The pollution of the air, so far as reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of life and indispensable to the progress of society, is not actionable").
That strikes me as pretty good evidence that individuals were doing too good a job of making life miserable for polluters, and like all good cronies, they turned to Big Brother for help.
Why do a very large percentage of U.S. economists register with and vote for the Democratic Party? Also, if a government has democratic elections, wouldn't that be an argument against letting very large numbers of people into the country who will likely vote to support people who are very socialistic and bring about more socialist and statist policies?
That makes some assumptions about immigrants and why they left. One of the common tropes is that left and right coastees abandon the states they have ruined with their progressive voting patterns, and instead of learning the lesson that progressive policies are what ruined their paradises, they infest their new states with the same policies which ruined the old ones.
This flies in the face of another trope which says immigrants are fleeing despots and will want to preserve the freedoms they came for.
I'd like to see some real studies on both propositions. Colorado has certainly traded its "rugged individualism" for California corruption. Austin has apparently always been weird, but the rest of Texas and most of Florida seem to have weathered the influx without changing.
Is it just me or is every reference link broken in the post?
I saw this pretty late but I’d like to rsvp for the meetup if it’s still happening
What if America had Dubai's immigration system?
Regarding pollution, the choices are not limited to government regulation or government taxation.
A book on the history of New York City oysters, details of which I have forgotten but may be "The Big Oyster" by Mark Kulansky, tells of New York City sniffer squads, from the 1800s into the 1900s, tracking down pollution sources and analyzing evidence such as soot on clothes drying outside to show who to sue. This individual responsibility began to be outlawed by courts and legislatures on the grounds it did not take the public good into account; it was up to the government to decide how much pollution the nation could tolerate, and woe betide any individual who thought otherwise (Supreme Court of Georgia, Holman v Athens Empire Laundry Co., 1919: "The pollution of the air, so far as reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of life and indispensable to the progress of society, is not actionable").
That strikes me as pretty good evidence that individuals were doing too good a job of making life miserable for polluters, and like all good cronies, they turned to Big Brother for help.