Government and Global Warming

Preventing the disastrous effects of global warming is a goal that the government should continue to pursue.

There may be some natural cause of global warming that has nothing to do with humans, but we can't prove it.

But the fact is there is a lot of pollution caused by humans. It's obvious. It's all around us.  I'm guilty; you're guilty.  Can anyone say they haven't polluted at all? 

We have a responsibility to take good care of our planet for the sake of our children and grandchildren. 

Unfortunately it's natural to continue doing what is comfortable and hope that someone else is recycling or inventing some magical device to clean up all the damage we've done so far.  It's not natural to deprive ourselves of our pollution-causing conveniences because any individual doing so will be placing him or herself at a disadvantage compared to the other people on the planet who will not make the same sacrifice. A person who decides to make a life change and stop polluting is like a drop of water at the side of the river. That drop stops but the river of humanity will continue polluting as long as its the path of least resistance.

Individual change is not enough. Our entire civilization needs to change in some ways in order to preserve our beautiful planet. 

We may not be able to adequately clean up the damage we've already done but we need to try and we can also try to cause less damage in the future.

The government is the only organization with the power to restrain our collective behavior so we can redirect the river of humanity to a safe destination.

We'll need to combine advancements in technology with social pressure.

Some changes, like having separate trash, recyclable, and green waste cans for weekly pickup have already happened in many parts of the country.   This is a kind of change has a small impact on each individual participating but a large positive impact on the environment.  It's very good.

We may also need to make big changes in how we live, where we choose to work, how we travel, how we manufacture goods, how we generate electricity, and so on.  I believe that such big changes will probably not happen until some disaster occurs that strikes fear and pain into the hearts of people everywhere, enough to spur the survivors to make a big change.  People will then come up with a social solution that will prevent such a disaster from happening again, or at least protect them in some way from the damage of a similar future disaster. 

If we're capable of inventing such social solutions tomorrow, we're capable of inventing them today.  Why not implement today the solutions that will prevent or limit tomorrow's disaster?  The individual answer is because we can't see that it's needed... after all, life is still going on. It's the drop in the river mentality. But if the government were to help this along, we may accomplish something.

So what's better?  Letting the government shape our behavior to reduce pollution or enjoy our freedoms while they last and let our grandchildren deal with the consequences?   And if we choose to shape our behavior, how are we going to influence the rest of the world so that our nation as a whole is not just a drop in the river?

Freedom To Move (follow-up #2)

It's not just about employment.  

I do believe we should have a far more open immigration policy.  But I also believe that assimilation is a key component of sustainable immigration, and that currently only a small fraction of our immigrants are assimilating. 

Our free market operates in a system with certain values.  It needs protection from bribery, price fixing, insider trading, and other practices that erode free markets.  The larger the portion of the population is that doesn't share the values that make our free market system work,  the more our free market system will be at risk. 

There's a lot more at stake here than the price of strawberries.  Throughout history, all around the world, struggles between cultures end in a lot of violence.  We need to make sure we accept these immigrants properly, and that includes a solid USA cultural education and assimilation. 

Sadly, we've failed to educate even our own youth about the values that make our system work.   The last 50 years of political activity in this country shows that we are not the USA that we used to be...

Freedom to Move (follow-up)

Cooley wrote specifically about peaceful immigrants who respect our laws and customs, who assimilate. Throwing rocks at law enforcement is neither peaceful not respectful of our laws and customs.

The free market doesn't need protection from Cooley's immigrants.  The free market needs protection from everyone who doesn't understand and respect the values that make a free market work.  Price-fixing, insider trading, monopolies, bribery, and rock-throwing are some examples of actions that can turn a free market into an oppressive market.  Immigrants who don't assimilate are just one group who can eventually erode our free market system.  Corrupt politicians, for example, are another group that can and has attempted to destroy free markets, and that's one reason we have laws against bribes.

We don't have an effective system in place to help peaceful and respectful immigrants to learn our customs.  Those who manage do so because of their own strong character. We also don't have an effective system of deporting non-assimilating immigrants. Or non-assimilating natives for that matter.  Which means that we have a growing segment of the population who doesn't respect our laws and customs.  

In my opinion, only a small fraction of the Mexican immigrants are assimilating.  The rest are simply occupying our land.  

The Mexican immigrant population has a birth rate higher than the general population.  It's already a significant population in California.  Certainly not a minority.   There will come a time when a large Mexican immigrant population will demand changes to our laws that are are contrary to our culture and customs, but consistent with theirs.   At that time, most of them will be citizens by birth. 

Then we will figure out that,  although we shared our land with them, they are not willing to share it with us.  We'll either have to give up large portions of the southwest or fight to take them back.  There won't be a peaceful solution, just as there wouldn't be one today if we tried to take northern Mexico.

Just as there won't be a peaceful solution to a similar problem in Europe and the Middle East, where Arabs with different value are immigrating with no intent to share.

Just as our own native American Indians didn't have a peaceful solution to deal with the European invaders, who came with different values and no intent to share.

Without assimilation, which is a key component of Cooley's argument, the strongest culture will win.  It may not be ours in the form it has today.  I believe that, if we arrive at such a future, we will have to reinvent ourselves in order to survive.  If we do prevail, the culture we will have then is the culture we should have had today.

Our free market needs protection from anyone who would exploit it and destroy it, whether intentionally or through ignorance,  whether immigrant or citizen.

On Jun 10, 2010, at 8:49 AM, Sheldon Richman wrote:

Dear Mr. Buhacoff,

The freedom to move that Cooley and Poirot supported is not respected, and so armed government agents hunt down people for nothing more than attempting to peacefully cross a political border. Thus the violence is initiated by the government.

I fail to see how preventing immigrants and American employers from getting together protects the free market.

You can learn more about our views on immigration by searching our archive, which goes back some 50 years.

Thanks for your interest in FEE.

Regards,
Sheldon Richman, Editor

Freedom to Move

Today's newsletter from the Foundation for Economic Education had this story:


Mexican Teenager Killed by U.S. Border Agent
“Mexican leaders on Wednesday condemned the fatal shooting of a Mexican teenager by the U.S. Border Patrol at the border in El Paso, as U.S. officials scrambled to investigate the circumstances surrounding the second killing of a Mexican by a U.S. agent in two weeks. According to preliminary reports from U.S. officials, Border Patrol agents on bicycles were pelted with rocks while trying to apprehend migrants trying to cross illegally from Ciudad Juarez into El Paso…. U.S. officials said an unidentified Border Patrol agent was defending himself as the officers came under attack. The teenager, Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, 15, was shot in the head Monday, according to Mexican officials.” (Washington Post, Thursday)
Another victim of U.S. immigration policy.




My response to the editor:


You need to be clear about just what the hell you mean by "just another victim of US immigration policy."

Are you saying we shouldn't protect our border?  

Are you saying we would be better off with violent, rock-throwing Mexicans crossing into our country?  Are you aware that they don't care about our laws, our customs, our traditions, or our well-being? 

Even Oscar Cooley in his essay wrote,  "and peacefully submitting to the laws and customs of his newly adopted country".   

Throwing rocks at our law enforcement officials is a decidedly non-peaceful protest of our laws and customs, which is currently that all immigrants need to be registered with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

I myself am an immigrant, but I have a naturalization certificate, I vote, I pay taxes, and of course I read and write English (my third language).   I serve in the military and I support our law enforcement.  I don't throw rocks at them.  I carry a passport when I cross our border.

Did you forget that free markets need protection in order to work?

Our American culture is not strong enough to assimilate these immigrants.  We provide, at our own expense, Spanish ballots and Spanish interpreters in courts. This sends the message that our custom of speaking English isn't important, even though its crucial. Without speaking English how will they learn the rest of our customs? Don't think for a minute they can learn them in Spanish.  A language is a very important aspect of culture and if you don't know that you need to study it.  

On May 5th this year there were reports of Mexican flags flying higher than USA flags. That is contrary to our custom of flying the USA flag the same or higher than other flags, as a show of respect for our country and the blood that was spilled to allow us to live freely in it.  They don't know or respect that.  

These Mexican immigrants have a disdain for the United States and its customs, as Arabs have a disdain for Europe and its customs.  

Europe welcomed non-assimilating Arabs, and now they are learning they made a mistake.

Muslims call Europe their occupied territory. Mexicans call California their occupied territory.  

The United States are not their newly adopted country. 

I share the ideal described in Oscar Cooley's essay.   But unlike you, I actually read the essay.

Fred Phelps, Anti-American

He's been going to military funerals with hate messages against homosexuals and all Americans.

Finally a case against Phelps is making its way to the Supreme Court.


In my opinion, a funeral is not a valid forum for hate messages.  Especially a military funeral.

It's ridiculous that we have to legislate basic respect for each other.

We need to protect grieving families from his assault by restricting hate speech near funerals. 


But we need to make sure the protection is adequate. Don't just say "don't make noise at someone else's funeral" because he could still show up with his signs.  It has to be, your message must not be seen or heard within two miles of the funeral.  


Yes, that means if he happens to be "in the neighborhood" he needs to take his hate speech somewhere else.  Not sorry to inconvenience him at all.


And we need to take away non-profit status from his so-called church, which is clearly engaging in distasteful political activism and not religious activities.