Let’s assume, for a moment, that Red and Blue really are inalterable and opposed. It’s not a wise or accurate assumption, but, for the sake of argument, let’s assume just that. What could Democrats do?

Grant McCracken has had a series of posts giving Democrats advice from a semi-disinterested Canadian’s point of view. It’s probably worth a read, left or right. He wants a conversation to really argue sincerely down to first principles in order to build respect for one another. He hopes it isn’t so that there are only a few fundamental, inarguable differences. Free markets can achieve social justice goals, or gay marriage can strengthen families overall.

But pretend for a moment he’s utterly wrong, and there’s no compromise possible on these first principles, but given the shared history and sheer annoyance of it all, you rule out total war or secession (or just giving in, buying a plaid flannel shirt and learning who Michael Waltrip is). What would be a political strategy for Red staters and Blue staters to both get what they want, assuming they still want to live in the same country?

Continue reading →

Well, perhaps I spoke too soon, it looks like some of the Dutch have taken to vigilante action against Muslims and Muslim institutions in Holland. I’d even go so far as to remind them that except for some very sporadic incidents (including the murder of a Sikh, not even a Muslim) that were quickly prosecuted, the aftermath of 9/11/01 in the US where nearly 3000 of us were killed was not very violent.

Remember, wait until you figure out what country may have been involved, and send your military over to do the hurtin’. Then whallop one or two others you noticed on the way in that you never liked anyway. That’s the New European/Transatlantic civilized way. Sigh.

Regardless of who I voted for in Debacle 2004, I still support the idea of fighting back against Islamic terror. My objections are objections over tactics more than the goal. The Dutch of Old Europe are now getting what the difference is: it’s not us versus them, it’s free speech versus Islamicism.

In short, a Dutch director who made a film about the treatment of women under current Islamic traditions was apparently killed for criticizing the way Islam is practiced by much of the umma. His family wanted people to make noise in support of free speech rather than a silent vigil. That’s exactly the right response.

Sadly, this is something that Bush doesn’t get. I’m not convinced Kerry does either, but he at least has made better noises about it so far. But I don’t forget that we are indeed fighting for freedom, and that the most important part of the whole battle is remaining true to that freedom even when it seems tempting to weaken.

You feel me, Ashcroft?

I’ve been meaning for some time to explore the myth and reality of national boundaries, and a post over at Cafe Hayek has prompted me to bring out a piece of it.

Don Boudreaux takes on Samuelson on immigration, and points out that there’s nothing about transnational migration that is different in principle from intranational migration. In other words, there’s nothing you can say about immigration of foreigners that doesn’t apply to Mississippians:

Consider California. It is completely open to people from Mississippi. California’s median household income is a whopping 54% higher than is Mississippi’s. […] Californians enjoy environmental and social amenities — beautiful beaches, snow-capped mountains, fabulous weather, big and exciting cities, professional sports franchises — that Mississippians lack. And yet, despite being free to move to California en masse, Mississippians don’t do so. Nor do West Virginians, or Arkansans, or Alabamians.

The reason is that prices and other economic data govern immigration. Most significantly, immigrants must rent or buy living quarters, and each must find remunerative employment (or live with family members). As demand for living quarters increases, rents and real-estate prices rise — putting a natural economic (and non-coercive) break on immigration. Likewise with job opportunities: if the supply of labor rises and thereby lowers employee pay in those jobs experiencing especially rapid increases in labor supply, the urge to immigrate will be dampened.

You can broaden the argument: any interaction between countries that is governed primarily by non-political forces is going to behave much the same way as interactions between regions inside a country. There’s nothing magical about a country-to-country boundary: you have different political rules among U.S. states, yet the District of Columbia (not even a state) has never emptied out , infested the commonwealth of Virginia, and TOOK AHR JAHRBS.

Similarly, jobs moving from New York to South Carolina are, from the point of view of New Yorkers, identical to those same jobs moving to China. The only difference is that federal taxes are recouped on the (lower) wages paid to South Carolinians but not to Chinese workers. Everything else is the same, except the likely racial makeup of the replacement workers–which provides a hint about the fundamental revulsion people feel about offshoring. Corporate profits are still taxed, and any consumption taxes on the product or service are still collected. Since most of the government services that immediately affect New Yorkers come from state and local taxes rather than federal money, the South Carolina relocation is nearly identical to the Chinese case (and since I once lived in South Carolina, I can tell you the factory workers are equally likely to spend their newfound wealth on a vacation to New York City).

There is only one thing that distinguishes trans-national relations from trans-locality relations: the lack of an authoritative governing legal structure. This makes it harder to sue someone in Bangladesh for negligence. Anything else, up to and including armed conflict, can occur equally between localities within a country. The Sudan is proof of that. Just because New York and New Jersey rarely come to physical violence over their disagreements doesn’t mean intra-national fighting doesn’t occur. You could equally give the example of the U.S. and Canada to “prove” that fighting between nations doesn’t occur.

So the only times that your thinking about borders between countries should differ from your thinking about borders between localities is when the lack of a supra-national governing body (and no, the U.N. doesn’t count) makes some fundamental difference. The more you think about it, the less you’ll find that applies.