That's the question Brian Leiter both asks and answers, to the annoyance of David Bernstein (to which I can only reply, "heh heh heh").
First, if we measure things by revealed preferences, i.e., voting with their feet, this seems false. For example, the number of Canadians moving to the U.S. dwarfs the number moving in the opposite direction, and, anecdotally, despite living in cosmopolitan cities I don't recall any American I've met in my entire life permanently settling in Europe, and I would guess the stats would support my impression that immigration is almost entirely westward.
First, if we measure things by revealed preferences we measure error. How many folks do you know with complete enough knowledge to make such a judgment?
Fundamentally, the attraction to the USofA is more like lust than love…not so much "I can't stand not living there" as "Gimme some of the money you've skimmed off the rest of the planet so I can send it back where it came from."
As for not knowing a lot of permanent American expatriates, the discussion thread at Crooked Timber would seem to indicate Bernstein has simply run up against one of Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns.
Posted by P6 at February 10, 2004 11:14 AM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/338
Comments
"First, if we measure things by revealed preferences we measure error. How many folks do you know with complete enough knowledge to make such a judgment? "
Nothing like disqualifying the objective evidence that mitigates against the theory ;o)
Prom, the folks who decided to stay put were also acting on incomplete information. Secondly, due to quirks of the immigration system and the 1965 revised quota system/family preferences it's more difficult to emigrate here legally from France or Germany than Mexico. You'd see a greater exodus from Social-Democracy if the immigration playing field was neutral
Posted by mark safranski at February 10, 2004 12:23 PMNothing like disqualifying the objective evidence that mitigates against the theory
Everyone needs a hobby. Disqualifying the objective evidence that mitigates against theories is mine. ;-)
Plus Bernstein irritates me (if it were Tyler I'd have likely written something even more obnoxious).
the folks who decided to stay put were also acting on incomplete information
Granted.
You'd see a greater exodus from Social-Democracy if the immigration playing field was neutral
Not granted. First of all, the ISofA is a social democracy; we all embrace liberal values to some extent. Plus there's more in play than just economic theory.
Cultures grow from the soil they're planted in, and social democracies are what they are because it's what their citizens want them to be. They reflect the values of those who make up the society. Switzerland is simply more concerned over equal access to public goods (not to mention defining things as public goods) than the USofA is. Universal health care is important to Canadians (who, btw, are on an equal immigration footing with Mexico--ask a Canadian if they want to move to the USofA, all that snow not withstanding); it is becoming so with US citizens…more to the point access at all to medical care is increasingly at issue.
Posted by P6 at February 10, 2004 01:06 PMFine, point taken and accepted. Let's revise the statement to be movement to a less Social-Democratic nations to account for it being a relative scale - it's still less movement now than if we allowed them to move freely ( not saying we should)
Canada and Mexico to a certain extent are apples and oranges due to the degree which Canada's economy is integrated with ours. Canadians, most of whom live within 20 miles of the border, do not have to become US citizens to enjoy most of the economic benefits. We've been relatively wide-open for 200 years.
Mexicans faced far higher restrictive hurdles in working here or working for American companies in Mexico ( both from the US and Mexican law). This is changing however.
Posted by mark safranski at February 10, 2004 01:46 PMFundamentally, the attraction to the USofA is more like lust than love�not so much "I can't stand not living there" as "Gimme some of the money you've skimmed off the rest of the planet so I can send it back where it came from."
I'm not sure I agree with this. Emigration accounts for a modest share of the population of both the EU and the USA; most people settle here for employment, not assistance. European judgements of American society tend to reflect a psychological compensation: their pride is offended by the fact that they can't find work in their home country, so they feel obligated to reassure themselves that Americans are culturally vacuous, morally degraded, and spiritually inferior.
I'm not sure having a social welfare system like that of, say, Canada, would make any difference on that. People migrate inside the USA for career reasons; quite often they believe their quality of life is worsened by the move.
Migration is probably not a conclusive measure because there are so many other reasons to migrate besides the social welfare system. I could be wrong, but I also suspect that the relatively better career opportunies in the USA don't have a direct relationship with social welfare programs in EU member states (unless one means a general tendency for statism; but Canada & Australia don't have a statist industrial policy, while Japan--with its minimal social welfare system--does).
Posted by James R MacLean at February 10, 2004 02:44 PMI do think social programs like those of Canada tend to reduce the security and adminstrative costs of government. Imagine if we had some metric of the level of benefit generated by a particular government program and another for opportunity cost. I suspect such a metric would reveal that the benefit-per-wealth of state spending in Canada is higher, by a lot; less goes to police, prisons, corruption, health care administration, and unnecessary medical procedures than in the USA. So Canadians understandably are less grudging of taxes than Americans would be. Moreover, "bottom" in Canada is an awful lot higher than it is here, meaning there are no neighborhoods like South Central Los Angeles or...I guess you see what I mean.
Essentially, there are big zones of American cities where the state has ceased to function, and now operates as an occupation army. These zones are getting bigger, and occupation there is costlier; the opportunity cost is greater yet. Reclaiming those zones will be EXTREMELY expensive; compared to that, rebuilding Germany after the War will be like applying a coat of paint.
Another, ironic benefit is that if we had never allowed these problems to fester out of control, it seems likely that income redistribution would have been an insignificant component of what the state does; so little would occur it wouldn't be a philosophical issue. Representative government would be perceived as a market for PUBLIC goods and capturing human potential.
And government would be cheaper.
Posted by James R MacLean at February 10, 2004 03:07 PMTell you what, I would not be opposed to a bunch of you and your socialist friends breaking off a portion of the US and forming your own little USSA here. Why do you insist on imposing your utopian vision on everyone, including those who want nothing to do with it? Why do you insist on the monstrous idea that humans are community property and should be corraled into the service of some screwed up ideology for no other reason than for you to feel like you are performing some greater good? If what you believe is truly better, then you are free, along with those who agree with you, to form your own little socialist communities, but don't pretend that forcing me and millions of other people, who have a firm distrust of the massive channeling of power into the hands of a few that the creation of such a system would entail, into your utopian wet dream is anything less than tyranny.
Why can't you be content knowing that YOU are doing some kind of good for the community, rather than forcing everyone, under threat of life and liberty, to follow your conception of the greater good?
Posted by Brian at February 11, 2004 03:38 AMAnd I love how "James R. MacLean" attempts to appeal to the small government conservative sentiment, while barely concealing the fascist implications of his ideas.
Yeah, you view the world and the regulatory state as some kind of twisting knob, where the achievement of the highest level of efficiency is the penultimate goal of state intervention. But at some point the marginal gain in efficiency will involve twisting necks rather than knobs.
Too bad you weren't born 75 years ago. There were many people who marvelled at the efficiency of the fascist system. The question is at what point does individual liberty outweigh the next incremental gain in efficiency? This is a question you have not answered. Is there any case where you'd be willing to sacrifice some level of efficiency if it meant more liberty?
"James R. MacLean" would do well to go read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World to get some idea of what living in a system under which efficiency is the highest aim. Personally, I'd rather be somewhat poorer than insane.
Posted by Brian at February 11, 2004 03:46 AMTell you what, I would not be opposed to a bunch of you and your socialist friends breaking off a portion of the US and forming your own little USSA here.
You mean like this?
Why do you insist on imposing your utopian vision on everyone, including those who want nothing to do with it?
Because those of you who don't want it are a small, distinct (if you'll pardon my placing my metaphorical thumb in your philosophical soup) minority small enough to be written off as the lunatic fringe. Which ain't to say you're crazy, just that there are so very few that DON'T want what you call a welfare state, so few that actually understand what you'd be giving up.
What percentage of the population are registered Libertarians? Has the Free State Project gathered their 20,000 commitments? Your "millions of people" rhetoric has no basis in fact. You are, in fact, those that would impose your will on the majority. By your definition, that makes YOU the tyrants.
I fully support the Free State project. Self-isolation by the vanishingly small set of people who agree with Libertarian extremism would be far less disruptive than restructuring the nation along the lines you suggest. And your reintegration into the mainstream once the project fails from lack of internal support would be straightforward as well. In fact, there are so few real Free Staters that they could simply melt back into the mainstream without the collapse of the project ever being noticed.
Posted by P6 at February 11, 2004 07:12 AMActually, the "twisting knob" phrase comes from a comment thread here. I did indeed use that term to describe a fallacy I think it is wise to avoid. The fallacy is that the choice between small government and large government is like twisting a knob, or control. This is IMO a fallacy.
I think you misunderstood me, thinking that I actually thought that. Hence, immediately after I objected to applying this "control" notion to government, you implied that I was endorsing the super-controlled dystopia Brave New World.
Not surprisingly, I was as appalled as anyone when I read that vision of society. However, I'd recommend you reflect on how the world reached that state in Huxley's masterpiece. Why do you suppose Huxley was afraid this was a danger? Please recall the founding prophet of the "brave new world" was none other than Henry Ford. And you perhaps recall the use of the letter "T" as a pendant, the way people today wear crosses? It's explained in the book--it honors the Model T Ford.
BTW, James R MacLean is my real name.
Posted by James R MacLean at February 11, 2004 01:30 PM