Doctor, Are You Pro-Eating More or Anti-Eating More?

Isn't the question itself a bit ridiculous? A decent doctor will say, "Neither: it depends upon the circumstances. Someone can eat too little or too much. I would need to examine the particular case."

But people do not seem to want to think like that on immigration. A society can have too few immigrants, or too many. With none the society tends to stagnate. But with too many civil society itself can be overwhelmed. This seems like it should hardly be controversial, and yet the voices we hear in this debate seem to usually be "all" or "none" voices.

Jonathan Finegold claims: "Generally, people think that immigrants are a burden to the nation they migrate to, but the truth is the exact opposite: they help improve our standard of living."

But isn't the actual truth "It depends"? Let us say so many immigrants had come to the U.S. in the 1920s and 1930s, from socialist-leaning countries, that they were able to vote in a socialist government, wouldn't that have wrecked our standard of living rather than improving it? Or what if they had come in a wave of looters?


  1. Q: Doctor, are you for forcing people to eat more at gunpoint, or forcing them to eat less at gunpoint?
    A: Neither. I think people should be free to eat what they want, though of course I can recommend things.

    Gene: Ideologue! Become empirical man.

    1. I think you are cracking, Bob. It will be painful, but you will feel better when it is over.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Central Planning Works!

Fiat Currency