A Man for No Season in Particular

Avatar

Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki is a research fellow at the Cato Institute and contributor of Cato Unbound. He's on twitter as JasonKuznicki. His interests include political theory and history.

Related Post Roulette

73 Responses

  1. Avatar Kimmi
    Ignored
    says:

    Hilarious. Have a cookie!Report

  2. Avatar Jesse Ewiak
    Ignored
    says:

    Just because land exists means it must be developed. I’m perfectly OK with the idea of there being some land out there that’s just being land, not bought and sold, fenced off, and extracted.Report

  3. Avatar DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    Don’t forget to repeal all the regulations on workplace conditions and minimum wage; otherwise all those new immigrants will be exactly as expensive as the Americans they’re replacing. There is not some Magic Mexican Power that makes them able to work twice as hard as Americans for half the pay.Report

    • Avatar Jason Kuznicki in reply to DensityDuck
      Ignored
      says:

      If we guaranteed to Mexicans the same wages and working conditions we extend to Americans, my guess is we’d get a lot more of them coming over, and they’d probably work a lot more hours.

      Raise the price of labor, the quantity supplied goes up.Report

    • Avatar Kimmi in reply to DensityDuck
      Ignored
      says:

      sure there is! Amusement park workers work 12 hour days without overtime — it’s the farm workers act (they’re classified as seasonal laborers, who don’t make overtime). Magic Mexicans can work 16 hour shifts with no breaks… so long as we only employ them for part of the year. Any job, any labor.Report

  4. Avatar James K
    Ignored
    says:

    Nicely done Jason.

    This line in particular:

    “Sometimes signalling isn’t about signalling,” said the Cynic.

    Report

  5. Avatar E.D. Kain
    Ignored
    says:

    You’re a damn fine writer, Jason.Report

  6. Avatar greginak
    Ignored
    says:

    FWIW there is already a ton of open land in the middle of Alaska which people can buy. Every once in a while someone up here suggests a bunch of libertarians can form there libertopia out in the wilds. For some reason ( well actually a bunch of obvious ones) people don’t seem to do that.Report

    • Avatar Jason Kuznicki in reply to greginak
      Ignored
      says:

      It seems you’re playing it both ways on the value of this land.

      Either it’s very valuable to have it sitting around, untouched, pristine (which, we know, it isn’t).

      Or else it’s so worthless that no one will even buy it on the cheap so that it may sit around, untouched and pristine.

      You can’t have it both ways.Report

      • Avatar greginak in reply to Jason Kuznicki
        Ignored
        says:

        Well i mean there is land that the gov doesn’t own that people can buy. Its not being protected or preserved. Its just brutally cold most of the year, very remote and life is real hard. Very few even want to try it and most don’t stick with it. Of the people i know who do the remote Alaskan life style they are either fairly anti-social or are retirees who have plenty of money. There is plenty of worthless land nobody wants to buy. There is plenty of land people want to buy, often because it is close to pristine preserved wilderness.

        The value in untouched, or minimally touched, wilderness cannot be solely measured in dollars. This makes the argument difficult for everybody. Is the money the only value in the world? Who is losing a job or productivity due to wilderness? Does wilderness have a value, lots of people seem to think so? What do we owe the future in terms of preserving parts of this world for them?Report

    • Avatar dexter in reply to greginak
      Ignored
      says:

      Why don’t they like 60 below with no way to grow anything other than cabbage and carrots. If they change their mind I have a great recipe for moose burgers.Report

  7. Avatar Patrick Cahalan
    Ignored
    says:

    “Perhaps,” said the Cynic, “the followers of the stoic philosophy should be permitted by the state to suffer even more.”

    I laughed for a solid three minutes.Report

    • Avatar Jason Kuznicki in reply to Patrick Cahalan
      Ignored
      says:

      I wish I could claim credit for the underlying idea, but I got it from Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice, chapter 11 p 269-70: “We conscript the able-bodied, men and women deemed capable of bearing the rigors of war. But we punish only the deserving: not those people most able to bear the stigma of punishment or some random selection of them, but those who ought to bear it… If we distributed punishment differently, it would not be punishment at all.”

      And yeah, I laughed out loud at that, too.Report

      • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to Jason Kuznicki
        Ignored
        says:

        By the way, just about every time I start thinking, “Goddamn it, why isn’t Jason participating in the comment threads more, I’d like to know what he thinks about this one,” you pull one of these brilliant bits out (I’m assuming, not out of your ass like I do with most of my writing, because it’s stellar stuff) and I have to forgive you. I hate you for that, you bastard.Report

  8. Avatar Brandon Berg
    Ignored
    says:

    First, a gift of land isn’t going to appeal to people who just want to go on welfare anyway.

    “If you can sell the land, isn’t that equivalent to welfare?” asked the Accountant.Report

  9. Avatar Brandon Berg
    Ignored
    says:

    “No problem!” quoth the Entrepreneur. “I’ve got it all worked out. Just sign here, on the dotted line.”Report

  10. Avatar North
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m bemused at the starry eyed optimism that posits that non/poor-english speaking immigrants in an unfamiliar country would be handing their allotted patches of land to corporations for anything remotely approaching fair market value. Maybe I’m channelling the cynic too much today but I suspect that after the shyster immigrant importer, the crooked land agent and the corporate appraiser had taken their cuts the immigrant would probably get a handshake and a carton of smokes to enjoy while he hitched back to Mexico to jump onto the ride again.

    But it’s beautifully written and funny in any event so bravo.Report

  11. Avatar David Cheatham
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m confused. What exactly is the left not going to like about this idea? I’m on the left, and I think it’s somewhat silly, but if I actually had a vote on it, I’d vote for it, simply to fix immigration.

    The left wouldn’t like the whole ‘losing national lands’, but in reality, we’re already doing that, very cheaply, to mega-corps. If this plan _replaced_ that, then fine, no objection. (Except to ask why we’re limiting it to just immigrants.)

    You seem to think the left wants a ‘strong welfare state’, which we do…but that does not mean ‘a lot of people on welfare’. That just means that welfare should be broad and actually helpful. The left wouldn’t mind if no one was on welfare.

    Well, strictly speaking, _some_ people probably ‘need’ to be on welfare, or we’d stop it. Just like _some_ people ‘need’ to be sick…or we’d close hospitals. Those outcomes would be well and good if all problems have been solved and no one’s ever going to be sick or poor again, but in the real world, it’s not so good. OTOH, in the real world, there will always be sick and poor to start with, so the idea that the left ‘want’ anyone to be that is a bit silly.Report

    • Avatar Jason Kuznicki in reply to David Cheatham
      Ignored
      says:

      I’d thought the extensive development and national land giveaway bits would be more objectionable.

      You’re right, though — there would be no good reason to limit the plan to immigrants.

      The left wouldn’t mind if no one was on welfare.

      I find this difficult to believe, particularly given that welfare eligibility is tied to the poverty line, and that line adjusts upward when the country becomes wealthier. Given current policies, someone will always be eligible for welfare. I can only imagine that most people agree this is how things should be, particularly on the left.Report

      • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Jason Kuznicki
        Ignored
        says:

        I think you misunderstand the point. In a perfect world, there’d be no need for welfare ’cause there’d be no poverty or barring that, private charity would pick up the slack. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, as David said, there will always be poor people, so welfare is needed and there ya’ go.Report

      • Avatar David Cheatham in reply to Jason Kuznicki
        Ignored
        says:

        That’s not really how the poverty threshold is set. It is set at the level where people are ‘lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health’.

        That line does move due to inflation and what we consider ‘sufficient’, but there is nothing, theoretically, stopping every single person from being above that point. (Or, strangely, below that point. If we has a zombie apocalypse, for example, the entire population would probably lack the shelter needed to preserve health, because the requirements for that got much larger, and thus would technically be in poverty.)

        There are other poverty guidelines, for example the EU has ‘people making less than 60% of the median income, but also doesn’t require anyone above it…if the median income is $50,000, then if everyone make $30,000, no one is in poverty. (This standard fails rather horrifically in a recession, though, because the less in general people are paid, the less ‘poverty’ there is.)

        There’s really no poverty guideline that says ‘The lowest 10% are in poverty’, which is the only way what you’re talking about could work. That wouldn’t really make sense, though, because what would it measure? We already know how many people are counted under it!Report

        • Avatar North in reply to David Cheatham
          Ignored
          says:

          Well technically it depends on your definition of poverty because you’re both right. On one hand poverty is a finite line.. on the other hand it’s a formal income level below a line that is defined by the average income in the country. So one definition is somewhat static (though still moving) and the other moves quite a bit both up and down.Report

  12. Avatar Michael Drew
    Ignored
    says:

    Won’t illegal immigration disappear overnight… because you’ve opened the borders? Or does that just mean stopping all enforcement at the border itself – if you cross without papers you’re still committing a crime, you just won’t run into any agents? What is it to “open the borders”?

    And for the record, the plummeting values of land were, if not the first, among the first considerations to cross my mind here.Report

  13. Avatar MFarmer
    Ignored
    says:

    Living in the south most of my life, I’ve always found the idea of over-population in America a strange concern. I can ride for hours through parts of the south and see only a handful of homes. There’s so much space in America, it boggles the mind. I suppose if you grew up in NY or LA you might feel cramped, but America is really wide open — and, on another topic, I think this has a psychological effect on people, depending on where you live. Like in South America where there’s so much space, geographical diversity and tropical surroundings — it creates a different view of the world that has to do with abundance, potential and a sense of freedom. But then controllers in centralized locations mess things up.Report

  14. Avatar Christopher Carr
    Ignored
    says:

    The capitalist seems reasonable, because you made him so.

    “The gains would mostly go to the migrants,” said the Malthusian. I’m not sure anyone describing himself as Malthusian would say this, but I’m also not sure any “Malthusians” actually exist. What would you say if I said that I think your reliance on contrived ideal cases and parables discredits your main point?

    “If we increase our racial diversity, we can expect less in the way of welfare overall.” – I think you’re confusing cause and mechanism here. Perhaps the reason people don’t support welfare benefits for minorities in democratic societies is because people be racist. I mean, in Finland, that poor guy with four kids delivering newspapers as an adult is like an adult and he shouldn’t have to deliver newspapers so we should like make some law that lets him sell insurance of whatever, but, in America, that poor black guy with four kids is lazy because capitalism works.

    “It’s designed to wound everyone’s fake interests, and to get everyone to notice it.” – Definitely, and indeed. But I think readers here are sane, academic dudes, so they’ll definitely agree that academic wounds are not real wounds, but, they’ll also argue that real wounds exist (see explanation above.). Report

    • Avatar Jason Kuznicki in reply to Christopher Carr
      Ignored
      says:

      The capitalist seems reasonable, because you made him so.

      Guilty as charged.

      “The gains would mostly go to the migrants,” said the Malthusian. I’m not sure anyone describing himself as Malthusian would say this, but I’m also not sure any “Malthusians” actually exist. What would you say if I said that I think your reliance on contrived ideal cases and parables discredits your main point?

      I would say:

      1. The Malthusian always pipes up when zero-sum or other doom-and-gloom thinking lurks nearby. Here, he is complaining that we would not benefit existing Americans, only new ones.

      2. There are too Malthusians. Gregory Clark is one of the more prominent.

      3. In pieces like this, I often don’t have a point. This piece is a good example. I like a lot of the policy ideas articulated within it, but I also recognize their problems and try to grapple with them. Bundling them all together creates more problems, and of course I’m aware of it. The point of the bundling is to get people — with me first on the list — to think.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *