Maybe because there’s zero incentive to move to a place full of unhappy people? The more interesting question is whether places like Korea, Japan, and Iceland, which have very little ethnic diversity, are happier for their having achieved a comfortable standard living without diversity than with.

If the idea is that the U.S. will inevitably slide toward second-world status if the whole place comes to look a lot more like California and Arizona demographically

I think the argument is more that if you replace the natives with Latin Americans from dystopian hellholes, then your country will turn into something rather like a dystopian Latin American hellhole, rather than the comparatively pleasant place it may be at the moment. There’s nothing magic about the borders of the US, after all. Political culture is about people, not borders. Now, whether it’s necessarily true that switching out the populations leads directly to that result is debateable. Perhaps the country’s institutions are strong enough that they’ll leave their imprint on foreign peoples as much as natives. But it’s silly to pretend that the other possibility simply doesn’t exist.

The other issue, of course, is that the country belongs to the natives, and while it might please us to govern their country otherwise, it is, when it comes right down to it, their country and no one else’s. And one ought to respect that. If we don’t like it, we can go elsewhere. They, for the most part, can’t — they’ve only got the one homeland.

Maybe because there’s zero incentive to move to a place full of unhappy people? The more interesting question is whether places like Korea, Japan, and Iceland, which have very little ethnic diversity, are happier for their having achieved a comfortable standard living without diversity than with.

If the idea is that the U.S. will inevitably slide toward second-world status if the whole place comes to look a lot more like California and Arizona demographically

I think the argument is more that if you replace the natives with Latin Americans from dystopian hellholes, then your country will turn into something rather like a dystopian Latin American hellhole, rather than the comparatively pleasant place it may be at the moment. There’s nothing magic about the borders of the US, after all. Political culture is about people, not borders. Now, whether it’s necessarily true that switching out the populations leads directly to that result is debateable. Perhaps the country’s institutions are strong enough that they’ll leave their imprint on foreign peoples as much as natives. But it’s silly to pretend that the other possibility simply doesn’t exist.

The other issue, of course, is that the country belongs to the natives, and while it might please us to govern their country otherwise, it is, when it comes right down to it, their country and no one else’s. And one ought to respect that. If we don’t like it, we can go elsewhere. They, for the most part, can’t — they’ve only got the one homeland.

And remember: la mitraille is grapeshot, not the machinegun, which is la mitrailleuse. I’m sure the Iron Duke would have giggled like a six-year-old at the invention of actual automatic weapons. “People power?” he would have said. “What is this people power? We have the Maxim-gun, and they have not.”

Regards, and thanks for an entertaining conversation…

And remember: la mitraille is grapeshot, not the machinegun, which is la mitrailleuse. I’m sure the Iron Duke would have giggled like a six-year-old at the invention of actual automatic weapons. “People power?” he would have said. “What is this people power? We have the Maxim-gun, and they have not.”

Regards, and thanks for an entertaining conversation…

Bancroft is indeed, simply out to lunch. I would point to the economic success of the U.S. in the 20th Century and the mass prosperity enjoyed by millions, and I would tell him that statements like this: “A fluctuating currency is bad for all but the speculative, who are but a handful among millions” is disproved by the actual experience of the 20th Century. Of course, if Ron Paul is right, our eventual doom is just around the corner, but I would also characterize Mr. Paul as “out to lunch” (although I’m not so quick to dismiss Paul mainly because I have such high respect for John Derbyshire, who is something of a Ronulan himself).

Ironically, I agree with the good Duke when it comes to crime in urban America — this shouldn’t be surprising since I consider myself a neocon and think that Rudy’s achievement in NYC with respect to the crime rate is a public policy achievement worthy of the good Duke himself.

But I fear our little back and forth is hijacking Will’s wonderful blog, so I promise to suck it up and begin checking you out over at “Unqualified Reservations” on a regular basis and perhaps we will meet again on your home turf.

Bancroft is indeed, simply out to lunch. I would point to the economic success of the U.S. in the 20th Century and the mass prosperity enjoyed by millions, and I would tell him that statements like this: “A fluctuating currency is bad for all but the speculative, who are but a handful among millions” is disproved by the actual experience of the 20th Century. Of course, if Ron Paul is right, our eventual doom is just around the corner, but I would also characterize Mr. Paul as “out to lunch” (although I’m not so quick to dismiss Paul mainly because I have such high respect for John Derbyshire, who is something of a Ronulan himself).

Ironically, I agree with the good Duke when it comes to crime in urban America — this shouldn’t be surprising since I consider myself a neocon and think that Rudy’s achievement in NYC with respect to the crime rate is a public policy achievement worthy of the good Duke himself.

But I fear our little back and forth is hijacking Will’s wonderful blog, so I promise to suck it up and begin checking you out over at “Unqualified Reservations” on a regular basis and perhaps we will meet again on your home turf.