Get the Ricochet app

Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

Download on the App StoreGet it on Google Play

Become a member.

Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.

Deadly Combinations

Rodin
@Rodin
Join to bookmark31likesJoin to like51comments

I think it was Milton Friedman who said (or something nearly this): "You can have a welfare state or open borders, but not both." It is a deadly combination.

But it isn't the only deadly combination:

You can have political activity by civil servants or employment protection for civil servants, but not both.

You can have DEI hires or employment protection, but not both.

You can have a stable constitution or activist judges, but not both.

The theory behind all of these statements is that you can adapt and create protections to the larger society for either condition, but not when both are present.

This is a starter list. What are your "deadly combinations"?

This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.

Discussion (51)

  • Misthiocracy has never@Misthiocracy

    Some have argued that the situation in Scandinavia suggests that there's a corollary to Friedman's aphorism: Increased immigration helps create the impetus to reduce the welfare state.

    So the reasoning goes, as the scandinavian countries have become less culturally homogeneous they have also backed away from their more socialist tendencies.

    Is it a causal relationship, or merely correlation? I dunno.

  • MarciN@MarciN
    ReplyingtoMisthiocracy has never

    Misthiocracy has never (View Comment):

    Some have argued that the situation in Scandinavia suggests that there’s a corollary to Friedman’s aphorism: Increased immigration helps create the impetus to reduce the welfare state.

    So the reasoning goes, as the scandinavian countries have become less culturally homogeneous they have also backed away from their more socialist tendencies.

    Is it a causal relationship, or merely correlation? I dunno.

    That seems counterintuitive, but it matches a similar pattern in my own town.

    When I first moved here, the townspeople were interested in improving the school district's facilities and the staff. Over time, however, it became harder and harder to pass school budget increases. What had happened in that time period was a demographic shift. The local real estate offices were promoting the area as a retirement area. So people were moving here from all over the country. At the same time, the town was increasing its supply of affordable housing, and that attracted low-skilled seasonal employees from all over the country (and the world--one of our principals said that there were 35 languages spoken in his middle school). I realized that the taxpayers no longer knew the kids. They honestly didn't care about them very much.

    In the original small New England town, everyone knew everyone else. You wanted your neighbors' kids to have a good day at school and a good education. You enjoyed their achievements. You didn't mind the school taxes because you were part of something. You were building something.

    The Scandinavian study is the first time I've ever seen any evidence that my instincts might have been right. It's really interesting.

Scroll for later comments
+46 more comments
Join the conversation

You're seeing five of 51 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.