Enterprising young Americans should prepare to leave.

Welcome to debate.org. I look forward to an interesting debate. I will address my points 1 through 4 first, then the Con points, which I will refer to as C1, C2, C3. We have large areas of agreement: that the U.S. is descending into the dull mediocrity of the nanny state, that there is a small possibility of an economic disaster if the nanny state becomes unsustainable, that it is in the best individual interests of young enterprising Americans to prepare to leave, and that there is little individual downside for individuals so preparing to leave. We differ in that Con presumes that the welfare of the majority who want a nanny state ought to take precedence over the welfare of the minority who are thereby oppressed, and that the repressed minority should recognize this precedence and submit accordingly. Con claims that enterprising American should endure the collective mentality imposed upon them and try to keep it afloat. I disagree. There can be no obligation o endure repression, and those who enjoy the nanny state will enjoy it even more if there are fewer enterprising people among them. I have not suggested that Americans should renounce citizenship or fail to advocate change; they can do that from the perspective that reinforces their beliefs. 1. There is a substantial threat of creeping mediocrity Con has apparently accepted the major premise of my argument, that there is a substantial threat of creeping mediocrity. Con asserted that it is a legitimate consequence of democracy. I agree that it is consequence of democracy. It being a consequence of democracy makes the problem no less significant to people who uncomfortable in a nanny state, where life is ordered, regulated, and ultimately limited by government. Con argues (C1), "While not a bad thing for the individual, the result would be a loss of many of America's bright, young minds to other countries." Thus Con further agrees that it would be best for the individual, another concession to my viewpoint. The question, then, is whether it is better for the country to retain frustrated, suppressed talent, or to have it leave. There are three reasons why it would be better for the country if they leave. a. The country will be more harmonious. Con argued that it would make the country more unstable. I wish it were so, because the disease is the excessive stability of complacency, so a cure would be to shake that stasis. However, getting rid of dissidents increases stability. For example, the Castro regime rid itself of many dissidents who took refuge in the United States. those who were cast out were predominantly the productive entrepreneurial middle class. Castro imposed a totalitarian regime, while the U.S. is suffering from a "tyranny of the majority" that maintains an essential similarity. In both cases the way to get ahead is be part of the system; to be a cog in the apparatus of the state. On succeeds by rising to power in the apparatus. There is no room among apparatchiks for entrepreneurial spirits. b. There is better chance of rescuing the system from outside. This is the role, for example, of the refugees who fled Cuba. When and if Cuba is freed, the refugees from the system will be important for rebuilding it. c. Expatriates will gain wealth and power to needed to influence change. The opportunities precluded in the U.S. are available elsewhere, so some will succeed on a large scale. At some point in their careers, many will want to return to their original home and fight to reverse the trends that caused them to leave. 2. There is some threat of disaster Con agrees that the threat exists, but argues that "bailing would be harmful." In a disaster, people will bail no matter what. The idea that it is better to stay inside a burning building to fight the fire only succeeds until the flames get close, the everyone who can escape will do so. The question is whether one should have the forethought f building a fire escape. Con cites people escaping the economic chaos of Albania. That's a perfect example. One can argue that they should have stayed, at substantial risk of perishing, but it was absolutely inevitable they people would put the survival of themselves and their families head of the abstract interests of the State. It is prudent to prepare. 3. There is historical precedent Con agrees, "Yes, the emigration took place, and for good reason." Con thus agrees with the logic and circumstances of the precedent, but hopes to escape on the technicality that "The colonies where technically part of the mother country." Whether they were technically a part of the mother country or not is irrelevant; they were places that provided an escape from British society of the times. With respect to the American colonies, the flood of religious dissidents makes it clear the political system was quite different. The British Empire spanned most of the world, so the American colonies are not the main example. Entrepreneurial individuals went around the global, with many of them ultimately returning to Britain. Moreover, Britain did not become politically unstable as a consequence. In the U.S., we have the settling of the West as an example of a great emigration motivated by seeking opportunity. The West was governed by the U.S., but the circumstances of the West were substantially different in terms of risk and reward. This example is appropriate because the eastern U.S. was not by any means a terrible place, nor was it lacking in opportunity. Despite the good prospects in the East, the West offered greater opportunities at the price of greater risk. Many people opted for that. I have not claimed that the U.S. is likely to become a terrible place, merely a stultifying one. The resolution proposes that people keep their options open. 4. The downside is minimal Con seems to again agree that the downside for the individual is minimal. The effort to prepare to leave is worthwhile even if one does not leave. Con instead relies upon the notion that having entrepreneurial expatriates is bad for the country, as opposed to having them remain and be repressed by the dull tyranny of the majority. For the majority, justice demands that they receive the consequences of what they have sought. I think mediocrity is sustainable, so that's probably what they will get. But if it proves unsustainable, then they should get that instead. C1. Con argues that having dissidents leave threatens stability. In (1) above, I argued that it increases stability. C2. Con argues that it "Conceptually undermines confidence in America." Among who does it undermine confidence? Certainly not the majority, who accept the premise that risks an rewards ought to be dramatically reduced for the good of society. The majority will be encouraged by troublesome opponents to statism leaving. Certainly not the young entrepreneurs, because they will either leave or be prepared to leave, so they are maintaining the last vestiges of the original American spirit, let it be needed again. Competitors in Europe and elsewhere are sold on the merits of collectivism, so they will be encouraged by America adopting it. C3. Con says, "Well, if the "trickle" continues, there's no real evidence that the economy would take a huge hit, not immediately at least. But a relocation of our YEA's on any scale would be not-so-good for the country in technological areas, or areas which require very technical skills." I agree. It would not be so good for the economy, but the nanny state is fundamentally bad for the economy. It is an undenied premise that the majority like the trade of overall prosperity for reduced risks. therefore the people leaving to take risks should not be responsible, or feel responsible, for the people who choose less for the sake of avoiding risk. The ultimate democracy is voting with your feet. Enterprising young Americans should prepare accordingly.