I pulled all of these quotes, save the first, from Discrimination and Disparities by T. Sowell. If you decide to read it for yourself, you’ll find citations for every claim. You should follow up by researching the history of urban political machines such as Tammany Hall, and the Albany Regency. You should also read some George Fitzugh for deeper insights into the mind of an elite Democrat. Lastly, if you every become self-aware, there’s hope that you might notice that your rhetoric parallels that of a progressive; you agree with their basic premise, you just propose different solutions.

Detroit is perhaps the most striking example of a once thriving city ruined by years of liberal social policies. Before the ghetto riot of 1967, Detroit's black population had the highest rate of home-ownership of any black urban population in the country, and their unemployment rate was just 3.4 percent.

In nineteenth-century Detroit, blacks had been denied the right to vote in 1850, but they were voting in the 1880s, and in the 1890s blacks were being elected to statewide offices in Michigan by a predominantly white electorate.

The 1880 census showed that, in Detroit, it was not uncommon for blacks and whites to live next door to each other. The black upper class had regular social interactions with upper-class whites, and their children attended high schools and colleges with the children of their white counterparts.

Despite all the voluminous writings making an intellectual or moral case for a confiscation of income and wealth, in the name of “social justice,” there has been remarkably little attention paid to the question of the extent to which this can actually be done in any comprehensive, long-run sense. In the short run, confiscation can easily be done, whether by governments or by mobs looting stores. Detroit has been a classic example of both—and of the long-run consequences. Nevertheless, killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a viable strategy form a purely political standpoint, provided the goose does not die before the next election.

A two-decades-long career for one man as mayor of Detroit, from 1974 to 1994, was made possible by policies which drove the most economically productive people out of Detroit, ensuring the mayor’s consecutive reelections by the departure of those people most likely to vote against him. It also ensured the decline of Detroit

Nor was Detroit unique. Such a combination of political success, along with economic and social disaster, can be found in a number of American cities where one political party has stayed in power for decades through redistributionist policies which drove out people who had much human capital, and left the city a hollow shell of its former self, after those tax-paying and job-creating people were gone. Third World nations that have had major confiscations of tangible wealth—whether the capital of foreign investors (“nationalization” of industries) or domestic entrepreneurs—have often suffered a similar fate for similar reasons.

I pulled all of these quotes, save the first, from Discrimination and Disparities by T. Sowell. If you decide to read it for yourself, you’ll find citations for every claim. You should follow up by researching the history of urban political machines such as Tammany Hall, and the Albany Regency. You should also read some George Fitzugh for deeper insights into the mind of an elite Democrat. Lastly, if you every become self-aware, there’s hope that you might notice that your rhetoric parallels that of a progressive; you agree with their basic premise, you just propose different solutions.

Detroit is perhaps the most striking example of a once thriving city ruined by years of liberal social policies. Before the ghetto riot of 1967, Detroit's black population had the highest rate of home-ownership of any black urban population in the country, and their unemployment rate was just 3.4 percent.

In nineteenth-century Detroit, blacks had been denied the right to vote in 1850, but they were voting in the 1880s, and in the 1890s blacks were being elected to statewide offices in Michigan by a predominantly white electorate.

The 1880 census showed that, in Detroit, it was not uncommon for blacks and whites to live next door to each other. The black upper class had regular social interactions with upper-class whites, and their children attended high schools and colleges with the children of their white counterparts.

Despite all the voluminous writings making an intellectual or moral case for a confiscation of income and wealth, in the name of “social justice,” there has been remarkably little attention paid to the question of the extent to which this can actually be done in any comprehensive, long-run sense. In the short run, confiscation can easily be done, whether by governments or by mobs looting stores. Detroit has been a classic example of both—and of the long-run consequences. Nevertheless, killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a viable strategy form a purely political standpoint, provided the goose does not die before the next election.

A two-decades-long career for one man as mayor of Detroit, from 1974 to 1994, was made possible by policies which drove the most economically productive people out of Detroit, ensuring the mayor’s consecutive reelections by the departure of those people most likely to vote against him. It also ensured the decline of Detroit

Nor was Detroit unique. Such a combination of political success, along with economic and social disaster, can be found in a number of American cities where one political party has stayed in power for decades through redistributionist policies which drove out people who had much human capital, and left the city a hollow shell of its former self, after those tax-paying and job-creating people were gone. Third World nations that have had major confiscations of tangible wealth—whether the capital of foreign investors (“nationalization” of industries) or domestic entrepreneurs—have often suffered a similar fate for similar reasons.

I pulled all of these quotes, save the first, from Discrimination and Disparities by T. Sowell. If you decide to read it for yourself, you’ll find citations for every claim. You should follow up by researching the history of urban political machines such as Tammany Hall, and the Albany Regency. You should also read some George Fitzugh for deeper insights into the mind of an elite Democrat. Lastly, if you every become self-aware, there’s hope that you might notice that your rhetoric parallels that of a progressive; you agree with their basic premise, you just propose different solutions.

Detroit is perhaps the most striking example of a once thriving city ruined by years of liberal social policies. Before the ghetto riot of 1967, Detroit's black population had the highest rate of home-ownership of any black urban population in the country, and their unemployment rate was just 3.4 percent.

In nineteenth-century Detroit, blacks had been denied the right to vote in 1850, but they were voting in the 1880s, and in the 1890s blacks were being elected to statewide offices in Michigan by a predominantly white electorate.

The 1880 census showed that, in Detroit, it was not uncommon for blacks and whites to live next door to each other. The black upper class had regular social interactions with upper-class whites, and their children attended highschools and colleges with the children of their white counterparts.

Despite all the voluminous writings making an intellectual or moral casefor a confiscation of income and wealth, in the name of “social justice,” there has been remarkably little attention paid to the question of the extent to whichthis can actually be done in any comprehensive, long-run sense. In the shortrun, confiscation can easily be done, whether by governments or by mobslooting stores. Detroit has been a classic example of both—and of the long-run consequences. Nevertheless, killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a viable strategy form a purely political standpoint, provided the goose does not die before thenext election.

A two-decades-long career for one man as mayor of Detroit, from 1974 to 1994, was made possible by policies which drove the most economically productive people out of Detroit, ensuring the mayor’s consecutive reelections by the departure of those people most likely to vote against him. It also ensured the decline of Detroit

Nor was Detroit unique. Such a combination of political success, alongwith economic and social disaster, can be found in a number of American cities where one political party has stayed in power for decades through redistributionist policies which drove out people who had much human capital, and left the city a hollow shell of its former self, after those tax-paying and job-creating people were gone. Third World nations that have had major confiscations of tangible wealth—whether the capital of foreign investors (“nationalization” of industries) or domestic entrepreneurs—have often suffered a similar fate for similar reasons.

I pulled all of these quotes, save the first, from Discrimination and Disparities by T. Sowell. If you decide to read it for yourself, you’ll find citations for every claim. You should follow up by researching the history of urban political machines such as Tammany Hall, and the Albany Regency. You should also read some George Fitzugh for deeper insights into the mind of an elite Democrat. Lastly, if you every become self-aware, there’s hope that you might notice that your rhetoric parallels that of a progressive; you agree with their basic premise, you just propose different solutions.

Detroit is perhaps the most striking example of a once thriving city ruined by years of liberal social policies. Before the ghetto riot of 1967, Detroit's black population had the highest rate of home-ownership of any black urban population in the country, and their unemployment rate was just 3.4 percent.

In nineteenth-century Detroit, blacks had been denied the right to vote in 1850, but they were voting in the 1880s, and in the 1890s blacks were being elected to statewide offices in Michigan by a predominantly white electorate.

The 1880 census showed that, in Detroit, it was not uncommon for blacks and whites to live next door to each other. The black upper class had regularsocial interactions with upper-class whites, and their children attended highschools and colleges with the children of their white counterparts.

Despite all the voluminous writings making an intellectual or moral casefor a confiscation of income and wealth, in the name of “social justice,” there has been remarkably little attention paid to the question of the extent to whichthis can actually be done in any comprehensive, long-run sense. In the shortrun, confiscation can easily be done, whether by governments or by mobslooting stores. Detroit has been a classic example of both—and of the long-run consequences. Nevertheless, killing the goose that lays the golden egg is a viable strategy form a purely political standpoint, provided the goose does not die before thenext election.

A two-decades-long career for one man as mayor of Detroit, from 1974 to 1994, was made possible by policies which drove the most economically productive people out of Detroit, ensuring the mayor’s consecutive reelections by the departure of those people most likely to vote against him. It also ensured the decline of Detroit

Nor was Detroit unique. Such a combination of political success, alongwith economic and social disaster, can be found in a number of American cities where one political party has stayed in power for decades through redistributionist policies which drove out people who had much human capital, and left the city a hollow shell of its former self, after those tax-paying and job-creating people were gone. Third World nations that have had major confiscations of tangible wealth—whether the capital of foreign investors (“nationalization” of industries) or domestic entrepreneurs—have often suffered a similar fate for similar reasons.