What Is The Point of Racial Integration Laws?

Of course, these days, the term "integration" has been updated with euphemisms like "fair housing", "social justice", etc.

That said, such laws intend to replace free choice of association with government-mandated social engineering to produce an outcome where the "correct" proportion of people in each neighborhood/school/etc. have certain superficial facial characteristics.

Specifically: People who write, support, and sue for these laws want to place black people into settings where there apparently aren't "enough" black people.

Why? In education, the values, study habits, and intelligence of white students is supposed to somehow be transmitted to black students who are presumed to be otherwise incapable of achieving "white" levels.

Now, almost universally, white people resist the imposition of these initiatives. And for that, they are called any number of nasty things: Elitist, racist, redneck, etc. But if that is so, then why would anyone want such repellent values transmitted to black students?

Answer: Maybe they don't want those values transmitted.

But then what does integration accomplish? Well, we know that it angers a lot of white people, so perhaps that is the "accomplishment". That is, the laws punish white people who do not live (or send their kids to school with) enough black people.

Living with people similar to yourself is a crime? How so?

Everyone lives with "their own", however they define that term. Just look at any demographic map for confirmation. "Diversity" is temporary, and lasts as long as it takes for demographic shifts to be complete.

Which means that everyone is guilty. But punishment is selective, and is politically based.

That is: Integration laws are unlawful.

And immoral.

And ineffective (at least insofar as achieving their ostensible goals).

Which brings us back to the original question: What is their point? Probably some combination of moral outrage, granting political favors, and good old bullying...because they can.

Is Suburban Sprawl Bad?

First, we need to remove the biases from this question:

1. The phrase "suburban sprawl" is the opposite of "urban suffocation" -- yet we rarely hear people ask, "Is urban suffocation bad?"

2. This question assumes a negative starting point; why not ask: "Is suburban freedom good?"

So, a more neutral phrasing would be: "What is the optimal population density?"

And most people would reply to the effect of "The optimal population density is where I am living now." No surprise there, considering that people are free to live where they please, and population density is a factor they use to select a place to live.

In other words, an equivalent question would be: "Is strawberry a bad flavor?" Or: "Is blue a bad color?" It all depends on who you ask; to each his own.

However, there are people who claim that population densities have negative externalities; i.e., my choice to live in a low-density area makes your life more miserable. Or, for that matter, my decision to live in a high-density area makes your life more miserable. Specifically: If everyone else likes low densities, then there won't be a sufficiently large demand to produce your preferred high density. And if everyone like high densities, then there won't be sufficient demand to produce low-density areas.

If everyone else likes strawberry ice cream, then there won't be a sufficiently large demand to produce your mustard ice cream.

People often use rationalizations to support mandated densities. Generally speaking, everyone feels that any added density to their neighborhood is a bad thing. And so, cities cap urban development to "preserve the character of neighborhoods". And suburbs cap development to keep out the riffraff. But if the population grows, and the law prohibits increases in existing areas, then the only place to build will be on undeveloped land further from the core. Hence, "sprawl". And, it seems like a good thing for most residents, as sprawl limits the population growth in their areas.

And so, we come to the final objection, which is: People who come to live in new "sprawling" areas really ought to live in a manner prescribed by people who live in the existing areas. Or, at a minimum, the newcomers should not live in densities that are less than existing densities elsewhere. Why? Supposedly, low densities are less efficient that high densities, and the new space hogs will use more fuel. Of course, they might also live in new fuel-efficient homes. Or they might spend less time in highway congestion (assuming that enough highways are built). Or, maybe they will have fewer children -- and therefore be less of a drain on "our resources". Or maybe their fewer children will not be enough to produce things for the rest of us.

Or maybe this or maybe that.

None of which answers the original question: What is the optimal population density? The answer is mostly likely parallel to: What is the optimal ice cream flavor?

Does Public Transportation Save Energy?

No.

Public transportation, like any other activity, uses energy. But the implication of the question is that public transportation uses less energy than the alternative of no public transportation.

But this is also false.

Let's make optimistic assumptions about public transportation; i.e., assume that it's widely used -- and buses are packed with people around the clock. For that matter, let's also assume that every one of these people would have otherwise used the most gas-guzzling vehicles they could find.

Those public-transportation people therefore use less energy than if they drove instead. And that implies that the supply of energy sources (like, say, oil), would not be depleted as quickly. And that would keep oil prices low; i.e., more oil = low oil prices.

So far, so good: Public transportation looks like a "winner".

But...those low oil prices would induce motorists to use more energy, leaving us back where we started, energy-wise. And if the government artificially keeps oil prices high with lots of taxes to "conserve" oil, then oil will become more abundant elsewhere in the world, like, say, China. The oil will still be used, but not by us.

Also, an unintended (?) result of subsidized public transportation is that it artificially raises the demand for all travel -- and that in itself increases the total amount of energy used by all transportation. For that matter, transit "advocates" constantly claim that highway congestion cannot be solved by constructing new highways because the new highways will fill up almost immediately. Well, if that's the case, then why wouldn't the empty highways resulting from nearby public transportation construction also fill up almost immediately?

Why should it be a government policy to encourage people to use transportation more than they would without taxpayer-supported "incentives"? If the goal is to use less energy, then shouldn't the government be discouraging transportation? And yet, public-transportation users are not expected to pay their way. (And, in all fairness, neither do motorists -- there are hardly any road-user prices anywhere.)

So, it looks like public transportation has no effect on the total amount of energy used, increases the amount of energy that transportation requires, and presents a large bill to taxpayers.

None of this is to imply that public transportation (or, more accurately, mass transportation) is intrinsically bad, but the claim that it saves energy is false.