You don’t have to look far to find a political pundit critical of “unregulated capitalism being unsustainable and destructive to the environment”. While this claim appears rational, it presents a straw man argument by assuming unregulated capitalism has existed in the U.S. and that it causes environmental damage. Of course, this is usually followed up by hysterically demanding the government enact strict environmental “protection” laws. The government loves to throw that word “protection” around because it makes the masses feel warm and fuzzy. However, to the skeptic, it sounds like a flimsy excuse to make power grabs. In my opinion, the best way to protect the environment is through strong property rights and economic freedom. I want to clarify that the U.S. has never had free market capitalism, nor are individual property rights respected in the manner they should be.
I could blame the president for our border crisis, but it’s not entirely his fault. I agree that open borders is a much more sensible policy, and that those here “illegally” need to brought out of the shadows. However, I do not agree with the president’s unilateral, executive order to arbitrarily give 5 million people amnesty. There are others, some arguably more productive, who have gone through the legal process who did not receive amnesty. In fact, many Europeans entrepreneurs wish to immigrate here because of the more friendly business environment, but no one granted them amnesty. The president’s executive order is clearly a political game.