Here’s a great exchange in the comment section of a post over at Slate Star Codex.

One commenter (who earlier identified as queer) marveled at the breakneck speed that culture and policy is moving to the left, and worried about things snapping back in the opposite direction.

No joke. Cthulhu swims left and all that, but I can’t shake the feeling that I’m in Weimar Berlin. The future is unknown territory. But it’s probably just me being paranoid

Another user noted that he might also have to worry about the trend continuing on its current trajectory.

Alternatively, if Cthulhu will swim left fast enough, you could see the Overton Window swoosh above your head and leave you far behind. For example:

Gay marriage could be banned, because all marriage will be banned. The next generation will consider the idea of marriage just as horrible as slavery (or even worse).

Progressives may throw gays under the bus because, after all, they are men, and supporting any kind of men’s rights would be misogynist. Mentioning gay rights online will mostly get you an ironic “yeah, what about teh poor oppressed menz” and a ban. Gay rights websites will be classified as hate speech and will be illegal. Gays will be described in media as men who hate women so much that they even refuse to have sex with them.

Yeah, today both of these examples seem silly, but that’s the point.

Apparently not so silly, since an Oxford student association actually did attack gay men for being the SJW’s version of class enemies, as a third commenter pointed out.

Pretty sure the National Union of Students here in the UK has accused gays of benefiting from male privilege. Or, as one senior member put it, “Fuck privileged gays”.

My attention was recently drawn to several op eds which promote special economic zones aimed at creating jobs and opportunities for refugees. Here’s a round up of those op eds.

Peter Sutherland: Special economic zones could be established in frontline countries to attract investment and create jobs for refugees, with the G-20 offering preferential trade status.

George Soros: EU also should help create special economic zones with preferred trade status in the region, including in Tunisia and Morocco, to attract investment and generate jobs for both locals and refugees.

Anne Marie-Slaughter: Individuals seeking refuge from a toxic and deadly environment could be welcomed not into camps, but rather proto-cities where the “global community,” represented by international institutions, NGOs, governments, and citizens, can encourage hope of a different, more secure life by nurturing positive seeds of knowledge, capital, and liberal self-government.

Emma Bonino: Special economic zones that benefit from preferred trade status with the EU and the United States should be created, in order to generate investment, economic opportunities, and jobs for refugees and locals alike.

Markus Brunnermeier, Harold James, and Hannes Malmberg: Where possible, the EU should work with countries currently hosting refugees to establish development zones where displaced Syrians are allowed to work legally.

Alexander Betts and Paul Collier: Refugee camps and some urban areas could be reconceived as industrial incubator zones, where displaced Syrians could gain access to education, training, and the right to work.

Reiham Salam: Betts and Collier offer a more sustainable solution: Instead of herding refugees into camps where they are forced to subsist on aid, they call for the creation of special economic zones.

Paul Romer: To see what a real solution would look like, you need only remember three things: 1. It takes only a few cities, on very little land, to accommodate tens or hundreds of millions of people. 2. Building cities does not take charity. A city is worth far more than it costs to build. 3. To build a city, do not copy Field of Dreams. (“Build it and they will come.”) Copy Burning Man. (“Let them come, and they will build it.”)

Brandon Fuller: The zonal approach is a practical and politically realistic way to offer job opportunities to refugees—Syrian or otherwise.

Naguib Sawiris: I’ll make a small port or marina for the boats to land there. I’ll employ the people to build their own homes, their schools, a hospital, a university, a hotel.

Mark Lutter: To create a sustainable, livable city, where refugees want to move, there must be jobs, and for there to be jobs, there must be enterprise, and for there to be enterprise, the law must encourage it.

Mark Lutter: Create a semi-autonomous city in the Mediterranean for refugees. Importantly, the refugees would be allowed to work and own property and businesses, producing value and thus ensuring the city did not become a giant refugee camp.

And lastly, Refugee Cities and Refugee Nation are two non-profits which are promoting the idea.

H/T Michael Castle Miller and Brandon Fuller

My op ed that no one wanted to publish.

After the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, France closed her border. Broader anti-refugee sentiment in Europe is increasing, leaving four million Syrian refugees in a vise grip, with Assad and Isis on one side and Europe’s closed borders on the other. Innovative solutions are needed now more than ever.

Here’s an idea: startup cities for refugees.

Seventy years ago millions of refugees fled the Chinese civil war for the relative safety of a rocky peninsula called Hong Kong, which welcomed 1.5 million of them. Europe could learn from Hong Kong’s success and help create a startup city, a beacon of hope on a Mediterranean island, beckoning refugees from Syria and elsewhere by offering opportunities for a better future.

Hong Kong’s success demonstrates that a small plot of land combined with institutions that protect economic freedom is an attractive destination. A startup city for refugees could be a lasting solution to for refugees fleeing a seemingly intractable civil conflicts. Instead of refugee camps crowded with tattered tents, a startup city would offer refugees proper homes, education, and jobs.

A successful startup city would need some autonomy from its host country: first, a simplified immigration process and, second, sufficient economic freedom to ensure that refugees want to move there. Without such autonomy, refugees would be unable to legally enter or work.

A startup city would welcome those fleeing war and persecution. However, refugees would need a streamlined process to get work permits and legal residency. At the same time, travel outside the city to the rest of the EU would be restricted. Refugees would gain a new legal status, but would not be closer to legal entry into Europe. The immigration process would need to screen refugees to ensure extremist elements are unable to enter.

The startup city would also need economic freedom. It would compete with Europe as a destination for refugees. To appeal to them, the city would need jobs, housing, and schools. Only with the ability to trade, start businesses, invest, and enforce contracts, will those opportunities exist. For example, business licensing must be simplified, approval of construction permits expedited, tax rates lowered, and restrictive regulations such as minimum-wage requirements eliminated.

A special economic zone is the easiest way to speed immigration and simplify regulation. The host country could create an autonomous regulatory body to govern the zone while private investors provide the infrastructure. The investors will reap profitable returns through the increased value of the land on which the infrastructure is built.

A startup city could also contribute financially to host country. Economic freedom and the migration of refugees would generate wealth. Taxes, albeit low, would continue to be paid. Given the dire fiscal conditions of Southern Europe, any windfall would be a boon.

Of course, there would remain complex logistical issues. Refugees would need temporary food and shelter when they first arrive. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees could help coordinate temporary aid. Also, constructing power and sewage in a short amount of time would be an engineering feat.

Luckily, however, the private sector is meeting the challenge. Naguib Sawiris, an Egyptian businessman, has pledged $100 million toward buying a Greek island to build a startup city for refugees. He has stated that he will provide them with schools, homes, hospitals, and jobs.

Currently the barrier to action is Greece and the EU. It is up to those governments to allow Sawiris and other private individuals to take action. Greece and the EU should commit to creating a special economic zone to help refugees and set a date when such a zone can be established.

Innovation is the driving force of economic growth. However, most governments remain unable or unwilling to innovate. They operate with a decades old mentality which lowers living standards for their citizens.

Consider police departments. According to the FCC, “most consumers cannot reach 911 by sending a text message from their wireless phone.” So, ten years after texting is commonplace, most police departments do not have the capacity to respond to texts.

Responding to texts does not require thinking outside the box or large investment. It should be viewed as integrating a new technology in the provision of an expected service, such as using email instead of snail mail. The fact that ten years after the introduction of the technology, widespread adoption still does not exist suggests a failure of innovation in police departments.

Such failure is likely not restricted to just police departments. Amazon, for example, decided to test their drones in Canada because the FAA could not issue regulations quickly enough. People volunteer to 3d print prosthetic limbs because accepting pay would run afoul of the FDA.

However, police not accepting texts points to a more fundamental problem. Reacting to new technology at the pace of Silicon Valley is hard, but integrating new technology for customer service should not be. Government should be more responsive to the needs of the people.