Economic Xenophobia
I have received quite a few comments on my 12/8 article about the Libertarian Immigration Conundrum (discussion here). A common argument against open borders goes something like this: “If X million [non-wanted] immigrants would occupy your country, would you then be so prone to advocate ‘open borders’?�
The argument is usually claimed to be economic, since it emphasizes the unbearable “social cost� of immigration to the general state welfare system or immigrants as a threat to the social structure of society and how “we do things.� But the economic dimension often claimed is a mirage rather than a real argument, at least from a libertarian point of view where individuals are more important than groups or collectives.
The problem with this “economic� argument is not that immigrants use services and benefit from “rights� mandated by the state without having first paid taxes. Being an immigrant is not the real problem if this were a true economic argument; the problem should be that immigrants are often consumers of public services but not contributors to the collective good supplying these services! That would be an economic argument.
But if this is what you’re saying, that immigration is a threat to our (whatever “our� means here, I do not know) welfare system, we would have to see the full picture and not only discuss immigration. To “protect� the welfare system, one would also have to advocate things like state birth regulations akin to the program in the People’s Republic of China, since children (and their parents) do use a number of welfare services without paying for them.
The similarity to the economic problem of immigrants is striking: children are not a part of the working (tax paying) society and they are generally more vulnerable than grown-up citizens. They need schooling in order to speak the language everybody else speaks; they need education to understand underlying social and cultural principles of society; they need health care and use other public services such as roads, playgrounds etc. without paying any taxes.
The economic argument against immigration has really nothing to do with immigration per se. (Also, immigration is usually a net benefit to society rather than a cost: immigrants tend to work harder and use less public service than natives, who are rather spoilt or indolent in comparison.) The economic argument is in essence an argument discussing two kinds of people in state society: those being net consumers of public service and those being net contributors.
Net consumers are technically parasites living off others, while the other kind are people being used and abused for the sake of the parasites. Some immigrants are part of the parasitic collective, while others are not. Most children and elderly are social parasites (net consumers), while working people are net contributors. Sick people are consumers, while healthy people are contributors; poor people are consumers, but wealthy people are contributors; solitary, individualist people are perhaps consumers compared to people with a strong sense of family, who solve their problems without ever engaging the state.
I admit that immigrants are easy targets – they do not look like “us,� behave like “us,� speak like “us,� and they may not even smell like “us.� But what does this feeling of alienation have to do with costs of state welfare? Probably nothing. What you are doing is simply disguising your personal xenophobia in a language of economic reasoning. And what that has to do with libertarianism I simply do not know.
Comments (53)
I think much of it has to do with the amount of immigration that is illegal, and even though a great many illegal immigrants work, they are paid under the table. To an extreme libertarian who views all revenue lost to the government as a good thing, this is not a problem. To those who would rather the government be scaled back in a sensible fashion than collapse under its own weight (and entirely possibly leading to an even worse government) this is not the case.
If there was no welfare state, I think libertarians would be more prone to support open borders. However, that isn't the case and doesn't seem likely to be in the immediate future.
Published: December 14, 2005 6:46 AM
Allow me to repeat what I said to Vince Dallessio in the original blog on this topic:
I absolutely agree that a private-property based society (i.e., one in which there was no "public" property) would solve the problem, as it would become one of "trespass" rather than "immigration."
Since this is not the case, however, for the US government not to defend its borders against the onslaught by millions of poor people fleeing their homelands is suicide in that it amounts to "insourcing" the same cheap labor that we are increasingly outsourcing, the combined effect of which is our country's third-worldization.
Combine this twin scourge with the fact that our prosperity is a debt-induced sham, and it is clear that we are not only on the road to ruin but that we very near the end of it.
Published: December 14, 2005 8:14 AM
GGP,
Isn't yours an argument in defense of open immigration? You write,
But here the complaint is that illegal immigrants, because they are paid "under the table," are able to earn an income without paying taxes, and still use welfare. Whether earning an income without paying taxes is a bad thing is a topic that we can put aside for now. All that needs to be notted is that illegal immigrants work for cash in hand for employers who don't charge the immigrants taxes, because they are illegal immigrants. If they registered as taxpayers, they would be discovered by the immigration services and kicked out. So the very thing you are complaining about is a result of having immigration controls.
You also write,
Now, this reminds me of something Rothbard wrote:
You appear to be making this same gradualist error.
Published: December 14, 2005 9:02 AM
Non-citizens, regardless of residency, do not need to be entitled to government-sponsored welfare services. However, non-citizens also need not pay that most onerous of burdens: income tax.
I'd bet dollars to donuts the U.S. government really fears citizens willingly surrendering their citizenship to escape income tax; choosing not to purchase government-provided social services.
Government keeps this in check by using citizenship as "permission to work" -- essentially "permission to trade (labor)", which denies self-ownership and self-determination. Essentially, requiring citizenship/visa to work amounts to hommage/serfdom/slavery.
Yet, much like the mystery of socialism in general, the vast majority of citizens cherish their bonds of servitude. Such is their faith in the bureaucrat-god.
Published: December 14, 2005 9:09 AM
David White,
But first of all, the US government is not entitled to its borders. Given the indisputable fact that the US government is just a sophisticated gang of robbers, what earthly right can it have to claim "this is our territory, and we get to decide who comes in and out"? Quite clearly, none - no more than if a gang were to set up in your neighbourhood, it would have anyright to prevent people coming in an out.
Viewed like this, immigration controls are simply a violation of the property rights of natives, as Rothbard showed:
On top of this, the argument that there is something destructive with being able to buy something at a low price instead of a high price, in this case the something being labour, is frankly quite odd.
Richard
Published: December 14, 2005 9:10 AM
Zuzu,
Absolutely. All the time I get people arguing that taxation is justified because there are public services here which anybody can use whether they pay into them or not, but if you do not you are being unfair and not contributing to their maintainance. And this is a really odd argument, because the fact that this situation even arises is simply a consequence of bad management, of willfully providing a good as a public good rather than a private one.
Imagine I opened a car lot, putting a sign outside saying, "here are these cars, ready and available for any who need them, please drop some money in the bucket in order to fund this lot, but you don't have to if you don't want to," should I act surprised when huge numbers of people come to collect cars and yet do not pay? Of course not - I could have, and should have, said "you can't have a car unless you pay me money enough to cover the cost of maintaining the car lot." To say that because people are able to take cars without paying, I get a right to grab anybody who may or may not want a car and lock them up unless they pay me, on the grounds that they have this service here, in case they need it is ridiculous.
But opponents of immigration make similar claims. They say, well, since the owner of the car lat has, a) chosen a really stupid business practice, and b) as a result of this practice has found that he cannot fund his business without threatening people with kidnap unless they pay him, c) it is the case that people who do not come from this neighbourhood are able to help themselves to his cars, but have not paid him anything, which increases the costs for all of us who are being forced to pay, d) therefore we have a right to stop these people moving into this neighbourhood.
Now, this, too, is odd.
Published: December 14, 2005 9:21 AM
"What you are doing is simply disguising your personal xenophobia in a language of economic reasoning. And what that has to do with libertarianism I simply do not know."
Per,
Is it your contention that libertarians cannot be xenophobic? Is there some sort of right not to be discriminated against because of your race or national origin?
I don't want most Mexicans here because, frankly, they are just going to bring Mexico with them. And as we know, Mexico is a corrupt kleptocracy with mestizos and Spaniards fighting each other over who gets to be el jefe and divvy up the loot with their relatives.
Most LMI writers, being academics, seem to think very little about what a libertarian society would look like and if that's what they really want. Racial restrictive covenants, gated communities, insurance policy exclusions, private roads, etc., would disenfranchise a lot of racial minorities who are presently hanging on solely by the grace of civil rights laws.
Published: December 14, 2005 9:26 AM
Steamship,
Good to see you here, mate!
It is true that private property arrangements may well weaken the position of racial minorities in someways. However, they could strengthen them in others. After all, illegal immigrants are forced to work in the black market. What does this show? That there is some demand from certain sections of society for immigrants.
Likewise, back when homosexuality was even more illegal than it is now, when gay bars were illegal, and public sympathy for gays was a lot less than it is now, there were still gay bars. Stonewall, was a gay bar repeatedly shut down by the police. Again, the fact that such things existed on a black market indicates that there was a demand for them.
And having private property means that if the black folks aren't willing to sell to the white folks, the white folks can open up businesses for themselves.
So, in short, whilst what you are saying is true, in a way, you are simply pointing out that a society based on total private property creates specialised markets for serving specialised demands. Most people much prefer pop music to classical. But there is still a market for classical music.
Published: December 14, 2005 9:34 AM
A response to SteamshipTime.
You are right, of course, that one does not have to accept everything and be tolerant towards all different kinds of lives people choose for themselves. Xenophobia, or fearing the unknown, is perhaps [a very small] part of human nature. I do not argue against xenophobia per se.
What is a problem is when someone is arguing his or her personal xenophobic view should be made into law. One is not discussing property rights when putting "government should" before "regulate immigration." When you wish to use government as your agent, you are in no position to say other people are wrong when turning to government to solve problems they see (i.e. trying to use government as their agent).
My blog entry, Economic Xenophobia, is not an attack on xenophobia or narrow-mindedness. I discuss people (libertarians) expressing a wish to use government in their own interest. That is the very problem of democratic government in the first place; a coercive power with a monopoly of violence used to force most people to live by the rules (or moral codes) of others. This is the reason libertarians are against it, so the opposite view cannot serve as rationale for supporting your favorite government program(s).
Published: December 14, 2005 10:12 AM
David,
What exactly is wrong with "cheap" labor? Whose business is it if a person wants to sell their labor for a penny less than another's?
All of the arguments against immigration from utility are easily addressed, but this opposition to free, peaceful exchange is the Achilles'heel of your argument as far as libertarianism is concerned.
This is no different than unions' claims that no one should be allowed to sell their labor at less than the union (price-fixed) wage. This cannot be squared with Austrianism, much less anarcho-capitalism.
Published: December 14, 2005 10:18 AM
So, essentially, it's the same old arguments, and the same old repy is, it's not an immigration problem, but a welfare problem. Attack welfare, instead of getting your panties in a wad about immigration. If they're coming to get welfare, cut it off, and they'll stop coming-problem solved. If they're genuinely coming to get work and be productive citizens, there's no problem, unless, of course, you're truly xenophobic.
Published: December 14, 2005 10:23 AM
Look Per, first of all. It is a matter of fact that multi-ethnic societies are inherent unstable and that immigrants are not interchangeable with native births. Or haven't you learned anything from the recent riots from France? It sure wasn't ethnic French that rioted. It was Arabs and blacks who did that.
And I could add in endless examples from other countries, like the United States, England, the Netherlands, Denmark and now most recently Australia. Not to mention the tribal warfare going on in dozens of third world countries.
But to get to a discussion more focused on the issue of libertarian rights. Let's face it, Per. Because of the existence of the welfare state, anti-discrimination laws and government ownership of land, immigration means forced integration. You may answer "get rid of the welfare state then", but this begs the question of what we are supposed to do in the meantime.
You may also say that immigration restrictions means forced segregation. That is true, but given the fact that there is overwhelming public support for immigration restrictions, this indicate that the problem of forced integration is a bigger problem than the problem of forced segregation.
As for the "baby"-argument used by Walter Block, this overlooks that until we end the mechanisms that means forced integration between people in a certain country we have to choose between forced integration and forced segregation. In the case of immigration , restricting this is a lesser evil than not restricting it. But as child birth restrictions are generally considered a more intrusive measure (That is of course why Block used this argument) this in turn means that this is a greater evil than not restricting it. That is of course also why there is no public support for such a measure.
Published: December 14, 2005 10:25 AM
Per -- Unless I misread your argument, there are serious flaws. Until we have a private property country, property shared in common will be (and should be) controlled by the establishment of legitimate laws. If national laws have no "right to exclude foreigners", then we have negated ownership of common property by citizens and granted ownership to foreigners in respect to common property within our borders -- foreigners apparently can invade any common property irrespective of any law forbidding otherwise. That is frankly nonsense.
Common property should be controlled by the majority, until such time as that common property comes under private ownership.
Published: December 14, 2005 10:28 AM
Mike;
There is no way to separate the recent ethnic strife in France from the welfare problem - all of the rioters are variously suspended in the welfare state. It's no different from what happened in American cities in the 60's - a large group of unemployed, unemployable young men ran hard up against an inflationary spiral and a society already in turmoil over war. We seem to have moved past that.
Published: December 14, 2005 11:01 AM
Stemship,
While it is true that the mexican government is nothing less than a corrupt kleptocracy, the sweeping generalization you make of the Mexican immigrants going to the US is unjustified. After all, Mexicans do not have the monopoly for overbearing, corrupt politicians. Many times over, the willingness of Mexican immigrants to work hard is higher than for some Americans - this has been my experience. I do not think the worry that they could bring in Mexico into the US is a necessary one, considering many other immigrants from other parts of the world brought their cultural heritage which became part of the American culture.
Published: December 14, 2005 11:21 AM
Our government got to where it is now with many gradual (as well as some drastic preceded by gradual) changes. We can go on and on about how the government is an illegitimate band of robbers and how un-capitalist roaders are betraying the cause, but that kind of idealism was crushed under force of arms into irrelevance quite a long time ago. If we could have an American Deng Xiaoping who rolled back the state, I would view that as an undisputable Good Thing even if he had to cowardly refer to it as "Welfare statism with American characteristics". The Marxist right-wing opportunists stand a far greater chance of increasing liberty than Rothbardian state-hating "Lord give us radicals" anarcho-capitalists. If the Marxist is secretly a Randian Objectivist, he is preferable the the true-believers. If he is a genuine Marxist who has only realized that some reduction in government will be of benefit, he would have my vote (assuming this is that fabled democratic socialist state that leftists idealize but never materializes once the state seizes absolute power) as long he is running against other Marxists. The simple fact is the offer of real liberty isn't on the table of American politics and won't be for quite a long time no matter how much you or I wish it was. In simple terms we generally have our choice between bad and worse, or various flavors of awful. Preferring bad to worse does not in any way imply that good is rejected.
Published: December 14, 2005 11:46 AM
Francisco,
Given that the Mexican government is made up exclusively of Mexicans, my generalization (which I admit is a generalization) appears justified. The fact that most Mexican immigrants are net tax consumers even as they are also very hard working (see http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/coffers.html) appears to bear out this unfortunate conclusion.
Now granted, plenty of US citizens are net tax consumers and my response to that is, for heaven's sake, why are we importing MORE? The answer of course is that "we" aren't doing it; it's government bureaucrats importing more reasons to justify their employment.
Insisting that government allow immigration only of (1) net tax producers (2) with an employment contract in hand (3) who can speak the language is simply a rollback of a portion of the rent-seeking that government immigration imposes on the citizenry.
Per,
Mike and Jim Bradley have addressed the substantive principles and there's no need for me to repeat them. Leaving aside those, I have yet to see any open-borders libertarians discuss the fact that their advocacy for open borders so long as the government controls immigration is simply assuring their political and cultural extinction.
Sweden and Holland are good examples of tolerant, secular societies importing intolerant, theocratic Muslims. Now, if it is simply unprincipled for a libertarian to support government restrictions on immigration, are you prepared to stand on this principle until Sweden is transformed into a Muslim caliphate?
Published: December 14, 2005 12:11 PM
Vince,
In a free market, there's no more wrong with cheap labor than there is with expensive labor, the two parties (employer and employee) voluntarily agreeing to the arrangement. However, due to interventions by nation-states the world over (some more, some less), there now exist enormous disparities in labor costs -- e.g., 50 cents an hour in China vs. twenty to forty times that in the US. With the collapse of the highly interventionist communist bloc (including and especially China) and the opening up of the Indian subcontinent, some three billion people have been dumped into the global labor pool. Thus, while "free trade" with these countries may mean lower prices for consumer goods here in the US, given that Americans have to borrow money from these same countries in order to afford these goods, it's only a matter of time before our economic house of cards comes crashing down. As that time frame shortens with the addition of millions of low-wage workers from Mexico, who further depress wage and job growth, it is clear that they are only making a bad situation that much worse.
Which is to say that I agree wholeheartedly with SteamshipTime that under the present (statist) circumstances, open borders invites our "political and cultural extinction."
Where's the freedom in that?
Published: December 14, 2005 12:46 PM
Wow. I'm impressed. There sure is a lot of fear being presented her under the guise of "defending the collective".
Screw your collective. If your society cannot "survive" the voluntary efforts of people trying to improve their own lives, then your society is none that I want to live in or defend.
"Inherently unstable"? I guess that's why New York and New Jersey burned to the ground time after time through the last 200 years as first the Dutch, then English, then Irish, then sothern black, then Italian, then Chinese, then Russian, then, but Oh God No! I cannot even name every wave of immigration that went on! It was a blood bath, and the city has been a complete and utter wasteland ever since.
Or, gee, maybe not. Maybe people trying to better their own lives worked hard to live together peacefully, maybe they helped build a "multi-ethnic" place with a variety and drive very hard to find anywhere else, called the United States.
Published: December 14, 2005 1:42 PM
Sorry to double post, I forgot something: Please note that the statists love the idea of "multi-ethnic" because it denotes how people who come from different cultures do not mix. They like this because it enforces differences between people and makes them easier to control.
The reason that the US succeeded so well with immigrants from so many different places was not because of "multi-ethnic" attitudes. It worked because of the melting pot effect. The emphasis on doing business with each other based upon shared needs and desires, deriving a culture which includes everything rather than excluding anything.
The result of the libertarian ideal? The melting pot, not the caldron of war.
Published: December 14, 2005 1:45 PM
I would fear immigrants who looked like me, but didn't think like me. In fact I'd like to emmigrate to a place where people thought like me.
But we see something of this with interstate migration. Californians moving to Oregon or Washington or Arizona, Or Massachussets residents moving to New Hamshire. Then wanting or expecting more services. Then voting for the services and higher taxes.
Were the libertarians able to move to NH and seceede, the problem is that as soon as they started prospering, the socialists would immigrate and bring their socialism with them.
America used to be a melting pot where people would keep their customs and culture, but adopt the American idea of markets and opportunity wherever they were originally from. They now want us to adapt to their culture.
Insofar as a libertarian society could allow immigration on the condition that they would live under libertarian ideals and not turn socialist (and this also is an intergenerational problem - I wonder if there were ever a sequel to Atlas Shrugged, it would be Galt's Gultch's children growing up into looters and moochers and destroying paradise). It is not prudent to allow a foreign army with strange values to cross your borders unopposed for the ultimate purpose of looting your wealth - whether they do it by carrying guns with them, or subverting it over time.
Published: December 14, 2005 2:04 PM
Curt,
This is a bit odd, given that I normally agree with you, but the fact is that the enormous wage disparities of today simply did not exist when the previous waves of immigrants arrived at our shores. If they had, you may be assured that New York and New Jersey would have experienced a great deal of violence as a result.
Moreover, today's 27 million immigrants is over twice the 1910 level -- http://www.cis.org/topics/assimilation.html -- the difficulty of assimilating such a large number exacerbated by the fact that, unlike their predecessors, today's hispanic immigrants are generally resistant to it, on top of which the politically correct "diversity" movement is hindering assimilation even further.
End result? Rebpublica del Norte -- http://www.cis.org/topics/assimilation.html) -- which frankly I'm all for insofar as it stands to usher in a nationwide secession movement that would dismantle Leviathan and put us at long last on the road to the truly free society.
Published: December 14, 2005 2:26 PM
There is no gradualist error as such. For instance, taking slavery as an example, both Brazil and the British Empire abolished slavery with (different) gradualist approaches that did not face the problems of the simplistic approach described above (an instantaneous abolition scheduled for the future - not gradualist at all).
What there is, is the risk of the "socialist millionaire" paradox. It's not a fallacy but rather a peculiarity. On the one hand there is no real fallacy in the reasoning that - pending social change - one might as well be rich and apply some resources to the change. On the other hand there is the problem that the good is the enemy of the best and that the socialist millionaire will insensibly cease to be in any meaningful sense a socialist, and that his cause will cease to be advanced; he will become not a hypocrite but a self deceiver. And there is the tactical problem that the appearance of hypocrisy will work against what he seeks anyway, tending to undercut the purity of his intentions. (By the way, I am not endorsing socialism, just borrowing a historical type for a worked example).
This is how people often react when they see anti-statists willing to accept state benefits; with accusations of hypocrisy, taking away the wrong message that state benefits, even with their funding burden, are a net good. Yet, faced with the world as is, it is a sound practical strategy of "bleeding the beast". See Kevin Carson's discussions of this sort of thing at http://mutualist.blogspot.com.
So the strategic trick is to work out clean transitions, and the tactical trick is to work out how not to undercut your targets with each step you take. Both can be dones, as gradualist abolition showed, and it is better all round than jumping in US fashion (as the US civil war and reconstruction showed).
By the way, the trespass approach to immigration showed up in the Channel Islands, particularly Jersey. There, British citizens could visit but not purchase property or live there long term unless they had a prior residential connection to the area. Some people got caught in the works of a bad transition, having bought future retirement homes and then finding they couldn't live there later. The same thing can be achieved via covenants on land, rather than via regulation (which is what created the harmful anomaly).
Published: December 14, 2005 9:23 PM
I have a hard time understanding the values "society" and "us" in this discussion. Perhaps the problem understanding each others' views is due to ambiguous definitions?
To me, the society of which I am part is not necessarily the nation-state. Actually, I can't say I have ever been part of the full nation-state or country, but rather: I am a part of local society, perhaps my village or the people I hang out with.
I do not think I have everything in common with other people living (or born) in the same country. But I know I have many things in common with foreigners from different parts of the world.
The "us" is thus somewhat confusing. I sincerely doubt Americans really feel there is an "us" with the almost 300 million people living in the U.S. (except for being coerced by the same nation-state), that is distinctly different from their relation to e.g. Canadians or British people. There is most likely a much stronger "us" on a regional or local level. And even that stronger "us" does not include everybody living close-by, even if they are "the same" culturally.
I find it quite troublesome to take the nation-state for granted in discussing libertarian politics and libertarian theory. Can it really be the natural point of departure when discussing policies and reforms to get closer to a free world?
I say no. We should adopt a decentralized, non-State point of view when discussing immigration in libertarian terms. A free world would never be divided into big chunks of land monopolized by states, it would be a prosperous society with many, many small and heterogenous communities.
Michael Rozeff makes a point on today's LewRockwell.com:
It's a good essay summarizing many of the arguments made in this debate. And he has some good points, too. Available here.
Published: December 15, 2005 4:34 AM
David White,
That's at least twice you have argued in defence of closed borders on grounds of protecting wage levels. That argument is nothing but protectionist tripe, and refuted by every defence of free trade you can find on this site. Moreover, you encourage outsourcing if you prevent the importing of cheap labour.
I would also like to know why "assimilation" is a good thing. So long as I don't harm the person and property of others, surely I have a right to live any damn way I choose. Why should I be assimilated into your culture?
Richard
Published: December 15, 2005 4:56 AM
To me, the society of which I am part is not necessarily the nation-state. Actually, I can't say I have ever been part of the full nation-state or country, but rather: I am a part of local society, perhaps my village or the people I hang out with.
I do not think I have everything in common with other people living (or born) in the same country. But I know I have many things in common with foreigners from different parts of the world.
This phenomenon became extremely prominent then subdued with the adoption of the Internet as communications and cultural transmission medium.
In this case I wish to frame "cultural" as "psychological" -- "ways of thinking" so to speak. e.g. the early 20th century German relativist way-of-thinking which produced "revolutionary" (to Americans) minds such as Ernst Mach, Albert Einstein, and Niels Bohr.
Which brings me to the cultural/psychological mindset/framing issue which Nietzsche emphatically criticized Also Sprach Zarathustra with his anti-nationalist sentiment:
"State. What is that? ... State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it tells lies too, and this lie crawls out of its mouth: I, the state, am the people. That is a lie!
It was creators who created peoples and hung a faith and a love over them, thus they served life. It is annilihators who set traps for the many and call them state; they hang a sword and a hundred appetites over them. Thoroughly, this sign signifies the will to death."
Simply put, there's a platonic ideal of homogeneous "American culture" that simply doesn't exist outside of a running fiction in the reactive minds of a (mass-media*?) indoctrinated people. As many have already asserted from personal experience, regional cultures are very different from state to state, let alone individual hobbies, desires, and philosophies which only find flourishing cultures online. (As the functional resources provided by the LvMI itself demonstrate.)
Beware nationalism/jingoism in all its forms!
(*The ills of "mass-media" can, imho, be traced to the licensing, censure, and capture of/by the FCC -- which has been functionally obsoleted by market innovation, such as DSSS and Software Defined Radio.)
Published: December 15, 2005 6:53 AM
Richard Garner,
I argue for closed borders as a practical matter -- i.e., given the fact that states are all-pervasive, that there actions have created enormous disparities in wages worldwide, and that an open border policy (our de facto policy today) is therefore suicidal. You're welcome to dismiss this fact along purist lines, but I for one don't see how I'm any better off by asking my jailer to let my jail be overrun with new inmates.
As for assimilation, had humanity in fact been allowed to go about its business (voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit) via the non-aggression principle that we both espouse, then whatever culture(s) arose from this (natural) process would be all the assimilation we'd ever need.
Published: December 15, 2005 8:58 AM
Per,
Historically, nations were political subdivisions based on blood and soil. The English word nation comes from the Latin natus, meaning "to be born." Modern nation-states purport to build themselves around ideological principles, and have even gone so far as to criminalize any expression of identy based on blood and soil. It is hard to stamp out such sentiments though, and if the modern nation-state disappears, I predict a return to historical forms.
"We should adopt a decentralized, non-State point of view when discussing immigration in libertarian terms. A free world would never be divided into big chunks of land monopolized by states, it would be a prosperous society with many, many small and heterogenous communities."
There will probably be some of both kinds of communities. Since autarchy doesn't pay, a libertarian society would likely see a great deal of sojourners. However, membership in a community would be a valued commodity, as contrasted with the present state of affairs, and would not be freely given. Historically, people discriminate and segregate whenever and wherever they are allowed. The multicultural state is a recent invention of the Western social democracies and generally must be maintained by force.
I have no problem with the principle you advance: people should be free to associate or not associate as they wish. In practice though, things are not so simple. People have deeply-held religious and aesthetic sensibilities which they will act to protect. Should an Amish community have to tolerate all the nudists I invite on my adjoining farm? Should a Jewish community tolerate one of its more liberal-minded members inviting a cohort of Muslims? Do you expect them to? Returning to the more immediate point: it is really not a very big jump from a community formed around traditional ties to a nation-state whose citizenry demands that their elites secure the borders.
Faced with these realities, libertarians respond as they typically do. They retreat into the vacuum of pure principle, waving their hands and invoking a priori axioms in the hope that a New Libertarian Man will arise, free from all such backwardness, and obviating the need to address this difficult question.
Published: December 15, 2005 10:40 AM
Steamship, you cite "in practice, though..." and then ignore what people do in actual practice.
I'm an atheist in the Bible Belt. Do they knock on my door with holy water and bibles held high to expel the demon within their midst? No. Do I point and laugh as I walk down the street? No. Well, not often, anyway.
You keep using the words "should". Who are you to tell anyone else what they should and should not do, and then force it on them by law? Are you perfect? You seem to think you are, with your advocating the use of force to impose your opinion on others.
And that is the basic disagreement here. For whatever reason you have that seems a good enough reason to you, you choose to advocate the use of force to prevent others from making peaceful efforts in what they feel is the betterment of their own lives.
You are more than welcome to not rent a room to anyone you think is a "danged furriner" trying to dilute your culture. Don't make that choice for me.
Published: December 15, 2005 12:24 PM
"You are more than welcome to not rent a room to anyone you think is a "danged furriner" trying to dilute your culture."
Actually, I'm not.
Published: December 15, 2005 12:33 PM
We can all be a little jealous of how our undocumented brethern can freely contract to work without the oppressive hand of govt out for its take, and with its laundry list of regulations and restrictions, insurances and fees.
Undocumented immigration was not a problem for so many years because it was limited. Now I've seen figures of 10,000 undocum. folks per night entering our country. It's become a free-for-all down here (I'm in TX); the roads are crammed with Dina MarcoPolo buses from Mexico, the trestles under bridges where I bike are now more commonly crammed with people cooking over a cinder block . Then we could talk about the schools, prisons, etc. The transformation has been sudden and extreme since sometime in the Clinton administration.
Published: December 15, 2005 9:59 PM
Hmmm, so Sara, you're saying that the problem is the "freedom" these people have? What a strange and interesting way of looking at things!
Published: December 16, 2005 8:54 AM
Should an Amish community have to tolerate all the nudists I invite on my adjoining farm? Should a Jewish community tolerate one of its more liberal-minded members inviting a cohort of Muslims?
The problem of externalities, particularly negative externalities (also consider more "obvious" offenses such as air and water pollution, as well as light pollution which is what all "offensive imagery" amounts to, in addition to astronomers seeking the nightime sky and radio broadcasters desiring neither interference nor an FCC), has remained relatively ignored by the Mises and Rothbard "economics as social behavior" model described in both 'Human Action' and 'Man, Economy, and State' respectively (and inter-referrentially).
I think the way out comes from Hayek's connectionist models but perhaps best summarized by the Austrian/libertarian axiom (sourced to Voltaire, iirc): "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
Principally, life sucks and we're voluntarily working together to make it better; our cooperation must be voluntary because we all know and need very different things. (Often our self-recognition of diversity has been lost with the zeitgeist of mass-production. I may choose a size L shirt because its cost to me is less than a tailored shirt, but that doesn't affect my actual measurements -- let alone how my measurements change over time.)
So, we make choices of localized best-fit across the time domain. Negative externalities -- spillovers certain people consider undesireable -- whether nude bodies, loud rock music, the stench of cow manure, or mercury in the ground water, can only be addressed by the communications which people can afford. Ultimately, this means the ever changing costs of enforcing property rights. This can come in the form of technological barriers/filters (such as a Brita water filter), dominant assurance contracts to economically communicate prevention/reduction of emission, or affording to move to a different venue, as just a few examples.
Now before this sounds like a license to steal, enslave, and murder relative to someone's wealth -- tantamount to imperialism which begets totalitarianism in one form or another -- we should reiterate the historical economics of slavery that it doesn't last, whether you look upon Roman slavery, the slavery of the U.S. south, or Stalin's slavery termed communism. In a global market, those who empower their customers more greatly empower themselves relative to those who would steal, enslave, or murder.
More people should heed Peter Drucker's advice about recognizing business and economics for what it is -- adaption to the change of an uncertain future (to overcome scarcity). I know the RIAA and MPAA, as well as much of the closed-source software industry (e.g. Microsoft), could learn from this.
But since the dawn of civilization we've been saddled with tyranny, and we are ever seeking the means to increase our spheres of liberty.
Published: December 18, 2005 10:25 AM
Zuzu writes,
...perhaps best summarized by the Austrian/libertarian axiom (sourced to Voltaire, iirc): "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
If I may, I think this may be the difference between compromising principle, and simply compromising.
Common law practices, such as easements, right-of-way, or the modern "rules of the road", are day to day interactions which might seem to violate absolute property rights. For instance, even if I have technical "right-of-way", if someone runs a stop-sign I will put my breaks on to let them go through successfully.
Or on a sidewalk, I am very likely to step out of someones way even if I think they should have moved over more than they did to mutually avoid me.
Air and water pollution are good examples. As technology has advanced, it has become "reasonable" to demand cleaner manufacturing processes. In that way, enforcible property rights to clean water and air are increasing.
Rothbard and Mises may have been sticking to High Principle, while recognizing physical compromise as something we do in order to live together without being at each others throats every minute of every day.
Published: December 18, 2005 2:12 PM
Steamship wrote,
Actually, I'm not.
Hey, don't blame me for that one. Remember, I'm against government intrusion in every way, even those intrusions you agree with, on principle even if they seem expedient or pragmatic at the time. :^)
Published: December 18, 2005 2:22 PM
Curt,
If you oppose all restrictions on immigration so long as there are civil rights laws and a government monopoly on border control, then you cannot say you are "against government intrusion in every way."
Do you believe that immigration is a good thing, particularly in the present context of a government monopoly of the border? If so, how much of a good thing can we have? Ten million immigrants? One hundred million immigrants? One billion immigrants?
If you agree that, at some point, there can be too much of a good thing, then you must agree that we are arguing over policy choices, not moral principles. You yourself exercise this policy choice by locking the door to your home when you leave for work.
If you bar certain people from entering your home, then it's no jump to the concept of a collective entity such as a partnership barring entry to partnership property, and from there it's no jump to a polity barring people from crossing national borders.
Also, please provide an answer to a question that neither you, Per Bylund, nor anyone else from the Mises Institute will touch: given the state's present immigration policies, which values net tax consumers equally with or higher than net tax producers, how else do you propose to roll back the state?
Published: December 18, 2005 11:40 PM
SteamshipTime wrote:
please provide an answer to a question that neither you, Per Bylund, nor anyone else from the Mises Institute will touch: given the state's present immigration policies, which values net tax consumers equally with or higher than net tax producers, how else do you propose to roll back the state?
I'm not sure why anyone would have to answer this question with "use more taxpayers' money to control borders." After all, controlling borders does not mean limiting State spending--rather, it renders possible further control of in- and outflows of people, capital, services, and products. Such control is hardly to the benefit of anyone.
Also, I'm not sure what we're discussing here: is it the policy "we" should adopt when "we" gain power of the State? Is it part of a party program? Or is it the more fundamental issue of what a libertarian stand on immigration ought to be?
I'm not very interested in gaining power, and I'm also not interested in party politics. I cannot understand how being part of oppressive structures can ease oppression.
But I do see a very simple solution to the immigration problem (which not at all has to do with immigration--it is a problem of the "class conflict" between net tax payers and net tax consumers). As I have claimed before, immigrants are no more special in this issue than are a bunch of other people. It is just a whole lot easier pointing to immigrants because they are “different� in some way: they "talk funny," "look funny," or "behave funny." (That, too me, is just xenophobia and has nothing to do with the real issue here.)
But, when considering the immigration issue from a political or collectivist viewpoint, the solution should be rather clear. There is no reason why nation-State borders should be upheld--they have nothing to do with the people on either side of them. Borders are only a means of the State to control its subjects. Do not forget that.
If borders are controlled, people on the inside will not be free and people on the outside will also not be free. Hey, if something is controlled by the state--how can that be for the better?
The issue here is whether "we" (i.e. the oppressed collective of 295 million unique individuals of different heritage, ancestry, culture, belief, religion...) can afford people living off "our" tax money without providing tax money of their own. The answer is of course No. (But does that have to do with immigrants only? The answer to that too is No.)
Instead, why don't we adopt a "less government is better" approach? Less border controls, less taxes, less welfare. Let anyone who is willing to work and take care of themselves buy a piece of land (or: rent an apartment) and find whatever job is available.
Their moving to "our country" (I still don't understand what that means) means the market is growing and is getting more diversified--that is a good thing. We all benefit.
Should they then have a right to State welfare? Probably not, since no one should. So don't give them that right. This also means they shouldn't pay taxes (except for, perhaps, a small "service fee" for whatever services they will need to use; roads, police “protection,� etc.).
Allowing people to move wherever they wish is of course the right thing to do. Only just private property can rightfully restrict a person’s movement. Allowing people to live without the State (as far possible) should also be the right thing to do. So: no border controls, and a chance to live without welfare and without taxes.
I see no problem on enlarging such a policy letting citizens (i.e. subjects) choose to "pay taxes and have a right to welfare" or "not pay taxes and have no right to welfare." It would mean making an insurance agency out of government. Now, that would be a promising change.
Published: December 19, 2005 1:56 AM
Per,
Your position on this issue is to repeat the mantra that the state should not exist, period. This avoids several realities: first, the state is not going away in your lifetime (and probably never), and second, the Western social democracies use immigration to centralize power (immigrants owe their only loyalty to the central government) and perpetuate their existence (libertarians and minarchists are being politically and culturally extinguished, among other effects).
Their moving to "our country" (I still don't understand what that means) means the market is growing and is getting more diversified--that is a good thing. We all benefit.
This sloppy sentiment begs another question that's been posed: if immigration is a good thing, is there not some point at which we have too much of a good thing? Is immigration a good thing if the Swedish government imports ten million people from the Third World? One hundred million? One billion? Are you prepared to stand on principle to the point where liberal, secular Sweden is transformed into an illiberal Muslim caliphate?
And you know perfectly well what a country is because I've explained it to you. The modern nation-states are the successors to traditional nations that evolved from ties to blood and soil (from the Latin natus, to be born). The Western social democracies purport to build nationhood around ideology, and will even go so far as to declare war on nations such as Serbia and Croatia that attempt to assert nationhood based on traditional ties such as race and religious faith.
All over the world, people are rebelling against the elites' attempts to rob the nation-state of its traditional content. (Credit to William Lind for this observation). It is that phenomenon, and not the smug cosmopolitanism of bureaucratic and business elites, that is the greatest threat to the centralized state.
Published: December 19, 2005 6:09 AM
some selective replies:
first, from Per.
Borders are only a means of the State to control its subjects. Do not forget that.
to quote Harold and Maude: "You know, at one time, I used to break into pet shops to liberate the canaries. But I decided that was an idea way before its time. Zoos are full, prisons are overflowing... oh my, how the world still dearly loves a cage."
Their moving to "our country" (I still don't understand what that means)
Jingoist brainwashing along the lines of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; we all think we know what was meant, but possessive pronouns belong to possessions (property). We suffer from a path-dependency of collectivism when with the english language we refer to "my husband", "my son", "my father", etc. particularly in conjunction with the linking verb "is".
However, we would refer to The Earth, not Our Earth. I would find any notion of "Our Earth" as an act of hubris.
and now SteamshipTime.
first, the state is not going away in your lifetime (and probably never)
Considering the Law of Accelerating Returns, I would speculate otherwise.
Western social democracies purport to build nationhood around ideology,
The very assertion of any "ideology by force" rings false, especially within the context of an ideology of liberty. This parallels the modern-day koan of, "The beatings will continue until morale improves!" I do not subscribe to such hipocrisy.
people are rebelling against the elites' attempts to rob the nation-state of its traditional content. (Credit to William Lind for this observation). It is that phenomenon, and not the smug cosmopolitanism of bureaucratic and business elites, that is the greatest threat to the centralized state.
This way of thinking has me terribly anxious that devoted believers in this crypto-primitivism will bring about the Grim Meathook Future.
Published: December 19, 2005 8:29 AM
zuzu:
I'll take the occassional border skirmish between rednecks and Muslims over the globalists' Brave New World any day.
Published: December 19, 2005 8:59 AM
zuzu,
I assume you're referring Ray Kurzweil's piece -- http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=memelist.html?m=1%23610 -- and would accordingly agree that in light of the exponential growth in technology, the state's days are not only numbered but that the number is far fewer than most dare imagine.
As Eric Garris writes here -- http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/garris3.html:
"In the Internet we see our greatest hope for freedom and for the continual progress of humanity. In the Internet we see the anachronistic and obsolete institutions of society being pushed aside for a new dawn of better things. In the Internet we see the key to diminishing the power and status of the state and liberating ourselves from its oppression and deception.
Consider, for example, this online petition -- http://www.vermontrepublic.org -- and the fact that the American welfare-warfare colossus is only being kept afloat by massive lending by foreign (mostly Asian) banks.
Among other things, be assured that with the return of power to the individual states, rampant immigration will be brought to a halt...unless Republica del Norte carries the day -- http://www.aztlan.net/homeland.htm
Published: December 19, 2005 9:08 AM
David-
Indeed. After I clicked "Post", I realized I forgot to hyperlink Ray Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns; though, in my mind I'm recalling his Age of Spiritual Machines book. I'm still reading The Singularity is Near, and don't agree with his cautions against (and desire to regulate!) genetic engineering / molecular biology / systems biology.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one who still remembers the cypherpunks and digital bearer settlement.
Published: December 19, 2005 10:57 AM
For those who think that the government is justified in controlling immigration as long as we don't have an anarcho-capitalist society, then I have to ask, what is *their* plan for withering away the state and presumably getting rid of government control of immigration? In other words, what I'm not seeing is that this is supposed to be an actual interim or temporary position that leads to greater freedom.
Published: December 19, 2005 11:04 AM
Steamship, you haven't been reading my words.
"...so long as there are civil rights laws and a government monopoly on border control, then you cannot say you are "against government intrusion in every way."
No. So called "civil rights laws" are intrusions into the freedom of association. "[g]overnment monopoly" of anything is an absurdity.
Maybe you think you're arguing with someone else, but so far, with me, all you have done is justify one government intervention based upon the existence of other government interventions, then tell me I cannot oppose any of them on principle.
I oppose all of them, both on principle and in very real practical terms because nothing government does achieves the supposed "good" they use to rationalize the interventions in the first place.
On to the question you say no one will answer, and which I have answered several times already,
Also, please provide an answer to a question that neither you, Per Bylund, nor anyone else from the Mises Institute will touch: given the state's present immigration policies, which values net tax consumers equally with or higher than net tax producers, how else do you propose to roll back the state?
I propose to roll back the state in every way, at every turn, by every amount possible be it minute or monumental. Abolish one intervention today, abolish another tax tomorrow, and I don't care in what order because I oppose them all.
You Have Been Answered.
Published: December 19, 2005 11:20 AM
Curt,
You simply keep proclaiming that you will Abolish The State. But what about the fact that the state uses mass immigration to import new constituents and create more pretext for its interventions?
A better plan would be to repeal the 1965 Immigration Reform Act and, even better, return immigration policy to the individual States as it was prior to the 1850's. This would go a long way toward rolling back the rent-seeking allowed by present immigration policies.
Even the expedient of allowing only people who are fluent in written and spoken English would help a great deal to reduce the number of government dependents being imported at the expense of net tax producers.
Published: December 19, 2005 12:11 PM
SteamshipTime wrote:
Even the expedient of allowing only people who are fluent in written and spoken English would help a great deal to reduce the number of government dependents being imported at the expense of net tax producers.
Sweet merciful crap! Now you're proposing government-regulated language?! In other words, to re-create the same problem of What Has Government Done to Our Money? and apply it to another emergent social communications phenomenon?! Why don't we just call it newspeak and get it over with?
Published: December 19, 2005 12:23 PM
Michael A. Clem,
I've answered that question several times by saying the American welfare-warfare colossus is going to self-destruct (sooner than most dare think) and that this will usher in a devolution of power back to the individual states, which in turn will result in experiments in stateless society.
Furthermore, this will include a return a to the gold standard -- streamlined, however, by private, digital money and instantaneous, encrypted transactions -- http://www.cipe.org/publications/fs/ert/e32/e32_02.htm
Published: December 19, 2005 12:46 PM
zuzu,
Stop the hysterical, hippie-dippy nonsense. ("First they require English literacy, then it's the gulag, man!") Monetary inflation has nothing to do with attempting to minimize social conflict and government dependency by insisting that immigrants be proficient in the lingua franca.
Published: December 19, 2005 12:57 PM
Careful David, that sounds like smug cosmopolitan global business elite talk to me! Such tyranny would deprive SteamshipTime of the freedom to defend his dirt farm with his shotgun! ;-)
(Sorry, I don't mean to make -- more than in jest -- an ad hominem criticism of SteamshipTime, so much as my concern for and criticism of the aforementioned Grim Meathook Future.)
But, thanks for the hyperlink, David!
Maybe send me an email (zuzu [at] goodship [dot] net) to keep in touch?
Published: December 19, 2005 12:58 PM
Whoops, looks like I've been pre-emptively ad hominem'd. :p
Without wanting to sound as though I'm merely regurgitating The Matrix (woah!)... but asking government to regulate speech in any form amounts to a goulag for the mind.
Simply, the commonality is the means by which people sanction governments to distort the communication of information. If you don't believe in "inflation" for language, then apparently you've never heard of "loaded words", as just one trite example. How often have "freedom", "liberty", "ownership", "protection", and "security" been used by politicos and propagandists as a doublethink synonym for "tyranny" and "totalitarianism"???
Published: December 19, 2005 1:10 PM
Steamship,
"You simply keep proclaiming that you will Abolish The State. But what about..."
No sir, I keep proclaiming that I oppose the state at every turn, in every program, for both principled and pragmatic reasons. If it is possible, therefore, to abolish anything, I support that abolition. It is is proposed to create any new program, I oppose that creation.
It is your "But what about..." that creates the hole through which abusive and intrusive government thrives. By not abolishing when it is possible to abolish, no matter how small that step may be, the only thing that government can do is grow.
Published: December 19, 2005 2:35 PM
See also:
Immigrants and Wages at Cafe Hayek
People, the Ultimate Resource
Published: December 20, 2005 6:22 PM
stakin was better than hitrler, as htriler killed more peopl;e, and hitler killed 25million by famine and manultrition in ww2
Published: January 7, 2006 10:04 AM