Lost in the language market
"I'm all lost in the supermarket
can no longer shop happily
I came in here for that special offer
A guaranteed personality" Lost in the Supermarket, The Clash
In the most recent Republican debate, candidate Rudy Giuliani professed his belief that English language proficiency should be required of all new immigrants. Invariably, the response among libertarians will differ over immigration — some will believe the State has a proper role in admitting new people into its land; others believe the decision should be left up to rightful property owners. Each case will dictate proper language proficiency, then, it will be stated. But what role, if any, should the State play in dictating language? Its role should be as it is with any other: absent, letting the market determine its use.
Language is a marketable skill: It is a tool used by individuals to communicate and cooperate with each other. Its value varies accordingly with employers as some will value clear, concise communication over others, and other employers won't mind so much if their employees can recognize the distinction between its (possessive) and it's (contraction). Thus, language in the market is as important as it is valued as a useful tool. Just as the State should not regulate whether an employee's skills are fit for an employer, such as if an IT employee truly knows how to set up a computer network, so too should the State absolve its involvement in determining a potential employee's language for his marketability for hire.
In a society that holds proper respect for property rights, it should follow that only property owners should rightfully determine role of language. If English is valued over Spanish throughout society and an immigrant lands within society unable to adequately speak English, but can speak Spanish well, then a few possibilities present themselves. The most obvious is that the Spanish-speaking immigrant will not be hired and he will have to resign himself to improving his marketability by learning English. A more costly possibility, for employers, is to hire the Spanish speaker and train him not only with regard to whatever the job's task is, but also in speaking English. The market, not the State, will decide the role of language.
The recent popular television show Lost displays this situation well (at least one aspect it displays with good libertarian method!). A Korean-speaking couple is stranded among a group of people who speak only English. The Korean-speaking couple often works aloof the rest of the group with little ability to communicate. The division of labor and respect for property is tested and at odds by the incompatibility of language. However, after a while the language incompatibility takes a backseat to the more marketable skills of the couple. The man, Jin, is able to catch fish and provide food for many of the stranded survivors on the island. He is then compensated accordingly. Further on in Season 1, the man begins work with an English-speaking man named Michael, who is attempting to build a raft to leave the island. Jin's ability to work, without language, as Michael desires, values, and needs for the completion of the raft, overcomes the difference in the two mens' speech. Had Rudy Giuliani been present on the island administered a test for admittance to the island's English-speaking group Jin would've never found employment with Michael, and Michael's work would have suffered!
The State's ability to determine what language is proper is also more fundamentally noisome. A law dictating what language(s) should or should not be spoken and used is, at its heart, a law regulating free speech; that is, such a law violates an individual's property right over his own body to guide his own speech and thoughts. There is perhaps no greater reason to oppose language laws. That some public schools even go so far as to barring students from speaking a language other than English on school grounds should give some kind of hint as to how grossly and unjustly the State spreads its power over language, rather than letting the market decide its proper role.
There is no reason for individuals to be lost in the language market: they should have the freedom to voluntarily contract with language as they wish; otherwise, they can no longer speak happily. When many emigrate to the United States for the special offer of freedom and its guaranteed free personality, then the freedom to use one's own property, such as in the faculties of body language, should be respected under the rule of law.