This has to be some of the best rhetoric I've ever read:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/01/the_stranger.html
Thanks Wheylous! Amazing post of Bryan!
I'm actually fairly impressed... and this was after I just got done reading Hulsmann's evisceration of Caplan's "Why I am Not an Austrian Economist".
I really like this guy. Also his Anarchist FAQ was quite helpful.
Thanks for the link to Hulsmann's article.
The biggest takeaway I got from following that link is that Bryan Caplan's readers have extremely limited reasoning ability. :(
I like Bryan Caplan and was with him until he mentioned the "open borders" nonsense. What a profoundly unlibertarian concept.
FunkedUp:I like Bryan Caplan and was with him until he mentioned the "open borders" nonsense. What a profoundly unlibertarian concept.
Can you elaborate a bit on this?
Hoppe-worship probably, ha. Open immigration is not "unlibertarian". If a property owner or employer wants to hire someone or let them live/pass through their property, that's their business, and they shouldn't need a rubber stamp from the state.
I think a lot of the posters here get caught up in declaring a few things they've read as the be-all-end-all of the philosophy and end up speaking like libertarianism is a monolithic block.
@ LogisticEarth,
Maybe it was just sarcasm of him, but if something is in a written from only without clear indicators like "/sarcasm" at the end I never am really sure...
@LogisticEarth - excuse me?
On Free Immigration and Forced Integration In an anarcho-capitalist society there is no government and, accordingly, no clear-cut distinction between inlanders (domestic citizens) and foreigners. This distinction comes into existence only with the establishment of a government, i.e., an institution which possesses a territorial monopoly of aggression (taxation). The territory over which a government's taxing power extends becomes "inland," and everyone residing outside of this territory becomes a foreigner. State borders (and passports), are an "unnatural" (coercive) institution. Indeed, their existence (and that of a domestic government) implies a two-fold distortion with respect to peoples' natural inclination to associate with others. First, inlanders cannot exclude the government (the taxman) from their own property, but are subject to what one might call "forced integration" by government agents. Second, in order to be able to intrude on its subjects' private property so as to tax them, a government must invariably take control of existing roads, and it will employ its tax revenue to produce even more roads to gain even better access to all private property, as a potential tax source. Thus, this over-production of roads does not involve merely an innocent facilitation of interregional trade - a lowering of transaction costs - as starry-eyed economists would have us believe, but it involves forced domestic integration (artificial desegregation of separate localities). Moreover, with the establishment of a government and state borders, immigration takes on an entirely new meaning. Immigration becomes immigration by foreigners across state borders, and the decision as to whether or not a person should be admitted no longer rests with private property owners or associations of such owners but with the government as the ultimate sovereign of all domestic residents and the ultimate super-owner of all their properties. Now, if the government excludes a person while even one domestic resident wants to admit this very person onto his property, the result is forced exclusion (a phenomenon that does not exist under private property anarchism). Furthermore, if the government admits a person while there is not even one domestic resident who wants to have this person on his property, the result is forced integration (also non-existent under private property anarchism). -- http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html
How is that different to anything you said? Besides the misnomer of wrongly chararchterising it as "open" borders.
I was not being sarcastic.
State sponsored immigration restrictions are not neccesarilly libertarian, but neither are state sponsored open borders (OB), in fact they are much worse; restricted immigration represents the second-best option to a problem that is created by the state. Conza summed it up perfectly.
If all property is privately owned then OB would not exist. OB (if you want to call it that) would be the very last thing that happens to a dissolving state; in fact OB cannot exist when a state exists. To use a marxist term: OB would occur once the state "whithers away;" the so-called border would then be regulated by private property owners. Until the state "withers away" there must be restrictions on immigration, epsecially with any form of (welfare) state.
Libertarians simply do not take their pro-private property arguments to their logical conclusions on this one. Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, and Ron Paul all agree with me on this (not to say that their opinions are devine), but if they all think this, then why don't you? This is because OB advocates are under the spell of cultural marxisim which has infected nearly everyone born after 1960; OB are merely a socialist, leftist/egalitarian concept that has been drilled into libertarians. It's very unfortunate...
Freedom to travel is a pretty libertarian value. If it's not, I don't want to be considered a libertarian.
And yes, that means the ability to cross private land regardless of the owner's objections, under certain circumstances.
Michael J Green: Freedom to travel is a pretty libertarian value. If it's not, I don't want to be considered a libertarian. And yes, that means the ability to cross private land regardless of the owner's objections, under certain circumstances.
private land, private garden, private house, private flat.. private wife. :D reductio ad absurdum.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
so wait a second... are you saying that i won't be "free to gambol" in ancapistan?
MJG - why do you think so?
@ FunkedUp
I don't know but when I hear libertarians speak of "open" borders I never understood that to include forced immigration/integration as it is mentioned in Conza's quote and as it seems to worry you. So I am only for abolishing artificial state restrictions nothing more.
And also please show me where Bryan Caplan argues for that kind of immigration you speak of. See for example this article of him:
Why Should We Restrict Immigration?
If libertarians talk about "open borders" in a state-context, usually they just mean they don't want the State to forcefully prevent anyone from coming into the country. If the immigrant conflicted with a property owner who didn't want them on their particular property, then the libertarian would mostly side with the property owner. The State is concerned with forcing citizenship requirements which libertarians reject. It is another matter if you have a whole welfare scheme set up and public ownership of goods, which is why I think Ron Paul sounds like a border hawk. The state steals your money and now they have all this money; Paul doesn't want it to be a magnet for poor people flooding the place looking for welfare and free services. Short-term, it is easier to enforce the border than it is to remove the entitlement system.
The question is: what should be done regarding the immigration situation right now? The state could do either one of the following three things:
1. Open borders completely; no immigration restrictions at all.
2. Close borders completely; no immigration at all.
3. Adopt a discriminatory immigration policy; let some in and keep some out.
Pursuing option #1 would overwhelm social programs on a grand scale and would turn parts of the southern United States into Mexico. Thousands of people from every country in Central and South America would flood this country. They would send their kids to public schools; they would be entitled to all of the benefits that a citizen is. This would be a complete disaster.
Pursuing option #2 would be better than #1, but it would clearly be a case of forced segregation.
Pursuing option #3 also has its problems (though it's the best solution in an unperfect world). The problem is that the government gets to decide who comes in; not private individuals. As a result, the government doesn't care whether an accomplished person comes in or whether a bum comes in; after all, one man one vote! In fact, most politicians would like the bum to come in since he will likely be more supportive of the their statist welfare schemes. Governments, especially ones controlled by liberals, have an incentive to loosen immigration standards; it will help them maintain power.
How liberal one thinks the immigration standards should be is obviously a personal matter; it is subjective and involves value judgements. Left libertarians may not care who comes in, and right libertarians may not want anyone to come in. Any attempt to put a value on this judgement (assuming one doesn't support options #1 or #2) leads to externalizing one's own view on the rest of society. Again, this probelm is caused by the state and there isn't a perfect solution (except for abolishing the state of course!), but "open borders," (if you're advocating for them at this point right now) is just a socialist scheme and would destroy this country even more than it already is.
So many libertarians try to get theoretical on this subject and they base their analysis as it exists in some kind of perfect world. We aren't in a perfect world. Immigration policies have to be practical until this Leviathan is abolished. Until then, there must be discriminatory immigration policies; the more restrictive, the better.
If you disagree with me, then what is your immigration solution right now?
Malachi:Open borders, solution for what? The fact that statism is unsustainable doesnt have a "solution" per se, it just is. Free trade and open borders and the sooner the better.
So if you had the power, you would open the borders, completely with no restrictions, right now?
Malachi:I would terminate or reassign all border patrol and customs agents, yes.
The practical implications of this would be absolutely devastating and the adoption of this policy would destroy any hope of shrinking government. As stated before, immigrants all over the world would swarm here (millions from Central/South America), primarilly for benefits and they would keep demanding and voting for more. Why would they work? They would have a better life in the US going on the dole as opposed to working in their country. Bring the kids and the rest of the family because they could all go on welfare too! Why not?
Also, culture wars would increase. Southern California would basically become Mexico; this could lead to possible genocidal acts in that area. An open borders policy would likely lead to many Mexicans wanting to "take their land back." Such a policy would be an unmitigated disaster. The government would grow dramatically under this situation. Are you expecting that a bunch of immigrants, under an open borders situation, would miraculously see the errors of statism and vote to negate it?
at the very least, the cultural influx would add human capital at sub-market rates in a large enough volume that the government simply would not be able to enforce laws restricting freedom of labor. This additional human capital would make goods and services across all markets more plentiful and less expensive. The immediate decrease in import and export restrictions would be quite bountiful as well.
That rhetotric post is truly exceptional! I think Bryan is somewhat egalitarian who believe in principle and should equally enjoy the social, eonomic and politcal rights and oppurtunities.
Malachi: so you think the government would just cut checks for all those millions, and they would drive around in low riders buying up all the land and shooting the jobs? These scummy subhuman wretches who want ipads and dominos would show up, and the bureaucrats just write a bunch of checks and get even more powerful? Is that how it works?
No. The government would be forced to cut more checks when it has to foot the bill for more education facilities, teachers (their pensions/benfits too!), etc, to accommodate the MILLIONS of immigrants that come as a result of this open borders policy. As per their legal status they would be entitled to all the services that citizens are entitled to. Think of the colleges loans; home mortgage guarantees; unemployment benefits; food stamps; welfare, and more; this would be a massive strain on the system. Many of these immigrants would probably end up working for the government. The immigration situation may take on a slightly different meaning IF all welfare is non-existent; but we don't live in that world.
Malachi: I dont see what their voting has to do with it. In my opinion, you have just libeled a large group of people and failed to praxeologically demonstrate the final point of your syllogism (the part where government gets more powerful).
It's impossible to praxeologically demonstrate this; just as it's impossible to praxeologically demonstrate that the government doesn't get more powerful under this scenario.
Malachi: I think people would be forced to hire security firms. This is already the case, actually, because the calculation problem includes security.... at the very least, the cultural influx would add human capital at sub-market rates in a large enough volume that the government simply would not be able to enforce laws restricting freedom of labor. This additional human capital would make goods and services across all markets more plentiful and less expensive. The immediate decrease in import and export restrictions would be quite bountiful as well.
I agree with your economic analysis, but you're failing to acknowledge the sociological and cultural effects; that's the larger problem here. It is not of praxeological nature of course, but adding millions of immigrants, primarily Latinos (who vote for more government by a wide margin) is going to wreak havoc. This can't be shown in a praxeological sense, but it's just common sense.
Look, we're both after the same goal: the abolishment of the state; it's just that opening borders before the state is dissolved is going to have negative consequences.
I am going to continue to ignore your obvious stereotyping as long as its convenient, but I seriously dont care if they are martians. Open the borders.
Malachi:Ok, assuming all the pols and bureaucrats simply cannot change the laws, somehow, again, what is the problem? You think that all of those services are going to be provided? Those checks arent going to be worth anything.
No laws have to be changed. As legal citizens they are entitled to all the services I listed above. Do you think the government is going to magically say "hey, let's reduce the welfare state and services."
Malachi:I am going to continue to ignore your obvious stereotyping as long as its convenient, but I seriously dont care if they are martians. Open the borders.
Most libertarians are blind to the cultural and sociological aspects of society. You're falling into the trance that critical theory has hypnotized you with. The majority of latinos vote for more government. The majority of blacks vote for more government. Both by a wide margin. An increase in either of these groups will lead to more government. You're being naive. Have you ever noticed that the Ron Paul movement is made up mostly of whites (primarily white males)? Or is that stereotyping too?
The majority of latinos vote for more government. The majority of blacks vote for more government. Both by a wide margin.
Funny, all the non-Caucasian representatives combined make up only 15% of the House and Senate members. Sounds like white people learned to love more government, too (by a wide margin). An increase in either of these groups will lead to more government. Ah, harkening back to those wonderful "racial suicide" days. Have you ever noticed that the Ron Paul movement is made up mostly of whites (primarily white males)? Have you ever noticed that whites make up over 2/3rds of the total population in the U.S.? Or is that stereotyping too? Clearly, since you seem to conveniently forget that there are differences in support for Paul amongst whites by age, income level, family status, etc.
None of what you're saying is related to any of my arguments.
15% of reps are non-caucasian. So what?
Racial suicide? What?
Whites make up 2/3rds of the population. So what?
Ron Paul has support amongst a diverse classification of whites? So what?
@ Eric080, FunkedUp, House Clearance,
Guys please read the article I linked above. Bryan deals with every objection you have.
1: Most fears of immigration are not justified. Immigrants don’t take away jobs, lower the incomes and abuse social systems in the scale most people think. And for every fear there is better solution than a closed border. Don’t give them the right to vote (You do not get it anyway the moment you enter America, which by the way is the same everywhere in the world. First you have to become a citizen, which means you need to fulfill certain conditions. Crossing the border ones is not sufficient! ) Secondly, don’t give them welfare benefits at all, or only after a few years of working or whatever. Everything is better than to close the borders for them completely... If you want to have open borders or not has nothing to do if you have an entitlement system. The entitlement system can run as good or as bad with and without open borders.
2: Bryan argues here in a world of second best solutions. He also is an anarcho capitalist, but that doesn’t mean that the only thing he has to promote is anarcho capitalism itself. There is no problem at all if he promotes policies that at least in this world of the second best makes the life of people better, and gives them more opportunities. And within this he is perfectly fine not to give everyone automatically the same political rights like voting, access to welfare etc. So he is not even egalitarian on principle here.
It’s not that long, just read it.
It's easy to cherry-pick the right statistics to make your case. I cherry-picked an example where "a majority of whites" are the culprit to make that point, but to be honest I wouldn't need to do much cherry-picking to make a solid case that whites are more to blame than anyone else.
Racial suicide? What? "Racial suicide" was the rallying cry of the white eugenics/social "efficiency" (read: social Darwinism) crowd from the early 20th century. Since your argument makes a veiled implication in that direction I thought I'd point you towards your historical sources.
Whites make up 2/3rds of the population. So what? You're trying to make a point that whites make up a majority of Ron Paul's supporters...well, whites make up a majority of everybody in this country, so it's not really that much of a surprise. Do you honestly thinks blacks and latinos made up the majority of supporters for Obama?
Ron Paul has support amongst a diverse classification of whites? So what? No, he doesn't, but you implied that he does through your broad-sweeping generalization of "whites". And I think you vastly underestimate the amount of black and latino support that has turned its energies towards Paul since the last election cycle. The abortion issue is getting really old for most blacks and latinos, they're tired of having Planned Parenthood centers shoved into their neighborhoods to encourage moral hazard. They also like their religious traditions and don't wish to be told otherwise about their beliefs. Paul is the only option that respects both of those.
MaikU: Michael J Green:Freedom to travel is a pretty libertarian value. If it's not, I don't want to be considered a libertarian. And yes, that means the ability to cross private land regardless of the owner's objections, under certain circumstances. private land, private garden, private house, private flat.. private wife. :D reductio ad absurdum. There's no need to broaden the principle that Michael J Green is referring to. People travel through land, but not normally through gardens, houses, or flats. They certainly don't travel through wives. What Michael J Green is referring to is known as the common-law right of travel. This right was highly limited in that it required no damage be done to the other person's property. The keyboard is mightier than the gun. Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem. Voluntaryism Forum | Post Points: 5
Michael J Green:Freedom to travel is a pretty libertarian value. If it's not, I don't want to be considered a libertarian. And yes, that means the ability to cross private land regardless of the owner's objections, under certain circumstances. private land, private garden, private house, private flat.. private wife. :D reductio ad absurdum.
There's no need to broaden the principle that Michael J Green is referring to. People travel through land, but not normally through gardens, houses, or flats. They certainly don't travel through wives.
What Michael J Green is referring to is known as the common-law right of travel. This right was highly limited in that it required no damage be done to the other person's property.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
myhumangetsme:"Racial suicide" was the rallying cry of the white eugenics/social "efficiency" (read: social Darwinism) crowd from the early 20th century. Since your argument makes a veiled implication in that direction I thought I'd point you towards your historical sources.
In fairness, I don't think FunkedUp was necessarily making that implication, veiled or not.
He was certainly moving toward it with the idea that we should not let brown people into the US because they're for larger government. Do note that a lot of Latinos believe in hard work and in the American Dream - unlike some of their caucasian counterparts (who often believe in government).
As a side note, it's fun to note how many progressives were eugenicists:
http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/1004ExcludingUnfitWorkers.pdf
Wheylous:He was certainly moving toward it with the idea that we should let brown people into the US because they're for larger government. Do note that a lot of Latinos believe in hard work and in the American Dream - unlike some of their caucasian counterparts (who often believe in government). As a side note, it's fun to note how many progressives were eugenicists: http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/1004ExcludingUnfitWorkers.pdf
Just so you know, I was already aware of the second point you made. My point was simply that it's in no way clear that FunkedUp was intentionally making any sort of veiled implication about "racial suicide".
myhumangetsme: "Racial suicide" was the rallying cry of the white eugenics/social "efficiency" (read: social Darwinism) crowd from the early 20th century. Since your argument makes a veiled implication in that direction I thought I'd point you towards your historical sources.
"Racial suicide" was the rallying cry of the white eugenics/social "efficiency" (read: social Darwinism) crowd from the early 20th century. Since your argument makes a veiled implication in that direction I thought I'd point you towards your historical sources.
To suggest that I'm in favor of racial suicide is completely disingenuous. You're pulling a marxist e-motive argument. It's like when I argue against affirmative action. RACIST! When I argue against the Civil Rights legislation. RACIST. When I argue against open borders. RACIST!
skylien: Guys please read the article I linked above. Bryan deals with every objection you have.
I did read it. Again, I agree with much of the economic analysis, but it completely ignores the sociological and cultural context (his cultural argument basically only deals with the English situation which is irrelevant). Most libertarians do this, because they're social egalitarians.
The problem I see is that he's bending over backwards to allow more immigration. He's arguing for a (near) "perfect world" scenario. He basically says "Let's allow immigration and open borders, but we have to do this, this and that." To me, it's like arguing for universal health care. If only we "do this, this, and that" then we can have a viable system! I cannot see Democratic politicians taking any of these steps that Caplan proposes, and I cannot see Republicans stopping them.
I like Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, and Ron Paul on this issue more:
http://mises.org/nsande.asp
http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_1.pdf
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe1.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38
I read Nation, state and economy of Mises quite some time ago. As far as I remember in it Mises does not speak about forced integration through completely unrestricted open borders with immediate access to welfare etc as Rothbard does at the end of the article you linked or Hoppe on lewrockwell.com, but mainly about the distinction of a nation-state and nations as defined by language and culture and the problems arising from that if you don't allow secession.
For Rothbard, Hoppe and Ron Paul at the end within the current system they all come to the same conclusion as Bryan Caplan. Restrict voting rights, citizenship and welfare benefits accordingly if thats a problem. None of them said close the borders completely. They approach this issue from different angles. Bryan in contrast to Hoppe and Rothbard tries to convince the real border hawks who don't want any immigration and explodes very convincinvgly the common fears of these people, while Rothbard and Hoppe promote especially their first best solution which is anarcho capitalism. So it really is for all of them "Let's allow immigration and open borders, but we have to do this, this and that." as a second best solution.
Just watch Ron Paul here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y3zEP75kFM&feature=related
I think they are much closer than you think.
skylien: @ FunkedUp I read Nation, state and economy of Mises quite some time ago. As far as I remember in it Mises does not speak about forced integration through completely unrestricted open borders with immediate access to welfare but mainly about the distinction of a nation-state and nations as defined by language and culture and the problems arising from that if you don't allow secession. For Rothbard, Hoppe and Ron Paul at the end within the current system they all come to the same conclusion as Bryan Caplan. Restrict voting rights, citizenship and welfare benefits accordingly if thats a problem. None of them said close the borders completely. They approach this issue from different angles. Bryan in contrast to Hoppe and Rothbard tries to convince the real border hawks who don't want any immigration and explodes very convincinvgly the common fears of these people, while Rothbard and Hoppe promote especially their first best solution which is anarcho capitalism. So it really is for all of them "Let's allow immigration and open borders, but we have to do this, this and that." as a second best solution. Just watch Ron Paul here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y3zEP75kFM&feature=related I think they are much closer than you think.
I read Nation, state and economy of Mises quite some time ago. As far as I remember in it Mises does not speak about forced integration through completely unrestricted open borders with immediate access to welfare but mainly about the distinction of a nation-state and nations as defined by language and culture and the problems arising from that if you don't allow secession.
Right. I agree. (Mises, more or less, makes the argument that multiculturalism doesn't work in a democracy).
We all agree that this problem is caused by the state, that forced integration and forced segregation is no good. The debate here is largely about strategy, something that Libertarians are arguably the worst at out of all the political sects; this is exactly why we don't get anywhere because unlike the marxists, who devote 90% of their time to strategy and 10% to practical theory, the libertarians are exactly the opposite.
The question is "how do we go from our current situation to our ideal situation." I maintain that all this talk about open borders cannot even begin to be taken seriously until the welfare state is completely abolished. Attempting to feng-shui around this problem, as Caplan and many other left-libertarians suggest, is completely unrealistic. It will backfire.
I'm not anti-immigrant and I'm not for shutting down the borders, but if it were between opening them completely or shutting them down completely then I would unhesitatingly choose the latter. However, I am for "open borders" once all forms of welfare are abolished - completely. That goes for all the native citizens too. Until then, restrict the borders; discriminate against the bums and the parasites, but let the accomplished ones in; let the students that gain acceptance to universities in; let those who already applied to American companies and gained employment in, etc.
To suggest that I'm in favor of racial suicide is completely disingenuous. Oy...before you make such statements about a phrase at least do some research. Try starting here (and work your way into the original literature if you can stand it). You're pulling a marxist e-motive argument.
No, I'm pointing out an obvious implication behind something you said. Autolykos seems to think you didn't intend what you implied, and based on that I'm willing to grant the benefit of the doubt. But at the very least you need to be much more careful with your words. It's like when I argue against affirmative action. RACIST! When I argue against the Civil Rights legislation. RACIST. When I argue against open borders. RACIST! Well, you surely knocked down that mighty straw man. Nonetheless, the specific thing I addressed was not about you being against open borders, but certain points you used to justify your position. And I wasn't alone in what I perceived, so if it wasn't your intention to appear that way, it might be worthwhile to give your words a twice over before submitting next time.