What is the official stance of Austrian economist when it comes to "illegal" immigration?
GilesStratton:Since when are open borders necessary for the exchange of goods? Open borders allow unwanted "bads" into the country without the consent of the private property owners, especially so given that large amounts of land are publicly owned.
Well when those 'bads' tresspass into the private property they can be bring dealt with.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
GilesStratton:Not necessariy, neither Hayek nor Lachmann were praxeologists.
Well, Hayek did write the robustly praxeological articles “The Facts of the Social Sciences” and “Scientism and the Study of Society.” His "Economics and Knowledge" can be interpreted as rejecting praxeology, but I think that interpretation is a little too strong.
edfchv1:What is the official stance of Austrian economist when it comes to "illegal" immigration?
Prediction: this thread will blow up to 150+ posts.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Correct. As it is now, the state has created blockades which are funneling immegrants into the only unguarded places left on the border, primarily Arizona. These places are populated by large ranches, so obviously immegrants are going to trespass, either unaware, or because they see no available alternative.
GilesStratton: And I'd retort to that: why don't immigrant need permission to enter others property? Since that is the implication of your position.
And I'd retort to that: why don't immigrant need permission to enter others property?
Since that is the implication of your position.
I'm having some second thoughts on the immigration issue. Couldn't public property be considered to be owned by foreigners as well as the domestic population, given monetary imperialism?
edfchv1: What is the official stance of Austrian economist when it comes to "illegal" immigration?
The official stance depends on what the relevant scale of property is. The state monopolizes all property beyond that of the individual home, so everything beyond that is speculative.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Laughing Man: GilesStratton:Since when are open borders necessary for the exchange of goods? Open borders allow unwanted "bads" into the country without the consent of the private property owners, especially so given that large amounts of land are publicly owned. Well when those 'bads' tresspass into the private property they can be bring dealt with.
If and only if we consider mere passage over/through someone's land a tort.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
Honestly thought I would find a stupid pragmatic argument in this thread.
For example:
"Well we can't let them in while we have a welfare state!"
It's good to see that no-one resorted to fallacious arguments like that. Since no-one used that argument I'm going to assume that it is not the immigrants fault that the mafia/state/whatever hans out stolen money, it is the mafia's/state's/whatever's.
Arvin:It's good to see that no-one resorted to fallacious arguments like that. Since no-one used that argument I'm going to assume that it is not the immigrants fault that the mafia/state/whatever hans out stolen money, it is the mafia's/state's/whatever's.
It is not the immigrant's fault that the State hands out stolen money, nor is it the immigrant's fault that s/he responds to incentives (like a government handing out stolen money) but I'd be very careful to base any further assumptions on that fact alone. I.e., the conclusion that the money is the State's.
I'd also caution anyone against assuming that immigrants come here for the welfare state, the vast majority of which is outside their reach.
America's welfare state still exists, in fact the government is trying to enlarge it, constantly. Yet "illegal" immigration is on the decline, presumably because in the current economic landscape, there are no more jobs for the immigrants to have, which pretty much explodes the myth that "they come here to steal our welfare state."
Arvin: Honestly thought I would find a stupid pragmatic argument in this thread. For example: "Well we can't let them in while we have a welfare state!" It's good to see that no-one resorted to fallacious arguments like that. Since no-one used that argument I'm going to assume that it is not the immigrants fault that the mafia/state/whatever hans out stolen money, it is the mafia's/state's/whatever's.
You can try to be compassionate. It is the state's fault that they have to leave their countries as economic refugees.
david_z: Laughing Man: GilesStratton:Since when are open borders necessary for the exchange of goods? Open borders allow unwanted "bads" into the country without the consent of the private property owners, especially so given that large amounts of land are publicly owned. Well when those 'bads' tresspass into the private property they can be bring dealt with. If and only if we consider mere passage over/through someone's land a tort.
You wouldnt?
sicsempertyrannis: david_z: If and only if we consider mere passage over/through someone's land a tort. You wouldnt?
david_z: If and only if we consider mere passage over/through someone's land a tort.
Mere passage, leaving the land, all appurtenances thereto, as well as the occupants unmolested? I've a hard time imagining such circumstances could lead to any compensable damages.
david_z: sicsempertyrannis: david_z: If and only if we consider mere passage over/through someone's land a tort. You wouldnt? Mere passage, leaving the land, all appurtenances thereto, as well as the occupants unmolested? I've a hard time imagining such circumstances could lead to any compensable damages.
That sounds like a positive rights justification.
Actually it sounds like a subjective decision based on the land owner's rational.
sicsempertyrannis: david_z: sicsempertyrannis: david_z: If and only if we consider mere passage over/through someone's land a tort. You wouldnt? Mere passage, leaving the land, all appurtenances thereto, as well as the occupants unmolested? I've a hard time imagining such circumstances could lead to any compensable damages. That sounds like a positive rights justification.
No, its just not believing that a negative right has been violated.
It seems like a sound position, after the fact. But it does nothing should the property owner discover the trespasser still on his property.
Peace
JonBostwick: No, its just not believing that a negative right has been violated. It seems like a sound position, after the fact. But it does nothing should the property owner discover the trespasser still on his property.
And what if you do find someone en route? What do you get to do? And what right is in the midst of being violated?