The whole point of libertarianism is that it's an honest understanding of natural human behavior, not some new religion exulting the individual to a new form of "sacrifice" for the collective. One does not have to read Human Action to become a libertarian. In fact, I doubt the majority of Ron Paul supporters ever read Human Action back to back; heck or even know that book exists. I just opened four of my wife's relatives' mind to Ron Paul (perhaps six), and I did not mention Human Action at all! How did I do it? I gave them a back of the envelope numbers illustration: an average voting American family makes about $65k a year, their tax burden including the 7.5% payroll tax is about $20k; after mortgage, car payment, gas, medical insurance etc. that are pre-determined payments just to stay alive, the left-over discretionary money is only about $800/mo; now, how would you like to see that triple! if you don't have to pay income tax? how about get another 10-15% worth on your savings every year for your retirement and your kid's education if there is no inflation to rob you? That's how we libertarians win new support.
If immigrants, even Mexicans, wanted socialized medicine, education and retirement, they could have stayed home! Most of the world have socialized medicine, education and retirement. That's why they are poor. Mexico is poor not because they are mexicans; Mexico is poor because their collectivist government has stifled the economy, and a big chunk of the most entreprenurial population of each generation emigrate to the US as a result. The irony is that while legal resettlement programs like some refugee programs indeed attract people who look for government handouts, Individualistic programs, including those "illegals" who took hazards into their own hands and made the trip probably are among the most entreprenuerial and libertarian among the immigrants. There is every reason for such individuals to vote libertarian if given the chance. It's the anti-immigration threat posed by some of our fellow conservatives that push those people in to the waiting arms of the pandering politicians.
The non-dissociation argument holds no water. Unless the immigrant (papered or paperless) is driving on stolen gas, he/she is paying for the road through gasoline tax. Local school and hospitals are paid for through sales tax and property tax (which in turn often derives from rent). While I'm not for mandatory public school or mandatory hospital admission, since the non-citizens don't vote, it's hard to make the argument that they steal through nanny state government mandates. The robbery is due to the nanny-state mandates. It's doubtful they actually take out more than they put in; e.g. the hundreds of thousands of ficticious social security in job applications, obviously they are paying into the system and never expecting to be paid back; they are literally paying for someone else' retirement.
The whole anti-immigrant issue shows just how out of touch with reality our lives under fiat money have become. How many xenophobes have really though through:
(1) how much it would cost to deport them? and where the money will come from ?
(2) it's your money and your house, right? why should your money not get the most labor value possible, and your house not the highest rent possible? Just because someone wants to set up a new Union with "nationality" as membership requirement?
(3) in practical terms, how is citizen vs. non-citizen going to be distinguished? Obviously, some kind of paper, ID and information network on every single person in this country will be required! doesn't that raise a warning flag at all? Employers already need to verify wih Homeland Security for every new applicant for a job before hiring . . . doesn't that remind anyone of 1984? A few keystrokes, and you the non-conformist is no longer employable! Don't believe me? Remember how many errors they made with no-flight list again? That's a list of exclusions of at most a few thousand; whereas the employability list runs into hundreds of million . . . if you are not on it, you can be hired, right? Is that the kind of country this Republic was supposed to be?
As to what flag people wave at their rallies, that's just silly. I see Irish flags at pubs and Italian flags at pizza joints all the time . . . are they anti-American, too? Frankly, would you be upset if you see the Confederate Flag as advocacy for state-right? (not as a symbol violent intimidation like its use by the Klan) as a Libertarian, I surely don't hope you object to that even if it was de jure flag for a rebellion. Integrate them, make them into Americans . . . better yet, make them into libertarian Americans! Let's not let the politics of divide and conqure turn them into the waiting arms of the pandering politicans.
The politics of immigration once again illustrates just how insightful our Founding Fathers were: no taxation without representation. Without representation, there is a constant risk of political victimization of the group without voice . . . victimization that doesn't really even help those supposedly getting the loot. What's really needed is state citizenship, just like the Consitution origially had; every state is free to define what citizenship is, and those with citizenship from any state is legally entitled to be treated the same while travelling inside any other state. Then we will see what really works, both for immigration policy and for social welfare policies.
Byzantine:"As for compulsory association, you have that anyway. You can't choose your neigbours. My neigbours happen to be Americans, there goes the neigbourhood." Prior to the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act, people were free to put restrictive covenants in their deeds, and did so. You could, in fact, choose your neighbors.
"As for compulsory association, you have that anyway. You can't choose your neigbours. My neigbours happen to be Americans, there goes the neigbourhood."
Prior to the Fair Housing Act and the Civil Rights Act, people were free to put restrictive covenants in their deeds, and did so. You could, in fact, choose your neighbors.
I can choose my neigbours now by moving to another neigbourhood or down the road. My American neigbours are actually pretty decent, they just cook sinky foods. We have restrictive conventants in all new subdivisions here, but of course, not based on ethnicity but behavior. So, why not promote restrictive convants that control what you're neigbour can or can't do, rather than keeping someone out based on some collectivist notion?
The difference between a gated community and the government is in "universality." If you don't like a gated community, you can move to a different gated community down the street. With a nation state, moving thousands of miles to a different country with a different language is not a realistic choice for most individuals. The government of a nation-state is a monopoly enforced through the use of violence, or the threat there of. Furthermore, as a condo association member of a gated community, even if one by inheritance (i.e. "born into"), I can sell my condo if I don't like it. I can't sell citizenship or traded it for a different one in a different condo/country when it comes to citizen rights. That makes the deprivation of my right to hire and rent my property a form of confiscation without due process.
It's highly unusual to have condo rules that would preclude the hiring of yard labor or baby sitter from outside the condo community. Even gated communities understand that if the rules are too ridiculous, the condo value will drop. That's free market place at work. Public property and citizenship restrictions are not easily subject to such market incentive/disincentives at all. You'd have to run the country down to third-world status like Mexico, before people starting to move out in droves for better alternatives.
Kent C: Byzantine:You are talking in an idealistic vacuum, rather than employing a model that explains reality. They said that when the Irish came, then with the Italians, the Jews, the Chinese and now the Mexicans. They all came in relatively large numbers (compared with the populations into which they settled).
Byzantine:You are talking in an idealistic vacuum, rather than employing a model that explains reality.
You are talking in an idealistic vacuum, rather than employing a model that explains reality.
They said that when the Irish came, then with the Italians, the Jews, the Chinese and now the Mexicans. They all came in relatively large numbers (compared with the populations into which they settled).
to kent c: you're right but miss the point. the us that was able to integrate successive waves of largely unskilled immigrants no longer exists. yes, there was distrust/envy/hatred in the good old days, but the fact that capital was rapidly accumulating rapidly meant that immigration could occur and the standard of living could rise. look at the growth rates of early america, and this before the money turned phoney. they were phenomenal, and could again be so, were the burden of over-taxation and over-governance lightened. can't see it happening.
so if capital accumulation isn't allowed to grow rapidly, massive immigration would see the average standard of living fall. government change is dictated by the average, so how could it occur that a population votes itself a lower standard of living?
Newson,
I agree with you that the current burden of over-taxation and over-governance is making capital formation and capital accummulation proceed more slowly than previously. However, more immigration control would exactly be yet more over-taxation and over-governance. . . specificly, on employment of labor. Reducing the labor pool for capital to choose from is a form of taxation on capital . . . the enforcement mechanism that would be required would be yet more taxation . . . an underground economy to generate fake documents to get around that enforcement would be yet more waste . . . then the additional layers of bureacrats that would be required to combat corruption. . . if we thought war on drugs were bad, a war on illegal labor would be even worse because the subject of the ban actually have legs and are mobile unlike bags of white powder.
Also I do not agree with the zero-sum gain depiction of capital meeting labor. Free trade has its own reward, that includes the free trade of labor and capital. Think of this way, NYC has much higher standard of living than upstate New York . . . yet it would be quite preposterous to think that NYC economy would be better off if a moat were built separating it from upstate. The youths born in upstate migrate to the city in the tens of thousands every year, contributing to the city's economy. Sure, some of them may end up being homeless, join the gang or become prostitutes. . . however, the free flow of labor and capital is where NYC's wealth comes from. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars to police an outer-perimeter just north of the beltway to stem the flood of upstate "unwashed masses" would not only cripple the NYC economy for labor but also be a complete waste of tax dollars.
The skilled vs. unskilled argument is not entirely accurate. Countries like Germany and France spent far more on education than Britain did in the latter's heydays. Soviet Union, communist China and Castro's Cuba all spent far more resources, proportionally, on education than the US did, yet their economy stilled stagnated. When it comes to economic vitality, the effect of education can not begin to compare to that of the removal of red tapes and reduction of tax. 1/3 of all new private sector jobs were housing related in the last few years; how much education is required to photocopy ridiculous loan documents or lay shingles on the roof? Good economy comes from letting people freely engage in mutually beneficial exchanges . . . specialties will emerge in such exchanges and the market place will decide what's skilled labor what's not. While reading The Wealth of Nations, I don't remember Adam Smith talking about diplomas, certificats, government statistic of skilled labor or work permits :-)
Medieval Europe wasn't exactly a great place: Spaniards killed and exiled entire populations, so did the French (massacre of Hugenots), and so did the Germans (30 Years War). When Voltair was exiled to England, he made a most insightful observation: unlike back home in Paris, where Catholicis and Hugenots were at each other's throat fighting over state power to enforce conformity, here in London, merchants and traders of Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and Mahamedean backgrounds and garbs could all derive profit from their exchanges with each other before going to their respective places of worship after the work days is over.
If we have to use the terms of "organic" vs. "inorganic" that you talk about, I'm afraid we have to treat individuals as individuals and as equals in order to build the "organic-ness" of a nation . . . instead of say, the hyphenated "Catholic French" vs. "Hugenot French" fiasco.
JimS:Also I do not agree with the zero-sum gain depiction of capital meeting labor.
Also I do not agree with the zero-sum gain depiction of capital meeting labor.
then if you don't believe that the capital formation is the root of wealth, try and explain why indonesia, a nation of similar population to the us is poor, and why the us is comparatively rich. your argument (re:nyc) is the same as why everybody wants to live in java, rather than in the rest of indonesia, not how wealth comes about.
JimS: While reading The Wealth of Nations, I don't remember Adam Smith talking about diplomas, certificats, government statistic of skilled labor or work permits :-)
While reading The Wealth of Nations, I don't remember Adam Smith talking about diplomas, certificats, government statistic of skilled labor or work permits :-)
absolutely right. but the point about the illegal immigrant population being largely unskilled is that they can compete in only one segment of the market: blue-collar work. as i said, if they were an unencumbered economy, it is conceivable that a shortage of blue collar workers would develop, in which case the general standards of living would rise.
as it is, having abundant illegal immigrant workers in the states creates an economy that's different from what it would be with effective immigration control. as an example, a strawberry farm will perhaps find it cheaper to use men to pick strawberries than to invest in a mechanical harvester. this makes sense at a company level, but doesn't raise per-capita income.
one last thing. labour cost is not a tax, it's a business input, in the same way fuel is not a tax. yes, if the labour pool were smaller, ceteris paribus, employers would bid up average wages, hence higher living standards.
*boinks the neo-bolshevik immigrants in heinee*
Of course capital formation is at the root of wealth. Regulations and taxes get in the way of capital formation. Indonesia is a prime example of how government intervention, including industrial policies that supposedly bring workers higher wages, get in the way of capital formation . . . because all government can do in order to give handouts is by taking even more with the other hand.
The line between skilled vs. unskilled and blue collar vs. white collar is not as clearly cut as some think. Have you tried hiring a firm to clean your house or do your yard? The pay scale there is not exactly low, like around $30/hr-person (much more for yard work where capital investment is required), yet it's nearly impossible to find non-immigrants to do the job. One year, I actually went out my way to hire an American couple; I hired them because they were the only ones that I could find that did not have an accent on the phone. After getting a price quote, I even bought my own yard equipment so they could use because they did not have their own. Half way through the yard, they quit because it's harder work than they thought! I had to call around to get someone to finish the job. At that point, I wasn't exactly in a position to pick and choose. I wasn't exactly being cheap: $400 for a 0.4acre yard end of season leaf and debris removal. It worked out to be over $75/hr for the second guy. Now you tell me, is $75/hr skilled labor or unskilled labor? Obviously the first couple did not have the skill or the fortitude to finish the job. Yes, I paid them $200 for the half-done job, that's on top of the $400 full fee that I had to pay for the second guy (as he was busy, and it took two weeks for appointment; by the time he got here, the piles of leaves left by the first couple were strewn around by wind), plus paying for a mulching leaf blower that I will hardly ever use myself, and the second guy had his own leaf blower and truck to haul the dozens of yard bags away, unlike the first one. I learned my lesson: red tapes get in the way of economic efficiency; unregulated economy works.
Living standard is a consequence of productivity. Government is not able to elevate standard of living by passing laws that mandate minimum wage or any other forms of artificial social engineering. While fuel itself is not a tax, mandates that require 10% ethanol certainly work out like a tax; likewise, while labor itself is a business input, mandates that only a subgroup can be hired certainly work out like a tax . . . just like minimum wage laws. I certainly hope you agree that higher wage level enforced by law does not lead to higher standard of living; otherwise, you'd have to argue in favor of minimum wage laws . . . big anathema to any libertarian thinker. The theory that limiting labor supply leading to higher wages would result in higher standard of living is just as flawed as the Indonesian industrial policy regarding their domestic car production: sure, the domestic car/labor supply may benefit, but only at the expense of domestic consumers of cars/labor . . . resulting in lower standard of living overall because not only the new equilibrium point is sub-optimal but also the non-negligibel cost of enforcement and its twin: corruption.
JimS:Living standard is a consequence of productivity. Government is not able to elevate standard of living by passing laws that mandate minimum wage or any other forms of artificial social engineering.
Living standard is a consequence of productivity. Government is not able to elevate standard of living by passing laws that mandate minimum wage or any other forms of artificial social engineering.
agreed. but one things bears emphasizing, productivity is the ratio of capital to population. it's possible to have a completely liberalized labour market and still have declining prosperity (per-capita income) - if the capital structure is being consumed with fixed population, or if the capital is stable, but population rises. this latter case is what lead malthus to his doom-and-gloomism. he ignored how capital investment could offset population growth. minimum wage, and other restrictive labour laws create unemployment.
i'll run with your example of trade protectionism, to try and better illustrate my point about free borders and democracy. with abolition of trade barriers, domestic consumers benefit by more competition from cheaper foreign cars, but the losers (domestic producers) will squeal like cut pigs. the benefits of free trade are diffuse and not always obvious, while the losses are concentrated, and immediately apparent. but it is politically possible to convince a population that trade liberalization brings national benefits, outweighing local,sectoral negatives.
opening borders is different. unless the national pie increases in size (through capital investment), increases in population will result on the average size of everybody's slice getting smaller. (lack of labour regulation only means everybody would get just the slice size they deserve, no effect on pie size). i think we're in agreement that the american pie is growing at a sub-optimal rate, so let's take a different tack and imagine what would happen if everyone started to have giant families, maybe 10 children each. you would agree that the per-capita income would drop, right? but people's voting would remain unchanged because they would recognize when the pie stays the same and the number of mouths to feed increases, on average everyone gets less. can't blame anyone.
when those extra mouths are foreigners, who don't have the vote, just imagine how difficult it is to convince voters. governments in developed nations tacitly acknowledge what i've said by offering preferential immigration to wealthy entrepreneurs, who can grow the cake through capital augmentation, whilst blocking mass migration of the unskilled.
i'm not taking a moral position here, just pointing out as per adam smith, that people act primarily in self-interest, and to a lesser extent for some abstract "national interest", but won't vote "international interest" when it conflicts with the other two.
back to your personal example. illegal immigrants are spread unevenly, each geographic market is different. some people will pay top dollar to "buy american", when cheaper is available, or maybe because they are scared of sanctions (i know politicians have run into strife by using illegals). so maybe that's a distinct market segment. but as you say, most of your local unskilled labour is foreign, and cheaper. the us nationals you've cited are more productive because they have the capital investment of trucks, leaf blowers etc.
Please re-read my previous post. The US nationals were the ones who quit on the job despite being offered $400 to what was essentially a 4-5hr job (their task did not include hauling the yard bags as they did not have a truck) and being provded with yard equipment specificly bought for them. They just did not feel like working anymore . . . and they demanded half the payment with a promise to come back the next day for the remaining half, then never came back and never returned a phone call. The man with thick spanish accent was the one who finished the job with his own blower, and with his own truck. I know, it's hard to see the world through prejudiced eyes; perhaps the immigrant worked hard and saved pennies to have his own yard equipment. I too shared your prejudice when I wasted money trying to hire people based on english accent instead of yard working skills. Trust me, I tried to pay top dollar to "buy American"; the flakes were the only ones that did not have an accent; that's why I hired them without price shopping against any other outfit at all.
Productivity is certainly not a simple ratio of capital to labor. Productity relates to efficient allocation of capital and labor. After the US national woman gave us a price quote, his boyfriend showed up the next day in my driveway on a brand spanking new Harley; whereas two weeks later, the man with thick spanish accent showed up in an old pickup truck that probably cost less than the Harley. When the US national felt thirsty, he asked for beer; whereas the man with thick spanish accent asked for water even after I offered beer (I thought yard workers all preferred beer, and I was feeling generous after reviewing the progress). Efficient allocation of capital and labor requires competition; that's what the free market place is good at, not the government say-so's.
Glad you brought up the issue of new borns. Your analysis is showing the follies that can emerge when playing with macroeconomic terms like "per capita GDP" and "unemployment": if the birth of a baby creates a job for a baby sitter, is that a plus or a minus? Okay, so you say the baby sitter gets paid only $10-15/hr (BTW, $15/hr is not just some teenage baby sitter; I'm paying $15/hr to have a US national who is in a graudate degree program in education sit my baby and come up with teaching plans 25hr a week, so you can see that $75-100/hr yard work was really a top dollar offer) probably still lowering per capita GDP although the birth still reduces unemployment . . . what if the baby is born with a defective organ and require intensive care from surgeons that make $2000 per hour? Is that suddenly a big increase in GDP? So is a baby with a congenital defect a bigger boost to GDP than a normal healthy baby? Of course it is in macroeconomic statistics. You see the folly therein. The problem with unemployment and lower income is not the numbers themselves, but the lack of output (call me a supply-sider if you will): people are not put to good productive work, and as a consequence the product and service is not there for consumption. $50k a year in an economy that charges $15/hr for baby sitting and $75/hr for yard work leads to the same standard of living as $500k a year in an economy that charges $150/hr for baby sitting and $750/hr for yard work (ignoring the capital gain tax resulting from inflation for the moment). Babies are economic pluses to a society not because they require more care but because when they grow up they can do baby sitting, yard working, and a host of other productive jobs (yes, more competition to ourselves when we get old, in the eyes of a wannabe unionshop). They are future producers; that's the value of babies. Immigrants getting into this country on their own are producers that we do not have to pay for the prior cost of raising them.
In reading many of the posts it has become quite evident that many perceive those who take an "anti-immigrant" approach with regard to undocumented citizens from Mexico to no longer harbor the beliefs of a "true" libertarian. While this perception may attain its validity in one regard, it is fatally errored in other, more importatant regards. To be clear, the ultimate objective of any libertarian is to achieve a state where by the prevalence of freedom is more extensive than it was in the past. We believe that men will achieve "earthly" ends most effectively in an evironment where by freedom is greatest. It is true, by restricting the mobility of labor from the outside to the inside we are indeed restricting freedom. But, the most important question to be asked is whether or not freedom would also be lost in abolishing those restrictions which have withheld freedom previously. Such would not be the case, for instance, if the United States did not employ the multitude of social welfare programs that are prevalent in current society. Let me make this clear by example. The United States is clearly more attractive becuase of its various "free" handouts; healthcare, schooling, and foodstamps are just a few of the many benefits which government provides to the public via redistribution from the "rich" to the "poor". These types of welfare programs are inproportionately more attractive to immigrants of a rather poor nature. As a result, the US attracts those citizens of Mexico who are most poor and in turn most desperate. These precise citizens, once in the US, immediately become a part of the ever growing class of welfare recipients. If the US were to allow such immigrants "amnesty", i.e., legal status, those immigrants would, without a doubt, vote in favor of those candidates who would maintain and further the welfare programs which made the US so attractive in the first place. This process would only serve to hasten the unheeding trend of centralized power in the US. The magnitude of freedom would fall, not rise, and further, it would do so at a more rapid rate. It is true, there would be more freedom in the sense that the citizens of Mexico would have an alternative option with regard to their own welfare but this precise increase in freedom would result in a decrease of freedom for the citizens of the US. Thus, If we are speaking with regard to what would make the US more free or, in this case, prohibit it from becoming less free, we must not make the mistake of construing that end with actual end, a more free Mexico. When a plethora of immigrants came over in the past they did not immediately benefit from the extensive social welfare program that is so prevalent today. As a result, they did not immediately increase the portion of the population which votes for policies that relinquish freedom from men. Those who consistently taut Ron Paul as perhaps unlibertarian in this regard are mistaken. The precise reason for which Ron Paul does not want such an influx of immigrants is becuase it would result in less freedom for americans not more.
*rolls eyes*
We've already been through this. The existance of intervention X does not legitimize intervention Y. This same illogic could be applied to just about any other issue, with highly questionable results. The claims about what would happen if people were not forcibly restricted from entering the territory by the state are mostly unprovable, half-true, highly exaggerated or completely false and even if true ultimately do not count as justification on any libertarian grounds (pragmatic, utilitarian grounds, maybe).
On the topic of war, I recall Walter Block argueing that is not sensible to argue for war that on the grounds of what people might do in the future. His point was that it is not libertarian to advocate initiating aggression against another country on the grounds that the country might initiate force in the future. I see the anti-immigration position as being no different. Initiation of force is being "justified" on the grounds of what immigrants might do (that they might accept welfare or they might vote for social democrats). It's pre-emptive force.
Furthermore, I cannot help but see the anti-immigrationists as being hypocrits in that, while they complain about the possibility of immigrants voting for welfare, they themselves are engaging in precisely the type of behavior that they fear from immigrants, only in the name of different special interests. While the arguement is made that the voting of immigrants presents the threat of force, the anti-immigrationists do not pause for one second to weild that same force to preserve their own percieved interests.
Using the forceful power of the state to stop other people from using the forceful power of the state is self-defeating in principle. Increasing the power of the state in the name of preventing future increases in the power of the state will only *drum roll* increase the power of the state. With a thoughtful understanding of how the state apparatus works, it should be clear that immigration restriction is only a question of which interests the power of the state will be used in the name of benefiting. Using such means, power generally does not wither, rather, it is shifted from one area to another. The end result cannot be a victory for liberty.
Of course, it doesn't seem like the opponents of immigration are thinking in terms of the liberty of human beings. They are thinking in terms of the liberty of certain groups, namely, legal U.S. citezens (of course, it is nonsense to claim that immigration will be harmful to all legal U.S. citezens). But we aren't necessarily even talking about liberty here, since the debate devolves into a matter of the circumstantial utility of different interest groups. So there entire thing turns into a question of protecting certain interests.
I apologize for not being up to date as I am new and did not fully acquaint myself with all of the posts. I indeed agree with the logic, "the existance of intervention X does not legitmaze intervention Y". However, the enforcement of the current laws which already exist would not be intervention in the sense that you speak of. It would be synonymous to merely enforcing the tax laws which exist in our society. The enforcement itself is not intervention per say but rather the maintainence of an intervention. I am not advocating that additional intervention be implemented.
edward_1313: I apologize for not being up to date as I am new and did not fully acquaint myself with all of the posts. I indeed agree with the logic, "the existance of intervention X does not legitmaze intervention Y". However, the enforcement of the current laws which already exist would not be intervention in the sense that you speak of. It would be synonymous to merely enforcing the tax laws which exist in our society. The enforcement itself is not intervention per say but rather the maintainence of an intervention. I am not advocating that additional intervention be implemented.
Fair enough. But some people (including Ron Paul) are advocating additional intervention (federally funded walls being the most eggregious of them), and of course I do not see the maintance of an already existing intervention as a libertarian means either. I think that such laws should not be forced, be rendered unenforcable, and ideally they should eventually be abolished. As I have pointed out, in terms of the means being advocated, the "open borders" position is the most (and argueably only) libertarian one because it is not a new intervention, it is not an expansion of an intervention and it is not the enforcement of an intervention. It is the lack of intervention. All of the arguements against "open borders" are based on the notion that it might lead to people taking advantage of other, entirely separate interventions in the future. The "border enforcement" and immigration restriction position, on the other hand, inherently hinges on enforcing current interventions at a minimum and expanding them at worst.
Wow, I never get tired of how people who claim to believe in liberty advocating ways to deprive others of it. It just never gets old. We all know liberty only comes from being born inside certain imaginary lines and has nothing to do with simple human rights. We aren't endowed by our creator with ***, it all comes from some document some "terrorists" came up with that has been perverted beyond all recognition. GO USA!!! GO TO HELL EVERYONE ELSE!!! Why don't we just go spread some democracy to them damn stupid mexicans? That'll teach em.
Eek. You have some highground to speak with, since you're Irish.
It seems to me that we differ with regard to our faith in the self preservation of freedom. I would perhaps conjecture that your leanings are more towards complete anarchism. As Von Mises made clear, complete anarchism is not sufficient for the preservation of freedom. Men develop laws, and consequently the state in order to preserve such freedom because without it, men of a coercive and forceful nature would prohibit the formation of society which is so incredibly necessary for the attainment of earthly ends. Thus, the construction of a wall is to preserve freedom not hinder it. Indeed, in almost every regard the operation of the state is contrary to the ideal of freedom. But in the case of those men such as Ron Paul, it may be used for its true and natural purpose, to preserve freedom. You must understand that freedom, in and of itself, is an ideal and thus, it must be fought for. To merely propose that there be no rule of law does not necessarily mean that freedom will result.
It seems to me that we differ with regard to our faith in the self preservation of freedom. I would perhaps conjecture that your leanings are more towards complete anarchism.
Correct.
As Von Mises made clear, complete anarchism is not sufficient for the preservation of freedom.
One area I believed Mises erred.
Men develop laws, and consequently the state in order to preserve such freedom because without it, men of a coercive and forceful nature would prohibit the formation of society which is so incredibly necessary for the attainment of earthly ends.
An understanding of market anarchism would tell you that "laws" technically still exist in a market anarchy, only the function of law is not monopolized. In an anarchy, "laws" may exist in the form of customary and private law, and they are left to the free market.
Thus, the construction of a wall is to preserve freedom not hinder it.
Nonsense. Such a wall is payed for through tax dollars, and therefore will only increase usage of political means as such, and requires the usage of eminent domain. Furthermore, the construction of such divisionary walls has historically been used to stifle freedom, by keeping people in (what can keep people out and can also keep them in). They only reinforce coercive territorial monopoly. We do not need an America version of the Berlin wall.
, in almost every regard the operation of the state is contrary to the ideal of freedom.
I have much trouble with the idea that the state is generally working against freedom, yet when it comes to immigration all of a sudden the state can be as interventionist and restrictive as it pleases without infringing on liberty at all.
But in the case of those men such as Ron Paul, it may be used for its true and natural purpose, to preserve freedom.
Something that inherently requires the violation of freedom cannot be used as a means to preserve freedom. The state cannot exist without violating liberty to some extent because the means necessary to bring it into existance and maintain its existance involve the initiation or threat of force. This is one of the fundamental flaws in minarchism as a political philosophy (I.E. a state that does not violate the NAP is a floating abstraction). But I did not intend to get into an anarchist vs. minarchist debate here.
You must understand that freedom, in and of itself, is an ideal and thus, it must be fought for. To merely propose that there be no rule of law does not necessarily mean that freedom will result.
I propose that there be no rule of men. That is what anarchism etymologically means: "no rulers". This does not necessarily entail a lack of law, a lack of social cooperation or a lack of order. Arguably, morality can only exist as something to be freely chosen. In the absence of free choice, morality ceases to exist; it becomes meaningless as a concept. Political rule, involving the principle that people must be forced to act moral, is therefore self-defeating in moral terms.
Of course, there will always be individuals and groups of individuals
whose intellect is so narrow that they cannot grasp the benefits which social
cooperation brings them. There are others whose moral strength and will
power are so weak that they cannot resist the temptation to strive for an
ephemeral advantage by actions detrimental to the smooth functioning of
the social system. For the adjustment of the individual to the requirements
of social cooperation demands sacrifices. These are, it is true, only temporary
and apparent sacrifices as they are more than compensated for by the
incomparably greater advantages which living within society provides.
However, at the instant, in the very act of renouncing an expected enjoyment,
148 HUMAN ACTION
they are painful, and it is not for everybody to realize their later benefits and
to behave accordingly. Anarchism believes that education could make all
people comprehend what their own interests require them to do; rightly
instructed they would of their own accord always comply with the rules of
conduct indispensable for the preservation of society. The anarchists contend
that a social order in which nobody enjoys privileges at the expense of
his fellow-citizens could exist without any compulsion and coercion for the
prevention of action detrimental to society. Such an ideal society could do
without state and government, i.e., without a police force, the social apparatus
of coercion and compulsion.
The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either
too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the
conditions of social life. Even if we admit that every sane adult is endowed
with the faculty of realizing the good of social cooperation and of acting
accordingly, there still remains the problem of the infants, the aged, and the
insane. We may agree that he who acts antisocially should be considered
mentally sick and in need of care. But as long as not all are cured, and as
long as there are infants and the senile, some provision must be taken lest
they jeopardize society. An anarchistic society would be exposed to the
mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready
to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from
destroying the social order. This power is vested in the state or government.
-Von Mises, Human Action
Does it not seem perhaps ironic that those politicians (modern liberals) who do not support the construction of a wall and the enforcement a law, on average, are those same politicians that advocate socialized medicine, higher taxes, price controls, etc. far more than all other politicians? Have they suddenly diverged from their ostensible task of increasing the size of government with regard to immigration? Of course not. Those who espouse to increase the state are incredibly efficient at doing so and will chose those means by which such an end may be most effectively achieved.
edward_1313: Does it not seem perhaps ironic that those politicians (modern liberals) who do not support the construction of a wall and the enforcement a law, on average, are those same politicians that advocate socialized medicine, higher taxes, price controls, etc. far more than all other politicians? Have they suddenly diverged from their ostensible task of increasing the size of government with regard to immigration? Of course not. Those who espouse to increase the state are incredibly efficient at doing so and will chose those means by which such an end may be most effectively achieved.
Does it not seem perhaps ironic that those politicians (modern conservatives, including of the paleo variety) who support the construction of a wall and the enforcement of a law, on average, are those same politicians that advocate unionism, protectionism, police statism, etc. far more then all other politicians? Have they suddenly diverged from their ostensible task of increasing the size of the government with regard to immigration? Of course not. Those who espouse to increase the state are incredibly efficient at doing so and will chose those means by which such an end may be most effectively achieved.
Hint: The paleo-conservatives tend to have an interest in protectionism, unions and a general police state. Many unions openly welcome the prospect of a restriction of the labor market, because that's what their specialty is. And many protectionists see immigration restriction as complimenting their preferance for restricting trade quite well. Of course, I am of the opinion that immigration restriction is a form of protectionism, and I don't think anything Hoppe has said really debunks this claim.
Aren't you glad there are laws against murder, otherwise people would run around killing each other day and night.
It would thus be appropriate to say that Ron Paul has divulged from his belief in freedom and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, etc., have divulged from their belief in statism. Correct? Somebody should let them know that their subjactive evaluations of what means will most efficiently achieve their purported ends are such that they will incur a psychic loss, ex poste.
edward_1313: It would thus be appropriate to say that Ron Paul has divulged from his belief in freedom and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, etc., have divulged from their belief in statism. Correct? Somebody should let them know that their subjactive evaluations of what means will most efficiently achieve their purported ends are such that they will incur a psychic loss, ex poste.
On this particular issue, no, I don't believe Ron Paul has divulged from his belief in freedom (and I believe that Ron Paul's belief in freedom is a limited one, albiet more strong then any other politician). Nor do I believe that Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama favor a genuine policy of completely free immigration.
Can anyone provide me with the list of "freedoms" that we are losing because of immigrants? Because the only things I am losing, I am losing to the government. Is there a list somewhere of which government programs will be discontinued when these damned "illegals" are stopped? I don't know of such a list and it would sure be beneficial in changing my mind that it is the immigrants and not the government who is stealing from me.
Before I depart I would like to make this point. You are right, as far as men are concerned there is no "right" set of morals. There is no set of logical tools that can prove that a man who desires to eat the flesh of other men is morally in the wrong, so to speak. We simply cannot know what the ultimate purpose of the universe is. But we can, as Mises, did, construct and use a set of logical tools that prove what sort of system, a system of freedom (where by cooperation is maximized), would most efficiently allow for men to achieve earthly ends. If you are to subscribe to complete anarchy than you necessarily do not subcribe to a system of freedom. You subscribe to a system of nothing. In taking your view, it would be futile to criticize the state of any group of men as they have, in essence, ultimately resulted from their own creation. You may not pass judgement on a system which outlaws freedom and makes legal murder. Nor may you pass judgement on system that protects freedom and outlaws murder. They have both resulted from the, at some point in time, anarchical state of men. When laws are created to protect one thing and not another, they necessarily infringe upon the "freedom" to do something. Whether that be murder or trade, a judgement call is made, and as far as your beliefs are concerned such a judgement call, whatever it may be, cannot be criticized, since there is no ultimately right judgement call. You seem to assume that men will naturally construct a system of freedom. Only the anglos have done so thus far, why such faith in general? Anarchism is not synonymous with freedom, and if you understand such a thing, and still hold on to it, then you can necessarily not pass judgement on anything.
I can't believe no-one has brought this up yet.
Natural Order, the State and the Immigration Problem by Hoppe.
It's not about hate; it's about respecing private property.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
JimS: Productivity is certainly not a simple ratio of capital to labor. Productity relates to efficient allocation of capital and labor. Glad you brought up the issue of new borns. Your analysis is showing the follies that can emerge when playing with macroeconomic terms like "per capita GDP" and "unemployment"
Productivity is certainly not a simple ratio of capital to labor. Productity relates to efficient allocation of capital and labor.
Glad you brought up the issue of new borns. Your analysis is showing the follies that can emerge when playing with macroeconomic terms like "per capita GDP" and "unemployment"
yes, efficient allocation of capital and labour is important, but presupposes the existance of the capital, and is not affected by the presence of illegals or otherwise. it relates to suffocating bureaucratic rules and regulations, which is a separate issue.
point number two, if you're going to ignore macroeconomic terms like "per capita gdp" or "unemployment", there's no point talking about anything other than your personal experience. or anybody's personal experience. i read your post, now you should do a search on mises under "irish potato famine" and convince yourself about the consequences of population growth without capital expansion, or read malthus (henry hazlitt has a good bit on him in conquest of poverty, which is downloadable from mises).
finally, i'm not a racist, merely point out what i thought was obvious: democratic states will only open borders when there's a real labour shortage across the vocational spectrum. that is, when immigrants can be accomodated without lowering wages.
The US is attractive to the people born in other countries because of (relative) FREEDOM, not free handouts. If immigrants wanted free healthcare and free education for their kids in their own language, they could have stayed home because most countries in the world have them. Foodstamps probably can't even buy enough burritoes at US prices to match a street beggar can get in Mexico City; on top of that, I'm not even sure how many illegal immigrants dare to file tax returns in order to qualify for foodstamps and other welfare programs. Government intervention and welfare programs, all of which have to be supported by taxation, are what make much of the rest of the world poor. That's why immigrants come here, in search of freedom and opportunities. If anything, the poor immigrants may have stronger inner yearning for freedom than we do. Would you pack up and walk through hundreds of miles of desert, risking death by exposure, so that there might be a better future for yourself and your family? I'm not even sure that I have that kind of fortitude.
The divisive xenophobic politics is what push some immigrants and their offsprings into the waiting arms of statists for protection. If you look through the voting patterns, immigrant blacks vote Republican much more than native-born US national blacks; same with Hispanics and Asians. First-generation naturalized immigrants have a very high proportion vote for Republicans, unless there is immigrant-bashing making them feel insecure; the well-known Cuban Americans voting pattern is not unique in that regard. That's why I have been saying, Republican immigrant bashing is really political suicide for the party; for libertarians, such bashing is also against the principle.
Byzantine:The purpose of a criminal code--or any legal code for that matter, including a private one--is to provide notice of consequences, not to prevent crime.
The purpose of a criminal code--or any legal code for that matter, including a private one--is to provide notice of consequences, not to prevent crime.
I agree, and thats the point too. For the majority of us, we don't follow the laws on purpose, they just provide punishments for things we wouldn't do anyway. The idea that fear of those punishments, even though it sounds like a good case, is not a good argument for why we don't do those things. Very few of us are walking criminal code books. Even things that we all know the punishments for, like murder, are things that the majority of us wouldn't do anyway. There are some laws that we might know about that we don't follow because they are either a.) inconvenient or b.) laws we just don't agree with. How many people here have never sped? How many have consumed alcohol under age or smoked pot? But most of us, today, have a system of belief that says, "as long as I am not harming anyone else or causing them a loss, I am good." We follow that principle above the law. We (for the most part) believe that all just laws are based on that principle. And we have a belief system on how to deal with people that go against that principle. The minarchists believe in using the force of the state to punish them and anarchists believe in using private means to provide for it.
So to bring the discussion back into focus on immigration...
What loss is suffered from immigration? Isn't the force that is being used to cause us a loss coming from the state, not from the immigrants? Is placing the blame on immigrants (instead of the state, where it belongs) letting people off the hook that are "citizens" who use and abuse the exact same government programs? Since the laws provide for punishment of something, are laws against "illegal" immigration only laws against immigration and anyone with the belief that they are "harming no one" will just ignore them as unjust?
The shortest answer is that it's a lot easier to get the government to keep out competition than it is to increase the value of one's labor.
Oh, and the fact that they look different adds another incentive for many.
Sailor,
For every one of the illegal immigrants you mention that has done so well, and I applaud her, I can show you a legion that are of another ilk. If you read the police reports in your local newspaper you will notice that, on most days, the surnames of those arrested for violent crimes and driving violations will be Spanish. One good apple does not provide enough reason for not getting rid of this problem. Where I live illegals are responsible for most of the crime, both violent and traffic. If not for this fact my locality would have to spend less on police services and would be able to spend that money on more worthwhile pursuits.
I also disagree with those that say that the illegals give more to the nation than they take from it. Given the fact that most illegals have no insurance and use the emergency room for all of their medical needs thus foisting those costs onto those of us that do have insurance, that they collectively have a tendency to send huge amounts of money out of the country creating a real drag on the economy, that they have a tendency to drive vehicles that should not be on the road without insurance and flee from accidents costing the other driver and all of us increased insurance costs and have a tendency to take the jobs that our young sons and daughters could be doing to get started (look at the unemployment rate among young black males) and drive down the wages for those jobs thus having a deliterious effect on income citizens on the edge of poverty. Given all of that (and I could go on) I don't even think the 'give and take' question should be posed by those that are on the illegals side.
Physiocrat: I can't believe no-one has brought this up yet. Natural Order, the State and the Immigration Problem by Hoppe. It's not about hate; it's about respecing private property.
I think it would take all day to point out everything that is wrong with Hoppe had to say in that. Even if we take out the drivel on the idea of separating "ethno-cultures" and focus on the property issue, it is off base. What the government has taken from people by force isn't private property, it is government property. Taxes and land taken from citizens by the government doesn't belong to all citizens, it belongs to the government. If you don't think this is true, show up at your local elementary school in your boxers and hang out in the classrooms. Or go build yourself a house in area 51. There is no "public" ownership of anything. It is either private or government. If anything immigration laws represent a collective attitude that private property is forfeit to the "greater good". Imminent domain is used to take private land away from the owners and put it in the hands of the government so they can patrol or build fences or whatever it is they choose to do. It shouldn't be a surprise, I guess, that this collective attitude is so widespread since it is used so often to sell a load of crap to the average citizen. Even to the point were people who claim to believe in a free market are asking for government intervention into the market to save American jobs. If I claimed to believe in the free market but also touted immigration laws, I would be embarrassed for myself.
Harksaw: The shortest answer is that it's a lot easier to get the government to keep out competition than it is to increase the value of one's labor. Oh, and the fact that they look different adds another incentive for many.
totally agree. but the first bit sells well even to the non-racists, those who are solely self-interested.
Glad we at least agree that bureaucratic rules and regulations get in the way of capital growth. Even the benighted lawmakers have a vague inkling of that as all minimum wage laws usually make exemption for farm labors. If farms are not legally allowed to hire workers (immigrant or otherwise) whose productivity is below the minimum wage, the farm can not turn out produce and therefore the farm capital is impaired; likewise, a chicken processing factory, if not allowed to hire workers at free market arrangement, its capital is impaired; likewise, a landlord with an empty building or apartment to rent. bureaucratic rules and regulations, including paper requirement for legal existence and employability, can only serve to impair capital by getting in the way of the merry meeting of capital and labor at freely chosen exchange rate.
If we really want to worship "per capita GDP" and "unemployment" statistics, then we'd have to love immigrants, the more illegal the better, the more law they break the better: when a federal raid is staged on that chicken processing plant, the overtime pay for the federal agents is fully counted as GDP, never mind the chickens are left unpacked and to rot; it gets even better if some immigrant gets really sick, his entire hospital bill will be counted as GDP . . . never mind that the chickens are left unpacked. You get the picture. "GDP" and "unemployment" are merely tools that vaguely and hopelessly trying to approximate reality. Government make-work programs may reduce "unemployment" but do not in reality help elevate standard of living. Irish Potato Farmineis a classic case of how protectionism (Corn Law) and government make-work programs do not work. Laws designed to keep one group of labor out in order to artificially inflate another labor group is not only protectionism but also a make-work program . . . at the expense of impairing existing capital of course as some farms and chicken factories will cease to operate, and the vast majority of savers get gipped by the resulting inflation.
"democratic states will only open borders when there's a real labour shortage across the vocational spectrum. that is, when immigrants can be accomodated without lowering wages."
That's like saying democratic states will have to have ever-inflating fiat money to make sure wages do not ever go down in nominal terms. Nominal wages going down should not be a real problem if the same amount of money can buy more products (including imports) and more services (including those rendered by import labor). Your statement is quite a revelation though: it's not that the immigrants are socialists, but we are!
JimS:Your statement is quite a revelation though: it's not that the immigrants are socialists, but we are!
Your statement is quite a revelation though: it's not that the immigrants are socialists, but we are!
LOL, excellent.
The entire anti-immigration debate is based on collectivist ideas, from protecting a culture that doesn't really exist, to protecting "american" jobs, to collective ownership of property, there is no escaping it. Even the argument that it will cause the government to take more from us to pay for government programs is lending validation to those programs in the first place.