Economics Questions

Re: Immigration?

Curius Dentatus — Sat, 30 May 2009 03:41:40 GMT

david_z:

Fair enough, I suppose, but doesn't answer the question: "What right of yours is in the midst of being violated?"

I'm OK with sending them off your land, I suppose... But obviously without obscene barriers to entry, there will come to exist property owners who are perfecly OK with the passage, at a very minimal price. This price will become known to prospective trespassers on other lands (as will the "price" of their trespasses elsewhere) and this minimal price ultimately wins out. So, the idea of a geography entirely landlocked is pretty much absurd, in the abscence of nation states.

Exactly.

Re: Immigration?

David Z — Fri, 29 May 2009 05:40:28 GMT

Fair enough, I suppose, but doesn't answer the question: "What right of yours is in the midst of being violated?"

I'm OK with sending them off your land, I suppose... But obviously without obscene barriers to entry, there will come to exist property owners who are perfecly OK with the passage, at a very minimal price. This price will become known to prospective trespassers on other lands (as will the "price" of their trespasses elsewhere) and this minimal price ultimately wins out. So, the idea of a geography entirely landlocked is pretty much absurd, in the abscence of nation states.

Re: Immigration?

David Z — Fri, 29 May 2009 05:35:07 GMT

Curius Dentatus:
Why not charge them a shilling?

And if they have no means to pay?

Re: Immigration?

Curius Dentatus — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:24:02 GMT

Why not charge them a shilling? Sooner or later you'll have a road built and charge those trespassers a quick passage off your land.

Re: Immigration?

Bostwick — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:14:52 GMT

david_z:

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?

At a minimum, send them off your property on the path of your choosing. Which unfortunately for the trespasser, could be the way they came.

Re: Immigration?

David Z — Thu, 28 May 2009 12:37:31 GMT

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?

Re: Immigration?

Bostwick — Thu, 28 May 2009 04:41:41 GMT

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.

Re: Immigration?

Andrew Cain — Thu, 28 May 2009 04:41:35 GMT

Actually it sounds like a subjective decision based on the land owner's rational.

Re: Immigration?

sicsempertyrannis — Thu, 28 May 2009 04:19:37 GMT

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.

Re: Immigration?

David Z — Thu, 28 May 2009 04:14:35 GMT

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.

Re: Immigration?

sicsempertyrannis — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:12:51 GMT

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?

Re: Immigration?

Stranger — Wed, 27 May 2009 22:49:18 GMT

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.

Re: Immigration?

David Z — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:37:55 GMT

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."

Re: Immigration?

Arvin — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:42:55 GMT

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.

Re: Immigration?

David Z — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:10:55 GMT

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.