To introduce the topic, I am a supporter of open-borders, and I am aware that there are differing perspectives on the issue of immigration among Austrian thinkers. That said, I have seen criticism of Ron Paul's "anti-immigrant" stance in that it violates Austrian principles is un-Misesian. Of course, the biography page for Ludwig von Mises (written by Rothbard) on this site states that Mises "denounced...immigration restrictions", so it would seem that this criticism would be justfied, however I'm stuck on a passage from the introduction to Omnipotent Government (1944):
However, it would be a fateful mistake to assume that a return to the policies of liberalism abandoned by the civilized nations some decades ago could cure these evils and open the way toward peaceful cooperation of nations and toward prosperity. If Europeans and the peoples of European descent in other parts of the earth had not yielded to etatism, if they had not embarked upon vast schemes of government interference with business, our recent political, social, and economic disasters could have been avoided. Men would live today under more satisfactory conditions and would not apply all their skill and all their intellectual powers to mutual extermination. But these years of antagonism and conflict have left a deep impression on human mentality, which cannot easily be eradicated. They have marked the souls of men, they have disintegrated the spirit of human cooperation, and have engendered hatreds which can vanish only in centuries. Under present conditions the adoption of a policy of outright laissez faire and laissez passer on the part of the civilized nations of the West would be equivalent to an unconditional surrender to the totalitarian nations. Take, for instance, the case of migration barriers. Unrestrictedly opening the doors of the Americas, of Australia, and of Western Europe to immigrants would today be equivalent to opening the doors to the vanguards of the armies of Germany, Italy, and Japan. There is no other system which could safeguard the smooth coordination of the peaceful efforts of individuals and nations but the system today commonly scorned as Manchesterism. We may hope— although such hopes are rather feeble—that the peoples of the Western democratic world will be prepared to acknowledge this fact, and to abandon their present-day totalitarian tendencies. But there can be no doubt that to the immense majority of men militarist ideas appeal much more than those of liberalism. The most that can be expected for the immediate future is the separation of the world into two sections: a liberal, democratic, and capitalist West with about one quarter of the total world population, and a militarist and totalitarian East embracing the much greater part of the earth's surface and its population. Such a state of affairs will force upon the West policies of defense which will seriously hamper its efforts to make life more civilized and economic conditions more prosperous.
So am I missing Mises' point, or does he seem to be arguing for the retention of immigration restrictions in the present because of other factors that must be first dealt with (much like Ron Paul has in regard to the welfare state)? If so, is the aforementioned biography incorrect, or did Mises change his mind at some point?
>That said, I have seen criticism of Ron Paul's "anti-immigrant" stance in that it violates Austrian principles
Austrian Economics is logically derived and it is not possible for acting humans to violate it. I think you meant libertarian principles.
Here's my opinion on immigration: If you don't want someone on your property, don't let them come in. If you don't want to do business with someone, then don't.
Josh Hanson: That said, I have seen criticism of Ron Paul's "anti-immigrant" stance in that it violates Austrian principles.
That said, I have seen criticism of Ron Paul's "anti-immigrant" stance in that it violates Austrian principles.
Ron Paul was free-immigration, but he realizes that currently an open borders policy would lead to an extension of the government's welfare program. George Reisman, in Capitalism, sums it up the best when he says that a free-immigration policy can only work in a country without welfare.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Ron Paul was free-immigration, but he realizes that currently an open borders policy would lead to an extension of the government's welfare program. George Reisman, in Capitalism, sums it up the best when he says that a free-immigration policy can only work in a country without welfare.
Well couldn't open borders be seen as a economical way of destroying the state? More welfare, more taxation, less toleration. Also with a springing of multi-cultural sentiment, one could make the argument that one institution is incapable of representing such a wide base of opinion.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Josh Hanson: That said, I have seen criticism of Ron Paul's "anti-immigrant" stance in that it violates Austrian principles. Ron Paul was free-immigration, but he realizes that currently an open borders policy would lead to an extension of the government's welfare program. George Reisman, in Capitalism, sums it up the best when he says that a free-immigration policy can only work in a country without welfare.
All the land is currently in public property, so open-immigration is just an invitation to consume all the capital in one massive tragedy of the commons.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Laughing Man: Well couldn't open borders be seen as a economical way of destroying the state? More welfare, more taxation, less toleration.
Well couldn't open borders be seen as a economical way of destroying the state? More welfare, more taxation, less toleration.
Sure, and destroying our incomes in the meantime. I rather find another way to do it, instead of sacrificing my income for the "greater good". In any case, if Robert Higgs and Ludwig von Mises are right then all States are moving towards the "crisis of interventionism" anyways.
baxter:Austrian Economics is logically derived and it is not possible for acting humans to violate it. I think you meant libertarian principles.
That's fine. You get my point though. Either way, my question is not whether the pro-immigration or anti-immigration position is correct. My question is how can Paul's qualified anti-immigration position be called "un-Misesian" (as I have seen it), if Mises himself could accept qualified anti-immigration arguments (as seen in the quote)? Did Mises change his position on this issue to reject the quote above, or are critics just unaware of Mises' actual view of the issue?
That much is understood. This mirrors Mises' quote above that free immigration in the present political climate would be disastrous. But when Rothbard states that Mises "denounced [...] immigration restrictions" here, was he ignoring Mises' statement above, or did Mises change his stance at a later point?
Two Things.
The Division of labor and
the Law of Comparative advantage.
These two concepts alone would tend to discredit the nationalistic concept of heavily restrictive immigration.
Also recognize that a country that has an immigration problem is more preferably to a country that has an emigration problem.
Mises is saying that the Western, democratic, capitalist nations of the world in 1944 were right in restricting immigration from the Axis (and probably the Comintern) since a flood of Nazi-sympathsizing immigrants to the West could permanently ruin the prospects for liberty. In other words, you don't want a flood of pro-totalitarian people flooding a democratic nation where there are rights to vote, free speech, assembly, etc., since those pro-totalitarian immigrants would inevitably use those powers against the democracy itself.
You have to remember that Mises was not a libertarian ideologue. He was an economist and he was interested in praxeology as a science. So here, Mises shows that yes, in fact, maybe we cannot immediately transfer from corrupt social democracies to libertarian havens. Perhaps transitionary periods of scaling down government and bringing liberty to the rest of the world are necessary.
Political Atheists Blog
Perhaps I wasn't being clear with my question (or perhaps people have been responding without reading my question carefully ). I fully understand what Mises said in this passage and why he said it. I'm well aware that Mises took the more utilitarian view while Rothbard tended to focus on natural rights. My question is in regard to Rothbard's description of Mises, given the fact that I've only read a handful of each of their works.
From the passage quoted above, I see the following path of thinking:
What I'm questioning is why Rothbard states that Mises denounced immigration restrictions if he actually supported them, even if it was only due to present conditions. Yes, I'm aware that Mises criticized the idea of immigration restrictions in another time and another place, but if he supports them in the real world (and seemingly will for centuries until society is once again ready for laissez-faire), it would seem to me that that would classify him as anti-immigration.
The difference is (as far as I understand) that Rothbard argued for the real-world implementation of anarcho-capitalism while Mises seemingly only favors certain implementations (immigration in this case) in some other ideal situation. My question is that if Mises does not really call for open immigration, how can this be referred to as a denunciation of immigration restrictions? At best, this would seem to be no different than the common objection to libertarian thought that "that all sounds fine in theory, but it doesn't work in practice".
So, to get back to my original question, was Rothbard referring to some other instance where Mises actually denounced immigration restrictions in the real world? OR was Rothbard referring only to Mises' theoretical arguments, divorced from real-world implications?
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Sure, and destroying our incomes in the meantime. I rather find another way to do it, instead of sacrificing my income for the "greater good". In any case, if Robert Higgs and Ludwig von Mises are right then all States are moving towards the "crisis of interventionism" anyways.
Well either throw the frog in boiling water or raise the temperature while it is in it. We've basically had 200 years of subtle intervention without a majority really caring about what happens. Crisis moments are when the status quo is truly questioned.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:Sure, and destroying our incomes in the meantime. I rather find another way to do it, instead of sacrificing my income for the "greater good".
Perhaps your descent income is a simple reflection of the generous states protectionism. Such a luxury however cannot be said for those that are un-employed. There is a reason why a large percentage of our labor force comes from foreigners, whether domestically or externally. Perhaps all our incomes are in an un-natural condition. Maybe our incomes need to be balanced out, and our ridiculous cost of living with it.
filc: Perhaps your descent income is a simple reflection of the generous states protectionism. Such a luxury however cannot be said for those that are un-employed. There is a reason why a large percentage of our labor force comes from foreigners, whether domestically or externally. Perhaps all our incomes are in an un-natural condition. Maybe our incomes need to be balanced out, and our ridiculous cost of living with it.
The fact that there is unemployment is through no fault of my own (well, it is, but not voluntarily; well, maybe you'll find some exceptions... but you get my point). Governments have been toppled before without the complete expropriation of my wealth. I don't feel that it is necessary to "kill the beast" and simultaneously ruin my life.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:The fact that there is unemployment is through no fault of my own (well, it is, but not voluntarily; well, maybe you'll find some exceptions... but you get my point). Governments have been toppled before without the complete expropriation of my wealth. I don't feel that it is necessary to "kill the beast" and simultaneously ruin my life.
I get you. I was just making a point that perhaps our comfortable salaries in this country are nothing more than an artificial bubble propped up by nationalistic protectionism. This act however of protecting our salaries has come at a steep cost. Cost of living is insanely high and much of our productivity is being moved outside of our borders.
filc:Cost of living is insanely high and much of our productivity is being moved outside of our borders.
That would indicate that we are not protected by nationalist favoritism, wouldn't it?
Stranger: filc:Cost of living is insanely high and much of our productivity is being moved outside of our borders. That would indicate that we are not protected by nationalist favoritism, wouldn't it?
Some industries are; some aren't.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
No matter how hard you try, even coercively, you cannot force productivity to stay in your Nation. Protectionism harms some, and benefits others. It will drive out those that it harms. Since it's out of the nations control they create various negative campaign's to combat this problem. Take the "Built in America" campaign. Everyone thinks this is great as it boosts our domestic economy, in actuallity it makes us poorer as it undermines Ricardo's law in trading with other nations. Our domestic products are unnecessarily expensive. By state power we support people to produce things in a less efficient manner, and punish external individuals who are producing things in a more efficient manner. We squelch natural resources in the process and raise the cost of living. Since cost of living rises due to various factors such as this in addition to other factors, like inflation, they also start raising the minimum wage which also causes additional harm. So it's a perpetual error attempting to be corrected by other errors.
In our case it harms many business's, and benefits a small minority.The labor protectionism is very intrusive to business operations in this country. Things like minimum wage for example. We outprice our own productivity. The result is what you see. Productivity moves out of the country, even though minimum wage is a form of protectionism. The LTV followers of the labor movement especially do not understand this.
To overly simplify the point, its the restriction on trade that causes the high costs.
No matter how hard you try, even coercively, you cannot force productivity to stay in your Nation.
"productivity" is a meaningless word. All the kings horses and all the kings men can't change the fact billions of people live at a standard below the typical city dweller in antiquity. Further, it ignores cultural differences, expectations, and desires. Your notion of productivity is related to the flattening of human behavior that results from the materialistic notions of of the bankster's usurious decisions regarding life. Only with a society saturated by debt can human behavior be quantified to a degree that "productivity" can be measured.
Protectionism harms some, and benefits others.
The United States of America went from a barbarian infested wilderness to the world's foremost industrial superpower in a mere century, all with stringent protectionism is place. Your claim is baseless and flatly contradicts history.
It will drive out those that it harms.
If you mean that the various parasite classes of people will have to find a new host, then so be it.
Since it's out of the nations control they create various negative campaign's to combat this problem. Take the "Built in America" campaign. Everyone thinks this is great as it boosts our domestic economy, in actuallity it makes us poorer as it undermines Ricardo's law in trading with other nations. Our domestic products are unnecessarily expensive. By state power we support people to produce things in a less efficient manner, and punish external individuals who are producing things in a more efficient manner.
1. Nothing is out of the control of a nation. You do not appear to subscribe to a definition of "nation" that recognizes the concept known as sovereignty.
2. Propaganda is a natural part of a complex society. That is not protectionism. And seriously, do you really think that if we banned the importation of automobiles tomorrow and foreign ownership of industry in the United States, not a single one of our 300 million citizens could figure out how to build a quality car at a profit? Obviously, the collapse of domestic industry is due to other factors, like national policies and usurious banking practices that favor this result.
3. The state exists to serve its citizens. The external individuals who are "punished" are often little more than slaves in foreign lands. As Oswald Spengler pointed out to us nearly a century ago, the collapse of Western Civilization was very much due to the personal dignity of the European artisan being replaced with the base desires of the the coolie. Your failure to understand the cultural aspects at work here will be yours, and every other globalists downfall. Civilization was not created to produce useless garbage for the masses to consume.
We squelch natural resources in the process and raise the cost of living.
Natural resources are, umm, natural. As in finite and restricted by human ability in terms of their exploitation. That has nothing to do with anything you described previously. This particular point, as we shall see in coming years, will be the final nail in the coffin of internationalists like yourself. We have insufficient natural resources upon this planet to provide an American standard of living for 6 billion people. Economic models based upon utilitarian and materialistic principles of supply and demand will be useless in describing a successful state when resources scarcity has major destabilizing effects.
Since cost of living rises due to various factors such as this in addition to other factors, like inflation, they also start raising the minimum wage which also causes additional harm. So it's a perpetual error attempting to be corrected by other errors. In our case it harms many business's, and benefits a small minority.The labor protectionism is very intrusive to business operations in this country. Things like minimum wage for example. We outprice our own productivity. The result is what you see. Productivity moves out of the country, even though minimum wage is a form of protectionism. The LTV followers of the labor movement especially do not understand this. To overly simplify the point, its the restriction on trade that causes the high costs.
So, the end result of protectionism is all the productivity leaves the country, and you end up with a nation where everyone sits around and produces nothing?
Friend, you need to become part of a real community. Get off the internet. Learn how to do something "productive" . Your theory is completely preposterous, contradicts the entire history of civilized humanity since the time of Hammurabi, and particularly today - offers no guidance at all as to why the whole world is going to hell.
polemicist:"productivity" is a meaningless word.
If a group of individuals can produce an object at a lower cost, and more efficiently using less resources then they are the party that needs to succeed. Overall they bring a greater wealth to the economy as a whole by using less resources and lowering the overall cost of the good for consumers all while providing greater abundance. Abundance not just in their own products but by other products, as the costs involved by those now less used resources also drop. With less demand on scarce resources production costs begin to fall, this paves a path of opportunity for new business's now finding it feasible to produce. The overall economy grows, goods become cheaper, quality increase, and selection increases. This is deflation, an overall good thing for the economy.
If we support a less efficient producer then the overall costs are higher. The less efficient producer uses more natural resources causing all goods using that resource to rise. The competitive market rate for that resource also rises due to it's additional use and all associated products also rise in price. This causes price inflation across the whole economy and makes consumers poorer. This is how you create an unhealthy economy.
If we leave capitalism alone and let it do it's job it will flush out those less efficient producers, thereby creating a healthy economy, benefiting everyone. We do not want to support firms who produce objects that are not desireable by the consumer. Such firms waste scarce resources, causing the overall prices of all goods to go up. This is price inflation.
Protectionism does exactly this, it protects inefficient firms or firms producing things that consumers do not want.
So when I am referring to productivity I am referring to firms or individuals capable of producing the most while consuming the least. This is Lassiez Faire. It hardly qualifies as a useless term, and you did not really explain your reasoning behind that claim.
polemicist: All the kings horses and all the kings men can't change the fact billions of people live at a standard below the typical city dweller in antiquity.
This is all the more reason to keep all of the Kings horses and men out of the business of trade and voluntary exchange amongst individuals. The only way to help global poverty is by increased productivity. We need additional abundance of cheap high quality goods. The more there is to go around the more there is for everyone. Does this make any sense? In other words, more is better, less is worse. Fairly simple.
polemicist: Your notion of productivity is related to the flattening of human behavior that results from the materialistic notions of of the bankster's usurious decisions regarding life.
I'm not sure how :bankster's usurious" is relevant. You will also have to explain this in laymens terms. I don't really understand what your saying. At any rate it seems somewhat non-sequitur.
polemicist:Only with a society saturated by debt can human behavior be quantified to a degree that "productivity" can be measured.
Not true, productivity can be measured in any unit of exchange. But your statement has nothing to do with the law of comparative advantage or the benefits of the division of labor. Also, as a side note, units of exchange need not be backed by dept. Would you prefer we resort back to the barter system?
Go easy on the non-sequitur statements. You makes you appear antagonistic.
polemicist:The United States of America went from a barbarian infested wilderness to the world's foremost industrial superpower in a mere century, all with stringent protectionism is place. Your claim is baseless and flatly contradicts history.
Two statements false here. First it was by breaking free of England's protectionism when Americas sail of prosperity was set free. Secondly it was the massive accumulation of capital which brought forth the wealthiest nation on earth. Your statement of "Industrial Power" implies the accumulation of capital, this is inherent to capitalism. Free trade is the reason America prospered. Not protectionism. So you are wrong on both cases, in fact quiet the opposite is the case.
I am not sure if you realize this or not but many Austrian Economists are also secondly or even firsthand historians. It's a side note but it is somewhat futile to dispute history with them. I'll admit I am not history buff, but there are plenty others here. Some of them even right books.
polemicist:If you mean that the various parasite classes of people will have to find a new host, then so be it.
Immigrants come here because there is a demand for labor. If there was no demand for labor they would not come. They do not come here for welfare. If that were the case we wouldn't have seen the sharp decrease in immigration at the tail end of the housing bubble. But if your concerned with immigrants participating in welfare, well then thats an argument against welfarism, not against immigration. Be sure you understand what the actual problem is. In the case of being parasitic it's the welfare thats the problem. A human actor only adds productive value to an economy. Welfare just subtracts a portion of his productivity making him less productive.
Just remove the welfare, problem solved.
polemicist:1. Nothing is out of the control of a nation. You do not appear to subscribe to a definition of "nation" that recognizes the concept known as sovereignty.
Your right. I do not understand nor recognize the concept of a single monopoly claiming ownership of an entire geographical region of the earth. Then using violence to maintain it's presence, and protect it's ill gotten gains. I do not recognize the benefits of inside deals made through this coercive monopoly supporting inefficient business's while valuable business's are marginalized.
polemicist:2. Propaganda is a natural part of a complex society. That is not protectionism. And seriously, do you really think that if we banned the importation of automobiles tomorrow and foreign ownership of industry in the United States, not a single one of our 300 million citizens could figure out how to build a quality car at a profit? Obviously, the collapse of domestic industry is due to other factors, like national policies and usurious banking practices that favor this result.
Ofcoarse they could profit from the protection racket that exists. But it would not be efficient and the cost of vehicles would be much higher, unecessarily so. Neighboring countries would be enjoying cheap automobiles while the states would not. Repeating this process across all sectors would be devistating.
What you have described is essentially Fascism, I am curious if you understand it's concept. Also have you at all read up on the law of comparative advantage? If isolationism works then why trade with your neighbor at all? Do you truly wish to refute the wonders of the division of labor? Allow Mises to explain.
Mises HA. Pg 159:If A is in such a way more efficient than B that he needs for the production of 1 unit of the commodity p 3 hours compared with B’s 5, and for the production of 1 unit of q 2 hours compared with B’s 4, then both will gain if A confines himself to producing q and leaves B to produce p. If each of them gives 60 hours to producing p and 60 hours to producing q, the result of A’s labor is 20 p + 30 q; of B’s, 12 p +15 q; and for both together , 32 p + 45 q. If, however, A confines himself to producing q alone, he produces 60 q in 120 hours, while B, if he confines himself to producing p, produces in the same time 24 p. The result of their activities is then 24 p + 60 q, which, as p has for A a substitution ratio of 3q/2q and for B one of 5q/4q, signifies a larger output than 32 p + 45 q. Therefore it is manifest that the division of labor brings advantages to all who take part in it. Collaboration of the more talented, more able, and more industrious with the less talented, less able, and less industrious results in benefit for both. The gains derived from the division of labor are always mutual. The law of association makes us comprehend the tendencies which resulted in the progressive intensification of human cooperation. We conceive what incentive induced people not to consider themselves simply as rivals in a struggle for the appropriation of the limited supply of means of subsistence made available by nature. We realize what has impelled them and permanently impels them to consort with one another for the sake of cooperation. Every step forward on the way to a more developed mode of the division of labor serves the interests of all participants. In order to comprehend why man did not remain solitary, searching like the animals for food and shelter for himself only and at most also for his consort and his helpless infants, we do not need to have recourse to a miraculous interference of the Deity or to the empty hypostasis of an innate urge toward association. Neither are we forced to assume that the isolated individuals or primitive hordes one day pledged themselves by a contract to establish social bonds. The factor that brought about primitive society and daily works toward its progressive intensification is human action that is animated by the insight into the higher productivity of labor achieved under the division of labor.
The law of association makes us comprehend the tendencies which resulted in the progressive intensification of human cooperation. We conceive what incentive induced people not to consider themselves simply as rivals in a struggle for the appropriation of the limited supply of means of subsistence made available by nature. We realize what has impelled them and permanently impels them to consort with one another for the sake of cooperation. Every step forward on the way to a more developed mode of the division of labor serves the interests of all participants. In order to comprehend why man did not remain solitary, searching like the animals for food and shelter for himself only and at most also for his consort and his helpless infants, we do not need to have recourse to a miraculous interference of the Deity or to the empty hypostasis of an innate urge toward association. Neither are we forced to assume that the isolated individuals or primitive hordes one day pledged themselves by a contract to establish social bonds. The factor that brought about primitive society and daily works toward its progressive intensification is human action that is animated by the insight into the higher productivity of labor achieved under the division of labor.
polemicist:3. The state exists to serve its citizens.
And yet sadly it does not? Economically it cannot, and morally it cannot. It has no method by which to accurately measure the performance of it's services to it's citizens. Without profit and loss it has no metric to measure from. In the presence of compulsion it has no economic calculation.
polemicist:Your failure to understand the cultural aspects at work here will be yours, and every other globalists downfall.
Cultural differences are besides economics. Cultural differences do not make a nation rich or poor. If anything it makes the world that much more rich, but National isolation due to cultural differences is a very irrational thing to do if our goal is to be wealth and live peacefully.
The cultural differences argument ultimately is empty. It has no weight and follows no reason.
Mises HA pg 686:Liberalism did not and does not build its hopes upon abolition of the sovereignty of the various national governments, a venture which would result in endless wars. It aims at a general recognition of the idea of economic freedom. If all peoples become liberal and conceive that economic freedom best serves their own interests, national sovereignty will no longer engender conflict and war. What is needed to make peace durable is neither international treaties and covenants nor international tribunals and organizations like the defunct League of Nations or its successor, the United Nations. If the principle of the market economy is universally accepted, such makeshifts are unnecessary; if it is not accepted, they are futile. Durable peace can only be the outgrowth of a change in ideologies. As long as the peoples cling to the Montaigne dogma and think that they cannot prosper economically except at the expense of other nations, peace will never be anything other than a period of preparation for the next war. Economic nationalism is incompatible with durable peace. Yet economic nationalism is unavoidable where there is government interference with business. Protectionism is indispensable where there is no domestic free trade. Where there is government interference with business, free trade even in the short run would frustrate the aims sought by the various interventionist measures.
Economic nationalism is incompatible with durable peace. Yet economic nationalism is unavoidable where there is government interference with business. Protectionism is indispensable where there is no domestic free trade. Where there is government interference with business, free trade even in the short run would frustrate the aims sought by the various interventionist measures.
polemicist:Natural resources are, umm, natural.
They are also scarce. That is what I was attempting to get at.
polemicist:As in finite and restricted by human ability in terms of their exploitation. That has nothing to do with anything you described previously.
It has everything to do with it. The point of economics is the efficient distribution of scarce resources to satisfy the greatest demand of needs amongst individuals. I am sorry you don't understand that. I would recommend reading up on the subject before debating with people on an economics based forum.
polemicist:We have insufficient natural resources upon this planet to provide an American standard of living for 6 billion people.
This statement seems to agree with my entire thesis above. Allow me to re-quote myself. It's a solid point and I thank you for making it.
filc:Perhaps your descent income is a simple reflection of the generous states protectionism.
polemicist: Economic models based upon utilitarian and materialistic principles of supply and demand will be useless in describing a successful state when resources scarcity has major destabilizing effects.
I am almost certain you are confused. The market deals such factors easily. If a good is scarce or fluctuates it's price and distribution will reflect that.
polemicist:So, the end result of protectionism is all the productivity leaves the country, and you end up with a nation where everyone sits around and produces nothing?
Essentially. And/or you create bubbles to get around that. Bubbles get paid for however in the long run.
polemicist:Friend
Do not patronize me.
polemicist:you need to become part of a real community
I am
polemicist: Get off the internet.
Negative.
polemicist:Learn how to do something "productive" .
I consider myself a producer. My wages alone prove that. My savings seem to prove that I produce more than I consume.
polemicist:Your theory is completely preposterous, contradicts the entire history of civilized humanity since the time of Hammurabi, and particularly today - offers no guidance at all as to why the whole world is going to hell.
It's logically coherent and true. And explains entirely why the world is going to hell. Perhaps you should read a little bit about it.
On Ricardo's law.
Mises in HA Pg 161: People cavil much about Ricardo’s law of association, better known under the name law of comparative cost. The reason is obvious. This law is an offense to all those eager to justify protection and national economic isolation from any point of view other than the selfish interests of some producers or the issues of war-preparedness.
People cavil much about Ricardo’s law of association, better known under the name law of comparative cost. The reason is obvious. This law is an offense to all those eager to justify protection and national economic isolation from any point of view other than the selfish interests of some producers or the issues of war-preparedness.
Are you one of those who takes offense?
I'd like to point out that your tone is clearly antagonistic. Do you have any reasoning or logic behind your dispute? Or is the weight in your argument only as large as the bare assertions themselves?. If we can progress in a more positive tone perhaps one of us would stand to learn something.
As far as economics goes, I highly recommend the following book to get you started.
polemicist:And seriously, do you really think that if we banned the importation of automobiles tomorrow and foreign ownership of industry in the United States, not a single one of our 300 million citizens could figure out how to build a quality car at a profit?
Of course not.
Americans could not hope to learn good engineering and quality automobile production in an entire half a century from now.
When Americans were rushing to meet the small car craze back in 1959, and releasing a new wave of small stylish cars, the Volkswagen Beetle ended up beating all of them by a huge margin. Except the Beetle was not made in 1959, it was made in 1938 in Germany. And yet the Beetle was a faster car, had a more luxurious interior, was consistently more reliable for a longer period, and was even cheaper than the other American small cars.
Germans have a culture of scientific and engineering bent that has been built and nurtured for a far longer period than Americans have ever had. The only thing that needs to be emphasised here is that even 300 million people means nothing when a nation of roughly 60 million people like Germany has a far higher IQ and far more challenging education system. All the American people are more than welcome to slit their own throats to see if they are better off afterwards. United States has a GDP larger than the next two largest national GDPs combined and a per capita income that is more than twice of Russia despite being the biggest importer nation in the world. That's because America imports everything that others can produce better and allocates its labour and capital to the industries which are able to produce what the rest of the world can not. If you feel importer nations lack in cultural value and benefit, I invite you to look at Italy and Spain.
One nation can not suddenly and magically acquire hundreds of years of culture and skills that every other nation in the world acquires, and make the same masterpieces that the outsider's culture has produced.
With respect to "productivity", you - and most of the post-war economists including Hayek by his own admission that he adheres to "progress" as an ideology, fail to understand that the materialistic and utilitarian notions underlying your economic theories are neither the reason civilization was founded nor are they the primary motivator of human behavior.
Capitalism undoubtedly provides a higher standard of living than socialism, but is this better life standard unique to capitalism, or simply achieved by having technology and avoiding the ultra-egalitarianism of Communism which, by failing to reward some for being better than others, creates a zero standard for motivation to achievement? Indeed, history shows us that the societies which function best reward individual competence, but have some other primary motivation that purely personal wealth. Thus where Communism represents one extreme of error, Capitalism is its opposite, and something more moderate is needed. If this moderate standard retains some of the promotion of more competent individuals over others, including material reward, it will bring us the same better standard of life.
In understanding the effects of different economic systems, we must consider two types of "standard of living": first, individual material prosperity, health and happiness; second, those things which impact all individuals, whether as public policy or as a byproduct of social action, what is called "socialized cost" because it is absorbed by the population as a whole. If the individual has a higher material standard of living, but exists in a somewhat miserable or conflicted circumstance owing to these secondary effects, it is not sensible to argue that the overall living standard is raised because a greater negative with vaster consequences has been engendered.
We know from the successes of Capitalism that the individual needs to be rewarded for better work, including materially. We know from its failures that this alone does not make a society, and in fact helps society decline from a state of cooperation to a mutually-protected marketplace. The great sadness of capitalism is that it reduces all decisions to the price tag, or "opportunity cost," on any object or action. There is no consideration of the whole. A capitalist society has no valuation for a patch of forest but its real estate and resource value; it has no appreciation for non-paying tasks except as "hobbies"; it has no way to describe well-being outside of material (wealth).
In short, economics is not a religion nor is it a political philosophy. It is a social science that serves culture, nothing more.
1) Immigrants most certainly come here to be on public assistance. There are no reliable statistics regarding illegal immigration, thus your assertion that it has declined is equally unreliable. Regardless, democracy cannot survive with welfare. As another poster made clear, it is pointless to discuss immigration from a libertarian perspective until all welfare is ended. Since this will never happen, your particular theories on the matter are ultimately irrelevant to any meaningful political change.
2) You fail to understand that the laws of supply and demand apply to people. The very purpose of technology is to eliminate work. We do not need 6 billion people to produce necessary food, shelter, and clothing. Everything else that is required is essentially a luxury, and if there is one thing democracy has proven - most people would rather sit around and talk on cell phones, watch spirit crushing television, and eat twinkies than say, write a symphony. Social order is maintained only by the willingness of the participants to acknowledge the law. You cannot possibly hope to maintain civilized society when the vast majority of the people are engaged in trivial enterprises to satisfy base whims that are largely manufactured by a corrupt elite that controls the mass media apparatus.
3) As a continuation of the previous point, the evidence that economic theory is not political philosophy comes with the ultimate evolution of technology. If you are true progressive who believes technology will always continue to advance, then it is necessarily true that at a future time - human labor will be unnecessary. Democracy, i.e. unrestricted demand, will be incapable of functioning in such a society where human labor is entirely irrelevant but natural resources are scarce.
The revolution had nothing to do with breaking England's protectionism, it pertained to sovereignty and who should make decisions regarding trade: the people of what would become the United States. In reality, the British Empire was largely a "free trade" zone of sorts. One could easily describe World War II as being a fight against the transition of the British Empire into a system of international trade managed by London and New York where usury was the method of rent extraction. Regardless, you are unfortunately comically wrong about the United States prior to 1913.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_American_history
Futile, huh? I think not.
Your peculiar political theory has never functioned in the history of mankind and you will be unable to rally any popular support for your utopian vision. Feel free to continue to attack windmills, but the rest of us will be in the real world.
Comparative advantage, in terms of international trade, in the modern age is irrelevant. The only advantage held by the people of the third world is their willingness to work as slaves.
While I am actually a fascist, that has nothing to do with my post. All societies are hierarchical, and the majority always follow the dictates of an elite. Propaganda merely means the propagation of an idea. Having a particular lobby buy advertisements affecting consumer behavior is nothing special.
With respect to isolationism, I have never said I was an isolationist. The only reason we have international trade is that natural resources are not equally distributed throughout the world. This is why commodities form the basis of currency value, and not say - automobiles. Germany, as the first nation in existence dependent upon exports is a great example. They did not have, and still do not have, sufficient farmland to feed their people. They are trading manufactured goods for food.
The division of labor has nothing to do with your internationalist agenda.
No, economics serves culture. As I said previously, "wealth" is a highly subjective term and cannot be quantified in "rational" terms. Your denial of cultures simply indicates that you do not understand what the word means. Different people have different values, and what mostly differentiates cultures are not materialistic, and therefore your concept of "wealth" cannot be applied to them.
You may think it "follows no reason" but weight? Culture is the very reason we had the largest war in human history. Do you honestly believe you are going to rally the American people to fight for you so they can compete with coolie labor in China? "Follow me to victory! Prices will remain forever low at Wal-Mart!" Ridiculous.
polemicist:We have insufficient natural resources upon this planet to provide an American standard of living for 6 billion people. This statement seems to agree with my entire thesis above. Allow me to re-quote myself. It's a solid point and I thank you for making it.
If all people are equal and borders should not exist, then how are we going to decide who gets what?
There is no time to have these theoretical arguments. There are hundreds of nations of this planet, none of whom have a system of society that remotely comes close to your ideal. Western Civilization is on the precipice of collapse. A huge percentage of our population is unemployed. The majority of our people are suffering under a mountain of debt they can never hope to pay off. Critical natural resources are becoming increasingly scarce. Nihilism rules the day and most people are consumed with sadness and emptiness.
You are sitting on a powder keg ready to explode. Rather than use your "reason" to identify the real problems in this world, you instead cling to what amounts to a fantasy that may appear logical in your head but has no basis in the reality of human behavior.
Hayek has some interesting ideas, and Austrian Economics is a useful tool in planning for the future, but the predictions of the Road to Serfdom are no longer relevant. The middle class today spends months of every year paying taxes and interest. They already are serfs. Instead of truly understanding this issue, I come to find Mises fans are instead talking about how to increase immigration in our lands. If you really think Joe Everyman is going to continue with this yoke on his neck so that he can buy crap he doesn't need from China, you are sorely mistaken.
More importantly, you do not recognize that the world you describe is simply so boring. I think you'll find war is an exciting alternative to the monotony of your trade theories. Because you do not feel blood lust does not mean that is normal.
Learn some history.
Regarding libertarianism being "utopian", I'll offer this quote from Rothbard's For a New Liberty:
Rothbard: While it is vital for the libertarian to hold his ultimate and "extreme" ideal aloft, this does not, contrary to Hayek, make him a "utopian." The true Utopian is one who advocates a system that is contrary to the natural law of human beings and of the real world. A Utopian system is one that could not work even if everyone were persuaded to try to put it into practice. The Utopian system could not work, i.e., could not sustain itself in operation. The Utopian goal of the left: communism — the abolition of specialization and the adoption of uniformity — could not work even if everyone were willing to adopt it immediately. It could not work because it violates the very nature of man and the world, especially the uniqueness and individuality of every person, of his abilities and interests, and because it would mean a drastic decline in the production of wealth, so much so as to doom the great bulk of the human race to rapid starvation and extinction. In short, the term "utopian" in popular parlance confuses two kinds of obstacles in the path of a program radically different from the status quo. One is that it violates the nature of man and of the world and therefore could not work once it was put into effect. This is the utopianism of communism. The second is the difficulty in convincing enough people that the program should be adopted. The former is a bad theory because it violates the nature of man; the latter is simply a problem of human will, of convincing enough people of the Tightness of the doctrine. "Utopian" in its common pejorative sense applies only to the former. In the deepest sense, then, the libertarian doctrine is not Utopian but eminently realistic, because it is the only theory that is really consistent with the nature of man and the world. The libertarian does not deny the variety and diversity of man, he glories in it and seeks to give that diversity full expression in a world of complete freedom. And in doing [p. 304] so, he also brings about an enormous increase in productivity and in the living standards of everyone, an eminently "practical" result generally scorned by true Utopians as evil "materialism." The libertarian is also eminently realistic because he alone understands fully the nature of the State and its thrust for power. In contrast, it is the seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in "limited government" who is the truly impractical Utopian. This conservative keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be severely limited by a constitution. Yet, at the same time that he rails against the corruption of the original Constitution and the widening of federal power since 1789, the conservative fails to draw the proper lesson from that degeneration. The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, "Limit yourself"; it is he who is truly the impractical Utopian. There is another deep sense in which libertarians scorn the broader utopianism of the left. The left Utopians invariably postulate a drastic change in the nature of man; to the left, man has no nature. The individual is supposed to be infinitely malleable by his institutions, and so the communist ideal (or the transitional socialist system) is supposed to bring about the New Communist Man. The libertarian believes that, in the ultimate analysis, every individual has free will and moulds himself; it is therefore folly to put one's hope in a uniform and drastic change in people brought about by the projected New Order. The libertarian would like to see a moral improvement in everyone, although his moral goals scarcely coincide with those of the socialists. He would, for example, be overjoyed to see all desire for aggression by one man against another disappear from the face of the earth. But he is far too much of a realist to put his trust in this sort of change. Instead, the libertarian system is one that will at once be far more moral and work much better than any other, given any existing human values and attitudes. The more the desire for aggression disappears, of course, the better any social system will work, including the libertarian; the less need will there be, for example, for any resort to police or to the courts. But the libertarian system places no reliance on any such change. If, then, the libertarian must advocate the immediate attainment of liberty and abolition of statism, and if gradualism in theory is contradictory to this overriding end, what further strategic stance may a libertarian [p. 305] take in today's world? Must he necessarily confine himself to advocating immediate abolition? Are "transitional demands," steps toward liberty in practice, necessarily illegitimate? No, for this would fall into the other self-defeating strategic trap of "left-wing sectarianism." For while libertarians have too often been opportunists who lose sight of or undercut their ultimate goal, some have erred in the opposite direction: fearing and condemning any advances toward the idea as necessarily selling out the goal itself. The tragedy is that these sectarians, in condemning all advances that fall short of the goal, serve to render vain and futile the cherished goal itself. For much as all of us would be overjoyed to arrive at total liberty at a single bound, the realistic prospects for such a mighty leap are limited. If social change is not always tiny and gradual, neither does it usually occur in a single leap. In rejecting any transitional approaches to the goal, then, these sectarian libertarians make it impossible for the goal itself ever to be reached. Thus, the sectarians can eventually be as fully "liquidationist" of the pure goal as the opportunists themselves. Sometimes, curiously enough, the same individual will undergo alterations from one of these opposing errors to the other, in each case scorning the proper strategic path. Thus, despairing after years of futile reiteration of his purity while making no advances in the real world, the left sectarian may leap into the heady thickets of right opportunism, in the quest for some short-run advance, even at the cost of his ultimate goal. Or the right opportunist, growing disgusted at his own or his colleagues' compromise of their intellectual integrity and their ultimate goals, may leap into left sectarianism and decry any setting of strategic priorities toward those goals. In this way, the two opposing deviations feed on and reinforce each other, and are both destructive of the major task of effectively reaching the libertarian goal.
While it is vital for the libertarian to hold his ultimate and "extreme" ideal aloft, this does not, contrary to Hayek, make him a "utopian." The true Utopian is one who advocates a system that is contrary to the natural law of human beings and of the real world. A Utopian system is one that could not work even if everyone were persuaded to try to put it into practice. The Utopian system could not work, i.e., could not sustain itself in operation. The Utopian goal of the left: communism — the abolition of specialization and the adoption of uniformity — could not work even if everyone were willing to adopt it immediately. It could not work because it violates the very nature of man and the world, especially the uniqueness and individuality of every person, of his abilities and interests, and because it would mean a drastic decline in the production of wealth, so much so as to doom the great bulk of the human race to rapid starvation and extinction.
In short, the term "utopian" in popular parlance confuses two kinds of obstacles in the path of a program radically different from the status quo. One is that it violates the nature of man and of the world and therefore could not work once it was put into effect. This is the utopianism of communism. The second is the difficulty in convincing enough people that the program should be adopted. The former is a bad theory because it violates the nature of man; the latter is simply a problem of human will, of convincing enough people of the Tightness of the doctrine. "Utopian" in its common pejorative sense applies only to the former. In the deepest sense, then, the libertarian doctrine is not Utopian but eminently realistic, because it is the only theory that is really consistent with the nature of man and the world. The libertarian does not deny the variety and diversity of man, he glories in it and seeks to give that diversity full expression in a world of complete freedom. And in doing [p. 304] so, he also brings about an enormous increase in productivity and in the living standards of everyone, an eminently "practical" result generally scorned by true Utopians as evil "materialism."
The libertarian is also eminently realistic because he alone understands fully the nature of the State and its thrust for power. In contrast, it is the seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in "limited government" who is the truly impractical Utopian. This conservative keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be severely limited by a constitution. Yet, at the same time that he rails against the corruption of the original Constitution and the widening of federal power since 1789, the conservative fails to draw the proper lesson from that degeneration. The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, "Limit yourself"; it is he who is truly the impractical Utopian.
There is another deep sense in which libertarians scorn the broader utopianism of the left. The left Utopians invariably postulate a drastic change in the nature of man; to the left, man has no nature. The individual is supposed to be infinitely malleable by his institutions, and so the communist ideal (or the transitional socialist system) is supposed to bring about the New Communist Man. The libertarian believes that, in the ultimate analysis, every individual has free will and moulds himself; it is therefore folly to put one's hope in a uniform and drastic change in people brought about by the projected New Order. The libertarian would like to see a moral improvement in everyone, although his moral goals scarcely coincide with those of the socialists. He would, for example, be overjoyed to see all desire for aggression by one man against another disappear from the face of the earth. But he is far too much of a realist to put his trust in this sort of change. Instead, the libertarian system is one that will at once be far more moral and work much better than any other, given any existing human values and attitudes. The more the desire for aggression disappears, of course, the better any social system will work, including the libertarian; the less need will there be, for example, for any resort to police or to the courts. But the libertarian system places no reliance on any such change.
If, then, the libertarian must advocate the immediate attainment of liberty and abolition of statism, and if gradualism in theory is contradictory to this overriding end, what further strategic stance may a libertarian [p. 305] take in today's world? Must he necessarily confine himself to advocating immediate abolition? Are "transitional demands," steps toward liberty in practice, necessarily illegitimate? No, for this would fall into the other self-defeating strategic trap of "left-wing sectarianism." For while libertarians have too often been opportunists who lose sight of or undercut their ultimate goal, some have erred in the opposite direction: fearing and condemning any advances toward the idea as necessarily selling out the goal itself. The tragedy is that these sectarians, in condemning all advances that fall short of the goal, serve to render vain and futile the cherished goal itself. For much as all of us would be overjoyed to arrive at total liberty at a single bound, the realistic prospects for such a mighty leap are limited. If social change is not always tiny and gradual, neither does it usually occur in a single leap. In rejecting any transitional approaches to the goal, then, these sectarian libertarians make it impossible for the goal itself ever to be reached. Thus, the sectarians can eventually be as fully "liquidationist" of the pure goal as the opportunists themselves.
Sometimes, curiously enough, the same individual will undergo alterations from one of these opposing errors to the other, in each case scorning the proper strategic path. Thus, despairing after years of futile reiteration of his purity while making no advances in the real world, the left sectarian may leap into the heady thickets of right opportunism, in the quest for some short-run advance, even at the cost of his ultimate goal. Or the right opportunist, growing disgusted at his own or his colleagues' compromise of their intellectual integrity and their ultimate goals, may leap into left sectarianism and decry any setting of strategic priorities toward those goals. In this way, the two opposing deviations feed on and reinforce each other, and are both destructive of the major task of effectively reaching the libertarian goal.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
polemicist:While I am actually a fascist, that has nothing to do with my post. All societies are hierarchical, and the majority always follow the dictates of an elite. Propaganda merely means the propagation of an idea. Having a particular lobby buy advertisements affecting consumer behavior is nothing special.
Wow, an actual fascist. Have I got a lot of questions for you!
But first what puzzles me most: isn't fascism's mix of modern utopianism and ultraviolence peculiar to the early 20th century? Don't you feel it is anachronistic in our time?
In response to the OP, Ludwig Von Mises was pro free immigration. He wanted free-immigraiton by all countries. He didn't want it just to happen in America. He however realized that the immigration restrictions here in America should be lessened by a great deal... but he realized that allowing everyone in at the same time, and, not having some quotas, or some type of watchful system would just allow a floodgates of people from all around the world and so to my understanding... he somewhat modified his position for America.
SilentXtarian, thank you for addressing the actual issue of this thread, rather than hijacking it to run off in another direction deserving of a separate thread. I think that was my problem. I saw Mises say that he opposed "unrestrictedly opening the doors" to immigrants, and I conveniently ignored the "unrestrictedly" part of it. That certainly does still allow room for favoring free-immigration with some limitations, just as Mises favored freedom while still expressing a belief in the necessity and benefit of the existence of the state (although his description of anarchists as foolish and absurd make me curious about his relationship with Rothbard on the topic). I have read a few of Mises' works, but have not yet Human Action, and do not recall him discussing immigration in the other books I've read.
Josh Hanson:SilentXtarian, thank you for addressing the actual issue of this thread, rather than hijacking it to run off in another direction deserving of a separate thread.
Nearly all of my post above referring Ricardo's Law are the fundamental argument against restrictive immigration and are heavily explained by Mises in HA. I even quoted large sections of Mises's above. All of this has specifically to do with the OP. Mises is pretty clear in HA regarding the law of comparative advantage and the division of labor. Heavily restricted immigration would be a negation of those two laws. I am wondering if you had a chance to review that.
Josh Hanson: That certainly does still allow room for favoring free-immigration with some limitations, just as Mises favored freedom while still expressing a belief in the necessity and benefit of the existence of the state (although his description of anarchists as foolish and absurd make me curious about his relationship with Rothbard on the topic).
That certainly does still allow room for favoring free-immigration with some limitations, just as Mises favored freedom while still expressing a belief in the necessity and benefit of the existence of the state (although his description of anarchists as foolish and absurd make me curious about his relationship with Rothbard on the topic).
Something is either free or it isn't. The genuine libertarian take on immigration is to call for a whole new world without national borders. I guess you could call the "some limitations" then the existence of private property rights. A restriction on invasion is not an immigration restriction. Groups of people can share an identity without attempting to embody it in a territorial monopoly on force.
Mises was a bit trapped in the classical liberal paradigm. He was either wrong about anarchy, or meant the anarchy espoused at that time by leftists of a society lacking legal order. I am inclined to believe it is the latter. Modern libertarian thought ("anarcho-capitalism" if you must) is just a few decades old and still evolving.
So, since my original question has been resolved, I'll continue on in the context of Mises' views differing from Rothbard's views.
In Omnipotent Government, Mises states:
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists. We must emphasize this point because etatists sometimes try to discover a similarity. Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state. Liberals fully recognize that no social coöperation and no civilization could exist without some amount of compulsion and coercion. It is the task of government to protect the social system against the attacks of those who plan actions detrimental to its maintenance and operation.
In For a New Liberty, Rothbard states:
In contrast, it is the seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in "limited government" who is the truly impractical Utopian. This conservative keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be severely limited by a constitution. Yet, at the same time that he rails against the corruption of the original Constitution and the widening of federal power since 1789, the conservative fails to draw the proper lesson from that degeneration. The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, "Limit yourself"; it is he who is truly the impractical Utopian.
So, is Mises calling Rothbard foolishly absurd? Is Rothbard calling Mises an impractical conservative Utopian? :-)
Yes, I know they disagreed, but I'm curious as to whether they ever directly clashed or criticized each other. Not likely, given what I know of their fondness for each other and of their personalities in general.
filc:Nearly all of my post above referring Ricardo's Law are the fundamental argument against restrictive immigration and are heavily explained by Mises in HA. I even quoted large sections of Mises's above. All of this has specifically to do with the OP. Mises is pretty clear in HA regarding the law of comparative advantage and the division of labor. Heavily restricted immigration would be a negation of those two laws. I am wondering if you had a chance to review that.
Sorry, I see that I came across as a bit more combative than I intended. But I have not yet read Human Action, and was not aware that you were discussing his statements (I just saw people arguing about the merits or costs of immigration, which was not my original question).
Mises:Liberals fully recognize that no social coöperation and no civilization could exist without some amount of compulsion and coercion
Like I said, he was trapped in the classical liberal paradigm. It is like faulting Newton for not having Einstein's revelations yet.
Law is the justified use of coercion. Two of many excellent works on non-monopoly provision of law are, The Myth of National Defense and Long's Rule-Following, Praxeology, and Anarchy.
Byzantine:Nothing is free, including immigration. Public utilities and civil rights laws only make it seem like immigration has no cost.
Interestingly, both the libertarian Cato Institute and the progressive Center for American Progress have come out with studies arguing that immigration reform is good for the economy. I haven't read them personally, but it looks interesting and flies in the face of what I'm always hearing from the right.
New Study Seconds Cato Finding: Immigration Reform Good For Economy
Josh Hanson: Byzantine:Nothing is free, including immigration. Public utilities and civil rights laws only make it seem like immigration has no cost. Interestingly, both the libertarian Cato Institute and the progressive Center for American Progress have come out with studies arguing that immigration reform is good for the economy. I haven't read them personally, but it looks interesting and flies in the face of what I'm always hearing from the right. New Study Seconds Cato Finding: Immigration Reform Good For Economy
I highly recommend Peter Brimelow's Alien Nation. He goes through various aspects and consequences of the issue. I found his analysis radical, reasonable, and alarming.
Byzantine, I thought it was clear that we were talking about "free" as in 'unrestricted' or libertas, rather than "free" as in "without cost" or gratis.
filc: Josh Hanson:SilentXtarian, thank you for addressing the actual issue of this thread, rather than hijacking it to run off in another direction deserving of a separate thread. Nearly all of my post above referring Ricardo's Law are the fundamental argument against restrictive immigration and are heavily explained by Mises in HA. I even quoted large sections of Mises's above. All of this has specifically to do with the OP. Mises is pretty clear in HA regarding the law of comparative advantage and the division of labor. Heavily restricted immigration would be a negation of those two laws. I am wondering if you had a chance to review that.
Is it really? The law of association implies a higher productivity under free trade as opposed to restricted trade. Migration is not trade, and trade can be conducted at a distance. The incentive to migrate is largely motivated by the higher wage rates in the host country. But there are two ways to relieve the difference in wage rates. One is migration. The other is free trade and a movement of capital. Free trade and open immigration are elastic substitutes.
Also, restricted immigration (or trade) is not a negation of the law of association. It holds true regardless of whether one practices free migration.
By negation I mean it would not foster additional economic growth. Labor is a market good just like anything else. I think the law speaks for itself to be honest.
Probably just a poor choice of words on my part
filc:Labor is a market good just like anything else.
A human being may be a producer, but they may also be a parasite. Migration is more than just the movement of labour. While it may lead to an intensification and extensification of the division of labour, it may also lead to its disintegration.
laissez faire equals laissez passez
polemicist: your economic theories are neither the reason civilization was founded nor are they the primary motivator of human behavior.
Why exactly was civilization founded? I'd like to know. And to the contrary, my utilitarian ways explain exactly why people behave. Do you understand what praxeology is? The Human Action axiom alone tells us alot.
polemicist:Capitalism undoubtedly provides a higher standard of living than socialism, but is this better life standard unique to capitalism, or simply achieved by having technology and avoiding the ultra-egalitarianism of Communism which, by failing to reward some for being better than others, creates a zero standard for motivation to achievement?
You state that capitalism creates a higher standard of living but then go on to admit that you do not know why. Ultimately that is the point of this forum, this site, and discussions like this. For if you knew why capitalism worked, you would know that socialism and fascism both fail for exactly the same reasons.
I explained part of that here.
Whats interesting is you agree that people are created wit different abilities, yet in an earlier post do not agree that the most gifted, most talented, and most efficient producers should succeed. I wonder if you recognize your inconsistency.
polemicist:Indeed, history shows us that the societies which function best reward individual competence, but have some other primary motivation that purely personal wealth. Thus where Communism represents one extreme of error, Capitalism is its opposite, and something more moderate is needed. If this moderate standard retains some of the promotion of more competent individuals over others, including material reward, it will bring us the same better standard of life.
You would have to change human nature to do this. All men act in their own best interest, whether they are socialist, facist, or capitalist. Whether they force other people to do things against their will or not.
Your moderate method is what we have today, and as always will be doomed to fail. It simply cannot calculate the needs of every individual on the face of the planet. All moderate plans are arbitrary plans. You do not know how best to help society, as you do not know what the needs of every man women and child are. You are not omniscient, though you may wish yourself to be.
polemicist:In understanding the effects of different economic systems,
There is only one type of economic system. A market. The only difference is how we interfere with it's activity. Government interference only causes the change in market behavior, and in some cases pushes it underground. However your interference model cannot end the market.
polemicist: those things which impact all individuals, whether as public policy or as a byproduct of social action, what is called "socialized cost" because it is absorbed by the population as a whole.
There is no such thing as a collective need. Such statements are entirely fallacious. There are only individual needs. Id like to point out that yours is a socialist argument now.
polemicist:We know from its failures that this alone does not make a society, and in fact helps society decline from a state of cooperation
This makes no sense what so ever. First off free capitalism's only failure is permitting a coercive control of some state to interfere with it's operations. Other then that there is no such thing as capitalism failing. Individual business's fail but the market takes care of those.
It's oxymoronic to state that capitalism declines cooperation. The market is nothing but a large unison of individual cooperations. It's very meaning implies social cooperation. Your statement is nonsensical which is why I am not sure you fully grasp what you are talking about.
polemicist:The great sadness of capitalism is that it reduces all decisions to the price tag, or "opportunity cost," on any object or action. There is no consideration of the whole.
The whole of what exactly?
polemicist: A capitalist society has no valuation for a patch of forest but its real estate and resource value; it has no appreciation for non-paying tasks except as "hobbies"; it has no way to describe well-being outside of material (wealth).
Capitalism address's and encourages all 3. If people want forests then there is a value for forest. Private property gives people the insentive to take care of the land and ensure it is not spoiled. The fact that previous generations did not respect private property is no fault of capitalism.
And leisure time is of value as well. You seem to think that capitalistic objects must be valued in units of exchange. This is wrong, all tangible and many intangible objects are subjectively valued by the individual. Whether it's leisure time, hobby time, or anything else. All items are valued by individuals and human action works around that.
The market even goes so far as to make those hobbies available to the individual. Or did your canvass and paint brush just appear out of the sky?
polemicist:In short, economics is not a religion nor is it a political philosophy. It is a social science that serves culture, nothing more.
Which helps us explain why your moderate economic system fails. If you want a philosophical stance there are plenty of ethicists who would be happy to engage you here, many of which I would agree with. But I encourage you to discuss philosophy here. I can almost guarantee yours is a morally bankrupt one.
polemicist:1) Immigrants most certainly come here to be on public assistance. There are no reliable statistics regarding illegal immigration, thus your assertion that it has declined is equally unreliable. Regardless, democracy cannot survive with welfare. As another poster made clear, it is pointless to discuss immigration from a libertarian perspective until all welfare is ended. Since this will never happen, your particular theories on the matter are ultimately irrelevant to any meaningful political change.
I'll concede your point in agreeing that statistics are near useless in todays day in age. Though they could be more useful had they been taken a bit more seriously rather then used so loosely. Though the particular reports I am talking about are fairly acurate. immigration has dropped significantly since the end of the housing bubble. I havn't the time nor the energy to pull up the article for you as I doubt it will change your mind.
Still the point you raise is against welfarism, not against immigration. Get rid of the welfare.
polemicist:2) You fail to understand that the laws of supply and demand apply to people.
Actually I seem the be the only one taking that into consideration. The housing bubble brought a demand for labor, immigrants filled that. So thanks for agreeing with me.
polemicist:We do not need 6 billion people to produce necessary food, shelter, and clothing.
Your right we would have a far more abundance of food and shelter and far fewer 3rd world countries if there was less market interference preventing these people from providing for themselves.
polemicist:if there is one thing democracy has proven - most people would rather sit around and talk on cell phones, watch spirit crushing television, and eat twinkies than say, write a symphony.
This is fairly non sequitur. The democracy does not create couch potato's. And you are no god to judge what people would prefer to do in their free time. I am sorry it hurts your feelings that some people like to watch America's Funniest home videos. I personally like to read and listen to classical music. I myself cannot stand TV but I am not so arrogant that I will start denouncing people for it.
polemicist: Social order is maintained only by the willingness of the participants to acknowledge the law. You cannot possibly hope to maintain civilized society when the vast majority of the people are engaged in trivial enterprises to satisfy base whims that are largely manufactured by a corrupt elite that controls the mass media apparatus.
The problem with your statement is that the corruption comes from government. Not business. It would not be very profitable for food industries to allow their customers to starve now would it?
polemicist:3) As a continuation of the previous point, the evidence that economic theory is not political philosophy comes with the ultimate evolution of technology. If you are true progressive who believes technology will always continue to advance, then it is necessarily true that at a future time - human labor will be unnecessary. Democracy, i.e. unrestricted demand, will be incapable of functioning in such a society where human labor is entirely irrelevant but natural resources are scarce.
I'm not sure what democracy has to do with robots running our lives and I'd like to point out that we have not yet obtained our Utopian star trek universe yet. When that day comes great, but until then economic goods must be treated as such, by economization.
polemicist:who should make decisions regarding trade:
yes a central body making decisions over who trades what is essentially protectionism. Don't argue terms when you don't know them. FYI Tarriff's are just more forms of protectionism... lol...
polemicist:Futile, huh? I think not.
I encourage you to try, though making arguments about living in a Jetson's like world won't give you much credibility.
polemicist:Your peculiar political theory has never functioned in the history of mankind and you will be unable to rally any popular support for your utopian vision. Feel free to continue to attack windmills, but the rest of us will be in the real world.
Do not appeal to ignorance. We haven't been able to the world of thieves either, that doesn't justify them nor does it justify theft. Think about that.
polemicist:Comparative advantage, in terms of international trade, in the modern age is irrelevant. The only advantage held by the people of the third world is their willingness to work as slaves.
A bold statement, one that reveals you have no idea what life is like in the third world. If anything recent history has proven how international trade has raised several third world countries out of extreme poverty into descent livable conditions. I should know, I lived in one for quiet some time.
Ironically if we were to isolate those third world countries to themselves they would likely starve. Just goes to show how far your train of thought took you on this one. Comparative advantage is the fundamental reason why the third world country, especially in Latin America and in South Asia regions are pulling themselves out of poverty. It used to be that children worked on the farm with their parents. Capitalism is pulling them out of this state.
polemicist:While I am actually a fascist, that has nothing to do with my post.
At least your honest, though I doubt you fully grasp what that means.
polemicist:All societies are hierarchical, and the majority always follow the dictates of an elite.
negative. Society has consumers and producers. All men are both. The quantity at what point that they are a consumer or a producer is up to them.
polemicist: Propaganda merely means the propagation of an idea. Having a particular lobby buy advertisements affecting consumer behavior is nothing special.
Indeed advertisement is generally a good thing. Not in the case however when it promotes economic illiteracy.
polemicist:The division of labor has nothing to do with your internationalist agenda.
Division of labor between countries is essentially the Law of Comparative advantage. In other words it has everything to do with it. Are you just skimming the wiki pages as I post a new term you haven't heard of yet?
polemicist:No, economics serves culture.
In so far as it serves the individual and his understanding of how he influences himself and those around him.
polemicist:As I said previously, "wealth" is a highly subjective term and cannot be quantified in "rational" terms.
Yup. We believe in the subjective theory of value here. But there are ways of quantifying it. Half your post is about poor people in third world countries. We can measure how many units of food there are, how much clean water t here is, how much shelter there is. We can measure how many people die every year to starvation.
Do those people consider themselves wealthy? I don't know, would they prefer to die to starvation? I couldn't judge, it's up to them. I am inclined to think otherwise however.
polemicist:Your denial of cultures simply indicates that you do not understand what the word means. Different people have different values, and what mostly differentiates cultures are not materialistic, and therefore your concept of "wealth" cannot be applied to them.
Thats true but just as equally you cannot judge them for wanting to trade with people of other cultures. Ultimately economics works aside cultural differences. If one country can produce clean water, and their neighbor healthy food. If they were to isolate themselves due to cultural differences they would both be less better off then if they were to trade with each other. Healthy food for fresh water. It's a terribly simple concept. I am sorry you have such a hard time with it.
polemicist:You may think it "follows no reason" but weight? Culture is the very reason we had the largest war in human history. Do you honestly believe you are going to rally the American people to fight for you so they can compete with coolie labor in China? "Follow me to victory! Prices will remain forever low at Wal-Mart!" Ridiculous.
Actually thats a good point. If walmart were running things we probably wouldn't have your petty culture wars. Though the causes of the worlds wars are another debate, one which sounds like you are confused on.
polemicist: If all people are equal and borders should not exist, then how are we going to decide who gets what?
Silly question to ask a capitalist. The market ofcoarse. The concept of private property, homesteading, ect....
polemicist:There are hundreds of nations of this planet, none of whom have a system of society that remotely comes close to your ideal.
And they may never. Just as we may never rid the world of thievery and rapists. Should we just stop defending ourselves against them then?
polemicist:Western Civilization is on the precipice of collapse. A huge percentage of our population is unemployed. The majority of our people are suffering under a mountain of debt they can never hope to pay off. Critical natural resources are becoming increasingly scarce. Nihilism rules the day and most people are consumed with sadness and emptiness.
And yet all of the causes to these terrible things can be related back to a system you defend and support.
polemicist:Rather than use your "reason" to identify the real problems in this world, you instead cling to what amounts to a fantasy that may appear logical in your head but has no basis in the reality of human behavior.
Reason? Logic? Mine are right here. You left yours at the door when you came in.
You might want to read through these.
You have no idea why we are in the condition we are in. The Austrian school explains logically, and empirically the reasons and instead of educating yourself you lash out and attack. Reason? Perhaps you should consider using your own. Remove your emotion and get started reading that Hazlitt book.
polemicist:human behavior.
hehe, my friend. Praxeology is Human Action. Look it up.
polemicist:but the predictions of the Road to Serfdom are no longer relevant
Hmm I did not read any predictions of our future in this book, and I don't think RTS is the bible or authoritive book when it comes to AE.
polemicist:The middle class today spends months of every year paying taxes and interest. They already are serfs. Instead of truly understanding this issue, I come to find Mises fans are instead talking about how to increase immigration in our lands.
You want free trade, accept when it comes to people. Do you not see how your conclusions are contradictory? So many logical fallacies in each line it's tiring to go through it all...
polemicist:If you really think Joe Everyman is going to continue with this yoke on his neck so that he can buy crap he doesn't need from China, you are sorely mistaken.
If he doesn't need it from China why is he buying it? And if he can't produce a car as cheap as them why is he wasting our time, our resources, and causing the overall expense of the economy to rise. He needs to quit and do something actually productive.
polemicist:More importantly, you do not recognize that the world you describe is simply so boring. I think you'll find war is an exciting alternative to the monotony of your trade theories. Because you do not feel blood lust does not mean that is normal.
hehe, this is funny. You really are a fascist I guess.
Why do you post here any ways? Is it because of your blind hatred towards immigrants? Perhaps you should stop listening to Michael Savage and read a book. Specifically the one I recommended.