Saturday, February 11, 2017

The Open Borders Question

HC emails:
Dear RW,

You are the only writer that I feel is willing to follow his libertarianism wherever it goes, however uncomfortable (most have their pet positions they just won't let go of). We are kindred spirits in this sense. But I confess to not understanding your position on open borders.

Obviously, with actual private property, "immigration" is just people buying or renting property somewhere, and living in it; the local common law and the NAP would then guide their behavior to the extent that they wanted to interact with others. But that is, equally obviously, not the situation that exists. There are many things that someone would/could do in a PPS that would be ridiculous to try before you actually get to a PPS.

So, given that the US has a massive welfare state; given that the US has a "democracy" and for the most part refuses to even check who is voting (I never have, btw, as I see it as pointless and aggressive); given that no one is "inviting" most of these people, let alone vouching for or bonding them; given that the entire point of a State, its very existence, depends on securing and defending borders against outside-people; ... ; given all of these reasons, why do you feel like the position to take is to support open borders?
The PPS doesn't have "open borders," and for much the same reason that the US should not have "open borders." (Perhaps you'll say you don't support "open borders," but also don't support the criminalization of "hard working undocumenteds." But these are effectively the same thing. Actually, maybe it's worse, because with non-open borders but lax enforcement of the border and border crossers you create moral hazard and adverse selection.)

And to head off the objection that the "undocumented" are just hard-working regular non-criminals, I submit that I (and they) know that if I sneaked into a country that I would be a criminal, so I have never done it, even though at times I wanted to. I legally have visited and lived in dozens of countries. So my point is that they all knew they were committing criminal acts; that they all have shown by revealed preference that they are willing to violate the laws/norms of someone else's culture/country/property in order to gain for themselves.
It's just an odd group for you to consistently defend, a group of obvious rights violators.

Am I missing something about your position?

Full disclosure: When I was an Econ undergrad I was all for open borders. But then I thought about the welfare state and culture and the private property of taxpayers (already stolen, but ostensibly "for your own good, and that of your posterity") being used against them and for non-taxpayers. So I'm definitely not some restrictionist. I hate the State more than enough to make Murray proud.
 RW response:

You are correct, I am not an advocate of "open borders." My view is to always advocate moving toward a greater state of liberty. When it comes to immigrants, this means if they come here to work, vacation, retire. whatever that is fine with me.

I am against immigrants being provided welfare and other government handouts, that is taking by coercion from some and giving to others.

You call people crossing the border without the permission of the state "criminals" but this is only if you recognize the legitimacy of the government to prevent such border crossing. A criminal to me is someone that violates NAP, not someone who crosses a border to, say, enter into a voluntary agreement to work for someone else.

 "Open borders," and "the criminalization of hard working undocumenteds" is not as you put it "effectively the same thing." It is two very different things. One, open borders, moves away from liberty because of the welfare state, the other, allowing hard working undocumented to enter, moves towards private transactions between willing parties and liberty.

You also write: "It's just an odd group for you to consistently defend, a group of obvious rights violators." First, I don't recognize "rights," (I fall into the Henry Hazliit camp on this.)but if I did, I don't see how hardworking undocumented would be violating the "rights" of anyone.

It is not difficult to understand where I fall on policy issues, when they increase voluntary transactions between people I am for them, when they involve coercion and the limiting of voluntary transactions, I am against them.

Further, I do not take ass-backward libertarian positions by calling for more infringements on freedom as a way "to increase freedom."

34 comments:

  1. It's always the same argument from the alt-right.

    "We don't currently have an absolutely free market in x. Therefore, additional state intervention in x is not only justified but desirable."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah watch them abandon this when it comes to NAFTA. Never said by them or other Trump supporting libertarians: "We can't have free trade now, so we must support NAFTA as the best alternative to Trump who wants tariffs. NAFTA is better than a 20% tariff on imports from Mexico." Nope, instead you get articles like this.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the link. Yes, the NAFTA thing is a dilemma. I would definitely be more open to getting out of it if it's main opponents weren't devoted protectionists who seem to view it as an impediment to the tariff regime they want to impose.

      Also, I can't say I necessarily agree with "decentralization" as a key heuristic (especially relative to the NAP.) If a world government wants to ban tariffs, but a local government wants to impose them, then I will support the world government, at least on this particular issue, since the local government is simply threatening violence against voluntary traders.

      Delete
  2. It is not just the welfare that attracts people to illegally enter and remain in the USA. Much of the cost of civilization in the USA has been socialized and the person who comes here illegally gains full benefit of that with little if any contribution or obligation to it. While in a PPS this condition would not exist, it does exist and it is enforced by the state. Does this rise to the violation of the NAP WRT immigrants? Maybe, maybe not, but the costs are none the less imposed on the immigrants' neighbors.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wenzel in summary: I do not support open borders, I just oppose any policy that prevents open borders. I don't support giving welfare payments to immigrants, but preventing them from coming to America is a greater NAP violation than the violation of seizing money to support these immigrants, legal and illegal.
    -----

    Effectively open borders.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Commies used to babble a lot about freedom too.

    The fact is these invaders are able to avail themselves of tax payer money whether it is directly or indirectly through their children.
    Whether the invader is "hard working" or not is meaningless to me.
    They should not be here.

    If the people of any society feel their freedom is being lessened by allowing the invader in, they may take action to block the invader.

    If only Libertarians spent a 1/3 of the time complaining about
    Hart - Cellar instead of whining about these third world alleged "hard workers" I might be inclined to think they actually cared somewhat about freedom.
    The freedom blocking Hart - Cellar act is rarely discussed.
    What gives ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: FormerThinkingPerson,

      --- Commies used to babble a lot about freedom too. ---

      Yup. As well, Trumpistas oay lip service to that, too. But it's all lies, isn't it?

      --- The fact is these invaders are able to avail themselves of tax payer money whether it is directly or indirectly through their children. ---

      They're not invaders and they're not "availing" themselves of tax money. The government is the one availing itself of people's money. Immigrants do work and pay taxes which the government takes with equal glee.

      --- If the people of any society feel their freedom is being lessened by allowing the invader in, they may take action to block the invader. ---

      Sure. And since the people are NOT doing it, the government, which responds to political motivations contrary to reason and rationality, feels compelled to prohibit the free association between employers and undocumented workers. Just like it prohibits other peaceful and voluntary actions by people, like hair braiding. I'm just saying that this image of people acting like barbarians and attacking peaceful immigrants is an image prevalent in your wet dreams but it is nonsense.

      Delete
  5. And this fan 'HC' who emailed you is Hillary Clinton I presume?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The welfare argument has always struck me as odd for libertarians to use when objecting to immigration. Welfare is as much a breach of the NAP when it is given to domestic citizens as when it is given to immigrants: it's an illegitimate taking by the state from the income producers. The recipients are irrelevant to the NAP question.

    The argument that some immigrants might actually commit acts of violence as an argument for the state to restrict or prohibit immigration is also odd. The same argument can be made with respect to domestic citizens. Some might commit actual acts of violence. So why don't we guess which classes of individuals will do this and expel them? Not to mention that the newborn children of some people might grow up to commit acts of violence, so maybe we should restrict who can have kids (kids are, after all, like immigrants -- not here one moment and here the next).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or regulating any other peaceful activity.

      Didn't buy health insurance? You might cost the taxpayers more money. Better make that illegal.

      Don't work? Use drugs? You're statistically more likely to require public assistance. Gotta ban these also.

      Where does the madness end? The only thing I don't get is why so many alt-righters are surprised that some libertarians favor freedom of movement over state population management.

      Delete
    2. "Where does the madness end? The only thing I don't get is why so many alt-righters are surprised that some libertarians favor freedom of movement over state population management."

      I favor freedom of movement, just as I favor nuclear disarmament . . . you first, I would like to disband all armies . . . Israel first.

      A friend bought a condo in France not far from the Nice, not so very expensive and a wonderful place to visit. She cannot stay in the country more than six months out of any year. She does not want to work there so she takes no job, she has international health insurance, she is retired and has means to support herself. She had to buy a home in Philadelphia suburbs to stay the other six months of each year. NO place on earth will accept you to just come even if you are self supporting. Sad but true. Why should we be the one safety valve for everyone who does not like it where they are? The French do not want a bunch of rich Yankees changing the character of their resort communities.

      Delete
    3. All/most states also resort to taxation, regulation, prohibition, conscription, etc... but that's no reason for libertarians to support those policies, either.

      The entire notion of collective ownership of society (as in "public property" or "territorial jurisdiction") is deeply flawed, and gives rise to perverse choices like open borders versus state-managed migration. I'm certainly not blind to the fact that these options are both suboptimal relative to actual private property, but I also recognize that the latter appears to be less consistent with individual liberty.

      Delete
  7. Suppose we open up the H1B program to allow 3 billion people to move to the US in the next 2 years. Will we be more or less libertarian?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Robert, I believe people tend to equivocate when taking about open borders, somehow construing the concept as a form of government policy and not simply borders that are open (i.e. free) to exchange. Open borders is the contrary of government action: it is, instead, the result of government inaction. The closest borders that you could ever find are those surrounding North Korea, are they not? So the first argument I can debunk is the argument that open borders is government in action because it's not. The other equivocation is confusing 'open borders' with the importation of refugees, something that has nothing to do with immigration (the voluntary action taken by an individual). This equivocation is often committed by libertarians such as Lew Rockwell and Thomas DiLorenzo.

    The second argument is that the welfare state makes open borders a problem as the cost of welfare weighs heavily on the taxpayers. I've never found the argument compelling or sound because, first, it is applied inconsistently, as those who advocate for closed borders using this argument never use it to advocate for mass sterilization, since children impose an ever HIGHER burden on the welfare system. Children do not become productive until they become at least 16 years of age assuming child labor laws are kept in the books (unless they become child actors) while at least immigrants come into the country with two good hands to work and of working age. You may say that this is absurd since it is easier to limit immigration than it is to sterilize people, but then you will have to concede that you're not making a moral case against immigration (based on reducing the negative effects of welfare), you're instead making a political one. Second, the person making the argument makes the assumption that immigrants would ONLY come to a country to consume welfare. This assumption is absurd, merely because it betrays a misunderstanding of how welfare works. It is also much easier to make the sterilization argument because children would most certainly consume welfare if their parents consume welfafe, whereas immigrants would not certainly consume welfare if they find work first.

    The third argument against immigration is made by people like Bionic Mosquito, once you decipher the argument after reading his long-winded rants, and that is that government intervenes in people's freedom of association too much, turning immigration into an imposition. Whether that's the case or not, this is an extreme argument, what I call the 'This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things' fallacy. Of course governments impose all sorts of policies on to people but does that mean this justifies depriving others of their freedom to transact with immigrants? BM went as far as calling immigration an ipso facto 'violation of the NAP' just because of the existence of anti-discrimination laws. I called him on that because he was conflating two things without a valid justification.

    Of course the most often-used argument is the typical 'DEM IMMIGRUNTZ TAKUM ER JEBZ!' which is not an argument per se but merely evidence of feelings of envy. It is interesting that this is the most common argument which contradicts the other argument that immigrants come to the USA to consume welfare.

    There's another interesting argument some Trumpistas make which goes like this: if immigrants are so valuable for our economy, why don't they stay in their own country and help increase the wealth of theirs? It's interesting in that it is incredibly stupid, yet Trumpistas keep making it. It's like arguing against getting more rowers into your boat because they should stay in their boat and row theirs...

    That's what we're dealing with, Robert.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The arguments against the welfare state have been hashed out repeatedly and do not need repetition but merely referenced. Anyways... When charity was considered an obligation of the wealthy rather than a state run enterprise there very much was a eugenics movement in the USA to sterilize the unfit.

      Since immigrants are a group they can both work and consume welfare. Furthermore the same immigrant can consume both welfare and have a job. When a person qualifies for welfare he may be better off with a job plus welfare than either alone. As such he bids his labor low enough to get the job over those not on welfare who cannot work so cheaply and to keep himself below the welfare cliff. As a result he takes a job and consumes welfare. Citizens can do this as well, but that's not an argument to increase the ranks of such people.

      As to the BM argument, it's something you need to experience to understand what it is like. There upsides as well as down sides. But today's immigrants often have little grasp of the concept of private property as was exemplified by the last immigrant who trespassed on my property when I told him to leave. And considering his complexion and accent he was from somewhere in the old soviet bloc.

      Delete
    2. Re: Jimmy Joe Meeker,

      --- Since immigrants are a group they can both work and consume welfare. ---

      Immigrants are not a "group." YOU happen to be grouping them. The fact that some individuals may work and obtain welfare through whatever means they devised does not mean ipso facto "immigrants as a group" consume welfare.

      --- When a person qualifies for welfare he may be better off with a job plus welfare than either alone. ---

      Clearly when I stated that people don't know how welfare works I thought that nobody would feel the need to prove me true but there you go.

      --- As to the BM argument, it's something you need to experience to understand what it is like. ---

      I don't need to know what something "is like". I look at the soundness of an idea. Anecdotal evidence is never valid because everyone has a different story about how well Prom Night went for them. And I certainly don't have to accept your personal experiences as evidence of how "today's immigrants" regard private property.

      Delete
    3. "There's another interesting argument some Trumpistas make which goes like this: if immigrants are so valuable for our economy, why don't they stay in their own country and help increase the wealth of theirs?"

      I have to agree with that sentiment. I can't help it their stupid voting and country's leaders lack first world ideas like property rights and enforcing and maintaining a contract. Also, please show me evidence that immigrants are always 'harder' working than your average American. Some of the middle class Indians and others that come here are not that productive either though some cultures are better about a work ethic than others.

      Delete
    4. As usual Torres you make a content free reply. Just your usual bluster. I suggest that you go read up on various welfare programs available to people and the welfare cliff. It would do you some good. After you do that you can improve your understanding of of plural terms.

      At least I have some personal experience living with the issue as opposed to your theoretical exercise.

      Delete
    5. Re: The Lab Manager,

      --- I have to agree with that sentiment. ---

      Guess I was right when I said it was a stupid argument.

      --- please show me evidence that immigrants are always 'harder' working than your average American ---

      Will that cure you of your morbid sense of envy once and for all?

      Delete
    6. De: Jimmy Joe Meeker,

      --- At least I have some personal experience living with the issue as opposed to your theoretical exercise. ---

      It should've occurred to you by now that I take you for a pathological liar, J. I don't trust your anecdotal evidence. How's that? And as far as the plural goes, at least I can blame autocorrect for that. Who do you have to blame for your bigotry?

      Welfare is not available to non-citizens, J. Yes, I read the prerequisites. That's how I know Trumpistas are liars and cheats.

      Delete
    7. "There's another interesting argument some Trumpistas make which goes like this: if immigrants are so valuable for our economy, why don't they stay in their own country and help increase the wealth of theirs? It's interesting in that it is incredibly stupid, yet Trumpistas keep making it. It's like arguing against getting more rowers into your boat because they should stay in their boat and row theirs..."

      Well, if their boat (country) is full of women and children and old people who can benefit form their work, yes. Our boat (country) is pretty well off, why skim the best rowers (young productive men) from their country when many of the women, the sick, the elderly cannot similarly come here. And from what I hear RW say he wants people who work hard to come here, I never hear him say he wants the sick, old, criminals and hopeless from other countries to come here.

      Delete
    8. Torres, So now you're name calling... liar, bigot? You're sounding like a statist. Statists call people bigots for exercising the right to private property.

      Autocorrect? I used a plural word and then you went to tell me it wasn't a plural, not a group. That's not an error of autocorrect.

      Welfare programs are certainly available to non-citizens. Remember Torres, the courts declared social security a welfare program existing at the whim of congress and it is available to aliens. www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-non-citizens.htm Here's an overview of federal welfare programs available to non-citizens: www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/overview-immeligfedprograms/ Then of course there are state programs, for the state I live in:
      www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2016/jul/14/bill-mitchell/illinois-spent-millions-covering-illegals/

      That's just a brief skim. So are you simply ignorant of the facts or are you projecting your dishonesty on me?


      Delete
  9. Two problems:
    1. in many areas of the world the institutions are so dysfunctional that coming here even with no welfare is better. Security, reliable water and electricity, a measure of freedom, ability to feed a family with honest work, low corruption, etc. However, the people coming had no ability to create such institutions in their home and can not maintain those that exist here. After the British left India things got worse. Enough people coming to here with beliefs incompatible with western individualistic scientific society can damage the institutions that make this place so good. They can turn whole cities into Mexican slums.
    2. No one is going to turn off basic humanitarian help to anyone in a place as rich as the US. Are you saying, I favor open borders after we end the welfare state and any safety net for indigent? In that case you do not favor open borders now, and as the practical prospects of ending the welfare state, and the safety net for indigent and disabled people are nil, you favor restricting open borders now and for the foreseeable future.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The phrase "open borders" is really a misnomer. Either the state manages who can move here, or private property owners do. So it's either "state-managed borders" or "private owner-managed borders." The libertarian position is the latter, where the borders are the boundaries of private property. So homeowners, mall owners, airlines, etc. all do this now when they agree or don't agree to let others on their property (of course the state, through affirmative action legislation, interferes in many of these decisions). The real issue relates to the fact that the state claims control of a lot of property. But since the state is illegitimate, the libertarian position ought to be that this claim is specious. If we want to conclude that the borders of such property are thus "open", so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think the biggest concern about immigration and refugees is the new people becoming U.S. citizens and voting Democrat which would effectively abolish the limited economic freedoms we still have. People always vote tribal when there are substantial public goods to be claimed by the electoral winner.

    http://tinyurl.com/zxbtzdz

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Completely agree. Or generally the different cultural values they bring combined with a democratic welfare state, in my understanding can be very problematic. And I’d like have RW comment on that as well.

      As I see, it is like a few guys going for a dinner, and they say that the bill is shared equally, while one guy is currently short on money, so they agree to pay for him. One person being no problem for them, but saying it is therefore only logical that they should invite basically everybody on the planet would be impossible or absurd.

      In the same sense, people in a democracy “didn't automatically agree” that everyone in the world is eligible for welfare handouts so in a sense why shouldn't “they” be allowed to control who is and who isn't? It is “their” choice however it is made.

      Yes it is arbitrary, and the problem is obviously that the mechanism to decide who is and who isn’t is connected to who is immigrating into the country. It is like having someone visiting me in my house means he automatically has unlimited right to sleep in my house and take from the fridge whatever he wants.. Uhm no..

      Whatever the shortcomings of our current democratic systems and the welfare state are, you can run such a systems still comparably better or worse.

      Delete
    2. Re: Skylien,

      --- it is like a few guys going for a dinner, and they say that the bill is shared equally, while one guy is currently short on money, so they agree to pay for him. ---

      Except that it is not like that at all, S. Understand that immigrants are not eligible for welfare benefits. It is a big lie that immigrants use welfare or that they only come to the U.S. for the benefits. The biggest group of welfare recipients in the US is actually the elderly, S. Immigrants actually HELP keep this system sustainable even if only a little bit.

      Delete
    3. In my view, collectivism is not like several friends going out to dinner together and agreeing to equally split the bill. In that case there are personal relations stopping any one from ordering unreasonably. The redistributionist state is more like the owner coming to the dinning room and announcing that in the interest of fairness all bills will be an equal fraction of all orders that evening. The incentive is to order the most expensive dinner with the best wines and offloading the cost, and there is no personal social relationship to check the freeloading. That is where we are now.

      Delete
    4. @ Francisco,

      Well it is they way where I live, that they are eligible, I am not saying everyone is using it or even most. But it is one incentive to immigrate if it is there. And it rather attracts the wrong kind of person, right? If in the US immigrants are not eligible to any kind of welfare, good for the US. But that is not true is it? I would suggest to split up the decision who gets welfare from the immigration question. Immigrating no problem, but no welfare. That way we would move towards more freedom, it means less forced redistribution of wealth and tends to attracts people with the right values and ethics.

      @munch
      You are right, I never said my example would match a democratic state in that respect. The similarity comes after that. When it is deciding how the not so voluntary community in a democracy, and the voluntary community in my example decide who to help out, and who not to. The need to take a decision at this point is for both groups the same.

      Delete
    5. @ Francisco,

      Well after googeling it seems you are largely right. Since 1996 immigrants who are non-citizens are not eligible for most welfare programes. In this case usual immigration really should not be a problem in the US.

      Delete
  12. I'm still waiting for the open border libertarians to acknowledge there are some cultures we don't need to see here in the US ever. There is also the issue of these people not assimilating within a generation of being here whether it a TB infected illegal Central American, a low IQ Muslim Somali who believes in clitorectomies, or maybe even a white Russian.

    If you read up on the founders, they were not for just anyone coming here. If some of these sorry places across the world were equals to us in technology and society, that would be different, but letting hordes of third worlders is not a great idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Import the 3rd world, get the 3rd world.

      Delete
    2. Re: The Lab Manager,

      --- I'm still waiting for the open border libertarians to acknowledge there are some cultures we don't need to see here in the US ever. ---

      I don't understand who this "we" is, Kemosabe.

      I'm a libertarian and I acknowledge MY culture is both superior and most robust, so much so I trust it doesn't need Trumpista protections. If YOU don't trust the robustness of YOUR culture, I would have to question the point of protecting it from other cultures; if you do, then I have to question your worry.

      --- There is also the issue of these people not assimilating within a generation of being here ----

      Why is that an "issue"? Doesn't that fall under the category "It's THEIR problem, not yours"?

      These preoccupations of yours are evidence of a deeper psychological problem, TLB. It is only a matter of time before you start writing gibberish on the walls with your own feces...

      Delete
    3. I love how all of your replies act as if you've answered definitively on something and are waiting for someone to prove you wrong, as if this isn't possible. Consider a possible alternative: no one thinks you're worth the time.

      Delete