Richard Ebeling emails:
Dear Bob,
I participated in the latest “Libertarian Angle” webinar sponsored by the Future of Freedom Foundation, with the Foundation’s president, Jacob G. Hornberger, on the topic of, “The Immorality of Immigration Controls.”
We discuss the history, economics and ethics of the right of freedom of movement as experienced in the United States in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Also analyzed are the social and market impacts of the arrival of people looking for a “second chance” and a better life for themselves and their families.
Additionally discussed are the relationships and problems between immigration and the welfare state and the attitudes and concerns of American citizens about the tax and dependency burdens of new arrivals.
Essential to any discussion of immigration is the ethics of the individual’s right to live, work, and reside wherever they peacefully wish to. And how this is an integral part of the classical liberal/libertarian case for human liberty in all its aspects.
Best,
Richard
-RW
Libertarians don't get it on this issue. They are so focused on individuals rights that they don't see the bigger picture.
ReplyDeleteThere is a reality that humans, in general, don't exist as atomized individuals but rather we exist within a group. And within that group there is a common identity (race, ethnicity, language, culture, religion,music, good,etc). If immigration of a few individuals to a foreign land and people may not be of any problem (assuming that they are properly assimilated). A few individuals won't have much impact on the local people and culture. The problem mass immigration where 10s of millions of people immigrate. When this occurs, the indigenous people are displaced culturally, linguistically, and politically. This results in conflict (including war and inter-ethnic/interracial fighting) and a loss of social capital. What exactly is libertarian about supporting a policy that leads to war and conflict? Libertarians are suppose to believe in societies that are self organized. How can libertarians support a policy that results in the loss of the social capital, social cohesion and trust, which are necessary for societies to self organize? The more homogenous a society is, the better it self organizes. Highly diverse societies don't self organize. The result is an outside entity (government) is required to organize society.
Nice conservative screed.
DeleteBut all problems you mention with immigration, in so far as they even are a problem, are caused only by government. Since libertarians are against government, government-caused problems can't be pinned on libertarians.
Currently, for instance, the issue responsible most for (potential) conflict is the government-enforced policy of multiculturalism, which comes along with things like affirmative action, political correctness, anti-"hate" speech, anti-discrimination laws etc etc. Immigration is not the problem; being forced to live with, or deal with, people you don't like is the problem. Not having a true freedom of association is the problem.
By the way, nothing is "required" to organize society. It either does so automatically and voluntarily, or it is immoral.
Firstly, mass immigration is possible because government prevents libertarian enforcement of of property rights. Secondly, government welfare encourages immigration.
DeleteI'm blaming libertarians who promote open borders immigration while knowing that the existence of democracy, the welfare state, public funded education, multiculturalism, etc provides perverse incentives for immigrants to come and is ultimately damaging to society. Right now its easier to keep illegals out than it is to eliminate the welfare state. It's easier to keep illegals out than it is to lift the ban on restrictive covenants or to eliminate public education. For any libertarian who is concerned with the state, open borders immigration should be a no go. Unfortunately, there are those who are so committed to ideological purity, they advocate open borders immigration despite the impacts to society.
DeleteRight now its only easy to keep European and Asian immigrants out. Latin American immigrants have already streamed across the border like a tsunami and there hasnt been the apocalypses you speak of. The only problem America has is the USGOV thats trying to enslave us and the Fed thats trying to bankrupt us.
DeleteThere is no such thing as the "freedom to move". You can't move on property that is not yours without the consent of the owner. Governments claim to own land and property, but they don't own anything because they have not homesteaded it.
ReplyDeleteCorrect.
DeleteAny libertarian that is favor of freedom of movement either doesn't understand that there is no freedom to "move", or they mean something different by it.
In most cases it is probably the beltarian type that uses that phrase because they are not about abolishing government and privatizing all property, but about making government more efficient.
Re: limelemon,
Delete--There is no such thing as the "freedom to move".--
Really?
I moved.
--You can't move on property that is not yours without the consent of the owner. --
You're equivocating. "Moving" is not the same as trespassing on someone's property. I have a right to MOVE, not to trespass.
@limelemon
DeleteThat's ridiculous. Property rights are not absolute. No society could function with absolute property rights. Rather, property rights are a bundle of obligations of other members of society towards the property owner. I guarantee you that in a libertarian society there would be all kinds of travel easements to enable people to travel freely to wherever they want. This would exclude private residences, of course. You are applying the standard that we expect for private residences to public spaces. No courts would recognize that, because the majority of the population would not stand for that, if they could not freely travel around. This translates to a de facto "right to move." And de facto rights recognized by courts are the only kind of rights that matter.
No. Property rights are always absolute (if you're a libertarian). The owner gets to decide who is a trespasser and who is a guest. Crossing (or "traveling" as you put it) onto a person's property can only be done if the owner decides that the crosser is a guest. An easement is a type of consent which is at the option of the owner, in which the owner decides that the crosser is a guest.
Delete@ Old Mexican
DeleteThere is no such thing as a right to travel or a right to move. The only thing that exists is property rights. You can "move" or "travel" on unowned property because there is no owner who would get to decide if you are a trespasser or a guest.
Re: Ed Ucation,
Delete─That's ridiculous. Property rights are not absolute.─
Interesting proposition. Are you saying that you cannot own your body absolutely?
─ No society could function with absolute property rights.─
I am sure thieves think along those lines. I mean, how could they function otherwise?
─ Rather, property rights are a bundle of obligations of other members of society towards the property owner.─
Ah, I see. You're thinking property rights are not absolute because they're not akin to physical laws of nature.
─ I guarantee you that in a libertarian society there would be all kinds of travel easements to enable people to travel freely to wherever they want. ─
I am sure, too. We call those easements "CONTRACTS". You know, agreements between consenting individuals. The only thing is that contracts are possible precisely because property rights are ABSOLUTE. Otherwise, they would not be contracts, they would be "impositions."
@ limelemon
DeleteNo, property rights are not absolute in a libertarian society. For example, you are subject to police powers. You could not harbor a fugitive from the law. You could not store stolen property, even if you had nothing to do with stealing it. You could not falsely imprison someone on your property.
Another example would be if person A homesteads land that completely surrounds person B's property. Person B automatically gets a travel easement across person A's property, even if person A is opposed to this. Walter Block has written about this homestead restriction. I would extend that further to simple connectedness between any two properties, as someone has recently pointed out on bionic mosquito's blog. Given person A and person B, if person A invites person B onto his property, there has to be a way for person A to travel to person B's property. If no such path can be found, then the property rights allocation is unjust. Thus, this translates to a de facto freedom of movement. Would you really want to live in a society that does not have such a feature? Sounds like tyranny to me.
There are other examples of restrictions to property rights, but I will leave that for another time.
"You could not store stolen property" ???
DeleteStolen property is a violation of property rights.
"You could not imprison someone on your property".
Imprisoning is a trespass of person, which is a violation of property rights.
You're bringing up examples which support my point that property rights are absolute.
A very good interview. Thanks for posting it. When governments enact laws to control, it is under the guise of being aimed at a particular group (not the majority), but those freedom-ending laws eventually encompasses us all. The government fix to illegal immigration will be to monitor the citizenry, who will need state permission to work.
ReplyDelete"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine
Re: Jeff Davis,
ReplyDelete─Libertarians don't get it on this issue. They are so focused on individuals rights that they don't see the bigger picture. ─
How sweet. An appeal to altruism and self-sacrifice.
─There is a reality that humans, in general, don't exist as atomized individuals but rather we exist within a group.─
Each of us chooses to live in groups because we want to. That does not mean we ipso facto lose our capability of choosing according to our personal interests.
─The problem mass immigration where 10s of millions of people immigrate.─
Oooh. Scary. Tens of millions. Imagine that.
─ When this occurs, the indigenous people are displaced culturally, linguistically, and politically.─
And you want things to remain static, like in a museum. Don't you? Otherwise, what are you afraid of?
Culture and language are things subject to market forces just like anything else. People CHOOSE. Whatever they like, they keep. Whatever they stop liking, they eschew. That is what they do, whether you find that idea abhorrent, horrifying, or not.
Enlightening reply. Thanks.
Delete"How sweet. An appeal to altruism and self-sacrifice."
DeleteWrong, it is an appeal to logic and reason.
"Each of us chooses to live in groups because we want to. That does not mean we ipso facto lose our capability of choosing according to our personal interests.
"
Wrong, we don't choose to live in the groups we want to because there is no newborn child who is capable of taking care of their self. And no child has the option of choosing their parents and kinfolk. Therefore must be raised by parents. And for a minimum of 14-18 years, the child will be immersed into the parent's culture, which includes the language, religion, culture, traditions, heritage, food, music, etc. And even when the child becomes of age, they generally keep speaking the same language, practicing the same religion, eating the same food, listening to the same music that they grew up with. In addition, they generally associate with people who look and act like them. They don't enter a marketplace and choose to throw off their identity and choose something different.
"Oooh. Scary. Tens of millions. Imagine that."
Tens of millions of people with a foreign language and culture displacing a person's culture and furthering their group interest is something to be concerned with. Understand this, culture determines politics. Politics don't determine culture. Free market libertarianism is derived from Northern European culture and English common law. It can only maintain itself as long as people of northern European stock have an overwhelming majority and are politically in charge. Bring in demographic replacement levels of foreign people who are not of northern European stock, the society and the political culture will look like where they came from and not the northern European culture that originated American society. Demographics is destiny. Want an example? Tell me, what is the chance of California electing a libertarian to a statewide office? Virtually zero. But 88.5% White Kentucky elected libertarian-ish/leaning (we can argue about that later Bob) Rand Paul. What are the chances that Ron Paul could have been elected to the House of Representatives from a majority Hispanic, Asian, or Black district? Zero. For Hispanics, as their political influence grows, expect a lot more big government. I predict that if they become a plurality in this country, the US will get socialized medicine. That's why Democrats are so eager to have them come here.
"And you want things to remain static, like in a museum. Don't you? Otherwise, what are you afraid of?"
If any person values their culture, they don't want it appreciably changed over time. Culture, traditions, heritage, religion, language, food, music, and an extended family are things that define who a person is. I guarantee that the 10s of millions of immigrants do have a sense of collective identity and they have no problem using government (through the ballot box) to further their group interest. If you don't value having a culture or a people to belong to, you are in a very minority. Libertarians typically are radical individualist. You all are on the fringes of normal society. That's why most normal people don't listen to you.
@limelemon
DeleteWhat was so enlightening about that reply? Mocking statements like "Oooh. Scary." isn't intelligent or enlightening.
Re: Jeff Davis,
Delete--Wrong, it is an appeal to logic and reason.--
Ha. No, Jeff. Accusing us libertarians of not seeing "the bigger picture" is not an appeal to reason, or logic. Insinuating we're too *selfish* is not an appeal to reason, or logic.
--Tens of millions of people with a foreign language and culture displacing a person's culture and furthering their group interest is something to be concerned with. --
Exactly. You're scared. You made that abundantly clear.
It's not an argument, though. It just your way of saying "I'm scared!" Also, your insinuation that people only act in herds instead of according to their personal interest is... unconvincing, to say it politely. Of course people bring their culture with them. I haven't witnessed yet this transformation you seem to dread. I believe you should consider a little introspection.
--If any person values their culture, they don't want it appreciably changed over time. --
Again, you want culture to be static, perennial. You're reactionary.
I'm not. How about that?
--What was so enlightening about [your] reply?--
That it was awesome.
Old Mexican,
DeleteIt's amazing that you can say so many words without saying anything at all.
Re: Jeff Davis,
Delete─ It's amazing that you can say so many words without saying anything at all.─
The pot calling the kettle black. I am not the one ranting about the dangers to our precious bodily culture and showing bouts of paranoia, Jeff. Your pedantry is not evidence of eloquence. I understand the economics of immigration and how it helps to increase the Division of Labor and thus the productivity of a population. These concerns about "culture" sounds to me like an attempt to hide your own xenophobia. American culture has shown extreme resilience and the capability of exporting itself to other places, thanks to the Market; your concerns are hollow and quite hypocritical.