Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Is Singapore a Libertarian Utopia?
Matthew Yglesias kindly comments on "Guests in the Machine":
I'd definitely recommend that you give Kerry Howley's Reason article on guest workers in Singapore a read. It's a very thorough and balanced discussion of the way it works. That said, given that the crux of the opposition to such programs for the United States is "it's repugnant and un-American, violating everything this country stands for" to say in reply but look at how well it works in a small, regimented, highly inegalitarian Asian dictatorship doesn't seem very persuasive.
The experience of a more similar society, Germany, is not something that many Americans look at and would desire to replicate. Meanwhile, I have no desire to see the United States become more like Singapore. We are, however, in the midst of a burgeoning libertarians against democracy moment (a return to classical liberalism's traditional anti-democratic sentiments) of sorts, so maybe we'll start seeing more and more aspects of Singapore and Hong Kong recommended to us as models.
This gets at the article's core themes and then somehow misses the point completely. Is Singapore a more totalitarian country than the United States? Absolutely. But who has the more illiberal immigration policy? In 2006 the U.S. government allowed something like .3 percent of the current population to immigrate legally. Insofar as uneven access to wealthy labor markets reinforces global inequality, numbers like that strike me as "repugnant and un-American," as well as pathetic and cruel.
No, we don't want to be more like Singapore overall. We want to be more like Singapore in the ways that Singapore is more liberal than we are. I think we can reasonably expect a U.S. guest worker program to be more compassionate and less disturbingly efficient than a Singaporean one. If the system is bettering lives over there, it would surely do so in a country less excited about, say, executing people for marijuana possession.
That such a system would be more difficult to stomach in an egalitarian society like the United States is obviously true, and that's the point of this paragraph:
The moral calculus, then, is to be weighed between the welfare of potential workers and the preservation of an idealized American narrative. Does it reflect better on the American character to lock poor people out than to permit them entry on limited terms? Guest worker programs do clash with deeply held mythologies about our relationship to the global poor. We live in a state of relative political equality nested awkwardly within a deeply unequal world, and it can seem better, kinder, to keep the inequality outside, walling it off and keeping our hands clean.
Hundreds of thousands of people in Southeast Asia would be worse off if Singaporeans thought they had to endow every immigrant with the legal status of citizenship--a legal status that plenty of those people wouldn't even want. That's something that needs to be grappled with honestly, preferably without recourse to "but that's not what America stands for." If your conception of "what America stands for" is one that leaves people worse off, maybe it's time to rework your definition of Americanism.
I'm happy to cede that we're in a "libertarians against democracy moment," but this article does not belong in that ideological space. My libertarian dictatorship would be one of wide open borders; a guest worker program is the compromise libertarianism makes with democracy. It's a messy, ugly compromise, to be sure. The pure humanitarian, pure libertarian position is not one that is currently politically feasible in any nation worth immigrating to. I think we'll get there eventually, but meanwhile we need to measure proposed policies against the current situation.
If you've gotten this far, I recommend checking out James Poulos' thoughtful response to the article, which is an honest expression of the conservative mentality that finds open borders-ism totally horrifying.
[Cross-posted at KerryHowley.com]
|12.22.07 @ 10:15PM|#
My solution: generous immigration for highly-skilled workers, work-permits for low-skilled workers (no vote, no welfare benefits, and no birthright citizenship). Let the labor market free!
|12.22.07 @ 10:18PM|#
To further clarify, the restrictions on low-skilled immigrants
are to keep them from turning the USA into a Latin-American
socialist state. Giving poor southern immigrants the vote is
libertarian suicide. See:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTNiMDIxNTk3NGQ0NTUyYmExMWE0NGE2NTk1Mzc1Yzk=
JMR|12.22.07 @ 10:37PM|#
To further clarify, the restrictions on low-skilled
immigrants are to keep them from turning the USA into a
Latin-American socialist state. Giving poor southern immigrants the
vote is libertarian suicide.
More fodder for the "libertarians against democracy movement."
PG|12.22.07 @ 11:00PM|#
Jacob,
Aren't you basically arguing for the status quo? We already have
immigration for "desirable" immigrants and H1 visas that function
as work permits. Admittedly, H1 requires an employer to say, "I
want Jose Schmoe to come here and work for me," as opposed to
letting Jose apply independently of an employer. However, if we
want to ensure that those we let in will be working instead of
being in need of public assistance, requiring an employer to say
they want the workers seems like a good idea. We don't need a new
guest worker program; we need to expand the existing program.
The only problem with the status quo is that we're not giving
enough H1 visas. This is a problem more for low-skill jobs than for
high-skill ones (although the original outsourcing of software
development was based more on the shortage of visas than on a
desire to pay lower wages). The owners of strawberry farms either
aren't willing to put in the effort to secure their workers
legally, or aren't successful when they attempt to do so.
MikeT|12.22.07 @ 11:08PM|#
There are three things that make this immigration issue so
difficult to deal with:
1) Our government refuses to control the borders.
2) Our government refuses to severely punish employers who
knowingly hire illegal aliens.
3) Our government still extends the same welfare and other benefits
to immigrants that citizens get.
The fact is that libertarians cannot look intelligent to the
majority of America on the immigration issue until they make
getting rid of the welfare state, or at least permanently ending
all state benefits for immigrants, the first step toward
immigration reform. Milton Friedman pointed out the hard truth when
he said that it is obvious that you cannot have free immigration
and a welfare state.
The libertarian movement often comes off as a movement of desperate
political losers because it has no strategy, nor a collective
ability to realize the danger of certain policies not preceding or
coinciding with others.
Geotpf|12.22.07 @ 11:12PM|#
I hate temporary work visas. However, I want more legal immigrants to be allowed in the country. In short, I think we should do the exact opposite of Singapore-you can come here, but only if you are willing to become an American (as opposed to the Singapore way, which is you can go there to work but you will never become a Singaporian). We shouldn't want people who are only here to collect a paycheck and then go back home to their country after a few years (sending half of it home to their familes in the meantime)-we want them to make the US their home, with their familes coming along as well.
MikeT|12.22.07 @ 11:13PM|#
JMR,
Is it so hard to imagine that immigrants from countries like
Mexico, where Socialism is the ideology of the major political
parties, might bring Socialist politics with them? No matter how
hard an immigrant works, their Socialist politics will always make
them a shitty excuse for an American citizen. America should no
more embrace a wave of immigrants from a country dominated by
Socialism than it should from a country dominated by Islamism.
MikeT|12.22.07 @ 11:15PM|#
We shouldn't want people who are only here to collect a paycheck and then go back home to their country after a few years (sending half of it home to their familes in the meantime)-we want them to make the US their home, with their familes coming along as well.
The majority of the world doesn't come even close to sharing the
classical liberal values that America's major institutions were
built on. The last thing we want is a lot of people to come here,
make a fake pledge of loyalty, and work to better themselves.
Losing one's native citizenship to escape a poor country for one as
rich as ours, is a small price to pay for most of the world. Do you
really want such people, or their offspring who will be raised with
their values, participating in our system of government?
MikeT|12.22.07 @ 11:18PM|#
Furthermore, someone who comes here only to work hard, but who doesn't share our values, will never be an American, no matter what their passport says. It is better to have an honest relationship with them. If they're producing productively here, we should let them stay here as long as they stay productive and don't commit any crime worse than a misdemeanor.
Geotpf|12.22.07 @ 11:23PM|#
MikeT-So you think Mexicans (or whatever) are somehow unworthy
of becoming US citizens, because their government is supposed so
different from ours? That smacks of racism, my friend. They are no
different than you and me.
Plus, if they are leaving a socialist country-maybe they are doing
so because they don't like the government-if they liked it,
wouldn't they would stay?
Also, it takes a lot of guts to leave one's country and go to
another one to better themselves, as opposed to taking the easy way
out and staying put-you would thinkthose who would immigrate would
have all of the characteristics of entrepreneurship and
self-reliance that would make a good citizen.
I think you just don't want any more brown people living next door
to you.
JMR|12.22.07 @ 11:29PM|#
JMR, Is it so hard to imagine that immigrants from countries
like Mexico, where Socialism is the ideology of the major political
parties, might bring Socialist politics with them?
My comment was not a disagreement with this... in fact I think a
lot of Democratic openish-border support is based on the fact that
they think that the immigrants will be leftish-leaning voters.
MikeT|12.22.07 @ 11:34PM|#
Plus, if they are leaving a socialist country-maybe they are doing so because they don't like the government-if they liked it, wouldn't they would stay?
Correlation does not equal causation. What makes you think that
they are leaving it because they don't like their country and how
it's run? Rather they are leaving it because of the poverty.
As to your accusation of racism, "anti-racist" arguments like yours
are the last refuge of scoundrels. Based on my comment, a
reasonable person would say that I don't favor much immigration
from a country like France or Canada either.
MikeT|12.22.07 @ 11:40PM|#
I think you just don't want any more brown people living next door to you.
I think you're afraid to admit that this issue has nothing to do
with race.
My wife and I renewed our lease in an apartment complex where most
of our immediate neighbors are Indians. Yeah, we really hate those
brown people. Can't stand them, that's why we're going to be living
around them a while longer.
|12.22.07 @ 11:42PM|#
Do you really want such people, or their offspring who will
be raised with their values, participating in our system of
government?
Is this a joke?
Also, Kerry's site is very difficult to masturbate to.
Geotpf|12.22.07 @ 11:46PM|#
MikeT-As Warty just pointed out, the argument you are making doesn't make any sense. "Don't let in any more immigrants because they might be...OMG...SOCIALLLISSSSTTTSS!!!!" It's one of the stupidiest arguments I've ever heard of. And, usually when we run into stupidity on this topic it's because the person making the retarded argument is really a closet racist.
JMR|12.22.07 @ 11:56PM|#
Also, Kerry's site is very difficult to masturbate
to.
I believe your needs are better addressed at
reason.tv
|12.23.07 @ 12:06AM|#
Sorry, I have to reject the claim that Singapore is
totalitarian. They don't cook their books in the elections.
Singaporeans really do vote for a government that will fine them
$500 for spitting on the sidewalk or urinating in an
elevator.
They like a neat, orderly society, and they vote for it.
-jcr
|12.23.07 @ 12:10AM|#
" the restrictions on low-skilled immigrants are to keep them
from turning the USA into a Latin-American socialist state."
I'd have to say that judging by the Cubans, Russians, and Chinese
people I've met, socialist inclinations are the last thing we
should fear from people who've fled from socialist regimes to the
United States for economic opportunity.
Do you imagine any of the Mexicans who come here illegally believe
that the Mexican economy is better?
-jcr
Nobody|12.23.07 @ 12:10AM|#
The last thing we want is a lot of people to come here, make
a fake pledge of loyalty, and work to better themselves. Losing
one's native citizenship to escape a poor country for one as rich
as ours, is a small price to pay for most of the world. Do you
really want such people, or their offspring who will be raised with
their values, participating in our system of government?
Millions and millions before them made the same choice throughout
America's history. You can bet a lot of them were citizenship
"fakers" too. But a funny thing happened: their children were less
good at faking than their adults. Grandchildren less so. Pretending
that immigrants (especially those that can speak English) will
totally overwhelm our own culture with their dark socialist
tendencies is silly
|12.23.07 @ 12:20AM|#
"No, we don't want to be more like Singapore overall. We
want to be more like Singapore in the ways that Singapore is more
liberal than we are."
It's like pointing out that we have more people incarcerated than
China, and Yglesias objecting that we don't want to emulate an
authoritarian state like China.
He so obviously missed Howley's point, but I think he just wanted
to decry our anti-democratic bent. ...and everything on the
internet is just another example of a bigger point he's making, I
guess.
By the way, I don't think the anti-democratic undercurrent he's
talking about is particularly libertarian or classically liberal so
much as it's a collective reaction to the realization of what we've
done in this country since 2001 or so. For every overreaction
there's an...uh...overreaction.
Alice Bowie|12.23.07 @ 12:32AM|#
We shouldn't want people who are only here to collect a
paycheck and then go back home to their country after a few years
(sending half of it home to their familes in the meantime)-we want
them to make the US their home, with their familes coming along as
well.
Yea...but ONLY if they are WHITE. Fat Mexicans
need not apply
|12.23.07 @ 12:42AM|#
"The libertarian movement often comes off as a movement of
desperate political losers because it has no strategy, nor a
collective ability to realize the danger of certain policies not
preceding or coinciding with others."
That doesn't even make any sense. I can't advocate policies that
will benefit our economy with cheap labor because I'm also against
the welfare state? Where's the contradiction?
"Do you really want such people, or their offspring who will be
raised with their values, participating in our system of
government?"
I'm going to end up sounding like a broken record around here, but
close family ties, a commitment to hard work and a conviction that
the only job to be ashamed of is a job poorly done--those are the
values I'm supposed to be afraid of?
...on a strictly values basis, I'd like to trade Mexico 3-1. We'll
take in three hard working Mexican people for every native born,
pubic school attending, college tuition loan sucking, not saving
for retirement, burden on Medicare entitlement hog they'll take off
our hands.
If people are the problem with this country, it isn't the hard
working people who want to come here; it's the native born who
think that being born here entitles them to the fruit of other
people's labor.
|12.23.07 @ 12:49AM|#
"We'll take in three hard working Mexican people for every
native born, pubic school attending, college tuition loan sucking,
not saving for retirement, burden on Medicare entitlement hog
they'll take off our hands"
Mr. Shultz,
You can say all the sweet things about me you want. I ain't moving
to Mexico.
And Merry Christmas
thoreau|12.23.07 @ 1:02AM|#
I think we can reasonably expect a U.S. guest worker program
to be more compassionate and less disturbingly efficient than a
Singaporean one. If the system is bettering lives over there, it
would surely do so in a country less excited about, say, executing
people for marijuana possession.
Kerry-
I'd like to agree with you on that, but I am stuck with a contrary
thought: What if the reason that Singaporeans are more willing to
let foreigners in is precisely because they trust their illiberal
state to "keep those people in line"?
If I were a xenophobe, I might still be willing to put up with
having "those people" do construction on the cheap if I had reason
to believe that some tough-ass cops will bust their chops for so
much as spitting on a sidewalk. OTOH, if I were a xenophobe in
America, I'd be more skeptical about the idea that our government
will "keep those people in line", so I'd be less likely to
compromise for cheap labor.
Fortunately I'm not a xenophobe, so I'm all in favor of anything
that leads to an overall freer flow of people, products,
information, and money.
|12.23.07 @ 1:09AM|#
There is one thing that makes this immigration issue so
difficult to deal with:
1) The US government believes it has the legitimate authority to
restrict the free movement of an individual solely because he was
born somewhere else.
|12.23.07 @ 1:13AM|#
Our government still extends the same welfare and other
benefits to immigrants that citizens get.
No it doesn't.
To be fair, the fact that citizen children of immigrants get
welfare is an issue. But it is trivially solved by placing citizen
children of immigrants on the welfare schedule of their parents,
not that of a longtime citizen.
The fact is that libertarians cannot look intelligent to the
majority of America on the immigration issue until they make
getting rid of the welfare state, or at least permanently ending
all state benefits for immigrants, the first step toward
immigration reform.
That was done in 1986. What is the second step?
|12.23.07 @ 1:25AM|#
As for the above comments' Manichean positions pitting permanent
immigration against temporary work programs, I think the US should
do it the obvious way:
Anyone who wants to come to the US to make a permanent home is free
to do so. Anyone who wants to come to the US seasonally or for a
few years and take his savings back to his home country is free to
do so.
Oddly, the tendencies of the opportunities offered in the US will
balance very well the choices made by the prospective migrants or
immigrants. I believe it's called a "market". Yes, I'm almost
certain that's what it's called.
|12.23.07 @ 2:50AM|#
Meh, milquetoast liberal cares more about U.S. unionized labor
than poor foreigners seeking their share of the American dream.
What else is new?
It's cold comfort when all you have to say for your own ideology is
"50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong!"
|12.23.07 @ 3:18AM|#
We need to keep them hard working, family oriented, Christians out of this America.
Ventifact|12.23.07 @ 4:29AM|#
Possibly the best thing about having 10-20 million immigrants living illegally in the U.S. is that it proves the feasibility (and appeal!) of making it without the government's support. And to me, it seems more likely that immigrants will understand the value of a free economy than native citizens. There are a ton of citizens whose families have been here for many generations who feel quite entitled to a retirement they didn't save for, a job that is obsolete, a mortgage they can't afford, or a wage that doesn't match their skill set, and they've got all sorts of ancestral national origins. Folks who understand that you've got to go where the work is, make something for yourself, and strive for long-term goals are NOT THE ENEMY. (The Republicans made a huge mistake in alienating (pun intended) "them hard working, family oriented, Christians.")
|12.23.07 @ 4:31AM|#
Insofar as uneven access to wealthy labor markets reinforces
global inequality, numbers like that strike me as "repugnant and
un-American," as well as pathetic and cruel.
Not that we don't already have poor people here - but fuck 'em!
They're only Americans! Obviously, the responsibility of the US
government is to provide access and opportunity to all the rest of
the world first!
Next I expect that I'll be hearing that the white race is a cancer
on world. Methinks the brand of libertarianism promoted by Reason
owes more of it's DNA to Susan Sontag than Ayn Rand.
My libertarian dictatorship would be one of wide open borders;
a guest worker program is the compromise libertarianism makes with
democracy. It's a messy, ugly compromise, to be sure.
Given that anyone who's looked at an opinion poll or a newspaper
lately knows damn well an American populace unfettered by law and
government is a lot more likely to storm the Cato Institute with
burning torches and pitchforks than to put up with having their
country turned into an open borders three-ring circus, I suspect
your "libertarian dictatorship" would have to be a lot heavier on
the dictatorship than the libertarian bit.
The pure humanitarian, pure libertarian position is not one
that is currently politically feasible in any nation worth
immigrating to.
I'm still waiting to hear just when open borders became "the
libertarian position". To the extent that any libertarian of note
discussed the matter, they were against it. No Rothbard, Friedman,
Hayek or von Mises ever advocated any such thing. Few libertarians
of my acquaintance hold any such views, and as was posted on Hit
& Run some time earlier, even 2/3's of the Libertarian Party
candidates ran on an anti-immigration platform in the last
election. Or has the editorial staff of Reason now arrogated to
themselves the role of defining what is and isn't
libertarianism?
|12.23.07 @ 4:44AM|#
I'm still waiting to hear just when open borders became "the
libertarian position".
Well, it is the Libertarian Party's immigration
plank...
The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.
|12.23.07 @ 5:24AM|#
No Rothbard, Friedman, Hayek or von Mises ever advocated any
such thing.
And, come to think of it, at least one Friedman advocated such a
thing...
In my opinion, the restriction on immigration is a mistake: we should abolish it tomorrow and reopen the most successful attack on poverty the world has ever seen.
-- David Friedman, "Open the Gates," The Machinery of
Freedom
|12.23.07 @ 6:07AM|#
I don't know about Singapore, but Paul Krugman, and the New York
Times obviously think poorly of Libertarianism...
Fed shrugged as subprime crisis spread," was the headline on a New York Times report on the failure of regulators to regulate. This may have been a discreet dig at Mr. Greenspan's history as a disciple of Ayn Rand, the high priestess of unfettered capitalism known for her novel "Atlas Shrugged."
In a 1963 essay for Ms. Rand's newsletter, Mr. Greenspan dismissed as a "collectivist" myth the idea that businessmen, left to their own devices, "would attempt to sell unsafe food and drugs, fraudulent securities, and shoddy buildings." On the contrary, he declared, "it is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputation for honest dealings and a quality product."
It's no wonder, then, that he brushed off warnings about deceptive lending practices, including those of Edward M. Gramlich, a member of the Federal Reserve board. In Mr. Greenspan's world, predatory lending - like attempts to sell consumers poison toys and tainted seafood - just doesn't happen.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122107H.shtml
|12.23.07 @ 6:08AM|#
In the open borders utopia, what do we do about people who just
want to conquer us?
There are a number of racist groups (MeCHA, La Raza, etc) that want
to conquer the US for Mexico, and they have substantial support
within the immigrant population. Mexico's president has made a
number of statements that are little more than thinly veiled calls
for Mexicans to restore the American southwest to Mexican control
through colonization.
Muslims are quite public about demographic jihad and using
immigration as a means to conquer the west. Even if we changed the
rules so their children (and they have a lot of children) weren't
citizens, are we prepared to kick them out, violently if necessary,
when they don't obey our law, as Islam says that mustn't? If we
aren't, are we prepared to accept "no go" zones like they have in
France, where Muslims openly attack police and commit arson without
fear of any substantive reprisal. It isn't about jobs, it's about
establishing Islamic mini-states where infidel law doesn't
rule.
Anonymous Bastert|12.23.07 @ 6:08AM|#
So we should keep Latin American immigrants from becoming fully
fledged US citizens in order to preserve our freedoms? The idea
being that people from socialistic states will be more inclined to
be socialist themselves, and will therefore "pollute" our own
nation?
Interesting theory. Where was Ayn Rand from? Would you consider her
a socialist? How about all of those Vietnamese immigrants living in
Southern California - socialists as well?
|12.23.07 @ 6:12AM|#
The fact is that libertarians cannot look intelligent to the majority of America on the immigration issue until they make getting rid of the welfare state, or at least permanently ending all state benefits for immigrants, the first step toward immigration reform.
That was done in 1986. What is the second step?
Actually doing it before allowing a flood of indigent immigrants
into the country.
|12.23.07 @ 6:21AM|#
Actually doing it before allowing a flood of indigent
immigrants into the country.
I don't know... The way Bob Smith tells it, the only thing that
will save America from the Reconquista is Islamic
Balkanization.
|12.23.07 @ 6:37AM|#
Balkanization won't work, and there is no will to limit welfare.
The liberals and the conservatives both want an unfettered flow of
illegals, each for their own self-serving reasons.
Bottom-line, the US will either assimilate the flow of poor
immigrants without a significant degradation in living standards,
or it won't. With globalization of trade already pressuring
blue-collar wages in the US, I am skeptical that this will have a
happy outcome for lower and middle class Americans.
|12.23.07 @ 7:05AM|#
Balkanization not only won't work, it's all but guaranteed under any open borders regime. I'm also amazed at the many people who think economics trumps culture. Culture is everything. It is what makes the economics work. Open borders means millions of people who do not and will not adopt our values. Why should they? The right way to bring economic freedom to others is to convince them to bring it to themselves, where they live, not to let them live here.
Fluffy|12.23.07 @ 8:29AM|#
Kerry, don't let Yglesias back you up with that "anti-democracy
libertarian" bullshit.
The most undemocratic document written in the history of our
republic is the Bill of Rights. Anyone who likes the Bill of Rights
is properly understood as an enemy of democracy.
The purpose of democracy in our system is to prevent the
entrenchment of one faction in the offices of government. That's
it. It's desirable for no other reason and frankly the public will
usually sucks balls when it's allowed to express itself.
Like abortion? You hate democracy. Like free speech? You hate
democracy. Like habeus corpus? You hate democracy. And so on, ad
infinitum.
squarooticus|12.23.07 @ 8:57AM|#
The bottom line here is that immigration isn't the problem:
democracy is. It's a much harder sell, but once you recognize
democracy for the loser that it is, everything becomes a lot
clearer.
To be more specific, the problem isn't poor people coming to the US
to get on our Welfare/SS/Medicare rolls; rather, it's the fact that
any citizen can vote themselves the fruits of productive labor, and
there is a perception (whether true or not) that poor immigrants
who become citizens are more likely to do this than existing
citizens.
I personally don't buy it: Americans have been quite happy to vote
themselves others' money for 70+ years, and I don't expect that to
change as long as they're able to choose people to put in control
of the crime syndicate we know as government, no matter who we let
in.
Every other debate about citizenship is just a reflection of one
simple observation: voters like free stuff, and the government has
the guns and the perception of legitimacy required to make you hand
it over.
|12.23.07 @ 9:21AM|#
Every other debate about citizenship is just a reflection of
one simple observation: voters like free stuff, and the government
has the guns and the perception of legitimacy
required to make you hand it over.
Given that a lot of people perceive many government actions to be
legitimate, I suppose it would be in you and I's best interests to
change that perception. Agree or disagree?
I don't expect that to change as long as they're able to choose
people to put in control of the crime syndicate we know as
government
Are you really trying to start another anarco-minarchy debate, like
it matters?
|12.23.07 @ 9:32AM|#
In the open borders utopia, what do we do about people who
just want to conquer us?
What exactly do you mean by "conquer"? Displace our current
government for something worse or better? If it promises something
worse, then kill them. Get all
Red Dawn on their asses. If it's better (meaning increased
liberty low-no taxation, etc.), then roll out the red carpet.
|12.23.07 @ 9:33AM|#
Of course, in my previous post, I refer to an actual, state-sponsored invasion of our nation.
Episiarch|12.23.07 @ 9:58AM|#
A Sunday immigration thread sure brings out some different
types.
Immigration is like the WOD. People will go to where the work is
whether you "let" them or not. Just like they will get weed whether
you "let" them or not. So it's just another form of prohibition.
And we know how well that shit works, don't we?
It is not only illiberal to attempt to control the free movement of
people, it is stupid. It just doesn't work. So as usual,
we have the government attempting to control something that it
should not be controlling, and on top of that, cannot.
|12.23.07 @ 10:00AM|#
"And we know how well that shit works, don't we?"
Actually, while it dosen't work if you mean "ends drug use" it
certainly works if by works you mean "there is less drug use with
it than without it." It's just common sense as well as economic
sense that providing a dis-incentive makes for less of something.
So, for those of us who don' like immigration much, especially
illegal immigration, then we would like some more dis-incentives
please.
|12.23.07 @ 10:05AM|#
Most of us are, hopefully, spending time with their families
during this holiday season. It's neat that everyone thinks it is OK
to treat your family to certain benefits that you would not treat
to an outsider. It doesn't mean you hate the outsider or wish him
ill, its just that you give your family this preferential
treatment. There is an emotional bond, a belongingness amongst
you.
What libertarians, I think, may be failing to see, is that for many
(probably most) Americans this feeling can be extended to their
communities, their states, and even their country. And just like we
would not want someone to move into our house and get the benefits
therein we don't want just anyone to move into our larger
communities and get the benefits therein.
Episiarch|12.23.07 @ 10:06AM|#
So, for those of us who don' like immigration much,
especially illegal immigration, then we would like some more
dis-incentives please.
Yes, by all means, let's have totally totalitarian, police-state
measures to reduce drugs/immigration/turd-burgling/gambling reduced
by .0003%. What a great fucking solution, which also adds to our
own personal freedom as well!
Episiarch|12.23.07 @ 10:09AM|#
So, for those of us who don' like immigration much,
especially illegal immigration, then we would like some more
dis-incentives please.
In other words, to quote Strangers With Candy, the only thing you
hate worse than racists are spics.
|12.23.07 @ 10:15AM|#
"Yes, by all means, let's have totally totalitarian,
police-state measures to reduce
drugs/immigration/turd-burgling/gambling reduced by .0003%."
I'd say making things illegal makes for much less than a .0003%
reduction in them. Again, that's just economics 101. Its called
incentives.
"In other words, to quote Strangers With Candy, the only thing you
hate worse than racists are spics."
Epi, you really should read the entire post that you quote from,
cuz often the person's answer is already there!
"It doesn't mean you hate the outsider or wish him ill, its just
that you give your family this preferential treatment. There is an
emotional bond, a belongingness amongst you."
|12.23.07 @ 10:17AM|#
But since we're quoting Strangers With Candy (a great show and
movie) here is one along the same lines:
"I do like black people. It just took a white one to prove it to
me."
That Jerri Blank, will she ever learn?
Episiarch|12.23.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Epi, you really should read the entire post that you quote
from, cuz often the person's answer is already there!
Hey, it's Sunday, I have a hangover, and I feel like being
inflammatory! Besides, this isn't about skinning and eating animals
so I have to bait you somehow.
"Historically, syphilis is right up there with Germans. It wiped
out the Romanovs, it decimated our fleet at Pearl Harbor, and of
course, Fidel Castro impersonated Marilyn Monroe and gave President
Kennedy a case of syphilis so severe that eventually it blew the
back of his head off."
Middle Class Worker|12.23.07 @ 10:38AM|#
Libertarians want "open borders" so their corporate masters can
continue to rake in record profits while they are allowed to pay a
pittance for their labor.
Immigration and outsourcing (so-called "free trade") are the reason
for the decline of the American Middle
Class.
America doesn't produce anything of any value
anymore exccept pieces of paper. Our trade deficit is at a
record level.
No for the things our corporate masters can't outsource to cheap
labor overseas, they will bring the cheap subservient labor
here.
We should be focusing on strong unions and a
high minimum wage.
Episiarch|12.23.07 @ 10:41AM|#
Reason even outsources its
bolding to IllegalMexicans to provide profit for
its CorporateMasters.
LoneWacko, is that you?
Middle Class Worker|12.23.07 @ 10:49AM|#
I don't hate Mexicans, they are being
exploited just like the American
worker.
What they need is strong labor unions to raise
their standard of living, like we had here from the 50s to the
70s.
|12.23.07 @ 10:59AM|#
I agree that the labor market needs to be free in order to be efficient. The existence of 12 - 20 million illegals in the US today is testament to the unmet demand for labor in the domestic market. I am saying that we should free the labor market, but there are some drawbacks to throwing open the floodgates on full citizenship.
Middle Class Worker\'s Interio|12.23.07 @ 11:01AM|#
People aren't listening to me. Hmmm, maybe I should try BOLDING. Nobody can deny the logic of BOLDING.
squarooticus|12.23.07 @ 11:24AM|#
Given that a lot of people perceive many government actions
to be legitimate, I suppose it would be in you and I's best
interests to change that perception. Agree or disagree?
Absolutely. The more people who see the government for the criminal
gang it is, the better for liberty.
Are you really trying to start another anarco-minarchy debate,
like it matters?
It does matter. When I get into debates on the internet, I don't do
it for the benefit of the person I'm arguing with, who generally
already has his or her mind made up. I do it for the benefit of the
other people reading/lurking, who may never have heard arguments in
favor of anarchy/agorism before.
Kyle
greenish|12.23.07 @ 11:34AM|#
One thing that struck me when I started paying serious attention to politics is how often counter-arguments to libertarian positions miss the point.
SIV|12.23.07 @ 12:02PM|#
The existence of 12 - 20 million illegals in the US today is
testament to the unmet demand for labor below
market rates in the domestic market.
|12.23.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Middle Class Worker,
"We should be focusing on strong unions and a high minimum
wage."
Right... because a less productive, more expensive domestic
workforce will somehow make it less attractive for employers to
outsource work to lower cost countries.
Pure economic ignorance.
|12.23.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Right... because a less productive, more expensive domestic
workforce will somehow make it less attractive for employers to
outsource work to lower cost countries.
Pure economic ignorance.
Pure economic ignorance == fully informed economic trade-off Russ R
doesn't approve of.
Joshua Holmes|12.23.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Libertarians are against democracy, but only because we're against the state generally. It's nothing personal!
|12.23.07 @ 2:27PM|#
fully informed economic trade-off
Informed by whom? And why do you feel it's OK to decide with what
people others choose to trade?
|12.23.07 @ 2:28PM|#
As an aside, has anyone else noticed how inane Paul Krugman's
columns about sub-prime lending have been? He claims that it was
caused by some sort of insidious free-market ideology run amok from
Republicans which led to unregulated financial markets. Does the
idea that Republicans are pro-market and banking is unregulated
have any basis in reality?
He just presents it as obvious that more regulation would have
prevented the mortgage crisis but he never proposes any specific
regulation that would have this effect. He just assumes that more
regulation equals better economic decisions. It makes no sense.
|12.23.07 @ 2:34PM|#
America doesn't produce anything of any value anymore
exccept pieces of paper. Our trade deficit is at a record
level.
I'm sorry, do you dictate what's valuable and what isn't?
A PT Cruiser is not valuable to me because I don't
want one. Value is agent-relative, not absolute.
No for the things our corporate masters can't outsource to
cheap labor overseas, they will bring the cheap subservient labor
here.
Oh, we wouldn't want people moving here, would we? I have just the
political party
for you.
Middle Class Worker|12.23.07 @ 2:37PM|#
Its not that I don't want people moving here. I don't want poor people of color being exploited by the big corporations. If they were given workers rights and a living wage I would not care.
|12.23.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Informed by whom?
Informed by reality. If cheap labor is good, free labor is
obviously better. Hence, we have a sound economic argument for
bringing back slavery if economic benefits are going to trump all
other considerations.
But if other considerations are going to come into play, clearly
you've conceded maximizing economic benefit is not the end-all and
be-all of public policy.
And why do you feel it's OK to decide with what people others
choose to trade?
Conflating immigration with free trade deserves all the credibility
of the teenagers you caught screwing on your couch telling you they
were practicing co-ed deep-breathing exercises. Yes, that may
indeed be one of the results, but anyone trying to tell you that is
only or even the primary consequence is either an idiot or a
liar.
When my iPod registers to vote, organizes a immigration rally, or
gets busted for a DWI, then you can come back and tell me
immigration is merely a form of trade.
Unfortunately, your private "trade" has public consequences that
effect other parties besides the immediate participants.
And when that is the case, yes, I have no problem with public law
regulating it.
|12.23.07 @ 2:50PM|#
If they were given workers rights and a living wage I would
not care.
Given by whom? Perhaps they, like any other worker, can try earning
it.
I don't want poor people of color being exploited
coming to America and making better lives for
themselves by being hired by the big
corporations.
When my iPod registers to vote, organizes a immigration rally, or
gets busted for a DWI, then you can come back and tell me
immigration is merely a form of trade.
You think you can only trade in goods? How do you get paid, by
charity?
Unfortunately, your private "trade" has public consequences that
effect other parties besides the immediate participants.
Prove that. And who is the public?
|12.23.07 @ 2:51PM|#
Middle Class Worker|12.23.07 @ 3:02PM|#
"Ayn_Randian", what crosses the line into exploitation for you?
Anything?
What about a poor minority working ten
hour days for $3 an hour, with no
healthcare, no retirement, and no vacation?
|12.23.07 @ 3:07PM|#
"Ayn_Randian", what crosses the line into exploitation for
you? Anything?
It's exploitation when that person doesn't have a choice anymore.
See: taxation.
What about a poor minority working ten hour days for $3 an
hour, with no healthcare, no retirement, and no
vacation?
A. Better for him than dredging mud, doing sustenance farming at 14
or 16 hours a day in his hellhole country.
B. Stop playing the race card. Identity politics doesn't become
anybody. If it's wrong for a "minority" to work in those
conditions, then it's wrong for everybody.
C. If it's so bad, why don't YOU pay him more, if you're so worried
about it?
|12.23.07 @ 3:14PM|#
When my iPod registers to vote, organizes a immigration
rally, or gets busted for a DWI, then you can come back and tell me
immigration is merely a form of trade.
Wait, your argument here is that because uh, people live and
machines don't, that uh, we have to stop people from coming
here?
OK...I'll note that all of the examples you gave could just as
easily be actions an American would do.
|12.23.07 @ 3:15PM|#
|12.23.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Wait, your argument here is that because uh, people live and
machines don't, that uh, we have to stop people from coming
here?
Actually, I'm not. Whether we should or shouldn't is an entirely
different argument.
My point is that conflating immigration with trade is a
sleight-of-hand designed to obscure the fact that the consequences
of immigration and trade are two different things entirely. A point
which you manage to avoid addressing entirely, I'd add.
When you're prepared to quit lying about what it is you want to do,
I'm prepared to debate the merits of it.....
|12.23.07 @ 3:30PM|#
When you're prepared to quit lying about what it is you want
to do, I'm prepared to debate the merits of it...
You know, culturally speaking, I don't have a lot in common with
people from rural Alabama. They're generally Republican, Christian
and that immigration! = trade. I agree with social
conservatives.
If their source of economic viability ceased to be productive for
them any longer, I wouldn't advocate limiting the number of them
that can cross the "border" in to Columbus, Ohio.
My point is that conflating immigration with trade is a
sleight-of-hand designed to obscure the fact that the consequences
of immigration and trade are two different things
entirely.
I don't think it's a sleight-of-hand. Point addressed. What you
were going for is that immigration!=trade. I agree with you there;
immigration is about the people moving themselves, whereas trade is
about individuals trading one thing for another and both coming
away better than they were before (that's optimal, of
course).
I will note that immigration can be very similar to trade. Ever
wonder why all the "boat people" from Viet Nam came here at a
serious risk to themselves? They decided the risk was worth the
benefit.
When you're prepared to quit lying
I'm lying? Where?
|12.23.07 @ 4:12PM|#
You know, culturally speaking, I don't have a lot in common
with people from rural Alabama. They're generally Republican,
Christian and that immigration! = trade. I agree with social
conservatives.
If their source of economic viability ceased to be productive for
them any longer, I wouldn't advocate limiting the number of them
that can cross the "border" in to Columbus, Ohio.
The difference is that Ohio and Alabama are both signatories to an
agreement called the Constitution that recognizes reciprocal rights
of migration, a common interest in defense, and other common
rights. Ohio is not obliged to unilaterally allow Alabama to dump
it's excess population on them with impunity.
When you have a similar agreement with Mexico and Canada, I'll buy
the proposition that those situations are comparable. Until then,
that's a pretty thin argument.
I'm lying? Where?
I'll withdraw the accusation of lying, and replace it with one of
being disingenuous. Your original post to me on the subject asked,
"And why do you feel it's OK to decide with what people others
choose to trade?" Obviously, we aren't discussing trade, except
tangentially.
|12.23.07 @ 4:32PM|#
Obviously, we aren't discussing trade, except
tangentially.
It's always about trade, Mannix. I mean that in the individual
sense, where it belongs.
that recognizes reciprocal rights of migration, a common
interest in defense, and other common rights
First of all, they aren't rights, they're obligations
Where does the Constitution speak on immigration matters? If you
cite Art. 4, Sec. IV, I'm going to stop taking you seriously.
Ventifact|12.23.07 @ 4:40PM|#
So, Pig, if you can call someone a lier without any basis, does that make you a lier? Or just disingenuous?
shecky|12.23.07 @ 4:42PM|#
The existence of 12 - 20 million illegals in the US today is
testament to the unmet demand for labor below market rates in the
domestic market.
With unemployment rates still in the mid single digits, the
existence of 12 - 20 million illegals in the US today is testament
to the demand for labor in the domestic market. Period. There's no
such thing, really, as "below market rate" in this environment.
|12.23.07 @ 5:26PM|#
There's no such thing, really, as "below market rate" in
this any free environment.
|12.23.07 @ 5:56PM|#
It's always about trade, Mannix. I mean that in the
individual sense, where it belongs.
You might as well say it's all about shitting, because all people
do that, too. That doesn't give them the right to do it anywhere
they please.
Where does the Constitution speak on immigration matters? If
you cite Art. 4, Sec. IV, I'm going to stop taking you
seriously.
How about Article I, Section 9?
|12.23.07 @ 5:58PM|#
"I don't want poor people of color being exploited by the big
corporations. If they were given workers rights and a living wage I
would not care."
Let me get this straight. You don't care if America competes in the
real world but rather we should just feel good for a few months
(then the crash) knowing that we voted to live in the bizzaro world
just to say we did it for "the poor"? This would benefit no one and
harm the poor the most. Other than illegal immigrants only a small
portion of the legitimate workforce even attempts to live solely
from a minimum wage.
They also don't stay at the lower 20% of the income spectrum very
long either. Contrast this with the average illegal immigrant who
has no where to go but a small step up from Mexico no matter how
long they stay. So what you are asking us to buy into is a
situation where we just say come on in and dilute the hugely
successful social and market system we have going and we will also
grant you the right to speak freely about how corrupt the system is
that is exploiting you? The system you can't move up in because you
can't speak English and you have only rudimentary skills. A system
that you have no grasp of in terms of custom and rule of law. And
you ask us to ignore the obvious remedy; FIX MEXICO.
Nope can't buy into that one.
"One thing that struck me when I started paying serious attention
to politics is how often counter-arguments to libertarian positions
miss the point."
Well said!
I think the very same thing every time I hear, read or see a news
item.
They just don't get the point. Does anybody here pine for a almost
Libertarian who will do what he promises. Fred Thompson is as close
as we have ever been to a Constitutionally guided individual. He
has touted federalism since first on the public scene. He would be
one huge step closer to a Libertarian philosophy than any of the
other viable candidates.
Fix the border and enforce the law? After all we did pass the law.
Is that radical?
SIV|12.23.07 @ 6:43PM|#
We don't have a free market in most categories of labor.
Turning a blind eye to migration of poor workers from parts of
Latin America while strictly enforcing immigration and employment
laws for workers from other classes and places of geographical
origin for protectionist reasons is not an "open immigration"
policy.
|12.23.07 @ 6:55PM|#
Ohio is not obliged to unilaterally allow Alabama to dump
it's excess population on them with impunity.
What's to stop them?
|12.23.07 @ 8:29PM|#
Ohio is not obliged to unilaterally allow Alabama to dump it's excess population on them with impunity.
That strikes me as a blatantly false and if you don't mind me
saying, idiotic, statement.
What is stopping someone from AL moving to OH?
|12.23.07 @ 8:46PM|#
1) Our government refuses to control the borders.
In what way are the borders "uncontrolled"?
Are you suggesting we post a guard every hundred yards along the
border, or what?
2) Our government refuses to severely punish employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.
And how precisely, short of establishing a police state, do you
suggest we enforce this?
3) Our government still extends the same welfare and other benefits to immigrants that citizens get.
Quite wrong! There are any number of state and federal laws that
specifically deny welfare benefits to not just illegal immigrants
but to legal ones as well.
Frankly, it would really help if people like you learned what laws
actually applied in these areas before you spout your racist
bugshit.
|12.23.07 @ 8:49PM|#
Its a good thing we have posters like Middle Class Worker.
If we didn't I might run out of fertilizer for my organic
garden.
|12.23.07 @ 8:54PM|#
Is it so hard to imagine that immigrants from countries like Mexico, where Socialism is the ideology of the major political parties,...
Wow, oh, wow, the PAN (the ruling party in Mexico) is no more a
"socialist" party than Bush's Republicans.
Keep shovelling though. My beefsteaks are getting huge.
Middle Class Worker|12.23.07 @ 9:25PM|#
It's exploitation when that person doesn't have a choice
anymore. See: taxation.
Taxation is the price we all pay to run a
civilization. Running a civilization an be
expensive, but its even more expensive if we end
up having a French or Russian Revolution due to
lack of a social safety net.
|12.23.07 @ 10:04PM|#
Running a civilization an be expensive, but its even more expensive if we end up having a French or Russian Revolution due to lack of a social safety net.
1) We don't lack a safety net
2) Any segment of society that extorts the rest with threats of
violence should be kicked out immediately
3) Our supposed lack of a safety net means we're a lot richer than
France
4) Our poor lives like France's middle class
5) Everybody's getting richer: Rich Get Richer, Poor Get Richer:
http://www.heritage.org/press/dailybriefing/policyweblog.cfm?blogid=CEF990B2-B435-FD35-2721093D68720048
|12.23.07 @ 10:10PM|#
Middle Class Worker
The French Revolution resulted from the fact that the bourgeoisie
(the actual middle class ie business owners) got tired of
the fact that the aristocracy (ie welfare bludgers) took all of
their money through taxation.
Where do you think the next revolution will happen?
Keep shovelling, my tomatoes are getting dependent on what you
produce.
Neu Mejican|12.24.07 @ 2:12AM|#
Nothing more fun than a commie/libertarian throw-down...
Platitudes and axioms flying every which way...
=/;^)
|12.24.07 @ 2:43AM|#
That strikes me as a blatantly false and if you don't mind
me saying, idiotic, statement.
What is stopping someone from AL moving to OH?
Ok, that was badly worded. What I meant was that they're parties to
a reciprocal arrangement. Someone from Ohio is just as free to move
to Alabama as someone from Alabama is to move to Ohio. A resident
of Ohio can own property in Alabama. A resident of Ohio has
substantially the same legal rights in Alabama that they have in
Ohio. The point is, it's not a one way arrangement. The agreement
between the states is not the same as the situation between
different countries.
|12.24.07 @ 2:52AM|#
Platitudes and axioms flying every which way... I'm convinced Middle Class Worker is some kind of clown version of the most common (and stupidest) anti-libertarian arguments out there. It's MikeT, dumbed down (somehow).
|12.24.07 @ 3:12AM|#
Taxation is the price we all pay to run a
civilization.
I don't buy into running a civilization based on such an
uncivilized concept that people are inherently stupid.
The point is, it's not a one way arrangement.
If Mexico can't figure out a governmental system that lets
motivated and productive workers produce, I'm inclined to say "Your
loss, our gain".
Is there any particular reason Mexicans shouldn't be as free as
Alabamans or Ohioan?
Just asking, because that seems to be what you're saying.
shecky|12.24.07 @ 3:31AM|#
SIV:
Turning a blind eye to migration of poor workers from parts of
Latin America while strictly enforcing immigration and employment
laws for workers from other classes and places of geographical
origin for protectionist reasons is not an "open immigration"
policy.
Who said it was?
|12.24.07 @ 3:34AM|#
If Mexico can't figure out a governmental system that lets
motivated and productive workers produce, I'm inclined to say "Your
loss, our gain".
If there was any consensus that the situation was a net gain, we
wouldn't be having this discussion. I'd say most of the consensus
seems to be in the other direction.
Is there any particular reason Mexicans shouldn't be as free as
Alabamans or Ohioan?
Just asking, because that seems to be what you're
saying.
I have no problem with Mexicans being just as free as anyone else.
But that's an issue citizens of Mexico need to take up with the
Mexican government. Not the government of the United States.
Oh, you meant should non-naturalized Mexicans have the same rights
in the United States as citizens of the United States
have?
I'll buy into that the day Mexico guaruntees Americans the same
rights Mexicans have in Mexico.
I notice that the champions of "equal rights" don't seem to have
anywhere near the interest in securing the same rights for
Americans in foreign countries that they seem to think foreigners
should have in America. Their idea of "equality" usually amounts to
"Americans, bend over and grab your ankles! You owe the
world!".
The Susan Sontag Libertarians....
|12.24.07 @ 4:21AM|#
The agreement between the states is not the same as the
situation between different countries.
Be that as it may, it is hardly relevant to the issue of whether
individuals should have the right to migrate irrespective of what
governments say or even whether "uncontrolled" immigration is of
net harm.
It may be the case that the people of Alabama want to leave their
state in droves to migrate to Ohio, yet no one in Ohio wants to go
to Alabama. The fact that there is full reciprocity between the
states is utterly immaterial to the experience of Ohio under that
immigration load.
Similarly, the fact that it is harder for American retirees to land
themselves in Mexico than it is for Mexican twenty-somethings to
illegally enter and work in the US is hardly material to the
experience of the US under that immigration load.
|12.24.07 @ 4:22AM|#
I notice that the champions of "equal rights" don't seem to
have anywhere near the interest in securing the same rights for
Americans in foreign countries that they seem to think foreigners
should have in America.
Every individual should be accorded the protection of his or her
natural rights regardless of where he or she was born and
regardless of what government claims dominion over where he or she
resides.
Apologies for the oversight...
|12.24.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Pig Mannix, you sound dumber than Lou Dobbs.
Try not to cry, I know that's crushing.
David M. Nieporent|12.26.07 @ 9:46AM|#
While I sympathize with Kerry's response (and any post which
points out that Matt Y missed the point), I think she misses an
important point: it's the ways that Singapore is less liberal than
the U.S. that allows them to be more liberal than the U.S. in this
regard.
For instance, the article points out that pregnant guest workers
get abortions or get sent home from Singapore. But the U.S. would
never be able to enforce that. (For one thing, our bureaucratic
machinery ain't that efficient! By the time anybody in the
government figured it out, the kid would be celebrating its third
birthday.) But our bleeding heart crowds would be up in arms at the
notion that a woman be forced to choose between abortion and going
home. Or if we didn't give the choice, and sent her home, they'd be
aghast at the notion that a woman could be fired -- let alone
deported -- for getting pregnant.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245