Voting With Your Feet

Two Interviews About My New Book "Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom" [Updated with Link to Audio of a Recent Radio Interview]

Videos of interviews by political commentator Amy Peikoff and immigration lawyer Nathan Brown.

|

Audio and (in one case) video of two recent interviews I did on my new book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom is now available online. The video of my interview with libertarian political commentator Amy Peikoff is available here, and audio of my interview with immigration lawyer Nathan Brown here.

Both interviews covered a wide range of issues, including a variety of advantages of foot voting, arguments that migration restrictions are justified in order to protect the political autonomy of natives, and how the coronavirus crisis impacts foot voting, and the case for strong migration rights. I am grateful to the interviewers for their excellent questions.

Many of these issues are, of course, addressed in greater detail in the book itself, which is now available (after a delay) in both hard cover and e-book version. As I have previously promised, 50% of all royalties generated by this book will be donated to causes benefiting refugees, who sadly are now in especially dire need of assistance.

UPDATE: Here is a link to an audio of a radio interview I did about the book with libertarian talk radio host Bob Zadek.

NEXT: The Value of a Vaccine

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The “Southern Strategy” has an interesting relationship with “foot voting”. So the “Southern Strategy” was employed by the Democrats to varying degrees of success. So Carter won the 1976 election because he had an ambiguous civil rights record while Ford had voted for civil rights legislation as a congressman. So Ford lost southern states that Nixon had won upwards 75% of the vote.

    Then in 1988 Dukakis picked a VP that defeated a civil rights hero in a primary by successfully labeling the incumbent senator as a liberal that was out of step with Texas voters. But Dukakis lost in large part because demographic changes had transformed the South into a more Republican friendly region. So northern conservative Republicans sick of dealing with state governments dominated by labor unions moved to the southern states that most quickly put segregation behind them. Those Republicans then transformed those communities into Republican strongholds that weren’t interested in re-litigating the Civil Rights movement. So Dukakis’ gambit failed because the South was no longer swayed by a politician’s past position with respect to civil rights because northerners had voted with their feet and moved south and changed the political parties in the process.

    1. WOW! One of the most articulate and accurate descriptions that I have ever seen.

      BRAVO!!!!!!

      *From a Buckeye commenter living in a South Carolina full of Yankee expats*

      **May O quote you?**

  2. Free to move, only if invited, wretched refuse need not apply.

    1. Not according to Shapiro v. Thompson, the decision that institutionalized itinerant indolence in the image of indigence.

Please to post comments