The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Part I of Interview about My Book "Free to Move" with Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin
Professor Balkin asked me many great questions in interview just published at his Balkinization blog.
Earlier today, Yale Law School Professor Jack Balkin posted Part I of an interview he did with me on his Balkinization blog, about my new book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom. Jack asked some great questions!
We covered a lot of issues including why domestic freedom of movement has more in common with international migration than most people think, why the arguments I advance in Free to Move do not rely on any distinctively libertarian premises, and how the framework for addressing potential downsides of migration that I outline in the book might apply to the coronavirus pandemic.
I am grateful to Jack for this opportunity, and for his thoughtful questions. Part II of the interview will be posted tomorrow.
In the meantime, I am pleased to announce that the audio version of Free to Move is now available for pre-ordering (delivery by June 23). Many readers have asked about this, and Oxford University Press has responded to popular demand by making the audio version available faster than I previously expected. As with the e-book and hard copy editions, 50% of any royalties generated by the audio version will be donated to to charities supporting refugees.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The obvious objection I have to freedom of entry, (As opposed to exit.) is that foot voting only works so long as there is a diversity of jurisdictions to move to, and full freedom of entry can erase that diversity. If you have a society that only a minority would like world-wide, but it does well, too many people moving there just for the economics, even though they don't agree with the things that CAUSED the economics, can destroy that society.