Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Immigration

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2011 9:08:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Not everybody in the world is born with a right to live in the USA. Just like not everybody in the world is born with a right to live in my house.

I am a market anarchist (or, if you prefer, anarcho-capitalist). In a market anarchist world, all immigration would be restricted. People and communities could, and would, put up fences to keep people out that are not wanted as they please.

Just like I keep people I don't want in my house out of my house, communities can come together and keep people out that they don't want out. Again, in a society where all property is private, all immigration is restricted.

Assuming the state exists, unlimited, open borders immigration policies are forced integration. This leads to ghettoization, voting wars, racial conflict, etc. If we give the state control of immigration and they let everyone in the world into an area, that is limiting the people's right to keep people out, as they would be able to on a free market.

Plus, we live in a democracy (or, if you prefer, a democratic republic). So, all these poor immigrants can come in and vote themselves programs and benefits. And, the natives, who are wealthier, will be called racist for opposing these programs. This already happens.

So, in light of all of this, how is an unlimited immigration policy desirable, especially for libertarians?
President of DDO
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2011 9:15:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You assume that collective and private property are the same, well they're not. As it stands right now, a large portion of property in the U.S. Is considered public or collective. That being said, how is it forced integration to allow someone from another country to come into Florida, but perfectly fine if the person is from Georgia, besides the fact that one of those people is from the the same arbitrarily designated country? No one forces me to interact with people coming to Florida from Georgia, so why would that be different if the person was from Cuba?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2011 9:24:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/29/2011 9:15:09 PM, socialpinko wrote:
You assume that collective and private property are the same, well they're not. As it stands right now, a large portion of property in the U.S. Is considered public or collective. That being said, how is it forced integration to allow someone from another country to come into Florida, but perfectly fine if the person is from Georgia, besides the fact that one of those people is from the the same arbitrarily designated country? No one forces me to interact with people coming to Florida from Georgia, so why would that be different if the person was from Cuba?

It isn't at all. People being able to easily move between George and Florida does not harm the inhabitents of either Florida or Georgia. After all, they are remarkably similiar in terms of government and, to a lesser degree, demographics.

However, if they wanted to, then Floridians should be able to keep Georgians out. But, most Floridians do not feel the need to do so.

I let people I like come to my house pretty much whenever they want to. I let people who I think will add to it come when they like. I let plumbers, electricians, etc. come in to do a certain job. I do not, however, let people that I am not familiar with and lack valuable skills come in just so they can reap benefits off being in my house.

Furthermore, you absolutely are forced to interact with people that come in. If your neighborhood was flooded with Cubans, their would be dramatic cultural changes that would obviously affect you.

I think you forget how interconnected a community's members are with each other, and how any change in demographics means dramatic changes for everyone.
President of DDO
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2011 10:00:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/29/2011 9:24:11 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

It isn't at all. People being able to easily move between George and Florida does not harm the inhabitents of either Florida or Georgia. After all, they are remarkably similiar in terms of government and, to a lesser degree, demographics.

Pretty irrelevant in this case. I Have the right to keep anyone I choose off of my own private property, however remember that a large portion of the US is made up of public or collective property and thus sOmeones preference to have people like themselves live near them doesn't necessarily apply as you seem to think.

However, if they wanted to, then Floridians should be able to keep Georgians out. But, most Floridians do not feel the need to do so.

Floridians can choose not to allow Georgians on their own private property, however the right does not coherently extend to the realm of public property.

I let people I like come to my house pretty much whenever they want to. I let people who I think will add to it come when they like. I let plumbers, electricians, etc. come in to do a certain job. I do not, however, let people that I am not familiar with and lack valuable skills come in just so they can reap benefits off being in my house.

Benefits being? If you mean things like welfare or public schooling, many libertarian proponents of open borders are for abolishing those programs.

Furthermore, you absolutely are forced to interact with people that come in. If your neighborhood was flooded with Cubans, their would be dramatic cultural changes that would obviously affect you.

With that sentence you've completely undermined commitment to property rights. If I have the right to violate the property of another, than I cannot at the same time consistently support private property rights.

I think you forget how interconnected a community's members are with each other, and how any change in demographics means dramatic changes for everyone.

lol you're such a collectivist. Just because something might indirectly affect me does not mean that I have the right to stop it. I might not like a bunch of pompous religious fanatics moving in near me, doesn't give me the right to kick them out of the neighborhood.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2011 10:08:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/29/2011 10:00:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 12/29/2011 9:24:11 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

It isn't at all. People being able to easily move between George and Florida does not harm the inhabitents of either Florida or Georgia. After all, they are remarkably similiar in terms of government and, to a lesser degree, demographics.

Pretty irrelevant in this case. I Have the right to keep anyone I choose off of my own private property, however remember that a large portion of the US is made up of public or collective property and thus sOmeones preference to have people like themselves live near them doesn't necessarily apply as you seem to think.

I don't know who you think owns the public property. You may think it is the state or you may think all the people in the community collectively own it. But, somebody owns it, and they have a right to keep people off of it.


However, if they wanted to, then Floridians should be able to keep Georgians out. But, most Floridians do not feel the need to do so.

Floridians can choose not to allow Georgians on their own private property, however the right does not coherently extend to the realm of public property

Again, somebody owns the public property. It is not as if the entire world collectively owns all non private property.

.

I let people I like come to my house pretty much whenever they want to. I let people who I think will add to it come when they like. I let plumbers, electricians, etc. come in to do a certain job. I do not, however, let people that I am not familiar with and lack valuable skills come in just so they can reap benefits off being in my house.

Benefits being? If you mean things like welfare or public schooling, many libertarian proponents of open borders are for abolishing those programs.

As am I. But, in the mean time, open borders are simply not feasible.


Furthermore, you absolutely are forced to interact with people that come in. If your neighborhood was flooded with Cubans, their would be dramatic cultural changes that would obviously affect you.

With that sentence you've completely undermined commitment to property rights. If I have the right to violate the property of another, than I cannot at the same time consistently support private property rights.

First, I do understand that property rights are completely subjective. I am completely in support of abolition of the state and private ownership of everything. But, property rights are not "inalienable", they are subjective.

You can claim that this means I do not believe in private property, which is odd given my Market Anarchism. But, it is the reality.

All I am saying is that of course the things that are happening in your community affect you dramatically.


I think you forget how interconnected a community's members are with each other, and how any change in demographics means dramatic changes for everyone.

lol you're such a collectivist. Just because something might indirectly affect me does not mean that I have the right to stop it. I might not like a bunch of pompous religious fanatics moving in near me, doesn't give me the right to kick them out of the neighborhood.

Not many collectivists support a total free market and abolition of the state. But, of course neighbors can come together and keep out groups they don't like. There is nothing "collectivist" about this.

In fact, it would be very common on a free market.
President of DDO
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 11:17:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
duh illegal immigration is bad.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 12:27:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/29/2011 9:08:50 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Not everybody in the world is born with a right to live in the USA. Just like not everybody in the world is born with a right to live in my house.

You're house is private property. Are you suggesting that the USA is "private property"? If so, owned by whom?


I am a market anarchist (or, if you prefer, anarcho-capitalist). In a market anarchist world, all immigration would be restricted. People and communities could, and would, put up fences to keep people out that are not wanted as they please.

Only over private land. Since an AnCap would not support a government with the monopoly of power, every land owner on the border would have the right to decide if he or she wanted to fense off his part of that border. If some don't want to, they could charge a fee to allow immigrants in. He could even pay them for their labor and such.


Just like I keep people I don't want in my house out of my house, communities can come together and keep people out that they don't want out. Again, in a society where all property is private, all immigration is restricted.

That would require 100% community support. And with a border population in the millions, 100% will never be reached. There will always be someone that is willing to let them in.


Assuming the state exists, unlimited, open borders immigration policies are forced integration. This leads to ghettoization, voting wars, racial conflict, etc. If we give the state control of immigration and they let everyone in the world into an area, that is limiting the people's right to keep people out, as they would be able to on a free market.

You're falsely assuming that the state would impliment an open borders policy.


Plus, we live in a democracy (or, if you prefer, a democratic republic). So, all these poor immigrants can come in and vote themselves programs and benefits. And, the natives, who are wealthier, will be called racist for opposing these programs. This already happens.

Lets pick a senerio and stay with it. AnCap society or Democracy? Letter of law or real world senerio?


So, in light of all of this, how is an unlimited immigration policy desirable, especially for libertarians?

Because it is the free flow of labor, which in a free market is just as important as free flow of goods (not having taxes or tarifs). If people want to have a mexican as an employee, who is the government to say "no"?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 2:31:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 12:27:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/29/2011 9:08:50 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Not everybody in the world is born with a right to live in the USA. Just like not everybody in the world is born with a right to live in my house.

You're house is private property. Are you suggesting that the USA is "private property"? If so, owned by whom?

Well, ownership is subjective. Having said that, yes, of course the USA is owned. A lot of it is privately owned, other parts are owned by the state.



I am a market anarchist (or, if you prefer, anarcho-capitalist). In a market anarchist world, all immigration would be restricted. People and communities could, and would, put up fences to keep people out that are not wanted as they please.

Only over private land. Since an AnCap would not support a government with the monopoly of power, every land owner on the border would have the right to decide if he or she wanted to fense off his part of that border. If some don't want to, they could charge a fee to allow immigrants in. He could even pay them for their labor and such.

Not true. Again, assuming the state exists, unlimited immigration means state forced integration.

And, within a market anarchist community, their would be contracts and collective decisions on who and who not to let in. Just like there are in some neighborhoods.



Just like I keep people I don't want in my house out of my house, communities can come together and keep people out that they don't want out. Again, in a society where all property is private, all immigration is restricted.

That would require 100% community support. And with a border population in the millions, 100% will never be reached. There will always be someone that is willing to let them in.

Actually, it would require a lot, but not 100%. Statelessness does not mean collective action cannot take place.

Plus, ALL immigration would be restricted in this society, and if very few people wanted immigrants on their property, very few immigrants could come in.



Assuming the state exists, unlimited, open borders immigration policies are forced integration. This leads to ghettoization, voting wars, racial conflict, etc. If we give the state control of immigration and they let everyone in the world into an area, that is limiting the people's right to keep people out, as they would be able to on a free market.

You're falsely assuming that the state would impliment an open borders policy.

No, I am just explaining what an open borders policy is.



Plus, we live in a democracy (or, if you prefer, a democratic republic). So, all these poor immigrants can come in and vote themselves programs and benefits. And, the natives, who are wealthier, will be called racist for opposing these programs. This already happens.

Lets pick a senerio and stay with it. AnCap society or Democracy? Letter of law or real world senerio?

Huh?

I'm not explaining one senario. I am just making the case for why open borders are bad.



So, in light of all of this, how is an unlimited immigration policy desirable, especially for libertarians?

Because it is the free flow of labor, which in a free market is just as important as free flow of goods (not having taxes or tarifs). If people want to have a mexican as an employee, who is the government to say "no"?

I love how one of the biggest statists on DDO is trying to explain how my views are not in line with the free market.

Immigration is not the "free" movement of labor in the same way trade is the free movement of goods. I'm going to outsource this point:

http://mises.org...
President of DDO
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 2:44:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why don't you just MAN UP and come out and say that you're a racist. You constantly have to beat around the bush, but why be a pu$$y about it?! Are you afraid some black dude on the internet is gonna come find you and pound your face in or something? That's highly unlikely, so don't be afraid little guy.

In any case, labor is a resource like any other, and restricting its movement is not going to be economically beneficial. Ever since Obama's deportation frenzy, farmers have been suffering a degree of labor shortage, and that's obviously not good. The same would be happening on a larger scale if governments just starting locking down the borders left and right...

Not to mention, aren't you a huge advocate of comparative advantage?? If so, then wow.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 2:53:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 2:44:23 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Why don't you just MAN UP and come out and say that you're a racist. You constantly have to beat around the bush, but why be a pu$$y about it?! Are you afraid some black dude on the internet is gonna come find you and pound your face in or something? That's highly unlikely, so don't be afraid little guy.

In any case, labor is a resource like any other, and restricting its movement is not going to be economically beneficial. Ever since Obama's deportation frenzy, farmers have been suffering a degree of labor shortage, and that's obviously not good. The same would be happening on a larger scale if governments just starting locking down the borders left and right...

Not to mention, aren't you a huge advocate of comparative advantage?? If so, then wow.

I am advocating restrictive immigration policies, based completely on economic and social arguments. It is pointless, idiotic, and, frankly, embarassing on your part to accuse me of being a racist for this.

And, I am a huge advocate of free trade. However, free trade is not the same as free immigration:

http://mises.org...
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 3:03:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 2:44:23 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Not to mention, aren't you a huge advocate of comparative advantage?? If so, then wow.

Dude, comparative advantage assumes no capital or labor mobility. I think it should be obvious that If the U borders were 100% open, then the standard of living would go down dramatically.

Productivity of labor is a function of capital and supply of labor. If the supply of labor increases, and there isn't enough capital, then wages decrease and/or unemployment increases. However, even if this effect occurs then people will still want to immigrate to the US, because its not based on whether the US labor conditions are bad or have worsen, but whether or not a person has better opportunities there then in their sh1tland (For example third world nations).

I suppose you can make the case that the world will be better off, but one must realize that the US standard of livings would be reduced to near third world rates if there was 100% open borders.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 3:07:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 2:31:20 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/30/2011 12:27:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/29/2011 9:08:50 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Not everybody in the world is born with a right to live in the USA. Just like not everybody in the world is born with a right to live in my house.

You're house is private property. Are you suggesting that the USA is "private property"? If so, owned by whom?

Well, ownership is subjective. Having said that, yes, of course the USA is owned. A lot of it is privately owned, other parts are owned by the state.

Do you think that the state ownership is legitimate? Because that would contradict AnCap philosophy.




I am a market anarchist (or, if you prefer, anarcho-capitalist). In a market anarchist world, all immigration would be restricted. People and communities could, and would, put up fences to keep people out that are not wanted as they please.

Only over private land. Since an AnCap would not support a government with the monopoly of power, every land owner on the border would have the right to decide if he or she wanted to fense off his part of that border. If some don't want to, they could charge a fee to allow immigrants in. He could even pay them for their labor and such.

Not true. Again, assuming the state exists, unlimited immigration means state forced integration.

Assuming the state exists =/= unlimited immigration.


And, within a market anarchist community, their would be contracts and collective decisions on who and who not to let in. Just like there are in some neighborhoods.


Those neighborhoods have 100% agreement by contract. The developer, develops the land (owns 100%), and as such may have any rules that they wish on their private property. They then sell chunks of it with contractual stipulations.



Just like I keep people I don't want in my house out of my house, communities can come together and keep people out that they don't want out. Again, in a society where all property is private, all immigration is restricted.

That would require 100% community support. And with a border population in the millions, 100% will never be reached. There will always be someone that is willing to let them in.

Actually, it would require a lot, but not 100%. Statelessness does not mean collective action cannot take place.

Why wouldn't it require 100%? If everyone in my town didn't want any black people living here, what right do they have to tell me that I cannot sell my home to a black person?


Plus, ALL immigration would be restricted in this society, and if very few people wanted immigrants on their property, very few immigrants could come in.

Not likely. Most people don't have a uniform view on immigration. People often view mexican immigration very different from sweedish immigration. As such, those differences would likely become present through the collective.




Assuming the state exists, unlimited, open borders immigration policies are forced integration. This leads to ghettoization, voting wars, racial conflict, etc. If we give the state control of immigration and they let everyone in the world into an area, that is limiting the people's right to keep people out, as they would be able to on a free market.

You're falsely assuming that the state would impliment an open borders policy.


No, I am just explaining what an open borders policy is.




Plus, we live in a democracy (or, if you prefer, a democratic republic). So, all these poor immigrants can come in and vote themselves programs and benefits. And, the natives, who are wealthier, will be called racist for opposing these programs. This already happens.

Lets pick a senerio and stay with it. AnCap society or Democracy? Letter of law or real world senerio?

Huh?

I'm not explaining one senario. I am just making the case for why open borders are bad.


Then we have multiple trains of thought trying to go on, between "why open borders are bad" and "how immigration could work in an AnCap society."


So, in light of all of this, how is an unlimited immigration policy desirable, especially for libertarians?

Because it is the free flow of labor, which in a free market is just as important as free flow of goods (not having taxes or tarifs). If people want to have a mexican as an employee, who is the government to say "no"?

I love how one of the biggest statists on DDO is trying to explain how my views are not in line with the free market.

I have to know and understand the principles of free market ideas in order to accurately reject them as ideal.


Immigration is not the "free" movement of labor in the same way trade is the free movement of goods. I'm going to outsource this point:

http://mises.org...

This article utilizes a shifting of the goal post fallacy.

Real quick, would you agree that the reason that Free Trade should be implimented is because it produces more wealth for society? (not saying that I agree with that, but would you agree with that)

If not, please explain what the reasoning is for supporting free trade.

I will wait for the answer to this question, so that strawmaning cannot be claimed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 3:18:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 3:03:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/30/2011 2:44:23 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Not to mention, aren't you a huge advocate of comparative advantage?? If so, then wow.

Dude, comparative advantage assumes no capital or labor mobility. I think it should be obvious that If the U borders were 100% open, then the standard of living would go down dramatically.

Comparative advantage can still apply to labor and capital, can it not? If labor is being used more efficiently in place X than place Y, then the same concept of greater efficiency is taking place, isn't it?

Productivity of labor is a function of capital and supply of labor. If the supply of labor increases, and there isn't enough capital, then wages decrease and/or unemployment increases. However, even if this effect occurs then people will still want to immigrate to the US, because its not based on whether the US labor conditions are bad or have worsen, but whether or not a person has better opportunities there then in their sh1tland (For example third world nations).

I'd imagine that capital would increase since labor costs are decreasing (which leaves more money for investment), and there would be greater consumer demand (immigrants don't always arrive completely empty-handed). Also, this argument can be turned against free trade. By allowing the Chinese to garner previously American-based manufacturing jobs, wage deflation and unemployment would supposedly take place and lower US living standards, but the reality is that free trade agreements are one of the few positive things going for the US and world economy as a whole right now.

I suppose you can make the case that the world will be better off, but one must realize that the US standard of livings would be reduced to near third world rates if there was 100% open borders.

Well, as a policy prescription, I'm not in favor of allowing a 50 million-person migration shock hit the US. That would probably create economic chaos and certainly degrade US living standards. But, in a theoretical case, I can't imagine that allowing labor resources to flow more freely could be harmful in the long run.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 3:25:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 3:07:48 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/30/2011 2:31:20 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/30/2011 12:27:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/29/2011 9:08:50 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Not everybody in the world is born with a right to live in the USA. Just like not everybody in the world is born with a right to live in my house.

You're house is private property. Are you suggesting that the USA is "private property"? If so, owned by whom?

Well, ownership is subjective. Having said that, yes, of course the USA is owned. A lot of it is privately owned, other parts are owned by the state.

Do you think that the state ownership is legitimate? Because that would contradict AnCap philosophy.

No, it would not. Again, ownership is entirely subjective. If a community of people believe that state ownership is legitamite, it is legitamite in that community. If not, then a state would probably not exist in the first place.





I am a market anarchist (or, if you prefer, anarcho-capitalist). In a market anarchist world, all immigration would be restricted. People and communities could, and would, put up fences to keep people out that are not wanted as they please.

Only over private land. Since an AnCap would not support a government with the monopoly of power, every land owner on the border would have the right to decide if he or she wanted to fense off his part of that border. If some don't want to, they could charge a fee to allow immigrants in. He could even pay them for their labor and such.

Not true. Again, assuming the state exists, unlimited immigration means state forced integration.

Assuming the state exists =/= unlimited immigration.

That's not what I am saying. If we assume the state exists, immigration should be restricted.



And, within a market anarchist community, their would be contracts and collective decisions on who and who not to let in. Just like there are in some neighborhoods.


Those neighborhoods have 100% agreement by contract. The developer, develops the land (owns 100%), and as such may have any rules that they wish on their private property. They then sell chunks of it with contractual stipulations.

Not true. If someone disagrees with the rules, other people in the neighborhood can still tell this person that they cannot let certain people in if they want to live there.




Just like I keep people I don't want in my house out of my house, communities can come together and keep people out that they don't want out. Again, in a society where all property is private, all immigration is restricted.

That would require 100% community support. And with a border population in the millions, 100% will never be reached. There will always be someone that is willing to let them in.

Actually, it would require a lot, but not 100%. Statelessness does not mean collective action cannot take place.

Why wouldn't it require 100%? If everyone in my town didn't want any black people living here, what right do they have to tell me that I cannot sell my home to a black person?

I don't know what right they have. But, they certainly can do it. 99% of a town can easily tell the other 1% that they don't want them letting certain people in.



Plus, ALL immigration would be restricted in this society, and if very few people wanted immigrants on their property, very few immigrants could come in.

Not likely. Most people don't have a uniform view on immigration. People often view mexican immigration very different from sweedish immigration. As such, those differences would likely become present through the collective.

No, it would be. If all property was privatley owned, then people would only let in who they wanted in.





Assuming the state exists, unlimited, open borders immigration policies are forced integration. This leads to ghettoization, voting wars, racial conflict, etc. If we give the state control of immigration and they let everyone in the world into an area, that is limiting the people's right to keep people out, as they would be able to on a free market.

You're falsely assuming that the state would impliment an open borders policy.


No, I am just explaining what an open borders policy is.




Plus, we live in a democracy (or, if you prefer, a democratic republic). So, all these poor immigrants can come in and vote themselves programs and benefits. And, the natives, who are wealthier, will be called racist for opposing these programs. This already happens.

Lets pick a senerio and stay with it. AnCap society or Democracy? Letter of law or real world senerio?

Huh?

I'm not explaining one senario. I am just making the case for why open borders are bad.


Then we have multiple trains of thought trying to go on, between "why open borders are bad" and "how immigration could work in an AnCap society."

Well, I am explaining why unlimited immigration is both bad and against anarcho-capitalist thinking.



So, in light of all of this, how is an unlimited immigration policy desirable, especially for libertarians?

Because it is the free flow of labor, which in a free market is just as important as free flow of goods (not having taxes or tarifs). If people want to have a mexican as an employee, who is the government to say "no"?

I love how one of the biggest statists on DDO is trying to explain how my views are not in line with the free market.

I have to know and understand the principles of free market ideas in order to accurately reject them as ideal.

No, nobody who understand free market ideas rejects them. I know you don't like me saying that, but I truly have found that to be true.



Immigration is not the "free" movement of labor in the same way trade is the free movement of goods. I'm going to outsource this point:

http://mises.org...

This article utilizes a shifting of the goal post fallacy.

Real quick, would you agree that the reason that Free Trade should be implimented is because it produces more wealth for society? (not saying that I agree with that, but would you agree with that)

Well, it leads to a better standard of living for all parties.


If not, please explain what the reasoning is for supporting free trade.

I will wait for the answer to this question, so that strawmaning cannot be claimed.

I said that free trade leads to a better standard of living for all parties. The same is not true for unlimited immigration.
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 3:39:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 3:18:06 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 12/30/2011 3:03:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/30/2011 2:44:23 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Not to mention, aren't you a huge advocate of comparative advantage?? If so, then wow.

Dude, comparative advantage assumes no capital or labor mobility. I think it should be obvious that If the U borders were 100% open, then the standard of living would go down dramatically.

Comparative advantage can still apply to labor and capital, can it not? If labor is being used more efficiently in place X than place Y, then the same concept of greater efficiency is taking place, isn't it?

Depends how we define efficiency. Output is increased, yes. But not everybody is better off.

Here's a more intuitive example. Imagine If you are stuck on an island with just enough resources to feed yourself. Now we can imagine that If you trade with others from other nations or people you would be better off. After all, you agree to the trade, and you benefit from it. Now imagine a bunch of people all of a sudden got shipwrecked and landed on your island. Now the island doesn't have enough resources for everyone on the island to survive.

I'd imagine that capital would increase since labor costs are decreasing (which leaves more money for investment)

First it takes time to create capital. Second, companies aren't going to invest in decisions that are unprofitable. If labor is cheap and capital is expensive then they aren't going to invest in the capital.

and there would be greater consumer demand (immigrants don't always arrive completely empty-handed).

Poorer people tend to go to richer nations. And the effect of what their initial wealth was will be very insignificant. This is a case for tourism, not immigration.

Also, this argument can be turned against free trade. By allowing the Chinese to garner previously American-based manufacturing jobs, wage deflation and unemployment would supposedly take place and lower US living standards, but the reality is that free trade agreements are one of the few positive things going for the US and world economy as a whole right now.

It depends If this is due to capital mobility or not. If a US corporation invests in foreign capital and labor rather than US labor, then that could be harmful to the Us interests. However, If china uses its own capital to build the manufacturing and were never planning on using that capital to invest overseas then its not a problem.

Well, as a policy prescription, I'm not in favor of allowing a 50 million-person migration shock hit the US. That would probably create economic chaos and certainly degrade US living standards. But, in a theoretical case, I can't imagine that allowing labor resources to flow more freely could be harmful in the long run.

I've already explained above. Does my analysis make sense?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 3:43:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 3:25:12 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/30/2011 3:07:48 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/30/2011 2:31:20 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/30/2011 12:27:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/29/2011 9:08:50 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Not everybody in the world is born with a right to live in the USA. Just like not everybody in the world is born with a right to live in my house.

You're house is private property. Are you suggesting that the USA is "private property"? If so, owned by whom?

Well, ownership is subjective. Having said that, yes, of course the USA is owned. A lot of it is privately owned, other parts are owned by the state.

Do you think that the state ownership is legitimate? Because that would contradict AnCap philosophy.

No, it would not. Again, ownership is entirely subjective. If a community of people believe that state ownership is legitamite, it is legitamite in that community. If not, then a state would probably not exist in the first place.


You're not a very good anarchist. By your logic, if a state exists, then the "community" of that state supports state ownership. Oddly enough, we can look all around america and see plenty of cases where people do not support state ownership, or at least support very very minimal ownership.

I am a market anarchist (or, if you prefer, anarcho-capitalist). In a market anarchist world, all immigration would be restricted. People and communities could, and would, put up fences to keep people out that are not wanted as they please.

Only over private land. Since an AnCap would not support a government with the monopoly of power, every land owner on the border would have the right to decide if he or she wanted to fense off his part of that border. If some don't want to, they could charge a fee to allow immigrants in. He could even pay them for their labor and such.

Not true. Again, assuming the state exists, unlimited immigration means state forced integration.

Assuming the state exists =/= unlimited immigration.

That's not what I am saying. If we assume the state exists, immigration should be restricted.

And, within a market anarchist community, their would be contracts and collective decisions on who and who not to let in. Just like there are in some neighborhoods.


Those neighborhoods have 100% agreement by contract. The developer, develops the land (owns 100%), and as such may have any rules that they wish on their private property. They then sell chunks of it with contractual stipulations.

Not true. If someone disagrees with the rules, other people in the neighborhood can still tell this person that they cannot let certain people in if they want to live there.

If that person bought a house in that development, then they signed a legally binding contract in the ownership transfer. So even if they "disagree" they are signed into it. Like if I sign into a phone contract agreeing to pay $80 a month for my cell phone for 24 months, I cannot just change my mind 7 months down the road and say I no longer agree.

Just like I keep people I don't want in my house out of my house, communities can come together and keep people out that they don't want out. Again, in a society where all property is private, all immigration is restricted.

That would require 100% community support. And with a border population in the millions, 100% will never be reached. There will always be someone that is willing to let them in.

Actually, it would require a lot, but not 100%. Statelessness does not mean collective action cannot take place.

Why wouldn't it require 100%? If everyone in my town didn't want any black people living here, what right do they have to tell me that I cannot sell my home to a black person?

I don't know what right they have. But, they certainly can do it. 99% of a town can easily tell the other 1% that they don't want them letting certain people in.

Then you don't support private property rights. And as such, you cannot be a market anarchist (since markets cannot properly function if 50% + 1, can rightfully take away your property).


Plus, ALL immigration would be restricted in this society, and if very few people wanted immigrants on their property, very few immigrants could come in.

Not likely. Most people don't have a uniform view on immigration. People often view mexican immigration very different from sweedish immigration. As such, those differences would likely become present through the collective.

No, it would be. If all property was privatley owned, then people would only let in who they wanted in.


And if you supported private property rights, then you would support that I have no right to tell my neighbor who he can and cannot invite into his private home.


Plus, we live in a democracy (or, if you prefer, a democratic republic). So, all these poor immigrants can come in and vote themselves programs and benefits. And, the natives, who are wealthier, will be called racist for opposing these programs. This already happens.

Lets pick a senerio and stay with it. AnCap society or Democracy? Letter of law or real world senerio?

Huh?

I'm not explaining one senario. I am just making the case for why open borders are bad.


Then we have multiple trains of thought trying to go on, between "why open borders are bad" and "how immigration could work in an AnCap society."

Well, I am explaining why unlimited immigration is both bad and against anarcho-capitalist thinking.

So, in light of all of this, how is an unlimited immigration policy desirable, especially for libertarians?

Because it is the free flow of labor, which in a free market is just as important as free flow of goods (not having taxes or tarifs). If people want to have a mexican as an employee, who is the government to say "no"?

I love how one of the biggest statists on DDO is trying to explain how my views are not in line with the free market.

I have to know and understand the principles of free market ideas in order to accurately reject them as ideal.

No, nobody who understand free market ideas rejects them. I know you don't like me saying that, but I truly have found that to be true.

You're setting up circular reasoning, just FYI.

Immigration is not the "free" movement of labor in the same way trade is the free movement of goods. I'm going to outsource this point:

http://mises.org...

This article utilizes a shifting of the goal post fallacy.

Real quick, would you agree that the reason that Free Trade should be implimented is because it produces more wealth for society? (not saying that I agree with that, but would you agree with that)

Well, it leads to a better standard of living for all parties.


"what constitutes "welfare" and "wealth" is subjective, and one might prefer lower material living standards and a greater distance from certain other people over higher material living standards…" - your source.

You have to reject your reasoning for free trade in order to accept restrictive immigration, thus the shifting goalposts fallacy.

It should also be noted that your source supports VOLUNTARY isolation, not forced (meaning you cannot forcefully kick others out).


If not, please explain what the reasoning is for supporting free trade.

I will wait for the answer to this question, so that strawmaning cannot be claimed.


I said that free trade leads to a better standard of living for all parties. The same is not true for unlimited immigration.

out of space, cont.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 4:00:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Continued...

It shows in your source, that the allowance of free trade lowers immigration, while the restriction of it, increases it. This is because free trade allows companies to move from high-wage areas to low wage areas, causing equalization. Meanwhile, immigration is usually caused by labor people moving from low wage areas to high wage areas.

If the work (manufacturing, etc) is moved to them, there is little or no reason for them to come to us. Two things should jump out with this.

1) It acknowledges that free trade will lower wages in high wage areas (like the US).

2) It only applies after wages are equalized, while will take time. It takes time for companies to come to the decision to move and for them to actually go through the moving process. During equalization, immigration will still have a desire to come here. It also ignores shipping costs, but most free trade stuff does.

Going over the views on open immigration from Hoppe, he has also changed the goal post. Remember in the first page, he said that he was going to show that free trade and open borders are not compatible. He then goes to talk about how open borders will cause welfare spending to skyrocket. He should know that most free trade supporters are anti-welfare people, and as such, there would be no welfare for the immigrants to be on anyway. Thus rendering his entire argument moot.

Going over his views on minimal immigration limitations (until welfare is removed), he falsely states that immigration is not a two party transaction. That an individual may simply come, and no one else needs to approve. This is false. If he wishes to buy a house, the seller of the house must agree. According to AnCap views of property rights, the neighbors have no right to say who can and cannot move into that house next door. They cannot get a job unless an employer willingly hires them. They cannot buy food, unless a store willingly sells to them. So if they immigrate with no one's consent, they will die jobless, homeless, and hungry in a short time.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2011 2:06:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/30/2011 3:39:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/30/2011 3:18:06 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 12/30/2011 3:03:29 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/30/2011 2:44:23 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Not to mention, aren't you a huge advocate of comparative advantage?? If so, then wow.

Dude, comparative advantage assumes no capital or labor mobility. I think it should be obvious that If the U borders were 100% open, then the standard of living would go down dramatically.

Comparative advantage can still apply to labor and capital, can it not? If labor is being used more efficiently in place X than place Y, then the same concept of greater efficiency is taking place, isn't it?

Depends how we define efficiency. Output is increased, yes. But not everybody is better off.

Here's a more intuitive example. Imagine If you are stuck on an island with just enough resources to feed yourself. Now we can imagine that If you trade with others from other nations or people you would be better off. After all, you agree to the trade, and you benefit from it. Now imagine a bunch of people all of a sudden got shipwrecked and landed on your island. Now the island doesn't have enough resources for everyone on the island to survive.

I do understand what you're saying - wage deflation. This might be a faulty approach, but I'm viewing labor as if it were any other resource. If allowing labor to move freely increases output enough to raise living standards, then the short-run effects of wage deflation on that island will be more than offset. I think America is a good example of this considering that the population at least doubled every decade up until the depression, and it even tripled some decades (late 1800's).

I'd imagine that capital would increase since labor costs are decreasing (which leaves more money for investment)

First it takes time to create capital. Second, companies aren't going to invest in decisions that are unprofitable. If labor is cheap and capital is expensive then they aren't going to invest in the capital.

Well, cheap labor leaves additional funds for the company to reinvest in either capital or labor. If those funds are reinvested into labor for the most part, then wages will rise, and capital will be the more cost-effective option. Either way, output increases in the long-run.

and there would be greater consumer demand (immigrants don't always arrive completely empty-handed).

Poorer people tend to go to richer nations. And the effect of what their initial wealth was will be very insignificant. This is a case for tourism, not immigration.

Well, that initial wealth is more of just a side-note. Immigrants still expand the market for goods and services regardless, which sort of drives the economy.

Also, this argument can be turned against free trade. By allowing the Chinese to garner previously American-based manufacturing jobs, wage deflation and unemployment would supposedly take place and lower US living standards, but the reality is that free trade agreements are one of the few positive things going for the US and world economy as a whole right now.

It depends If this is due to capital mobility or not. If a US corporation invests in foreign capital and labor rather than US labor, then that could be harmful to the Us interests. However, If china uses its own capital to build the manufacturing and were never planning on using that capital to invest overseas then its not a problem.

Well, as a policy prescription, I'm not in favor of allowing a 50 million-person migration shock hit the US. That would probably create economic chaos and certainly degrade US living standards. But, in a theoretical case, I can't imagine that allowing labor resources to flow more freely could be harmful in the long run.

I've already explained above. Does my analysis make sense?

Yeah it does, but I don't really agree. I probably need to reread this sometime when it's not 3 in the morning...