Given the anti-libertarian legislation passed by the American Government in recent times (e.g. DMCA, Patriot Act) and how happily the populace has gone along with this legislation I think an influx of immigrants from almost any country would help advance the libertarian cause.
Hamish > -----Original Message----- > From: alypius skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, 4 September 2003 21:02 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: immigration's effect on per capita GDP > > > libertarians (although not von Mises or the "objectivist" Ayn > Rand) are > >the > > > >strongest supporters of open borders, even though most of > the people who > > > >would enter under such an arrangement would be hostile to libertarian > > > >political thought. > >> > > >American libertarians putting the principle of liberty for > all ahead of > personal gain?! Whodda thunk it?! > > > > I thought the implication here was so obvious it did not need > to be spelled > out, but I guess I was mistaken (jab, jab). Importing new > voters from very > unlibertarian political cultures will further diminish, if > not eventually > kill off altogether, struggling libertarianism's already > modest influence. > Open borders libertarians have in effect become enemies of > liberty when they > pursue a strategy that is likely to diminish freedom in what may be > (depending on the measures used) the free-est country in the > world. It is > politically self-defeating, not just for libertarians, but > for us all. If > immigrants arrived in numbers that made assimilation more > practical, and if > assimilation to either libertarian or classical liberal > political ideas were > a high (although admittedly very statist) priority, then the > threat posed > to liberty might be modest, but that is not the case. But while > libertarians may be fools to import large numbers of people > who will vote > against both their own and America's core political values, > socialistic > politicians, such as those who control the Democratic Party, > are wise: they > are importing future socialist voters, as they are well aware. > > On crime rates: > > > >Perhaps labor economists are at heart radical subjectivists > who know better > than to rely on misleading aggregate statistics. > > > > When trying to determine effects on the mean crime level, > only aggregate > stats matter. That is, focusing on a tiny, elite segment of > immigrants, > such as those from India, tells us nothing about the effects > of immigrants > as a whole on the overall crime rate, and the cost of > increased mean levels > of criminality on victims and taxpayers. > > >For example, without even > looking it up, I would be willing to bet you $200 that the > crime rate among > Indian immigrants in Baltimore City or Washington, D.C. is > lower than the > crime rate among native-born citizens in those cities. > > > > No doubt, given immigrants from India are reported to have a > mean IQ of 118 > (versus only 81 for India as a whole), but since the average Indian > immigrant is not typical of the average immigrant, and, in > fact, represents > only a sliver of our total annual immigration, this argument against > aggregation amounts to a mere diversionary tactic. > > >A tangentially related question: does a proliferation of > laws that people > generally don't obey cause people to generally break other > laws more easily? > > > > From my observation of people (such as my priest!) who > routinely and often > egregiously ignore speeding laws, I would have to say: no. I > think people > distinguish between law and morality. I don't fault any of > the people who > sneak into the US illegally, but those who break the law > should still be > punished as a hopeful deterrent (perhaps by flogging before > deportation) if > unlimited immigration is not in our national--yes, our > collective--interest. > I think obedience to laws founded on intrinsic morality, such as those > forbidding theft and violence, things that are inherently > immoral because > they are obvious forms of free-riding, fall into a different > category of > misconduct in most people's minds. Obedience to morality-based laws > probably has much more to do with culture and childhood > socialization rather > than "respect for the law." > > >Instead of > examining the incentives that immigrants and native > populations face, many > invoke the different culture, beliefs, and values of > immigrants as the core > problem. > > > > And for good reason. Culture, beliefs, and values influence > behavior in > important ways. This is true even when incentives are the > same. Other > things being equal, a community of gypsy immigrants will still behave > differently from a community of Jewish or Chinese > immigrants. Political > cultures, like religions, are especially conservative (in the sense of > change resistant). For example, David Hackett Fischer in > _Albion's Seed_ > describes how the different subcultures of British immigrants > who settled > in different parts of Britain's American colonies still > explains differing > regional cultures of the United States. Another example is how the > egalitarian ethic in Jewish culture and religion has made them > disproportionately strong supporters of Communism, socialism, > and welfare > statism. Further, strong Jewish support for the welfare > state cannot be > easily explained by incentives or self-interest, except insofar as it > allowed them to forge a political alliance with blacks (at a time when > blacks wielded almost no political influence!). Certainly Jews do not > personally benefit in large numbers from welfare states, > since they are > "underrerpresented" on the welfare roles. Culture explains > this much better > than incentives. > > >The analysis also seems to be fundamentally anti-economic. > > Does this mean that this analysis is political or cultural rather than > "economic" in the narrow sense? Certainly true, at least in > part, but human > behavior, including, ironically, economic behavior, cannot be wholly > explained by economic theories based on rational response to financial > incentives any more than it was fully explained by BF > Skinner's fascinating > theory of operant conditioning. > > > So is the problem that they come in and vote, or that > their vote allows > them > to wield power over me? Restricting immigration seems an > inefficient way of > protecting people from the tyranny of democracy. It shouldn't matter > whether people agree or not, if the state is properly limited > > > > A big "if." In case you haven't noticed, the state is *not* > "properly" > limited, nor is it moving in that direction. Large-scale > immigration from > cultures more socialism-friendly than our own will only accelerate the > leftish trend. Even if the state were "properly limited" (as > it once was, > to a large extent), quickly importing large numbers people with no > tradition of a minimalist state would soon "unlimit" the > government. I > suspect that the US might still be much more classically > liberal than it is > if we had not admitted large numbers of immigrants from > continental Europe > (including Germany and Scandanavia as much as southern and > eastern Europe). > > >One could dispute > whether other cultures (such as Mexico's) are significantly more > "socialistic" than the U.S., and whether Democrats are > significantly "more > socialistic" than Republicans. > > > > One could also dispute whether the pyramids were built by > native Egyptians > rather than visitors on UFO's. > > >Then there's the question of how people vote > versus how they register. Much of the data on immigrant > voter registration > comes from California, which I believe has a primary system > that encourages > strategic voting. > > > > What's this? Open borders on a wing and a prayer? Texas' > large Hispanic > community is generally agreed to be much more conservative than > California's, yet Texas Governor Bush, in his presidential > bid, could not > carry a majority of Mexican-American votes even in his home > state. Hispanic > Texans went strongly for Al "I will fight for you" Gore and his class > warfare rhetoric. And in New York they voted heavily for Senatorial > candidate Hillary Clinton. I'll bet they vote for that > demagogue Bustamente > in California--certainly not for Schwartzenegger > [spelling?].There is no > evidence that Hispanics who register as Democrats are secretly voting > Republican. > > On why to support open borders even if most new immigrants > will be hostile > to libertarian ideas: > > >Because freedom includes freedom of thought, even if you are > a leftist > wacko. > > > > Yet this would not strike most non-leftists as an adequate > reason to import > as many additional leftist wackos as possible. Which would > be of greater > worth: to achieve as much freedom as possible for a very > short time, or to > accept a modestly reduced level of freedom which can endure > indefinitely? > > Let's use an economic argument to critique libertarianism. > At some point, > additional inputs of freedom, like additional inputs of any > other element, > results in diminishing marginal returns. In fact, like a > firm with too > many workers, the cost probably will begin to exceed the > benefit at some > point. Surely even a diehard libertarian, who usually > understands economic > arguments better than most other ideologues, can accept that > this is a > possibility. Of course, one can argue "freedom at any > cost," but once one > elevates freedom to a value rather than a tool or means to an > end, then one > begins to impose one's own ultimate value on everyone else--a very > unlibertarian thing to do! > > >The argument that immigration is a threat to liberty vis-a-vis > > I assume you mean "via." > > >democracy *and should therefore be restricted by the state* > is a claim that > the ends justify the means. > > > > Ends do not justify any means, but they do justify some means. > > >That's a line of argument that Ayn Rand and > Murray Rothbard have harshly criticized in other contexts. > > > > How do you explain their inconsistency? Maybe there were good > reasons for > it. > > >To me, it seems > like a fundamentally statist-minded argument. > > > > Where there are states, there is statism. Anything a state does is > "statism." An action by the state cannot be rejected out of > hand solely > because it is being undertaken by the state. Even > libertarians generally > allow that at least a few state/statist functions are > desireable. And keep > in mind that, in the absence of a state, immigrants in large > numbers might > well be excluded by local vigilantes who don't want large > numbers of foreign > immigrants. Should the state be permitted to restrict the > activities of > vigilantes who are only, at least in their own estimation, > pursuing their > Smithian self-interest? If your answer is yes, then you are > endorsing a > statist solution! Granted, it is a statist solution that libertarians > approve of, but then it becomes merely a question of what sorts of > activities justify a statist solution, and while libertarians > view this as a > moral question (although they never seem to explain where > their allegedly > moral principle of non-coercion comes from, or what makes it morally > superior to the older moral traditions rooted in religion > and custom rather > than reason in the abstract), most people regard this as a pragmatic > question--a question of what works and of trade-offs--while > libertarians, > basing their answer on an abstract "moral" principle invented by, and > believed in mostly by, themselves alone, are strait-jacketed > into an answer > that may be destructive to the best interests of both themselves and > their fellow citizens. > > ~Alypius >
