<p>I really don’t want to get all Judaean People’s Front on you, but for example (as a former Ron Paul supporter) I must really wonder whether Ron Paul is a bona fide libertarian, given that he wants to return the country to the gold standard, an action with funny economic grounding.</p>
<p>Similarly, the Libertarian Party is to be contrasted with the small-l libertarians (they are not equivalent, just like you can be an American communist without being a member of the American Communist Party)… but even I don’t necessarily agree that the Libertarian Party is contesting open immigration. I read from the link you posted:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which I entirely I agree with. There’s nothing in there about quotas, long waiting periods, or bureaucratic ideas about stemming the flow of immigrants.</p>
<p>“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.”</p>
<p>Wow – completely consistent with what I’ve been saying throughout the thread… again, I’m surprised by your statement that “most libertarians” do not support open immigration.</p>
<p>Open immigration does not mean, “no immigration checkpoints” or “no border security”. It does not mean “lawless immigration”. It simply means immigration without undue restrictions, just like there must be no undue restrictions on voter registration (“you can only vote if you own $20,000 of landed property …”).'</p>
<p>However I have to laugh at the idea of Ron Paul’s that “a nation without borders is no nation at all.” That only panders to outdated ideas about what it means to be a nation. Many of the American Indian nations had unfixed borders – in their time, they weren’t any less a nation. Nations, societies and cultures may even overlap. You can forge unified libertarian societies across existing political states.</p>
<p>You just stated that it would be a positive development if 1 billion Mexican and Candian people were to arrive in the US at the same time! How was I supposed to take that?</p>
<p>Free trade - an idea that I wholeheartedly support - does not necessarily mean open immigration. Yes, economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human and financial capital across national borders * for the purposes of trade.* But notice that nothing was said regarding US citizenship for all of these people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh please. They also didn’t have taxes, organized crime, market saturation in certain fields, or any of that jazz. A nation without borders is indeed no nation at all. How, then, do you define a nation? Simply a group of people living in the same general area who, in this case, are not even united by language or culture?</p>
<p>The Kurds are not a nation. Chechnya is not a nation. WTH are you trying to say?</p>
<p>I agree that using a private property rights argument is problematic. That is why you rarely hear of undocumented immigrants being picked up randomly on the streets of the U.S. and deported. Rather, they are usually deported when their presence here becomes problematic in some other way - ie. crime, tax evasion, labor code violations, etc.</p>
<p>I dunno. You’re in Princeton – I used an extreme example to illustrate the principles really at stake. The point is, most immigrants, while requiring investments, are future economic returns…</p>
<p>The libertarian argument doesn’t have to buy into any of zoosermom’s funny outdated ideas about being tied down to one’s place of birth by “economic duty” or whatever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which includes the labour market! Comparative advantage! Why do cost of living differentials continue to exist across borders? The ultimate goal of libertarian globalisation is one global citizenship, where one is judged by one’s willingless to work and contribute, not by place of origin.</p>
<p>Did you not read post #333?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t tell me you’ve never really thought about the quintessence of nationhood before? Nations and societies can exist without Staes. The Kurds are a nation without a State – they even have their own regional government? WTH?</p>
<p>Also the idea that taxes didn’t exist is inaccurate – many American Indian nations did have levies (for several purposes, such as combining together to fight the colonists).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No – you can have a nation of people spread out across a world, but if they have close economic and political relationships, then they arguably form a nation. The nations of the future will overlap each other. A nation is essentially a group bound together by a social contract … which is why one may be a member of several nations, as one may be a member of several social contracts, and one may have a fellow countrymen who is also a member of a nation you are not part of.</p>
<p>This rarely happens because it is impractical and borderline illegal. The argument still stands, though. But, how is an officer to know whether or not a Mexican on the street is documented. If the person claims to not have their documentation on them at the moment, it is debatable whether or not this constitutes reasonable grounds for the officer to force him or her to procture or go get documentation.</p>
<p>He was arguing that they were mistaken. We’ve all been wrong sometimes …</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>**Exactly. **</p>
<p>Since those two measures stem from the same moral category, by extension the first measure [undue restrictions on immigration] is also unconstitutional.</p>
<p>So, the Israeli kibbutzim are “nations?” My family is a “nation?” Your argument is impractical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you are misusing the term “libertarian.” Libertarianism involves each individual competing with the rest, each community competing with other communities, each state competing with the rest, and the US competing with the rest. And that is where it ends. The ultimate goal is not globalization, but a prosperous and secure United States for its citizens.</p>
<p>No they do not. A restriction on the number of children would be unconstitutional because if the right to privacy and free expression. Even if those rights did not exist, it would be unconstitutional and unenforceable because it would probably involve forced abortions and birth control - also unconstitutional.</p>
<p>Why is it impractical? Is it because it’s something you never thought of before?</p>
<p>It’s a simply a reanalysis of duty and social relationships, and how law arises from them.</p>
<p>Again, if we use the techniques of the Austrian School, where we take into account the economic and social relationships of each individual to the one nearest him, and add up the effects of each individual accordingly (“social integral calculus” I like to call it, but apparently the formal term I discover is called “methodological individualism” – but whatever) you find many cultures and societies that overlap each other, even across borders. Some social contracts encompass many smaller social contracts. You have a continuum of social contractual relationships.</p>
<p>The Singaporean government prints on the back of our textbooks, “family as a basic unit of society” – while I don’t buy into my birth country’s propaganda of somehow using this to subjugate individual rights, the fact is that there is no real reason for why kibbutzim and families should not be thought of as nations on a smaller scale. You have different magnitudes of scope, duties and responsibilities, but the principle is the same.</p>
<p>To command social contract relationships to stop at political borders is impractical – the antinationalist argument is the one taking into account reality, not the nationalists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I suppose you must be familiar with Milton Friedman’s “The World is Flat”… </p>
<p>Each individual acting in his self-interest, with the liberty to do any action as long as that action does not infringe upon others’ liberties to have the same action. Take the social integral of all the individuals in the world. That is the essence, for the most efficient outcome is a <em>continuum</em> of social relationships.</p>
<p>well, to assume that people are automatically members of the American social contract as soon as they step foot in the United States is also impractical. That is why there must be certain, even strict, requirements for immigration.</p>
<p>Again, did you even read the article I posted in post 333?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For a guy in Princeton [and for someone who is also well-read in philosophy] you are surprisingly close-minded about this … </p>
<p>A guy in a border town in Mexico is part of a social contract that spans the mutually shared economic and political interests of both American and Mexican towns. [For example, if there were a crime spree in the American border town nearby, economic interests in that Mexican town would also be hurt. So the police forces of both towns agree to work with each other.] The individuals of that American border town have social contract relationships with a neighbouring town deeper into the border, though that neighbouring town might not share social contract relationships (or very minimal ones) with the Mexican border town. </p>
<p>In this case, the political requirements that, “OMG! Mexican police forces can’t cross into our border to pursue fugitive X!” may sometimes result in inefficient outcomes.</p>
<p>Anyway, regarding the rights of new individuals (you seem to like to apply the word “impractical” a lot, especially to ideas foreign to you), by extension, to assume that newborn babies are automatically members of the American social contract is also impractical. I guess we should start regulating the entry of new American lives.</p>
<p>Why should there be a sharp discontinuity at political borders? Why tolerate an economically inefficient situation?</p>
<p>If I were a border town with closer economic relationships with the people across a border, shouldn’t I also desire that the economic and political system of that country be liberalised?'</p>
<p>
Oh, and you didn’t even look at its other points, I suppose. The article is asking you to think hard about the relationship between the two measures. </p>
<p>Firstly, there are willing American owners who want immigrants on their private property – employ them, for reasons of economic (allocative) efficiency, comparative advantage, and so forth.</p>
<p>Secondly, the premise that the US is the “collective private property” of all its citizens was asserted, not proven. Again, I can argue it’s not unconstitutional, because all these extra unregulated new babies keep on infringing on collective private property of other Americans.</p>
<p>You keep on dodging the question – you say you support free trade – but you have not addressed the fact that free trade requires open migration (because you know, labour market).</p>
<p>There are other fallacious points in this thread that I have let slide, but I’m going to take a break soon.</p>
<p>Economic, yes. And so should the folks across the border. Political, also yes. But the people across the border should not. It is possible to have all the advantages of free trade without the disadvantages of open immigration. And don’t give me the stuff about the labor market.</p>
<p>We have no need for a larger labor market in the US now. First, we need to take care of our own unemployment problems by a simple lessening of welfare and privatization of government agencies. Then, maybe we can discuss open immigration as it relates to the labor market.</p>
<p>I hope you don’t suppose that once open immigration is implemented and immigrants become documented Americans, Mexican workers will still be willing to work 16 hours a day in the sun for below minimum wage.</p>
<p>I never said I support penalizing American employers for employing immigrants. In fact, I believe that this is unconstitutional. That doesn’t mean I can’t support preventing the immigrants from arriving in the first place.</p>