For 98% of human history, human beings moved from place to place, sometimes from continent to continent, on the planet essentially unimpeded by law or borders. If, somehow, the entire planet returned to that “libertarian” situation today (open immigration, but govts mostly unchanged), what would be the result?
a) total chaos and a worse situation for all
b) an improvement in the quality of life (for all? for some?)
c) no major change
d) something else
Definitely no prehistoric onwards resource conflicts
.
B
The accepted theory is if labour can freely move, it moves to the work.
Definitely no prehistoric onwards resource conflicts
fyi, we had free migration well past prehistoric times. The US had essentially open borders prior to 1875.
Would you call yourself a libertarian?
B
The accepted theory is if labour can freely move, it moves to the work.
What about those who move to get the benefits of other countries but contribute nothing?
B
The accepted theory is if labour can freely move, it moves to the work.
What about those who move to get the benefits of other countries but contribute nothing?
I’m guessing that in a Libertarian world view, there are no benefits to move toward.
B
The accepted theory is if labour can freely move, it moves to the work.
What about those who move to get the benefits of other countries but contribute nothing?
Who is that the cooperate class?
It’s certainly not the workers? or the immigrants? The ones who build everything, do all the crummy jobs nobody else will do, and defend this country every time they are needed!
For 98% of human history, human beings moved from place to place, sometimes from continent to continent, on the planet essentially unimpeded by law or borders. If somehow, the entire planet returned to that “libertarian” situation today, what would be the result?
a) total chaos and a worse situation for all
b) an improvement in the quality of life (for all? for some?)
c) no major change
d) something else
total chaos because
a) For most of human history natural resources were relatively abundant now they are a limiting factor.
b) Our economies couldn’t stand the disruption nor our advanced support systems which are very dependent on stable gov’t
i think you’ll find that a lot of libertarians are kind of silent on this issue.
when it comes to repealing age of consent laws or legalizing drugs they’re really energetic, but when you apply libertarian reasoning to certain other domains they have a tougher time finding a moment to talk.
i think you’ll find that a lot of libertarians are kind of silent on this issue.
when it comes to repealing age of consent laws or legalizing drugs they’re really energetic, but when you apply libertarian reasoning to certain other domains they have a tougher time finding a moment to talk.
You might be right.
But more than a few libertarians that I have spoken with IRL, seemed very hesitant on full drug legalization (even though the trillion dollar plus US drug war clusterf*ck is easily one of the most failed, and most invasive, govt policies).
B
The accepted theory is if labour can freely move, it moves to the work.
What about those who move to get the benefits of other countries but contribute nothing?
What benefits? In a libertarian viewpoint, there are no government benefits.
If you’re going from a business side - which would 100% benefit from free movement of labour - it doesn’t matter, because best case is a single world government with benefits equal world wide. One set of regulations no matter where you make stuff or where you sell it? One set of taxes? Think of how much that would save a multinational corp in just accounting costs!
For 98% of human history, human beings moved from place to place, sometimes from continent to continent, on the planet essentially unimpeded by law or borders.
I’m deeply skeptical of this assertion, particularly once you add in “cultural acceptance” as another factor with written law and borders. Humanity has always been had a tendency towards tribalism, arguably stronger the farther back in time you go. Straying from your tribe was often a good way of getting enslaved or killed, particularly if you were of a different race or didn’t immediately adopt the appropriate religion and other cultural mores. Nor were migrated people always afforded the full rights of a “first class citizen.”
Not to say there wasn’t also a good amount of unimpeded migration, but along the lines of libertarianism, I’d suspect it was easiest when it suited the economic, cultural, or military interests of the receiving society. Much less so when it didn’t.
i think your historical example entails entirely self-sustaining units of migration, or conquerers/plunderers
both examples require taking land and/or goods currently owned by others. I don’t think governments would look kindly on that.
For 98% of human history, human beings moved from place to place, sometimes from continent to continent, on the planet essentially unimpeded by law or borders.
I’m deeply skeptical of this assertion, particularly once you add in “cultural acceptance” as another factor with written law and borders. Humanity has always been had a tendency towards tribalism, arguably stronger the farther back in time you go. Straying from your tribe was often a good way of getting enslaved or killed, particularly if you were of a different race or didn’t immediately adopt the appropriate religion and other cultural mores. Nor were migrated people always afforded the full rights of a “first class citizen.”
Not to say there wasn’t also a good amount of unimpeded migration, but along the lines of libertarianism, I’d suspect it was easiest when it suited the economic, cultural, or military interests of the receiving society. Much less so when it didn’t.
Yes, I was just saying that there was a good amount of unimpeded migration (unimpeded by law or borders, as in my OP).
Sure, there are always other fixed impediments to migration (culture, cost to travel, lack of a horse, lack of a boat, acceptance, language, and so on), but those have not changed enormously. It is immigration law and attempts at more ‘rigid’ borders that are much newer developments in world history. Hence my question.
Sure, there are always other fixed impediments to migration (culture, cost to travel, lack of a horse, lack of a boat, acceptance, language, and so on), but those have not changed enormously. It is immigration law and attempts at more ‘rigid’ borders that are much newer developments in world history. Hence my question.
I’m not an expert in this (or any) aspect of history, but I’m not convinced that migration is any more rigid now compared to any other point in time. In fact I’d assert that the just the travel alone is far safer now than historically. Even for people trying to migrate through Central America up to the U.S. border subject to all the criminals along the way.
Immigration law is simply encoding on paper the same practices used for all time to protect insular cultures from external “invasion”. And borders are just drawing on maps to clarify the same sorts of regional boundaries used over most of history.
And I think you’re describing anarchy more than libertarianism. Laws and borders are not inconsistent with libertarianism.
Open immigration equals anarchy ??? Whaaat?
Well, the US has had a lot of anarchy then.
Completely uncontrolled migration could have some very bad consequences, including reducing a society’s incentive to invest in itself (immigrants can present a free rider problem). But, while we often focus on in-migration (because most of us are Americans), there are huge benefits to being able to freely out-migrate. Being able to easily exit a bad country is an important piece of personal freedom and autonomy.
B
The accepted theory is if labour can freely move, it moves to the work.
What about those who move to get the benefits of other countries but contribute nothing?
Who is that the cooperate class?
It’s certainly not the workers? or the immigrants? The ones who build everything, do all the crummy jobs nobody else will do, and defend this country every time they are needed!
In libertarian world there are no immigrants as people can move as they wish. Therefore no countries and nothing to defend. Is libertarian world the same as anarchy in a positive way?
It is immigration law and attempts at more ‘rigid’ borders that are much newer developments in world history. Hence my question.
i’m curious about your take on Japan’s snapping its borders shut to trade and missionaries in 1603, for two hundred years – legitimate or inflexible?
Open immigration equals anarchy ??? Whaaat?
Well, the US has had a lot of anarchy then.
I don’t know what you’re arguing, exactly. Having permissive immigration is not the same as having immigration policy that does not recognize laws and borders, and have defined processes and requirements. Even in the immediate post-ratification era, the U.S. had recognized borders and government-run naturalization processes. Those, in the scope of human history, represent more “modern” attempts to codify immigration into written law. I could put this into the 2%, not part of your “98% of human history.” By 98% of human history you’re almost certainly talking about humans before the concept of things like English Common Law, etc. My argument is that 98% was, broadly speaking, not definitively “more permissive” to free migration of people between societal units (tribes/kingdoms/city-states, etc). Just because there was no written law against immigration doesn’t mean you didn’t get an arrowhead through your forehead upon arrival.