If you can look at Western Europe and think that mass immigration by people from the middle east and north Africa is going to work out just fine and that the institutions will not be altered drastically, I don't know what to say. It is incredibly naive to think that people are "all the same" sitting here in the West. Western values are the weird ones. People raised in other cultures can be extremely different in their core values, and that's not even counting people with actual malevolent intent.
"So what is a libertarian to do if the tide of immigration is so strong that peaceful assimilation of native and immigrant nationalities doesn’t appear to be possible, a scenario that Mises concedes would be the case for Australia if it permitted unrestricted immigration by Asians? Mises admits that an inundation scenario would likely result in the native-born nationality becoming a minority in its own homeland, and thus likely subject to the horrors of national persecution. On the other hand, Mises wrote at length in works like Nation, State, and Economy, and Omnipotent Government warning that the fragmentation of the world via trade and migration barriers strongly incentivizes comparatively overpopulated “have not” powers to resort to war to gain access to territories and natural resources denied to them by the comparatively underpopulated powers. Destructive global wars sparked by national autarky are not such a great option for libertarians either"
The second option is no longer a real concern because of low and falling birth rates, except in Africa countries which are in no position to be invading anyone outside their continent.
"“It is clear that no solution of the problem of immigration is possible if one adheres to the ideal of an interventionist state, which meddles in every field of human activity, or to that of the socialist state. Only the adoption of a liberal program could make the problem of immigration, which today seems insoluble, completely disappear. In an Australia governed according to liberal principles, what difficulties could arise from the fact that in some parts of the continent Japanese and in other parts Englishmen were in the majority?"
But the whole question is whether a country that was majority X would actually be governed by liberal principles.
"Raico’s thesis fails to appreciate that immigrants are no less human than the native-born are, and are psychologically just as responsive to the profound culture-altering effects of liberation from cultural repression when they are finally able to breathe free in a liberty-loving land."
No actually, it's megapolitics, as described in the book "The Sovereign Individual". "Magic air" is just a lazy way of describing the way that institutions and mark structures shape human behavior and cultures themselves.
I agree that am argument can be made and hypotheses established where one concluded they massive immigration wouldn't destroy the miracles of good institution
Similar theories can be had concluding that immigration will destroy liberal institutions.
On the have waving method, this is a draw.
But the question is where is the higher risk?
Should we assume that the rich countries efficient institutions are the default? Or that they are fragile and can easily be destroyed?
And what are the utility calculations for such gambles?
> humans are naturally compelled by their own innate psychological nature to revise their values away from the extremes of illiberalism when they have the freedom to do so
Hitler didn't have illiberal values because he lacked the "freedom" to revise his values. Illiberal values are just common and people can retain them.
"humans are naturally compelled by their own innate psychological nature to revise their values away from the extremes of illiberalism when they have the freedom to do so"
I think this is one of the key claims of the article, but there is not enough done to back it up.
Frequent bryan caplan readers are familiar with the claim (backed up by evidence by bryan), that this is not the case? see "anti-market bias", "make work bias", the old "what is seen and what isn't seen"
I am pro massivelly increasing immigration.
I haven't yet seen a good explanation for why such relativelly (economically) liberal values are practiced by big western governments in spite of human nature. I think it is a great thing, maybe a great coincidence, but until I understand what causes it I do see some value in being very careful to not disturb it. The second trump government has shown us how it's a lot less robust than we like to imagine
Yeah? Impress me with the degree to which Moslem immigrants to the United States, or other countries of the West, have given up the oppression of women.
And remember, to deface synagogues and vandalize Jewish businesses and assault Jews and occasionally assassinate people or blow things up and so on does not require the active participation of the average Moslem. It takes ... well, look around you. How average are they?
> Impress me with the degree to which Moslem immigrants to the United States, or other countries of the West, have given up the oppression of women.
They have though, to a large extent! look at the survey data in Muslims in the US vs. the rest of the world -- selection+assimilation is doing a lot of work. And look at how Muslim women can live in the US vs in Muslim theocracies, it is a great improvement!
If you can look at Western Europe and think that mass immigration by people from the middle east and north Africa is going to work out just fine and that the institutions will not be altered drastically, I don't know what to say. It is incredibly naive to think that people are "all the same" sitting here in the West. Western values are the weird ones. People raised in other cultures can be extremely different in their core values, and that's not even counting people with actual malevolent intent.
Maybe read the article.
"So what is a libertarian to do if the tide of immigration is so strong that peaceful assimilation of native and immigrant nationalities doesn’t appear to be possible, a scenario that Mises concedes would be the case for Australia if it permitted unrestricted immigration by Asians? Mises admits that an inundation scenario would likely result in the native-born nationality becoming a minority in its own homeland, and thus likely subject to the horrors of national persecution. On the other hand, Mises wrote at length in works like Nation, State, and Economy, and Omnipotent Government warning that the fragmentation of the world via trade and migration barriers strongly incentivizes comparatively overpopulated “have not” powers to resort to war to gain access to territories and natural resources denied to them by the comparatively underpopulated powers. Destructive global wars sparked by national autarky are not such a great option for libertarians either"
The second option is no longer a real concern because of low and falling birth rates, except in Africa countries which are in no position to be invading anyone outside their continent.
"“It is clear that no solution of the problem of immigration is possible if one adheres to the ideal of an interventionist state, which meddles in every field of human activity, or to that of the socialist state. Only the adoption of a liberal program could make the problem of immigration, which today seems insoluble, completely disappear. In an Australia governed according to liberal principles, what difficulties could arise from the fact that in some parts of the continent Japanese and in other parts Englishmen were in the majority?"
But the whole question is whether a country that was majority X would actually be governed by liberal principles.
"Raico’s thesis fails to appreciate that immigrants are no less human than the native-born are, and are psychologically just as responsive to the profound culture-altering effects of liberation from cultural repression when they are finally able to breathe free in a liberty-loving land."
Magic air.
"Magic air"
No actually, it's megapolitics, as described in the book "The Sovereign Individual". "Magic air" is just a lazy way of describing the way that institutions and mark structures shape human behavior and cultures themselves.
All great speculative arguments.
I agree that am argument can be made and hypotheses established where one concluded they massive immigration wouldn't destroy the miracles of good institution
Similar theories can be had concluding that immigration will destroy liberal institutions.
On the have waving method, this is a draw.
But the question is where is the higher risk?
Should we assume that the rich countries efficient institutions are the default? Or that they are fragile and can easily be destroyed?
And what are the utility calculations for such gambles?
> humans are naturally compelled by their own innate psychological nature to revise their values away from the extremes of illiberalism when they have the freedom to do so
Hitler didn't have illiberal values because he lacked the "freedom" to revise his values. Illiberal values are just common and people can retain them.
"humans are naturally compelled by their own innate psychological nature to revise their values away from the extremes of illiberalism when they have the freedom to do so"
I think this is one of the key claims of the article, but there is not enough done to back it up.
Frequent bryan caplan readers are familiar with the claim (backed up by evidence by bryan), that this is not the case? see "anti-market bias", "make work bias", the old "what is seen and what isn't seen"
I am pro massivelly increasing immigration.
I haven't yet seen a good explanation for why such relativelly (economically) liberal values are practiced by big western governments in spite of human nature. I think it is a great thing, maybe a great coincidence, but until I understand what causes it I do see some value in being very careful to not disturb it. The second trump government has shown us how it's a lot less robust than we like to imagine
Yeah? Impress me with the degree to which Moslem immigrants to the United States, or other countries of the West, have given up the oppression of women.
And remember, to deface synagogues and vandalize Jewish businesses and assault Jews and occasionally assassinate people or blow things up and so on does not require the active participation of the average Moslem. It takes ... well, look around you. How average are they?
> Impress me with the degree to which Moslem immigrants to the United States, or other countries of the West, have given up the oppression of women.
They have though, to a large extent! look at the survey data in Muslims in the US vs. the rest of the world -- selection+assimilation is doing a lot of work. And look at how Muslim women can live in the US vs in Muslim theocracies, it is a great improvement!
No more honor killings?
Indeed, Muslim immigration in the US is very different from Europe.