Dr Caplan assumes something that he does not mention - how do illegal immigrants get from the US southern border to the interior of the US? First, they walk across federal land at the border, therefore, by his own admission, they must have permission from the federal government. The simple fact that the federal government calls them “illegal” immigrants implies they do not have permission. Second, how would an immigrant from the southern border get to the interior? Walk on the freeway? Trespass. We have reports from Texas and Arizona ranchers of thousands of people walking across their land without permission. We call this trespassing.
I support substantial immigration, but desire that it be done legally.
Yes, public land is the sticking point. But Bryan is an anarchist and from that point of view public land is the problem, not private people. And one of the reasons why public land is a problem is exactly that it lends credence to the argument you just made: one wrong seems to justify another.
Pretending we live in a country that has freedom of association is crazy. Landlords and business owners are not allowed to discriminate at all, and this is strictly enforced. Plus, illegal immigrants vote directly, and indirectly contribute politically by being counted in the census.
I am an AnCap. I also favor lots of immigration, as it tends to make us wealthier and happier - or, it would in an AnCap region. Exactly how much immigration would be modulated by private property and supply and demand and all that.
But we currently suffer an enormous state which taxes us to create “public property”. It is the use of this property that citizen taxpayers worry might be an invasion - in sufficient numbers.
Even worse, we suffer under democracy. The “republican” limits on government power are so tattered as to be nonexistent. Also, it is currently normal to allow immigrants to vote.
That makes the ballot-box an instrument of invasion. What if 400 million communists enter the country and over a generation or two vote their way to a communist system in America.
Would we not think of this as an invasion?
Democracy and monarchy are unstable. They make immigration a much riskier proposition than it otherwise would be.
“Both sides” of this debate tend to ignore this problem.
LMGTFY. The Brennan Center for Justice found that in one study across 42 jurisdictions, which had a total of 23.5 million votes in the 2016 general election, there were only about 30 suspected incidents of noncitizens voting. That’s about 0.0001% of the votes.
The streets, public land, just being able to control who crosses the border is a "club good". Certain people own it, governing it with agreed-upon rules, and ohter people do not own it, and can't come in.
Or, of course, if the government is the owner of the public spaces: the roads, bridges, tunnels, parks, and so on that we all patronize, government buildings and enterprises including the "public" (government) schools.
I would myself rather that we had some notion of common area, and fully privatized schools, but that is neither here nor there.
Excellent article! I hadn't realized that socialism is the same as the (apparently) pure totalitarianism advocated by Robert Filmer in “Patriarcha”, according to which the King (or ruling authority) owns the entire territory he rules and all of its inhabitants, thus making them his slaves. Recall that it was Filmer's position John Locke argued against in his “First Treatise” and to which he presented his alternative position based on self-ownership in his “Second Treatise.”
I disagree on one point, namely that socialism is internally consistent. That's because if totalitarianism included any libertarian element, it would be internally inconsistent. So, if any form of totalitarianism is internally consistent, it would have to be pure. In that case, the ruler's subjects could have no liberty. They would have to do whatever the ruler orders them to do and refrain from doing anything he doesn't order them to do. Whatever is not prohibited would be required. However, two pure totalitarians could disagree on virtually every issue. What one would prohibit, the other could require. And a given ruler could arbitrarily prohibit something at one time that he later required. Hence, pure totalitarianism is internally inconsistent. In contrast, two pure libertarians (i.e., those who score 160/160 on your Libertarian Purity Test), provided they made no errors, would agree on every issue and would not change positions arbitrarily over time. Hence, pure libertarianism, unlike pure totalitarianism, is internally consistent. Incidentally, every political ideology except pure totalitarianism and pure libertarianism is an inconsistent mixture of libertarianism and totalitarianism. That is, all other ideologies contain contradictions. No two contradictory propositions can both be true. That seems to imply that only pure libertarianism is objectively correct. Have I made an error in my reasoning?
This argument doesn't work because the government (or rather the taxpayers and their heirs) own the roads.
Also collective ownership of property is not always socialist. Walmart shareholders collectively own Walmart. You aren't allowed to immigrate to Walmart stores and squat there!
While I’m surely missing a necessary aspect of your argument, you seem to be equating all forms of government, thereby making government action to restrict economic behavior via a “trespassing” test a socialist act. From my view, a government legitimately representative of its republic’s people, having enacted particular laws via a constitutional process, legitimately establishing a “trespassing” test does not violate its capitalist system. This would be proven by simply asking if that same government could constitutionally pass laws removing such a test. If both scenarios, ie test or no test, are constitutionally viable, then no proof of absolute government property ownership, ie socialism, exists. What am I missing?
Dr Caplan assumes something that he does not mention - how do illegal immigrants get from the US southern border to the interior of the US? First, they walk across federal land at the border, therefore, by his own admission, they must have permission from the federal government. The simple fact that the federal government calls them “illegal” immigrants implies they do not have permission. Second, how would an immigrant from the southern border get to the interior? Walk on the freeway? Trespass. We have reports from Texas and Arizona ranchers of thousands of people walking across their land without permission. We call this trespassing.
I support substantial immigration, but desire that it be done legally.
So if I buy a property that touches the border and erect a sign "All Welcome" we're cool?
On your property, yes. However, it does not apply to property you don’t own. The problem is that nobody at the southern border did this.
Yes, public land is the sticking point. But Bryan is an anarchist and from that point of view public land is the problem, not private people. And one of the reasons why public land is a problem is exactly that it lends credence to the argument you just made: one wrong seems to justify another.
Pretending we live in a country that has freedom of association is crazy. Landlords and business owners are not allowed to discriminate at all, and this is strictly enforced. Plus, illegal immigrants vote directly, and indirectly contribute politically by being counted in the census.
And their children and grandchildren vote.
Excellent point about freedom of association.
I am an AnCap. I also favor lots of immigration, as it tends to make us wealthier and happier - or, it would in an AnCap region. Exactly how much immigration would be modulated by private property and supply and demand and all that.
But we currently suffer an enormous state which taxes us to create “public property”. It is the use of this property that citizen taxpayers worry might be an invasion - in sufficient numbers.
Even worse, we suffer under democracy. The “republican” limits on government power are so tattered as to be nonexistent. Also, it is currently normal to allow immigrants to vote.
That makes the ballot-box an instrument of invasion. What if 400 million communists enter the country and over a generation or two vote their way to a communist system in America.
Would we not think of this as an invasion?
Democracy and monarchy are unstable. They make immigration a much riskier proposition than it otherwise would be.
“Both sides” of this debate tend to ignore this problem.
An AnCap REGIME? Region?
Good points. Lazy figures of speech on my part.
LMGTFY. The Brennan Center for Justice found that in one study across 42 jurisdictions, which had a total of 23.5 million votes in the 2016 general election, there were only about 30 suspected incidents of noncitizens voting. That’s about 0.0001% of the votes.
"In our post-Soviet age, fortunately, socialism has become extremely morally implausible to almost everyone."
2012, older simpler times.
The streets, public land, just being able to control who crosses the border is a "club good". Certain people own it, governing it with agreed-upon rules, and ohter people do not own it, and can't come in.
This piece is silly.
So ok, let the “illegal immigrant” claim refuge or safe harbor in his rented home.
But anytime he leaves the property, and is in “public space”…then he is trespassing.
Which means he can’t go to work, or go anywhere.
So when he runs out of money and can no longer pay rent, then Caplan’s mental exercise falls apart.
Like I said, silly.
That attitude is far closer to feudalism than to socialism.
Or, of course, if the government is the owner of the public spaces: the roads, bridges, tunnels, parks, and so on that we all patronize, government buildings and enterprises including the "public" (government) schools.
I would myself rather that we had some notion of common area, and fully privatized schools, but that is neither here nor there.
Excellent article! I hadn't realized that socialism is the same as the (apparently) pure totalitarianism advocated by Robert Filmer in “Patriarcha”, according to which the King (or ruling authority) owns the entire territory he rules and all of its inhabitants, thus making them his slaves. Recall that it was Filmer's position John Locke argued against in his “First Treatise” and to which he presented his alternative position based on self-ownership in his “Second Treatise.”
I disagree on one point, namely that socialism is internally consistent. That's because if totalitarianism included any libertarian element, it would be internally inconsistent. So, if any form of totalitarianism is internally consistent, it would have to be pure. In that case, the ruler's subjects could have no liberty. They would have to do whatever the ruler orders them to do and refrain from doing anything he doesn't order them to do. Whatever is not prohibited would be required. However, two pure totalitarians could disagree on virtually every issue. What one would prohibit, the other could require. And a given ruler could arbitrarily prohibit something at one time that he later required. Hence, pure totalitarianism is internally inconsistent. In contrast, two pure libertarians (i.e., those who score 160/160 on your Libertarian Purity Test), provided they made no errors, would agree on every issue and would not change positions arbitrarily over time. Hence, pure libertarianism, unlike pure totalitarianism, is internally consistent. Incidentally, every political ideology except pure totalitarianism and pure libertarianism is an inconsistent mixture of libertarianism and totalitarianism. That is, all other ideologies contain contradictions. No two contradictory propositions can both be true. That seems to imply that only pure libertarianism is objectively correct. Have I made an error in my reasoning?
This argument doesn't work because the government (or rather the taxpayers and their heirs) own the roads.
Also collective ownership of property is not always socialist. Walmart shareholders collectively own Walmart. You aren't allowed to immigrate to Walmart stores and squat there!
Arguments based on logical premises sometimes work. Sometimes they don’t, especially in complex dynamic systems with feedback.
If I was to recommend how just and prosperous societies were best built, I would look at actual successes and failures.
While I’m surely missing a necessary aspect of your argument, you seem to be equating all forms of government, thereby making government action to restrict economic behavior via a “trespassing” test a socialist act. From my view, a government legitimately representative of its republic’s people, having enacted particular laws via a constitutional process, legitimately establishing a “trespassing” test does not violate its capitalist system. This would be proven by simply asking if that same government could constitutionally pass laws removing such a test. If both scenarios, ie test or no test, are constitutionally viable, then no proof of absolute government property ownership, ie socialism, exists. What am I missing?