"Open boarders" suddenly sounds much better to me now that you've linked it to "Legalize all weapons." Legalizing all weapons -- or rather, decriminalizing all weapons -- is possibly the best of all possible weapons regulation policies.
If you respond that only governments should have the most dangerous weapons, then you are agreeing that only the biggest, most violent and most willing to use violence bully should have the most dangerous weapons. I don't like bullies. I never have. Forcing the bullies' victims to be disarmed or disadvantaged is abetting the bullies.
I don't particularly want to have to make 100,000 arguments to support free trade. Instead, I think it better to view "free trade" as a default position based on a presumption of liberty. So one has to argue (quite likely successfully) that perhaps there should NOT be free trade in plague viruses rather than that there SHOULD be free trade in sugar and also cars and also cotton and also...
But such libertarians do in fact support the “extreme” of 100% open borders, no? So the quarrel really lies with their idea itself, not with the slogan. It is a slogan that clearly conveys their views.
As a linguist: "free" is just a absolute/relative as "open". Doors can be half-open. Valves can be anything from 0-100% open. - If you are not free to do all, then you are "restricted", not free. ;)
"open - more open - most open". See? Easy. - "I am free, but I want to be, errr, freeer." Sounds confused.
See also: tight. dry. unique. pregnant. closed. enslaved. lonely. - "the onliest"
Practical: I agree! But: Is "free immigration" more catchy? Or just as frightening to an (R) as is "private water/schools/prisons/roads/armies" to a (D)? - What about: "Qualified immigrants"/ "Useful immigration" / "USA: open for work" Long version: "No welfare for foreign scum. Just Work and Taxes. Cope. Open for hard work 24/7." I hear them cheering!!! - As they did in Prague 1989, West German embassy the second they heard: "Ihre Ausreise" (your emigration)
(Btw.: THAT turned into huge influx the size of a THIRD of our population into our welfare system. In one day. Third of October. Many of them old, or kids, or with no usable qualification. With disturbing views of politics. Getting full citizenship and all perks. The WORST way to do open borders. After 32 years, it seems it turned out not too bad. While the US votes Trump or Biden.)
We all live in a welfare state. Libertarians should be opposed to the welfare state. Milton Friedman noted that you can have a welfare state or you can have open borders but not both for very long. Hastening the bankruptcy of bankrupt welfare states is one strategy but it would be more constructive if libertarians prioritized their wish list to work on eliminating the welfare state first. The actual destruction seems to be a priority of the political party legacy of those that created the welfare state.
I'm noticing there's not an obviously better phrase though, thus it persists. "Free hiring" seems hard to oppose but is a pretty narrow benefit of immigration. "Free movement" is what the EU calls it but also that's a pretty extreme version of liberalizing immigration.
An interesting post by Klein. BC has long been clear that open borders is no mere slogan and is a true and literal expression of his views when used. Mr. Klein surely knows this. BC is not alone. What then is the purpose of this advice to his friend? Don't use it because you will frighten the natives to the detriment of your purpose. Now that is all too common as advice and practice. I appreciate BC's frankness and understand his views and arguments to be offered in all sincerity, treat them seriously, and will henceforth discount Mr. Kline's appropriately.
I am confident that Liechtenstein would benefit greatly from having open borders and allowing 1 million Nigerians in. I will envy their economic and cultural enrichment.
Some might use open borders to insulate themselves from left criticism. However some (myself included) believe it is the principally consistent libertarian position to have no restrictions on immigration. Additionally, yes to complete free trade and legalizing all weapons. “Open borders” is a good slogan and an accurate one if you believe in open borders. Not just “more” immigration.
I think "free immigration" and "free trade" are the best nomenclature.
My main issue with the term "open borders" is that it implies a national border ought still be enforced, only with an "open" policy. I disagree with this stance, and maintain that the institution of the national border should be abolished entirely, unless it can be cleanly justified.
Of course, simply labeling the contrary position "irresponsible" is insufficient justification. The rhetoric rings more as a mocking cudgel than sound moral analysis.
I lived in Japan before the corona virus rules destroyed my life. During their election seasons I would sometimes joke with my students by asking them which political party I could vote for to get welfare. American sarcasm is not really well understood there. They just looked at me and usually told me there is no way for a foreigner to vote and they don't really understand what I am asking. Tough crowd.
This is a very good post. Reminds me of something that came up when Bryan talked with Peter Singer, how you have to consider the politics (the message impact) of policy proposals. Not just whether the position is moral / correct.
"Open boarders" suddenly sounds much better to me now that you've linked it to "Legalize all weapons." Legalizing all weapons -- or rather, decriminalizing all weapons -- is possibly the best of all possible weapons regulation policies.
If you respond that only governments should have the most dangerous weapons, then you are agreeing that only the biggest, most violent and most willing to use violence bully should have the most dangerous weapons. I don't like bullies. I never have. Forcing the bullies' victims to be disarmed or disadvantaged is abetting the bullies.
I don't particularly want to have to make 100,000 arguments to support free trade. Instead, I think it better to view "free trade" as a default position based on a presumption of liberty. So one has to argue (quite likely successfully) that perhaps there should NOT be free trade in plague viruses rather than that there SHOULD be free trade in sugar and also cars and also cotton and also...
I think open borders works similarly.
But such libertarians do in fact support the “extreme” of 100% open borders, no? So the quarrel really lies with their idea itself, not with the slogan. It is a slogan that clearly conveys their views.
As a linguist: "free" is just a absolute/relative as "open". Doors can be half-open. Valves can be anything from 0-100% open. - If you are not free to do all, then you are "restricted", not free. ;)
"open - more open - most open". See? Easy. - "I am free, but I want to be, errr, freeer." Sounds confused.
See also: tight. dry. unique. pregnant. closed. enslaved. lonely. - "the onliest"
Practical: I agree! But: Is "free immigration" more catchy? Or just as frightening to an (R) as is "private water/schools/prisons/roads/armies" to a (D)? - What about: "Qualified immigrants"/ "Useful immigration" / "USA: open for work" Long version: "No welfare for foreign scum. Just Work and Taxes. Cope. Open for hard work 24/7." I hear them cheering!!! - As they did in Prague 1989, West German embassy the second they heard: "Ihre Ausreise" (your emigration)
Historically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdI7y8wUQYE
(Btw.: THAT turned into huge influx the size of a THIRD of our population into our welfare system. In one day. Third of October. Many of them old, or kids, or with no usable qualification. With disturbing views of politics. Getting full citizenship and all perks. The WORST way to do open borders. After 32 years, it seems it turned out not too bad. While the US votes Trump or Biden.)
But the extreme of completely open borders is actually perfectly reasonable!
Most countries have completely open borders between States/districts/counties whatever and nobodies ever thought it a problem.
The EU has completely open borders between countries and it's basically been fine.
Until 1920 the USA had completely open borders, and that has been the source of much of the USA's wealth and success.
We all live in a welfare state. Libertarians should be opposed to the welfare state. Milton Friedman noted that you can have a welfare state or you can have open borders but not both for very long. Hastening the bankruptcy of bankrupt welfare states is one strategy but it would be more constructive if libertarians prioritized their wish list to work on eliminating the welfare state first. The actual destruction seems to be a priority of the political party legacy of those that created the welfare state.
I'm noticing there's not an obviously better phrase though, thus it persists. "Free hiring" seems hard to oppose but is a pretty narrow benefit of immigration. "Free movement" is what the EU calls it but also that's a pretty extreme version of liberalizing immigration.
Great!
An interesting post by Klein. BC has long been clear that open borders is no mere slogan and is a true and literal expression of his views when used. Mr. Klein surely knows this. BC is not alone. What then is the purpose of this advice to his friend? Don't use it because you will frighten the natives to the detriment of your purpose. Now that is all too common as advice and practice. I appreciate BC's frankness and understand his views and arguments to be offered in all sincerity, treat them seriously, and will henceforth discount Mr. Kline's appropriately.
I am confident that Liechtenstein would benefit greatly from having open borders and allowing 1 million Nigerians in. I will envy their economic and cultural enrichment.
Some might use open borders to insulate themselves from left criticism. However some (myself included) believe it is the principally consistent libertarian position to have no restrictions on immigration. Additionally, yes to complete free trade and legalizing all weapons. “Open borders” is a good slogan and an accurate one if you believe in open borders. Not just “more” immigration.
I think "free immigration" and "free trade" are the best nomenclature.
My main issue with the term "open borders" is that it implies a national border ought still be enforced, only with an "open" policy. I disagree with this stance, and maintain that the institution of the national border should be abolished entirely, unless it can be cleanly justified.
Of course, simply labeling the contrary position "irresponsible" is insufficient justification. The rhetoric rings more as a mocking cudgel than sound moral analysis.
I don’t get it
I lived in Japan before the corona virus rules destroyed my life. During their election seasons I would sometimes joke with my students by asking them which political party I could vote for to get welfare. American sarcasm is not really well understood there. They just looked at me and usually told me there is no way for a foreigner to vote and they don't really understand what I am asking. Tough crowd.
Open Border is a bit of an oxymoron
This is a very good post. Reminds me of something that came up when Bryan talked with Peter Singer, how you have to consider the politics (the message impact) of policy proposals. Not just whether the position is moral / correct.