Although I enjoy these rational arguments for libertarian ethics (which are pretty close to my own ethical views), I believe that, underneath the rational scaffolding, the basis for everyone's ethical viewpoint are gut feelings. I do not feel a compulsion to help strangers, and I do not feel a compulsion to try to force other people to help strangers. I do occasionally feel bad enough for the people in my area who depend on the food bank to make a donation. But when I imagine trying to force strangers to donate, I get a feeling of revulsion.
With regards to immigration, I think the main reason most people oppose open (or almost open) borders is: labour-market protectionism. The main other reasons to oppose immigration (crime/terrorism, fiscal burden and voting in bad policies) can easily be dealt with by keyhole solutions. (I think libertarians spend far too much time arguing against fiscal burden concerns cause these are the concerns raised by other libertarians, not the general public, but I digress...) But even with regards to labour-market protectionism, most people I've met aren't so concerned about losing their own job to an immigrant, but rather concerned about some hypothetical low-skilled countryman that they've never met losing their job to an immigrant. hWhy? It boggles my mind. If your low-skilled countryman countryman doesn't get the job, an immigrant does. So, even if you care about the overall state of the world, or reducing the number of people in absolute poverty (as I do, more on that, later), whether an immigrant gets the job or your fellow countryman makes no difference.
An obvious answer I get: "Charity starts at home" or "We gotta put Americans [or Canadians or whatever] first!" Or as VP JD puts it: "There’s this old school — and I think it’s a very Christian concept, by the way — that you love your family and then you love your neighbor and then you love your community and then you love your fellow citizens and your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world." (i.e. nationalism). But I never quite understood nationalism. I can understand putting your family first. But even then, it breaks down depending on how extended the family is that we're talking about. For example, I would put my daughter first, but my second cousins are basically strangers to me. (That being said, I know people of other cultures who value their extended family a LOT more.) So, arguments like "It's normal to value French Canadians more cause we have common French ancestry" don't hold much sway with me.
That being said: I do kinda understand the idea of putting people who share your values first. For example, Christians putting their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, first, above all others. Or muslims putting their fellow muslims above others. For me, I am very pro-life. That's kinda a core part of my identity. If, for example, a trolley-car was racing towards, say, a member of my pro-life activism club, I would flip the switch and have it run over my pro-choice first-cousin, instead.
So, for me, the hierarchy is:
1. My daughter
2. Other members of my immediate family
3. People who share my values
4. Everyone else
hWhether I am right or wrong, I do recognize that I am "weird". Nationalism is pretty common. It is quite odd to not put ones countrymen even just a LIL bit above everyone else. Even in your example of homeless people, I still suspect that the average American gives more to homeless Americans than starving foreigners. I read somewhere that some people suggest that us open-border advocates may be "on the spectrum". Honestly, I am starting to suspect some truth to that. I scored a 16/50 on Borat's cousin's AQ test. Not enough for a formal autism diagnosis, but still above average. So, maybe people like you and me don't understand nationalism cause we're a lil bit Aspie. Doesn't make us wrong, tho! :P
Now, as to obligations towards strangers, here's where you and I differ, Dr. Caplan: Perhaps I am a tad more socialist. Hence, why I am reluctant to fully embrace libertarianism. (I call myself libertarian~ish.) If I saw a child drowning in the river and I could rescue him with minimal personal effort, of course I would. So would a lot of people. Now some people take this to the absurd: If someone, anywhere in the world starves to death and you could have afforded to save him, but you didn't, you are a murderer. And since thousands of people die of hunger each day, those of us in the first world are essentially mass-murderers! I wouldn't take it that far, because unlike the situation with encountering the drowning child, there are a lot more people who COULD help, therefore a single person's culpability is, at least, diminished. So, no, I would not say we each have a moral responsibility to feed as many hungry people as we can until our money runs out, but we do have some responsability towards helping the poor. According to Rise Against Hunger, about 1 in 11 people globally are facing hunger. I don't know exactly what it would take to save them. But let's take the "dollar a day" threshold established by the World Bank in 1990. That's about $2.50 USD in 2025. So, if 10/11ths of non-hungry people are collectively responsible for the 1/11ths who are hungry, they should give $2.50 * (1/10) * 365 = $91.25 USD per year to help feed the hungry. At least that! Of course, there's more to absolute poverty than hunger (there's also disease, hypothermia, etc.) and many of the non-hungry can't afford to help anyone else. But, generally speaking, I think helping those in absolute poverty is kinda a moral obligation and like all moral obligations, like not murdering each other, it can be imposed, by the state, through force.
But our current welfare state goes beyond that. It spends a lot on trying and failing to stop old people from dying, providing pensions for able-bodied people above 65, reducing "income inequality" (I once asked a socialist friend if he would support a policy that punished the rich more than helped the poor. He said yes! I may be more socialist than you, Dr. Caplan, but at least I'm not THAT socialist! :P), trying to stop the world from getting warmer (which would save so many people from hypothermia!), etc. So, we don't need as much taxes as our governments currently take. But, idk... Maybe if there was, say, up to a 5% tax on income above the poverty-line to help the absolutely poor (in our countries and abroad, but since most absolutely poor people don't live in Canada or the US, it would be MOSTLY foreign aid.) At least we could do that. In a fully ancap society, there would be no government, so no mandatory foreign aid. And I think Ancapistan oughtta be tried. But, unlike many conservatives who think foreign aid oughtta be the FIRST thing the government cuts when trying to balance the budget, I think it should be the LAST thing that gets cut on our way to Ancapistan.
There are gradations of 'strange'ness though. Someone in my community is someone who I'll feel some commonality with, even if we've never met. The same applies to people from my country. Americans DO have similar values, attitudes, and cultural references that are lacking in Afghanistan and Eritrea. I'm not interested in keeping anyone from working for another person. I want to keep people who are maximally strange and culturally alien out of my country altogether.
Honestly, it's not the fact that people disagree with this - that's to be expected. What rankles is the fact that expressing these sentiments (which are basically part of human nature, in my opinion) is seen as unacceptable in the circles which just happen to be most status-heavy and influential on policymaking. The artificial, shrill stigma against discussing the policy challenges of immigration have turned me from a skeptic into a convinced opponent of open borders. Until a person is willing to face and acknowledge the challenges of immigration I won't listen to him or her. I have better things to do to grapple with privilege and empty sanctimony.
Anyway, all of the claims of the pro-immigration coalition have proven to be specious. All of their reassurances have proven to be false. All of the warnings of their critics have proven to be valid, times 5.
Obligation to leave each other alone is just not there; it has not been true ever. The origin of human species is a social conglomerate, somewhat loose and liberal (degree hqs changed up and down) but it was never Randian “leave me alone”. Out brains are designed to affect others and be affected by others.
I feel a lot better passing up a homeless person knowing that they're not literally going to starve to death if I don't give them money. Your mileage may vary I guess. But if so, consider that there's also a selfish reason to not allow that - in the words of Rage Against the Machine, hungry people don't stay hungry for long. Someone who is literally starving is going to do what it takes to survive, even if that means mugging you.
Although I enjoy these rational arguments for libertarian ethics (which are pretty close to my own ethical views), I believe that, underneath the rational scaffolding, the basis for everyone's ethical viewpoint are gut feelings. I do not feel a compulsion to help strangers, and I do not feel a compulsion to try to force other people to help strangers. I do occasionally feel bad enough for the people in my area who depend on the food bank to make a donation. But when I imagine trying to force strangers to donate, I get a feeling of revulsion.
"Leave them in peace..." and leave them in place (theirs, not ours).
https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/population-size-is-not-important
You don't own all of "our" places, so you don't get a say for other property owners who they rent/sell to.
I most certainly DO get a say in the universe of people allowed to rent or buy your property. Somalis, for instance...
ok commie
I think about this sort of thing a lot.
With regards to immigration, I think the main reason most people oppose open (or almost open) borders is: labour-market protectionism. The main other reasons to oppose immigration (crime/terrorism, fiscal burden and voting in bad policies) can easily be dealt with by keyhole solutions. (I think libertarians spend far too much time arguing against fiscal burden concerns cause these are the concerns raised by other libertarians, not the general public, but I digress...) But even with regards to labour-market protectionism, most people I've met aren't so concerned about losing their own job to an immigrant, but rather concerned about some hypothetical low-skilled countryman that they've never met losing their job to an immigrant. hWhy? It boggles my mind. If your low-skilled countryman countryman doesn't get the job, an immigrant does. So, even if you care about the overall state of the world, or reducing the number of people in absolute poverty (as I do, more on that, later), whether an immigrant gets the job or your fellow countryman makes no difference.
An obvious answer I get: "Charity starts at home" or "We gotta put Americans [or Canadians or whatever] first!" Or as VP JD puts it: "There’s this old school — and I think it’s a very Christian concept, by the way — that you love your family and then you love your neighbor and then you love your community and then you love your fellow citizens and your own country, and then after that you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world." (i.e. nationalism). But I never quite understood nationalism. I can understand putting your family first. But even then, it breaks down depending on how extended the family is that we're talking about. For example, I would put my daughter first, but my second cousins are basically strangers to me. (That being said, I know people of other cultures who value their extended family a LOT more.) So, arguments like "It's normal to value French Canadians more cause we have common French ancestry" don't hold much sway with me.
That being said: I do kinda understand the idea of putting people who share your values first. For example, Christians putting their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, first, above all others. Or muslims putting their fellow muslims above others. For me, I am very pro-life. That's kinda a core part of my identity. If, for example, a trolley-car was racing towards, say, a member of my pro-life activism club, I would flip the switch and have it run over my pro-choice first-cousin, instead.
So, for me, the hierarchy is:
1. My daughter
2. Other members of my immediate family
3. People who share my values
4. Everyone else
hWhether I am right or wrong, I do recognize that I am "weird". Nationalism is pretty common. It is quite odd to not put ones countrymen even just a LIL bit above everyone else. Even in your example of homeless people, I still suspect that the average American gives more to homeless Americans than starving foreigners. I read somewhere that some people suggest that us open-border advocates may be "on the spectrum". Honestly, I am starting to suspect some truth to that. I scored a 16/50 on Borat's cousin's AQ test. Not enough for a formal autism diagnosis, but still above average. So, maybe people like you and me don't understand nationalism cause we're a lil bit Aspie. Doesn't make us wrong, tho! :P
Now, as to obligations towards strangers, here's where you and I differ, Dr. Caplan: Perhaps I am a tad more socialist. Hence, why I am reluctant to fully embrace libertarianism. (I call myself libertarian~ish.) If I saw a child drowning in the river and I could rescue him with minimal personal effort, of course I would. So would a lot of people. Now some people take this to the absurd: If someone, anywhere in the world starves to death and you could have afforded to save him, but you didn't, you are a murderer. And since thousands of people die of hunger each day, those of us in the first world are essentially mass-murderers! I wouldn't take it that far, because unlike the situation with encountering the drowning child, there are a lot more people who COULD help, therefore a single person's culpability is, at least, diminished. So, no, I would not say we each have a moral responsibility to feed as many hungry people as we can until our money runs out, but we do have some responsability towards helping the poor. According to Rise Against Hunger, about 1 in 11 people globally are facing hunger. I don't know exactly what it would take to save them. But let's take the "dollar a day" threshold established by the World Bank in 1990. That's about $2.50 USD in 2025. So, if 10/11ths of non-hungry people are collectively responsible for the 1/11ths who are hungry, they should give $2.50 * (1/10) * 365 = $91.25 USD per year to help feed the hungry. At least that! Of course, there's more to absolute poverty than hunger (there's also disease, hypothermia, etc.) and many of the non-hungry can't afford to help anyone else. But, generally speaking, I think helping those in absolute poverty is kinda a moral obligation and like all moral obligations, like not murdering each other, it can be imposed, by the state, through force.
But our current welfare state goes beyond that. It spends a lot on trying and failing to stop old people from dying, providing pensions for able-bodied people above 65, reducing "income inequality" (I once asked a socialist friend if he would support a policy that punished the rich more than helped the poor. He said yes! I may be more socialist than you, Dr. Caplan, but at least I'm not THAT socialist! :P), trying to stop the world from getting warmer (which would save so many people from hypothermia!), etc. So, we don't need as much taxes as our governments currently take. But, idk... Maybe if there was, say, up to a 5% tax on income above the poverty-line to help the absolutely poor (in our countries and abroad, but since most absolutely poor people don't live in Canada or the US, it would be MOSTLY foreign aid.) At least we could do that. In a fully ancap society, there would be no government, so no mandatory foreign aid. And I think Ancapistan oughtta be tried. But, unlike many conservatives who think foreign aid oughtta be the FIRST thing the government cuts when trying to balance the budget, I think it should be the LAST thing that gets cut on our way to Ancapistan.
The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk—
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.
The men of my own stock
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wonted to,
They are used to the lies I tell.
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy and sell.
The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control—
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.
The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.
This was my father's belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf—
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.
There are gradations of 'strange'ness though. Someone in my community is someone who I'll feel some commonality with, even if we've never met. The same applies to people from my country. Americans DO have similar values, attitudes, and cultural references that are lacking in Afghanistan and Eritrea. I'm not interested in keeping anyone from working for another person. I want to keep people who are maximally strange and culturally alien out of my country altogether.
Honestly, it's not the fact that people disagree with this - that's to be expected. What rankles is the fact that expressing these sentiments (which are basically part of human nature, in my opinion) is seen as unacceptable in the circles which just happen to be most status-heavy and influential on policymaking. The artificial, shrill stigma against discussing the policy challenges of immigration have turned me from a skeptic into a convinced opponent of open borders. Until a person is willing to face and acknowledge the challenges of immigration I won't listen to him or her. I have better things to do to grapple with privilege and empty sanctimony.
Anyway, all of the claims of the pro-immigration coalition have proven to be specious. All of their reassurances have proven to be false. All of the warnings of their critics have proven to be valid, times 5.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/the-low-trust-society
Many things don’t hold here.
Obligation to leave each other alone is just not there; it has not been true ever. The origin of human species is a social conglomerate, somewhat loose and liberal (degree hqs changed up and down) but it was never Randian “leave me alone”. Out brains are designed to affect others and be affected by others.
I feel a lot better passing up a homeless person knowing that they're not literally going to starve to death if I don't give them money. Your mileage may vary I guess. But if so, consider that there's also a selfish reason to not allow that - in the words of Rage Against the Machine, hungry people don't stay hungry for long. Someone who is literally starving is going to do what it takes to survive, even if that means mugging you.