Moller’s response on immigration also leaves me unmoved. Point-by-point reply, with Moller in blockquotes.
I agree with Caplan that we should have high levels of immigration for both moral and self-interested reasons, and that a great deal of resistance to this traces back to confused zero-sum thinking about trade and jobs, or to xenophobia.
So far, so good.
The point where we may disagree is this: I don’t think libertarianism (or its core ideas and values) entails open borders.
Without what you call “emergent moral powers,” how is that possible that libertarians doesn’t entail open borders? In the absence of an explicit contract (such as a home owner’s association), I have no right to control who lives in my neighborhood. So how can citizens of a country possible have a right to control who lives in their country? Treating mere residence in my vicinity as aggression really is on par with blaming others for “breathing my air.”
Reasonable people who take seriously individual rights, limited government, and the rest, can favor borders and some restrictions on immigration, depending on the particulars.
“Depending on the particulars,” sure. I’m not an absolutist either. But how can your book fail to imply (a) a strong moral presumption in favor of open borders, and (b) strong residual obligations toward anyone whose mobility the government restricts? Imagine writing one of your imaginary speeches to the community, and you’ll see what I mean.
Consider Island, a small country off the US coast. Over the years, American tourists enjoy visiting Island. Gradually, their influence becomes more and more pronounced, to the point that Island starts to lose its language (French, perhaps), American missionaries introduce what Islanders view as false gods, etc. I disagree that the people of Island have no recourse for meeting what they will see as an unwelcome threat. I don’t think it’s true that Island must accept a kind of hostile takeover by Americans.
There’s a bizarre equivocation here. Sure, the natives have “a recourse.” They have a right to complain about this “hostile takeover by Americans.” They have a right to argue in favor of their way of life. They have a right not to trade with Americans. Unless you believe that government has emergent moral powers, though, natives who like these cultural changes and want to trade with Americans also have every right to embrace these new cultural and economic opportunities. If the net effect – resistance by some, acceptance by others – is dramatic cultural change, the losers must accept it. They have no right to use the government to ensure that their recourse is actually effective. Because if they did, they’d be trampling on the rights of all the dissenters.
I think this is true even intranationally–if the Amish want to stay Amish, they don’t have to accept a mass influx of Brooklyn hipsters, supposing they have legal means of preventing this, and that their reasons are good ones. It would be hard to believe in freedom of association and think they did.
Another bizarre equivocation. When you say “supposing they have the legal means of preventing this,” are you referring to standard contractual methods? Or government regulation?
If you mean the former, then sure. In the real world, however, this is utterly impractical: Unless all the Amish have signed a massive contract, individual Amish property owners retain the right to sell real estate to Brooklyn hipsters – and some are almost sure to sell. If you mean government regulation, then you have to invoke emergent moral powers, which you explicitly reject.
Of course, none of this is to speak to the present-day US, and I agree with a great deal of what Caplan says about the moral imperatives of benefiting and being benefited by immigration. Obviously the US and Island are quite different. But the Island case suggests to me, again, that libertarian values don’t entail open borders.
“Entails” is a strong word, and “libertarian values” is a vague phrase. But libertarianism definitely implies a strong moral presumption in favor of open borders. Indeed, libertarianism aside, any view that rejects the emergent moral powers of the state creates a strong moral presumption in favor of open borders. After all, almost every moral view denies that mere existence in my vicinity is blameworthy. So unless the government has the emergent moral power of defining mere existence in my vicinity as blameworthy, how can immigration restrictions be justified?
READER COMMENTS
nobody.really
May 16 2019 at 12:57pm
Would Caplan be willing to explain this to my ex-wife? Or her friends?
JoeMac
May 16 2019 at 2:13pm
How are standard contractual methods fundamentally different from government regulation? There are certainty philosophical differences, but when you put aside those its quite clear that both are enforced through identical means, state coercion. Why should state coercion be acceptable when enforcing property and contract but not when regulating property and contract. And you’ll always have at least 1 communist in the society who rejects the institution of private property, so how can he be justifiably coerced off someone’s land?
Nick
May 16 2019 at 4:35pm
Well, that’s because regulating has bad effects and law enforcement has good effects. There is a moral presumption in using force to protect one’s belongings and asking one not be coerced actively.
Are there situations where this is not true? Of course there are. But since protection is the presumption, it’s on the ones wanting the other way around to justify their actions. Present a sufficient justification and it’ll probably be approved, like perhaps for a natural disaster where people are hungry and dying.
Until then, yeah, it’s probably better to pretend people own their selves and their belongings. Don’t hurt people and don’t steal their stuff.
Bedarz Iliachi
May 17 2019 at 12:48am
What does the word citizens doing here? Is it equal to the word resident?
What is the significance of the term citizen in libertarian philosophy?
Vegas
May 17 2019 at 5:32pm
This hypothetical island is very much like Hawaii. One day Americans arrive to trade and farm, next day American military lands to “protect citizens” and to annex. Immigration invites political trouble and foreign occupation.
James
May 20 2019 at 9:05am
Open Boarders implies a positive right, IE the right to enter another country. The natural right is the right to leave a country. This positive right also involves the taking away of natural rights from the existing citizens (right to self determination). Using the UK as an example, the Labour party admitted using immigration in an effort to import likely Labour voters in an effort to create a permanent majority.
Nathan Smith
May 20 2019 at 9:12am
Can’t resist the opportunity to advertise my extremely relevant book.
A very brief version of the argument is that the most tenable theory of government legitimacy (for all its weaknesses) involves some sort of social contract to protect natural rights, a la John Locke. We have a natural right to self-defense, which we can authorize governments to exercise on our behalf. That’s the only legitimate way that governments derive authority. But immigration (except in special cases, e.g., armed invaders with intent to kill and rob us) does not violate or threaten natural rights. Therefore, individuals have no natural right to resist immigration by force, and they cannot transfer this right to governments.
As you can see, I’m closely aligned with Bryan here, though we’re not in perfect agreement on all points.
HoodlumDoodlum
May 23 2019 at 5:44pm
I thank Prof. Caplan for explaining why colonization is morally fine; it’s a-ok to take over another country by simply moving in and if the “natives” don’t like it that’s just too bad–they have not moral right to prevent it and if they resort to force to impose an immoral desire not keep people out then self-defense would allow the colonizers to use force to defend themselves and stay. Glad we cleared all that up!
Isn’t there a Chesterton fence problem here, though? The assertion is that every nation-state, and most non-nation groups going back through history since humans started settling in one place, has been absolutely wrong to believe they had any moral right to prevent outsiders from moving in. Since there aren’t very many true open-borders examples in the world today, everyone is still wrong, too.
Comments are closed.