These kinds of questions must be handled via a priorism.
If it was (falsely) believed that we could only know a posteriori whether or not free trade in the form of “cheap imports” benefitted the local population, then what would happen is that if the positivist (who happens to be ideologically mercantilist) linked observable inverse correlations between standard of living and quantity of “cheap imports” for specific countries over a specific time period, then it would be much more easy for the mercentilist to ignore, and, perhaps more importantly, be totally unaware of, all the zillions of possible factors that could have affected standards of living.
As Mises showed, history is far too complex for us to be able to observe economic relationships between only two or a small handful of variables and then claim to have learned a new economic theory from the data, abstracted from, or worsr, in contradiction to, the irrefutable axiom of action.
“It should be noted that Hayek was turned down for a position in the Chicago economics department by [Milton] Friedman and [George] Stigler, because they deemed him not scientific enough, that is, not a positivist.”
Would be an odd thing for you to champion. Are you an economic positivist?
Even if you’re a libertarian who is in favor of open borders, is there not some legitimacy towards pointing out the fact that someone like Harry Reid is arguing that the Bundy Ranch situation must be dealt with harshly because “everyone has to follow the law” is just fine with illegal immigrants not following the law?
The hypocrisy of federal officials crying about how sacred laws regarding public grazing fees must be enforced or civilization will collapse while simultaneously making every effort to not only ignore, but to attempt to subvert any enforcement of immigration laws is worth pointing out, even if the ideal situation would mean no grazing laws AND no immigration laws.
The hypocrisy on the left is almost fully discounted, especially on this issue.
I’ve shown how it can only be electioneering. I’d explain it again but I forgot how I did it.
Basically, the bottom line is if all the new voters were Republican (i.e. the kind of people we should be helping to immigrate) the sides would be flipped.
Seriously though…I was happy to see that you were against that poster Bob, but now that I see your reasoning I am a little disappointed.
The true sad part about the poster, is that people only care about freedom when it applies to members of their in-group…in the BLM case this is old white men (surprise, surprise). You see a perfect example in the title of Bob’s post…its not about them, its about US! Once you start talking about poor ethnic minorities…the great “lovers of freedom” on this blog begin to babble incoherently about burdens on the welfare state (which they shouldn’t even support) by immigrants, etc, etc…
The wall stuff is all about white xenophobia of poor brown people…I should know this. I live in AZ, where our sheriff routinely performs “crime suppression sweeps” in hispanic areas of town to the broad approval of our residents. Really, if it’s about anything else…why aren’t we seeing talk of a wall on the Canadian border?
It is because Canadians obey the laws because they have stuff to lose.
Flip the coin: If letting in millions of people is fine, then why do we still enforce the law against everyone except mexicans.
It isn’t about race. It is about voting alignment. Democrats are aligned to the poor and minority.
This is why I have never heard a democrat propose open borders. I’ve never heard them try to assuage fears of welfare immigration through anything approaching my proposals of immigration tax and citizenship tenure.
They want a path to citizenship for people who don’t care that much about it while every Canadian I’ve known has had trouble with immigration rules for no reason at all. They are only now, that they have 20 million new constituents, exercising their option on a path to citizenship (i.e. voting).
Is the opposite of a closed border an “Open Border” or is there some wiggle room here that’ll avoid massive immigration while I can still move relatively freely?
Police State Progress Report: Oh, you can leave, but your money, assets and “worthless” gold have to stay. And if you do manage to build a life elsewhere you must remit income taxes for a really long…forever. But never fear, doing what tons of other countries have done through history can’t happen here because {insert}.
This was scary!
Israel is a militaristic country. I guess that wall they’re building is to make sure no Israelis can get out, huh.
Maybe.
Here’s a video which explains why cheap imports (and, by extension, immigrant labor) are not at all economically destructive:
Defending the Undefendable (Chapter 23: The Importer) by Walter Block
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTT_WHyzZ54
I’ll add that it is not necessary for governments to make “free trade agreements”. The government just needs to get out of people’s way.
These kinds of questions must be handled via a priorism.
If it was (falsely) believed that we could only know a posteriori whether or not free trade in the form of “cheap imports” benefitted the local population, then what would happen is that if the positivist (who happens to be ideologically mercantilist) linked observable inverse correlations between standard of living and quantity of “cheap imports” for specific countries over a specific time period, then it would be much more easy for the mercentilist to ignore, and, perhaps more importantly, be totally unaware of, all the zillions of possible factors that could have affected standards of living.
As Mises showed, history is far too complex for us to be able to observe economic relationships between only two or a small handful of variables and then claim to have learned a new economic theory from the data, abstracted from, or worsr, in contradiction to, the irrefutable axiom of action.
What do you mean by “benefit the local population” ?
If collective ownership is impossible, how can you define collective benefit?
>If collective ownership is impossible, how can you define collective benefit?
Collective ownership is not necessary for a collective benefit.
Milton Friedman’s greatest accomplishment.
“It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.” ~ Friedman
His greatest accomplishment was keeping Hayek out of the economics department.
They are both a little soft for my preference…
Never the less, free handouts equal massive immigration based on fraud rather than supply and demand…
Because Hayek was even more influential that way?
Of course you are wrong, and this:
“It should be noted that Hayek was turned down for a position in the Chicago economics department by [Milton] Friedman and [George] Stigler, because they deemed him not scientific enough, that is, not a positivist.”
Would be an odd thing for you to champion. Are you an economic positivist?
His greatest accomplishment was keeping Hayek out of the economics department.
All right I’ll give you that one, joe, that was pretty funny.
Bob, your sense of humor is way too undiscerning.
It’s only funny if it mocks people I don’t like!
Bob,
Even if you’re a libertarian who is in favor of open borders, is there not some legitimacy towards pointing out the fact that someone like Harry Reid is arguing that the Bundy Ranch situation must be dealt with harshly because “everyone has to follow the law” is just fine with illegal immigrants not following the law?
The hypocrisy of federal officials crying about how sacred laws regarding public grazing fees must be enforced or civilization will collapse while simultaneously making every effort to not only ignore, but to attempt to subvert any enforcement of immigration laws is worth pointing out, even if the ideal situation would mean no grazing laws AND no immigration laws.
The hypocrisy on the left is almost fully discounted, especially on this issue.
I’ve shown how it can only be electioneering. I’d explain it again but I forgot how I did it.
Basically, the bottom line is if all the new voters were Republican (i.e. the kind of people we should be helping to immigrate) the sides would be flipped.
I would accept open borders so long as I had equal ability to own property and have property rights in the other Country.
Secondly, all welfare,tax games, trade games, employment games, wage floors, wage ceilings, etc., have to be eliminated.
Then free immigration would be a good thing.
Until then, it is me getting screwed.
Space aliens! Doesn’t that sound familiar?!
Seriously though…I was happy to see that you were against that poster Bob, but now that I see your reasoning I am a little disappointed.
The true sad part about the poster, is that people only care about freedom when it applies to members of their in-group…in the BLM case this is old white men (surprise, surprise). You see a perfect example in the title of Bob’s post…its not about them, its about US! Once you start talking about poor ethnic minorities…the great “lovers of freedom” on this blog begin to babble incoherently about burdens on the welfare state (which they shouldn’t even support) by immigrants, etc, etc…
The wall stuff is all about white xenophobia of poor brown people…I should know this. I live in AZ, where our sheriff routinely performs “crime suppression sweeps” in hispanic areas of town to the broad approval of our residents. Really, if it’s about anything else…why aren’t we seeing talk of a wall on the Canadian border?
“Really, if it’s about anything else…why aren’t we seeing talk of a wall on the Canadian border?”
Is the only difference between immigration from Canada and Mexico the ethnicity of the people?
It is because Canadians obey the laws because they have stuff to lose.
Flip the coin: If letting in millions of people is fine, then why do we still enforce the law against everyone except mexicans.
It isn’t about race. It is about voting alignment. Democrats are aligned to the poor and minority.
This is why I have never heard a democrat propose open borders. I’ve never heard them try to assuage fears of welfare immigration through anything approaching my proposals of immigration tax and citizenship tenure.
They want a path to citizenship for people who don’t care that much about it while every Canadian I’ve known has had trouble with immigration rules for no reason at all. They are only now, that they have 20 million new constituents, exercising their option on a path to citizenship (i.e. voting).
Is the opposite of a closed border an “Open Border” or is there some wiggle room here that’ll avoid massive immigration while I can still move relatively freely?
Might just be wishful thinking on my part.
Indeed there is. Virtually every European country has it. And Canada.
“is there some wiggle room here that’ll avoid massive immigration while I can still move relatively freely?”
Labor would not be cheaper if it were not subsidized. Tax policy in of itself is enough to encourage labors to work far below otherwise normal rates.
Farmer said: Americans wont pick crops for 15 bucks per hour”
Well neither will Mexicans, it is the freebies that keep them coming back for more…
K.P.
You have just outed yourself as a closet racist.
Well, it was bound to happen at some point.
In Soviet Russia, border cross you!
Bob,
what about the Canadian border?
What about it?
there’s no wall along it, which kind of messes with the dastardly plan identified by Bob.
Police State Progress Report: Oh, you can leave, but your money, assets and “worthless” gold have to stay. And if you do manage to build a life elsewhere you must remit income taxes for a really long…forever. But never fear, doing what tons of other countries have done through history can’t happen here because {insert}.