24 Nov 2014

Landsburg Agrees That Paul Krugman (Often) Is an Anti-Economist

Immigration, Krugman, Steve Landsburg 18 Comments

Since I’m still getting ready to hammer him for his defense of Gruber post, I want to make sure to heap kudos on Steve’s most recent post on Krugman, regarding Krugman’s post defending Obama’s immigration announcement. Some key excerpts:

Dammit, I hate this stuff. Krugman says (and I agree with him) that it’s cruel to deport people. He ignores the fact that it’s also cruel to keep other people out. Krugman says (and I agree with him) that letting more people in would put pressure on the welfare system. He ignores the fact that allowing people to stay also puts pressure on the welfare system. Why should we prioritize kindness to those who are already here over kindness to those who are clamoring to get here?

There might be a really good answer to that question, but you’d never know it from reading Krugman. In fact, the takeaway from Krugman’s column is that the cruelty of deportations is unacceptable only because Krugman says so, and the cruelty of closed borders is a necessary evil only because Krugman says that too. So the next time you want to know whether some other policy is unacceptably cruel or not, the only way to find out is to ask Paul Krugman.

According to Krugman, if you support the cruelty of deportations, you’re an evil person, but if you support the cruelty of closed borders, you’re a pragmatic adult. Why? Because Paul Krugman said so. Might there be a subject — like, oh, say, economics — that can help us think more clearly and systematically about such issues? If so, you’d never learn about it by reading Krugman. He wouldn’t want to risk teaching his readers to think.

BTW, I really have not studied the immigration issue enough to comment on Obama’s announcement per se. The only thing I would reiterate is that I think it’s a bad idea for ultra-libertarians to refer to their position as “open borders,” since it’s not really what they believe and it is a red flag to those supporting a stronger State-enforced border.

18 Responses to “Landsburg Agrees That Paul Krugman (Often) Is an Anti-Economist”

  1. Mike M says:

    Open Boarders + Welfare State = Country Collapse

    Next

    • Andrew_FL says:

      Welfare State = Open Borders – Country Collapse?

      Open Borders = Country Collapse – Welfare State?

      This has been bad math humor.

      • Andrew_FL says:

        Hm I must be tired first equation should have been

        Welfare State = Country Collapse – Open Borders

        • Mike M says:

          See, you’re fallin into the trap of trying to apply math to economics and society conditions literally. 🙂

      • Tel says:

        The difference operation does not produce a consistent result when used in the vicinity of Country Collapse. A lot of people have problems with that one.

  2. Mike M says:

    “Krugman says (and I agree with him) that it’s cruel to deport people”

    Are they here legally or not? Either we have rule of law or rule of man, which do you want to live under? Shall reason rule the day or political emotion, which system do you want?

    As to the argument “We are not/can’t deport 11 million people.” OK Got it. You have set the precedent. So when 11 million people stop paying taxes I will expect a similar response.

    After all we don’t want to be hypocrites do we?

    • Major.Freedom says:

      Since when in the living daylights did having laws concerning immigration imply there can only be thugs with guns telling other people who they can and cannot allow onto their lands, or no laws whatsoever?

      Why can’t I enforce immigration laws on my own land, laws that are based on reason, which both lawlessness and statism cannot offer?

      Talk about a false dichotomy!

  3. Ag Economist says:

    Has there been any work done on *local* crime rate effects of increased immigration at or near the border?

  4. Major.Freedom says:

    Open borders in a context of private property rights means that any two parties can agree to who among those parties can step foot on a piece of land, provided one of those parties is either the landowner, or has been given power of attorney by the land owner to make such agreements.

    This policy is called “open” because it is “open to any land owner to contract with anyone else”. In other words, there is, at least, no territorial monopoly threats of violence towards non-landowners if they dare agree with local landowners to a contract that allows the non-landowner to step foot on the land owner’s land. Otherwise, there are “closed borders.”

    The term “open borders” ought not be understood from the communist perspective of “Anyone is allowed to step foot on any land anywhere they want at any time.”. That is giving credence to an absurd ideology.

    • Dan says:

      Yes, but what is the value in fighting for that specific way of describing our beliefs. I’m open to hearing why it’s a useful term, but I think Dr. Murphy has a good point on that term being a bad way to sell the message.

      • Major.Freedom says:

        The value is twofold.

        First, it makes semantic sense for me to call my own law of allowing people of my choice into my house and place of business as “open”. I of course cannot physically nor by the necessity of making choices allow EVERYONE into my home or place of business. But because I do open it up to guests (of my choosing), that to me is an open border, not a closed border law.

        Second, it allows libertarians to join open border advocates who want the country open to anyone, but not in the sense of telling American land owners who they can and cannot allow into their own houses (we’re still working on people having the choice of who can enter their places of business). If libertarians fight against open borders because in their minds it literally means abolition of private property rights, then even if they communicate what they mean, they will be percieved as advocates of closed borders, which can easily be mistaken for huge fences around countries, border guards with tanks and machine guns, and other activity that is more akin to fascism or communism than republicanism.

        Third, and related to the second, libertarians almost always have to “fight for” their definitions of everything anyway. Libertarians say they support capitalism, but they don’t define it the way progressives do, so they have to take time to explain anyway. So I don’t see how fighting for a specific definition of open borders would change much of anything. It is just another phrase that libertarian principles only allow for certain specific meanings. Libertarians don’t have their own specific language. Most of the importqnt phrases we use, mean different things to other sets of ethics.

        When most people around the country talk about “open borders”, do they mean “let us open people’s homes, by force, to immigrants”? Of course not. They mean pretty much what libertarians mean: ” Allow Major.Freedom to invite immigrants into his home or place of business if he wants, without the local state thugs threatening them with violence.” So I don’t see the value in fighting against the consensus definition.

        • Major.Freedom says:

          OK three fold.

    • Tel says:

      … or has been given power of attorney by the land owner to make such agreements.

      Yeah well there’s this document known as the Article Four of the United States Constitution, that does give power of attorney to the Federal Government for the purpose of defending the borders.

      The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

      It’s known as the “Guarantee Clause” but if you want to call it by its common name, what you have is a formalised protection racket. Thus far through history, this has always been the basis of civilisation, not an absence of violence but a monopoly on violence with the proviso that a guarantee is provided.

      A number of problems have turned up here, first problem being that one illegal immigrant can hardly constitute an “invasion”. Use this logic on a case-by-case basis and 11 million illegal immigrants cannot possibly be an “invasion” either. That would tend to imply that the power of attorney is not relevant, thus it’s a problem for the individual states to sort out. Strangely some states have tried to sort it out and got told the power of attorney does indeed apply!

      Another small problem: the Federal Government has made an active effort to convince voters that they were doing the job of protecting the borders while astutely looking the other way when it comes to any real action, and both major parties are deeply involved here. Mike M asks:

      Either we have rule of law or rule of man, which do you want to live under?

      Good question, what about duplicity? Pretend to be a nation of laws, while also keeping as many men happy by whatever means possible. It allows you to do things that normally would not be possible.

      If you have a law and it’s a written law, but it is never enforced and everyone knows it’s never enforced (or anyways rarely and selectively enforced) then do we really have a law at all? The illegal alien deep down knows someone somewhere might be offended about this whole nation hopping business, but in practical terms he gets a job, better pay than where he started out, and in time a house, a school for his kids, all in return for just keeping his head down, working hard and saying nothing. Thirty years down the track someone is banging on about deportation.

      The beauty of duplicity on an institutional basis is that the person who started it, usually isn’t there any more to worry about the ultimate consequences. Kind of like individual responsibility, but the reverse of that.

      … the takeaway from Krugman’s column is that the cruelty of deportations is unacceptable only because Krugman says so, and the cruelty of closed borders is a necessary evil only because Krugman says that too.

      Like I said: duplicity. Transcend mere logic by having it both ways, as required. Create your own reality, then carefully and gently hand that over to someone else, grab whatever loot is near at hand and run like nothing else. You know it works!

      • Major.Freedom says:

        “Yeah well there’s this document known as the Article Four of the United States Constitution, that does give power of attorney to the Federal Government for the purpose of defending the borders.”

        The constitution is not a valid contract. It was not valid upon its inception, and whatever invalid laws were written back then, certainly died when its writers died.

        I never gave the feds power of attorney to be my “protector”. Just because it is being enforced anyway, that does not make it valid. Might does not make right.

        “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”

        The “United States” does not protect me from invasion as they are themselves invaders, and they do not protect me from domestic violence as they are themselves domestic initiators of violence.

        “It’s known as the “Guarantee Clause” but if you want to call it by its common name, what you have is a formalised protection racket. Thus far through history, this has always been the basis of civilisation, not an absence of violence but a monopoly on violence with the proviso that a guarantee is provided.”

        I don’t want your conception of “civilized society.” It is barbaric. A truly civilized society is one without widespread systematic violations of individual property rights from a naked aggressor calling themselves “This country’s government”.

        I do not call for an absence of protective violence against initiations of violence. I call for an absence of initiations of violence against person and property which only then implies private property anarchy.

        “If you have a law and it’s a written law, but it is never enforced and everyone knows it’s never enforced (or anyways rarely and selectively enforced) then do we really have a law at all?”

        If exactly who “has a law”?

        If you tell me that “we have laws against aggression”, then I know you’re not talking anyone in any level of government, because they enforce their own law of creating aggression. Obey their laws regarding the disposition of your own person and property, and do not use your person or property in peaceful ways which the government does not approve, or else you will be put in chains and kidnapped, and if you protect yourself from that, then you’ll have guns pointed at you, and if you continue to protect yourself, you’ll be met with more and more armed thugs shooting at you until you’re dead.

        All for not in any way initiating violence yourself. Simply for disobeying an unjust “law”.

        And you call this “civilized”.

        Pretty sure we can do a lot better than that. Call me an optimist.

        • Tel says:

          You know you can opt out of the protection racket. It just requires not paying taxes and then depending on your own wits and ability to protect yourself from that point on. Rumor has it, lots of people do it, call it the black market economy, or call it crime, or individual soverignty or whatever name you want. Some get away with it, others don’t.

          Some of them even start running their own protection rackets.

          Some criminals are so clever, they get right in amongst the state apparatus… what better place? Now and then it might require shredded hard drives to hide the evidence.

          It’s difficult for an individual to protect himself against a state, because the state has a lot more resources. The individual has some advantage of stealth and cunning, while the State depends on large numbers of workers who would rather be somewhere else and don’t care enough to pay attention.

          The “United States” does not protect me from invasion as they are themselves invaders, and they do not protect me from domestic violence as they are themselves domestic initiators of violence.

          That is the general idea of how a protection racket operates. Lots of breakable fings round ere, never know what might appen. People would hardly trust such an important job to a wimp.

          … else you will be put in chains and kidnapped, and if you protect yourself from that, then you’ll have guns pointed at you, and if you continue to protect yourself, you’ll be met with more and more armed thugs shooting at you until you’re dead.

          Oh dear, sounds like you just aren’t cut out for this business of protecting yourself. You really should hire an expert to help you with that. You don’t have a problem with division of labor do you? It’s ever so efficient, and gives us surplus resources allowing a much larger military to protect people all over the world.

          Do you butcher your own meat, grow your own crops, smelt your own iron, forge your own tools, or do you prefer to take advantage of an organized system of specialists? Why are you prejudiced against soldiers and fighter pilots learning skills and plying a trade?

          • Major.Freedom says:

            Tel:

            “You know you can opt out of the protection racket. It just requires not paying taxes and then depending on your own wits and ability to protect yourself from that point on. Rumor has it, lots of people do it, call it the black market economy, or call it crime, or individual soverignty or whatever name you want. Some get away with it, others don’t.”

            I am not trying to convince other anarchists who don’t shine me on about how I ought to feel duty towards obedience.

            “That is the general idea of how a protection racket operates. Lots of breakable fings round ere, never know what might appen. People would hardly trust such an important job to a wimp.”

            I didn’t know we had to choose between weaklings who respect property, and strong brutes who don’t.

            “else you will be put in chains and kidnapped, and if you protect yourself from that, then you’ll have guns pointed at you, and if you continue to protect yourself, you’ll be met with more and more armed thugs shooting at you until you’re dead.”

            So don’t hire wimps. Duh.

            “Oh dear, sounds like you just aren’t cut out for this business of protecting yourself. You really should hire an expert to help you with that. You don’t have a problem with division of labor do you? It’s ever so efficient, and gives us surplus resources allowing a much larger military to protect people all over the world.”

            Sounds like that why again?

            “Do you butcher your own meat, grow your own crops, smelt your own iron, forge your own tools, or do you prefer to take advantage of an organized system of specialists? Why are you prejudiced against soldiers and fighter pilots learning skills and plying a trade?”

            Division of labor does not imply property violations is a valid soecialization.

  5. Major.Freedom says:

    Krugman can’t stomach the possible solution of allowing “open borders” (as defined by Krugman) to unlimited number of willing immigrants provided the immigrants are not entitled to any welfare. After all he is a bleeding heart progressive who believes people in dire straits should be taken care of.

    So he wants to ban immigrants coming to America to seek private charity.

    You see, welfare is the government’s job, and if immigrants are invited in unlimited numbers to make it on their own, then Krugman won’t be able to claim that private charity is insufficient to help the poor and so that’s why we need government welfare.

    Something tells me the millionaire Krugman gives little if anything to charity.

  6. S.C. says:

    Because Paul Krugman said so. Might there be a subject — like, oh, say, economics — that can help us think more clearly and systematically about such issues?

    What the? Economics is economics. It’s got nothing to say about politics or morality. This is such a strange position to take.

Leave a Reply