Rollin' Like Sisyphus

How Many Anglos Could Fit In A Melting Pot?

Posted in The Fail Pail by Huckleberry on October 12, 2015

So I’ve just read quite possibly the most stupid, insipid, pig-ignorant weeping-vagina-fest I’ve ever endured, at least for the past week, and is Exhibit 1A why Big-L Libertarianism is incoherent pie-in-the-sky flatulence nearly indistinguishable from many of the dime-store philosophies that inform contemporary Big-L Liberalism.
Because I’m a giver, let’s read along as one Alex Tabarrok explain why nations with borders are totally stupid, and then why nations themselves are stupid:

To paraphrase Rousseau…

Oh Good Lord.
Hold on.
Not inebriated enough for this.
Be right back.
Okay.
Now I’m ready.
Let’s roll:

… man is born free, yet everywhere he is caged. Barbed-wire, concrete walls, and gun-toting guards confine people to the nation-state of their birth. But why? The argument for open borders is both economic and moral. All people should be free to move about the earth, uncaged by the arbitrary lines known as borders.

Two things.
First, if man is “born free” but imprisoned by his “nation-state” of birth, then he’s not born free.
Second, what country “confines” it’s citizens to its borders with barbed-wire, concrete walls and gun-toting guards beyond North Korea?

Not every place in the world is equally well-suited to mass economic activity.

Sure.

Nature’s bounty is divided unevenly. Variations in wealth and income created by these differences are magnified by governments that suppress entrepreneurship and promote religious intolerance, gender discrimination, or other bigotry.

What?

Closed borders compound these injustices, cementing inequality into place and sentencing their victims to a life of penury.

What?!?
Please elaborate, Mr. Libertardian.

The overwhelming majority of would-be immigrants want little more than to make a better life for themselves and their families by moving to economic opportunity and participating in peaceful, voluntary trade. But lawmakers and heads of state quash these dreams with state-sanctioned violence—forced repatriation, involuntary detention, or worse—often while paying lip service to “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

I’m sure a large number of immigrants would love to bring their families into your own home, Mr. Tabarrok, for the economic opportunities, you understand. Why would quash their dreams?

Wage differences are a revealing metric of border discrimination. When a worker from a poorer country moves to a richer one, her wages might double, triple, or rise even tenfold.

So what? That isn’t a static and inviolable feature that operates outside of typical market/labor dynamics.

These extreme wage differences reflect restrictions as stifling as the laws that separated white and black South Africans at the height of Apartheid.

No they don’t.

Geographical differences in wages also signal opportunity—for financially empowering the migrants, of course, but also for increasing total world output. On the other side of discrimination lies untapped potential. Economists have estimated that a world of open borders would double world GDP.

Based on what? We already have a prototypical “global” economy in many markets, and it’s successfully obliterated wages on the high end in those markets without exception. Any movement toward “equality” has been toward the lowest common denominator. Open-borders labor dynamics has more poor people sewing cheap clothing with their teeth, with increased unemployment in formerly high-wage Western markets.

Immigration is the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised.

No it’s not.
And even if I were, I don’t care.

Even relatively small increases in immigration flows can have enormous benefits. If the developed world were to take in enough immigrants to enlarge its labor force by a mere one percent, it is estimated that the additional economic value created would be worth more to the migrants than all of the world’s official foreign aid combined.

Again, how is this estimated? Where is this borne out? And even if it were true, how do you justify crushing indigenous populations?

And while the benefits of cross-border movements are tremendous for the immigrants, they are also significant for those born in destination countries.

This ought to be precious.

Immigration unleashes economic forces that raise real wages throughout an economy.

What, are they the Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers? What “forces” are unleashed? Who unleashes them? Why is it specifically migrants that are necessary to unlock these forces in “developed” nations with high unemployment? How do you have a job?

New immigrants possess skills different from those of their hosts, and these differences enable workers in both groups to better exploit their special talents and leverage their comparative advantages.

Watch as Mr. Tabarrok heads off into the racist weeds, forever to be lost.

The effect is to improve the welfare of newcomers and natives alike. The immigrant who mows the lawn of the nuclear physicist indirectly helps to unlock the secrets of the universe.

Because that’s all the best of the migrants have to offer? Mowing lawns?
If I said in the wrong place and time, of course I’d be crucified. But Mr. Tabarrok here will be just fine.
Also, please note that there is not a nuclear physicist in the world who would love to unlock the secrets of the universe, but dadgummit, just couldn’t get to it because the lawn needed mowin’.
For fuck’s sake.

What moral theory justifies using wire, wall, and weapon to prevent people from moving to opportunity?

What does morality have to do with anything?

What moral theory justifies using tools of exclusion to prevent people from exercising their right to vote with their feet?

Fine. Property rights. The Common Law. Consent of the governed.

No standard moral framework, be it utilitarian, libertarian, egalitarian, Rawlsian, Christian, or any other well-developed perspective, regards people from foreign lands as less entitled to exercise their rights—or as inherently possessing less moral worth—than people lucky to have been born in the right place at the right time. Nationalism, of course, discounts the rights, interests, and moral value of “the Other, but this disposition is inconsistent with our fundamental moral teachings and beliefs.

Oh good lord.

Freedom of movement is a basic human right.

Life, liberty and property, sure, but the latitude for “liberty” as movement has bounderies. Specifically my right to movement ends at your property line.

Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Rights belies its name when it proclaims this right only “within the borders of each state.” Human rights do not stop at the border. Today, we treat as pariahs those governments that refuse to let their people exit. I look forward to the day when we treat as pariahs those governments that refuse to let people enter.

Again, if national boundaries are moral atrocities, so are personal boundaries, because the principle underlying each IS THE SAME GODDAMN THING.

Is there hope for the future?

No.

Closed borders are one of the world’s greatest moral failings but the opening of borders is the world’s greatest economic opportunity. The grandest moral revolutions in history—the abolition of slavery, the securing of religious freedom, the recognition of the rights of women—yielded a world in which virtually everyone was better off. They also demonstrated that the fears that had perpetuated these injustices were unfounded. Similarly, a planet unscarred by iron curtains is not only a world of greater equality and justice. It is a world unafraid of itself.

Sadly, this piece of shit will have a front-row seat in how very wrong he is about this.

This article has been adapted from the forthcoming book How to Save Humanity.

Now that’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day.

Advertisements

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. El Borak said, on October 12, 2015 at 17:50

    To paraphrase Doom: this is why I don’t trust Libertarians

    • Doom said, on October 14, 2015 at 05:03

      Ah, right.

      Sometimes I think I am the only one, then someone (sometimes in large groups) turns around and gets it. I just wish more who finally turn around would then say something like, “Ah, right. I get it Doom.” Sort of happened, if two mouths. Would you believe I have a whole legion of legions who finally see what I mean but hate me for having pointed it out? Then again, unlike Vox, I would just send them to their deaths if they followed me. Will anyway, probably. 🙂 Being War has it’s ups and downs, but if you slide it at God’s will just right… booyeah. *wink*


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: