The new definition of libertarianism: May I see your documents please?

On the surface it looks like David Farrer has found an instance where increasing immigration controls is compatible with a libertarian outlook.

David Farrer quotes Murray Rothbard:

…[O]n rethinking immigration on the basis of the anarcho-capitalist model, it became clear to me that a totally privatized country would not have “open borders” at all. If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as “closed” as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors…

And here is Hans-Hermann Hoppe:

…[P]opulation movements, unlike product shipments, are not per se mutually beneficial events because they are not always necessarily and invariably the result of an agreement between a specific receiver and sender.

This is a reasonable explanation (at last!) as to why free movement of people could be bad while free movement of goods is always beneficial. But this land is a place where you could find yourself having to go down on bended knee and ask permission from the land owner to cross the road. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think this is what DK thinks of when he describes himself as ‘libertarian’ (although it possibly is what David Farrer thinks of).

Whether you would actually have to ask permission to cross the road or not is a different matter. But in this world, if people are guaranteed the ability to walk to the shops it is described as “compulsory opening”. The easy and obvious answer to this is the fact that if you were to ask people whether or not they wanted to live in such a world, almost everybody would say ‘no’.

That’s in a totally privatised world. But in a more realistic world where there is (small) government the picture changes somewhat. Here, the government’s main (only?) role is to protect individuals’ property.

…if the government admits a person while there exists no domestic resident who wants to have this person on his property, the result is forced integration.

I’m guessing that, if we are being consistent, it is also the case that if a person is allowed to enter Edinburgh from Glasgow while no Edinburgh resident wants him there the result is also “forced integration”. If it isn’t, what makes the Glasgow–Edinburgh case so different to, say, the Tallinn–Edinburgh case?

At all ports of entry and along its borders, the government, as trustee of its citizens, must check all newly arriving persons for an entrance ticket â€” a valid invitation by a domestic property owner â€” and everyone not in possession of such a ticket will have to be expelled at his own expense.

This is a bit strange to me as surely such an arrangement would exhibit almost all of the traits that are meant to make big government so abhorrent. No doubt the administration costs would be hopelessly high and the bureaucracy would be sprawling. Not to mention that the Big Brother aspect is present in full force here.

Infact, the only thing this plan seems to have going for it is the fact that the government is carrying out its role to protect private property. A-woo-hoo if you think that’s the only important thing in life. For everybody else, this plan must be seen as too ridiculously authoritarian.

In this world there will be property owners who want their property to be protected from people as a whole, not just people from foreign countries. So if the government has to check people “at all ports of entry and along its borders” to stop unwanted foreign people from trespassing on private land, surely it has check people walking down the street aswell to ensure that unwanted people are not trespassing on private land.

Hang on a minute, that rings a bell.

David Farrer and DK both strongly oppose ID cards on libertarian grounds. Yet what we have in this proposed libertarian world is a de facto ID card (or the slightly fluffier “entrance ticket”) scheme. This ‘libertarian’ world is not a world where you can be free to walk the streets without being asked your identity. But that shouldn’t be a surprise since it isn’t even a world where you are free to walk the streets.

I really don’t want this debate between me and DK to go on and on ad infinitum, so I’ll keep this short. DK has responded to my post yesterday. He says I’m missing the point. But I fear it is infact DK who is missing the point. But I’ll go through his points in the order he wrote them.

…[O]ne might also say that, to bring the greatest economic prosperity, one might desire a certain type of person to move into this country. Are the people that Martin Kelly constantly highlights in his Foreign Criminal Of The Day series (a great many of whom carry previous convictions in their own countries) economically or socially beneficial to this country? I would say that they are not.

DK is right. But British-born criminals aren’t economically or socially beneficial to this country either. Would you send all British-born criminals on to a desert island because of this?

I am being facetious there. Of course it would be prudent not to allow foreign criminals into this country. But that is distinct from letting immigrants in as a whole. I am aware that most libertarians are as keen on stopping crime as anybody else. That’s why I said in my previous post, “There is probably not a single (sane) person on the planet who thinks that there should be no government.” Most recognise the need to uphold laws, so there is no hypocrisy involved when a libertarian says he would like fewer foreign criminals coming in to the country.

But this is the thing. Once you accept that some government intervention can be a force for good, you have voided your ability to use â€œsmall governmentâ€ as a mantra, a panacea for all economic ills.

Oh, good god. No, you haven’t; you have simply asked the government to act in the interests of the people but only within that competence.

Missing the point alert.

I will ask the question again. Why is asking the government to act in the interests of the people so good in situation x, yet so so baaad in situation y? How can that be? You still have not explained this.

If the people of this country have asked their government, their servants, to restrict, in some small ways, immigration then they are hardly asking their government to curtail their freedom (to emigrate if they want).

You may as well say, “If the people of this country have asked their government to implement socialist policies then they are hardly asking their government to curtail their freedom.” This is why some free-market enthusiasts often deride European governments — even though the citizens of those countries usually quite like the socialist policies. By bringing in this get-out clause — “the people asked them to, so it’s okay” — DK has once again made the “small government” argument redundant.

DK then mentions the cultural issues again.

…but you have admitted the cultural problems so I almost need not continue…

Remember my first post on this subject? I cited Adam Smith for a reason. As I said in my first post, Smith is talking about goods and capital, but I don’t see any reason why it can’t apply to labour. DK does say in his post: “A plastic toy frog from China is not going to suddenly jump up and rape and kill your daughter.” I’ve dealt with crime already. So given that (ideally) criminals would not be let in, let’s assume that people coming into the country are not more likely to become criminals than British-born citizens.

There are lots of relevant bits that I can cite, but I said I’ll keep it short so here we go.

First, every individual endeavours to employ his capital as near home as he can, and consequently as much as he can in the support of domestic industry; provided always that he can thereby obtain the ordinary, or not a great deal less than the ordinary profits of stock.

Thus, upon equal or nearly equal profits, every wholesale merchant naturally prefers the home trade to the foreign trade of consumption, and the foreign trade of consumption to the carrying trade. In the home trade his capital is never so long out of his sight as it frequently is in the foreign trade of consumption. He can know better the character and situation of the persons whom he trusts, and if he should happen to be deceived, he knows better the laws of the country from which he must seek redress…

…To give the monopoly of the home market to the produce of domestic industry, in any particular art or manufacture, is in some measure to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, and must, in almost all cases, be either a useless or a hurtful regulation. If the produce of domestic can be brought there as cheap as that of foreign industry, the regulation is evidently useless. If it cannot, it must generally be hurtful. It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy.

This is probably a gross simplification, but what I think Smith was saying that is extremely advantageous for people to stay at home to do their business. (In the case of labour, this is so obvious. Family ties, friends, history, culture — these are all things that encourage us to stay at home.) So if somebody wants to do their business away from home, the benefits of doing so must be so high that any government intervention will either be useless or harmful.

DK continues:

I call for small government because big government is not only economically bad, but also socially damaging: hence my little exegesis above. I do not call for small government because I am a libertarian (indeed, I was barely aware of the concept before I started blogging: I am no trained economic or political commenter, a fact which must be painfully obvious to those that are. I merely extrapolate from information delivered): it is because I have come to the conclusion that the smaller you can make the government the better it is for everyone that I call myself a libertarian…

This is just chicken and egg. Whether you believe that small government is good because you’re a libertarian or whether you call yourself libertarian because you believe that small government is good is neither here nor there. The point is that, whichever came first, you call yourself a libertarian and you believe in small government. Apart from in that one policy area.

Here is the next missing the point alert.

To say that I have become a “a utilitarian like the rest of us” is completely fucking stupid; Neil Harding also believes that government can be a force for good: are you saying that he and I are the same because we are both utilitarians? I don’t fucking think so. Neil is a socialist: I am very far from being so.

As far as I can tell, DK seems to think that by calling him a utilitarian I am somehow trying to paint him as a socialist in denial, or make him “the same” as a Labour supporter, or something. Let me get this one clear. What I meant by describing DK as a “utilitarian” was merely that he doesn’t always believe that small government is beneficial.

The possibility that government can be a force for good has come in to play. That is all I meant by saying “utilitarian”. So, yet again, this means that using “small government” as an argument to back up your position is not enough. If you believe that government can be a force for good, how can you then justify something else because it involves making the government smaller?

As I have said, it is not necessarily inconsistent to want more restrictions on immigration but to want fewer restrictions on other parts of the economy. But when you have conceded that government intervention can be a good thing, opposing something simply because it involves government intervention is hypocritical. This doesn’t mean that you can’t have other perfectly valid arguments in favour of your position. This is what I have been trying to get at.

I am aware that DK has often put forward alternative justifications for his opinions. Infact, he has started to do this in his post today:

However, to bring it back to what started this debate, I do share UKIP’s premise that it is wrong that it is the EU which controls our policy: whatever we decide to do about immigration, it should be the peopleâ€”or, even, the elected governmentâ€”of this country that make it, not the unelected bureaucrats of the EU. Call it a point of principle, if you will.

…

At the moment, we have seen a vast increase in means-tested benefits which lead to massive marginal tax rates, often of over 90%. This is clearly a disincentive for people to get off their fat, fucking arses and work (and thus take responsibility for their own lives).

Of course, you could say that by controlling immigration you are stilting competition in the labour market which is clearly a disincentive for people to work harder. But I digress. There is nothing particularly wrong with either of the justifications that DK has made there. These arguments are worth paying attention to. But if he ever justifies his position by saying that it reduces the size of government I will ignore it because I know that he doesn’t genuinely believe in it.

The point is that calling for more government intervention in any area of the economy is not consistent with “libertarian”, “small government” or “free market” principles.

One last missing the point moment.

Thatâ€™s how the free market supposedly works you see.

Fair enough. Though note the word “supposedly”…

Indeed. But I’m not the one who’s supposed to be defending the free market.

doctorvee

Archive: ideology