Trio and Friends

As best I understand the libertarian view on immigration, it is that there should be no restrictions on immigration - apart from the willingness on the part of the immigrant to integrate into the society he or she wants to join.

Bryan Caplan puts the libertarian case for open borders like this:

in 'Why Should We Restrict Immigration?', Bryan Caplan wrote:Immigration restrictions are not necessary to protect American workers. Most Americans benefit from immigration, and the losers don’t lose much. Immigration restrictions are not necessary to protect American taxpayers. Researchers disagree about whether the fiscal effects of immigration are positive or negative, but they agree that the fiscal effects are small. Immigration restrictions are not necessary to protect American culture. Immigrants make our culture better—and their children learn fluent English. Immigration restrictions are not necessary to protect American liberty. Immigrants have low voter turnout and accept our political status quo by default. By increasing diversity, they undermine native support for the welfare state. And on one important issue—immigration itself—immigrants are much more pro-liberty than natives.

Even if all these empirical claims are wrong, though, immigration restrictions would remain morally impermissible. Why? Because there are cheaper and more humane solutions for each and every complaint. If immigrants hurt American workers, we can charge immigrants higher taxes or admission fees, and use the revenue to compensate the losers. If immigrants burden American taxpayers, we can make immigrants ineligible for benefits. If immigrants hurt American culture, we can impose tests of English fluency and cultural literacy. If immigrants hurt American liberty, we can refuse to give them the right to vote. Whatever your complaint happens to be, immigration restrictions are a needlessly draconian remedy.

Does Caplan speak for the majority of libertarians? Are there any other arguments from a libertarian perspective that would be more restrictive?

I'm put in a strange position here. I don't really presume to speak for "libertarians" or know what the proper libertarian doctrine is on things. So if you are wanting a libertarian position, well, I can give you my opinion and I guess you can judge for yourself whether you think it is libertarian.

To the Bryan Caplan quote. In the second paragraph he mentions treating immigrants differently, higher taxes, lower benefits, literacy tests etc. He is recognizing that immigrants are a different case from a natural born citizen. Rules should apply equally to all, but immigrants are a special case (obviously) and this justifies different treatment. For reasons that are not yet clear to me, I feel like this is a critical point.

The first paragraph reads like standard leftist MSM. It is laying the groundwork of minimal danger, possible benefit, and then inevitably down the line, once everyone thinks there is no danger and only benefit, then compassion for the poor immigrant or criticism for being nationalistic or phobic of some sort will be cited to justify lax restrictions on immigration.

In my mind immigration is somewhat akin to charity. You can give freely if you so choose but you are not morally obligated to give to whoever requests of you. You care for your business, your walled garden of order, and the benefits and risks accrue to you. Others do not have a claim on the fruits of your labor. In the same vein, the country is our walled garden. It doesn't belong to any one person so it is different than private property but the immigrant is clearly an outsider who, for whatever reason, finds it attractive to be in our walled garden (usually this is because it is financially beneficial for him). It is only by our good graces that he is invited to stay. As far as an Ayn Rand style philosophy on the matter, I don't think it is inconsistent to restrict immigration to whatever "we" agree upon.

An important question: by what right does a nation claim to own the land its citizens reside upon? How does ownership work at the nation-state level? As you pointed out, this doesn't work the same way as private property. With private property, people have agreed to divide it up and then buy and sell it from each other. But with a nation, people haven't agreed. In many cases, the land was seized by force from other people. So by what right do they now prevent other people from entering it?

by what right does a nation claim to own the land its citizens reside upon?

I'm not sure it is by any right. Do nations have rights? It is, rather, by compromise. It is negotiated. What is the value of peace? What is the value of war? Who is strongest? What will it cost?

Once an agreement has been struck, that is to say, once the state boundaries have been decided, then authority over the land goes with those who have agreed upon authority. If an army shows up at the border, what right do they have to defend the border? Perhaps none. But nobody will be surprised if they do. When one kicks a hornet's nest what right do the hornets have in defending it. Perhaps none. We can make quick work of them, but at times it may be best to let it be.

In many cases, the land was seized by force from other people. So by what right do they now prevent other people from entering it?

What right did the other people have to it? By what right did they then prevent other people from entering it?

Yes indeed.

It seems that the direction you're going makes it less about justice and more about power, about "might makes right." If I kick you out of land you've lived on for hundreds of years, and then build a wall around it, then "nobody will be surprised" if I defend that wall when you come back with an army. No, nobody will be surprised!

It's negotiated sometimes, yes. It's agreed upon sometimes, yes. But sometimes the "agreement" is really a matter of a powerful nation bullying a less powerful nation into "agreeing" what is not really in their best interests, out of fear of provoking a war they are bound to lose if they don't agree. Okay so you might say: that means it is in their best interests. Yes, that's true, but that doesn't justify the behavior of the powerful nation. To say "I'll cut off your legs if you don't sign this contract" might equate to "you're free to sign it or not, and it's in your best interests to sign it." But let's not pretend that justice is being preserved here.

Well I'm not sure I would agree that "might makes right", nor would I agree that it is all about power. What I think is really going on is that anti-western sentiment is popular. So anything that can be drummed up that makes America or Britain look bad for things done in the past is held up with great concern as though we are uniquely responsible for actions such as this. This is then used to motivate some sort of reparitive action in the present benefiting some minority to atone for our forefathers sins. But the same measure is not applied to any other country or culture. If it were, one would find that the US and Britain do not stand out uniquely with regard to their sins but rather taking upon themselves to change the world for the better (e.g. getting rid of slavery). But the point is to demoralize western societies by repeating an increasingly negative picture of the west. Nothing but greedy capitalism, stolen land, slavery, thirst for power, destruction of the environment etc. You could do this with any nation but I'm not sure it is helpful for anything constructive. Much better to focus on the great things we have done well and tell stories of honor, dignity, courage, etc to aim for. Citizens should take pride in their country and their accomplishments and aim for more good. A demoralized society consumed with past errors (many of which are not so clearly errors when examined more closely and divorced from the overarching negative narrative) subjugates itself to its accusers to atone. The grave mistake is to assume that its accusers want to see the situation rectified.

I find this a rather odd post. It seems to be more of a complaint about the excesses of some leftists than an actual claim about what is true. I'm less interested in whether a sentiment is "popular" or not than whether it's the right sentiment to have given the facts and the moral framework we inhabit.

Is it really such a bad thing to focus on our own sins instead of parading the sins of others? Do you think what you're saying would also apply to an individual human being? That they should focus on the things they've done well rather than the things they've done badly?

Ondrej wrote:Nothing but greedy capitalism, stolen land, slavery, thirst for power, destruction of the environment etc. You could do this with any nation but I'm not sure it is helpful for anything constructive.

I suppose when people do this, they are aiming to correct an imbalance they see in those on the right. Unfortunately, because the right are trying to correct an imbalance on the left, we end up with stupid caricatures on both sides, where neither side acknowledges the truth and value of what the other is saying.

I think that what those on the left are trying to do, is to lay bare the fact that we are not innocent, our wealth is not innocently acquired, and neither is our land. That is "helpful" and "constructive" if it changes our perspective on ourselves, and prevents us from believing falsehoods, for example, that we earned all our wealth by blameless hard work. Isn't it helpful and constructive to correct error? Doesn't it eventually lead to a change in behavior? Doesn't it change what counts as justice in relation to other nations, leading to a change in foreign policy?

I think it's better to talk about how far this picture of the US and Britain is correct, since it seems obvious to me that it is important and makes a big difference. Can we talk about that?

I suppose when people do this, they are aiming to correct an imbalance they see in those on the right.

I think this is making the "grave mistake of assuming the accusers want to see the situation rectified" that I mentioned above. Sure, most people are just repeating things they've heard and they've picked up a general negative viewing of the west. They came by this view innocently (on their part) but not accidentally. The underlying critical theory is not trying to correct an imbalance, their aim is to sow enough division and discontent to burn it all down. If someone is genuinely trying to rectify problems to improve things, that is worth listening to, if the aim is to destroy everything then giving careful consideration to each point is to just become the puppet of those aiming to destroy.

Is it really such a bad thing to focus on our own sins instead of parading the sins of others?

It is such a bad thing to parade the sins of our fathers without proper context and without also graciously covering their sins with their accomplishments and difficulties. It is easy to make a list of mistakes and make a mockery of anyone. The proper coarse of action is to walk backward and cover the indignity. To honor your father and mother. whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. It is right and uplifting to tell good, heroic stories about your country and culture. It is demoralizing and withering to do the opposite.

I think that what those on the left are trying to do, is to lay bare the fact that we are not innocent, our wealth is not innocently acquired, and neither is our land.

To some extent yes but the outcomes you cite are weak motivation "Isn't it helpful and constructive to correct error? Doesn't it eventually lead to a change in behavior? Doesn't it change what counts as justice in relation to other nations, leading to a change in foreign policy?" Maybe I need some specific examples. Specific issues do not seem to lead the discourse. Anti-western narrative leads the discourse with no specific aim or solutions. You hear frequently justifications like "raising awareness" which is nothing more than complaining and making other people indignant with you (on your behalf). And if you are making them indignant against capitalism, and "the patriarchy", and christian morality etc is it such a stretch to think that perhaps those are the things they think are the problem.

I should say, I don't think most people on the left want to destroy the west. I think they have viral ideas in their heads that they repeat without any idea what is the motivation behind them. You hear of an injustice and it is so scandalous and offensive that you have to tell it to someone else. So we repeat these stories. Many of them are true or have elements of truth, no doubt, but they are being orchestrated with intent.

Initially I was ready to condemn all leftists but then, perhaps with some push back from you (among other things), I have been able to develop a clearer picture. Most are well meaning but misguided. Probably in large part by their Marxist professors, which has now expanded far beyond the university. Nevertheless, the critical theorists absolutely want to see the fall of the west as we know it and their jargon and stories are on everyone's lips.

Ondrej wrote:I think this is making the "grave mistake of assuming the accusers want to see the situation rectified" that I mentioned above. Sure, most people are just repeating things they've heard and they've picked up a general negative viewing of the west. They came by this view innocently (on their part) but not accidentally. The underlying critical theory is not trying to correct an imbalance, their aim is to sow enough division and discontent to burn it all down. If someone is genuinely trying to rectify problems to improve things, that is worth listening to, if the aim is to destroy everything then giving careful consideration to each point is to just become the puppet of those aiming to destroy.

I suppose then, if you've concluded that all the people on the left are only aiming to "watch the world burn", then you have given yourself a great reason to ignore everything they say as not worth engaging with.

Ondrej wrote:Initially I was ready to condemn all leftists but then, perhaps with some push back from you (among other things), I have been able to develop a clearer picture. Most are well meaning but misguided.

I think you've just returned to a position you had a couple of years ago. In Google Hangouts you said :

Barney wrote:So in your view the problem really is entirely on one side, not shared between both sides?

Ondrej wrote:Yes, but most of that side is perfectly fine. They just don't have clear rules about when to call out their extreme comrades.

Ondrej wrote:Radical left: these people are about 8 percent of the American population according to a chart I've seen a couple of times. They include the intersectional feminists, lgbtq crusaders etc. Many people refer to them as the social justice warriors (sjws). They often find a platform in media because most media leans left (and most cities where the major media resides also leans left) and they tend to work their way into human resources departments in most companies.

So back then (21st March and 3rd August 2019) you thought that most leftists were well-meaning but misguided, except the 8% on the left, who are responsible for all the problems in American society. Then you condemned all leftists. Now you think again that they're well-meaning but misguided.

Now, I'm not a leftist. I don't sit neatly on either side of the political divide. I try to weigh each issue on its own merits before knowing whether it is "rightist" or "leftist." That is why it's so interesting to me that you so uncritically accept everything "the right" teaches as true, and yet view with enormous suspicion and distrust everything "the left" says. Your basic position seems to be: there is nothing wrong on the right, everything is wrong on the left. The line between good and evil rights straight down the middle of the culture war: evil on one side, good on another. All we need to do is purge the 8% from our midst and we will have peace and prosperity again. And you back this up by saying that leftism is the dominant narrative, and those on the right are the persecuted, excluded, and censored minority.

Here's an example:

Ondrej wrote:Anti-western narrative leads the discourse with no specific aim or solutions.

Does it? Do you get anti-Western narrative on Fox News? On First Things? On The American Conservative? And are these not very influential media outlets who portray a particular image of the world? Besides, where did you get your pro-Western narrative from, if not various media outlets, whether mainstream or not?

Ondrej wrote:It is such a bad thing to parade the sins of our fathers without proper context and without also graciously covering their sins with their accomplishments and difficulties. It is easy to make a list of mistakes and make a mockery of anyone. The proper coarse of action is to walk backward and cover the indignity. To honor your father and mother. whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. It is right and uplifting to tell good, heroic stories about your country and culture. It is demoralizing and withering to do the opposite.

I guess nobody ever told you the reason these narratives are told among sensible, thinking people. They are not meant to discourage celebration of what is good in one's culture. Nor are they meant to dishonor one's parents, as if they were "them" who is separate from "us." The way the narrative is told, it is usually "we" who did those things - taking responsibility, which you have said before is an important virtue.

What do these narratives do?

1. First, They call into question the idea that we have all the wealth, land, and power that we have due to our own innocent hard-working efforts. They problematize the account of ourselves by which we can congratulate ourselves for our superior technology and material comfort. They suggest instead that these benefits were actually built on the backs of slaves and would not have been possible otherwise. The narrative that "we got where we did by good moral principles, by working hard, and by Christian values" is not so easy to believe when you see the history of oppression of native Americans, for example.
2. Why is that relevant to us today? Because we still enjoy those privileges now. According to this narrative, we in the West still have privileges, comforts, and wealth that other nations could only dream of, yet we are the beneficiaries of ill-gotten gain. Imagine if your father who is now dead was a thief, and you have inherited millions that he stole. It would change your attitude towards that money, no?
3. Third, it changes our attitude towards those who we previously exploited. We do not rightfully enjoy greater privileges than poorer nations, so we have no right to ignore their pleas for help. That's why it's called "social justice" not "social compassion."
4. Fourth, it problematises an appeal to "Christian values" as the solution to everything. If only we would return to "Christian values" -- then what? According to this narrative, we do not want to return to the way things were back then, because if those are Christian values then they are evil, and if they aren't, then nobody ever lived by Christian values and we can't know for sure whether or not they are helpful to society.

To me it's irrelevant whether such a discourse is "popular" or "fashionable." I care first whether it's true, and second what it means about ourselves.

If your problem is that the narrative is often one-sided, I agree. But the solution is not to present another one-sided narrative. That is what "the right" does all the time and it only makes all the same mistakes they accuse those on "the left" of making.

If we think there is some good in Christian values, then we need to humbly admit the mistakes of past generations. We need to stop pretending that everything was better before the West abandoned Christian values. It was better only for a tiny minority of wealthy and powerful people, who got their wealth and power by dishonest means.

That is the power and meaning of the narrative. Now let's leave off discussing whether it's fashionable and ask to what extent it is true.

I suppose then, if you've concluded that all the people on the left are only aiming to "watch the world burn", then you have given yourself a great reason to ignore everything they say as not worth engaging with.

The logic is fairly sound.

I think you've just returned to a position you had a couple of years ago.

This is the same position I have now.

So back then (21st March and 3rd August 2019) you thought that most leftists were well-meaning but misguided,

Yes

except the 8% on the left,

Yes

who are responsible for all the problems in American society.

No

Then you condemned all leftists.

I think you are referring to when I originally told you that I initially thought everyone on that side of the isle agreed with the nonsense coming from the far left.

Now you think again that they're well-meaning but misguided.

I have roughly the same position now as I did several years ago. I have a clearer picture of what the nonsense is and where it's coming from and what it's driving at.

Now, I'm not a leftist. I don't sit neatly on either side of the political divide.

If you say so.

I try to weigh each issue on its own merits before knowing whether it is "rightist" or "leftist."

I think this is a good policy.

That is why it's so interesting to me that you so uncritically accept everything "the right" teaches as true, and yet view with enormous suspicion and distrust everything "the left" says.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "the right" and "the left". There are a number of podcasters and distillers of information that I judge seem to be reliable for the most part. This includes people that until three years ago would have been considered on "the left" (e.g. the Dark Horse podcast, Joe Rogan, and the guy who does the New Discourses podcast (can't remember his name off hand)). I have also recommended books to you from people on "the left" (e.g. Jonathan Haidt, and Warren Farrell). I view with enormous suspicion and distrust the main stream media and institutional narratives. I suppose if you want to admit that these are all captured by "the left" we are starting to get somewhere.

Your basic position seems to be: there is nothing wrong on the right, everything is wrong on the left.

I'm sure there is plenty wrong on the right. I'm not a fan of the Trump lockdowns or the spending for example. But at the moment, i.e. for the past several years, I've been trying to figure out what is going on with cancel culture/critical theory/wokeness, what is it, who invited it in, and how to get rid of it. So in that sense I am quite focused on that particular problem. How small does it have to be before I can call it out as a problem? 8% seems rather modest. Maybe I can cut it down by saying, probably not everyone in that 8% really want to see the fall of the West. Maybe it is only 3% and the other 5% are just going along because it is fashionable in their circles. Is that ok? I have heard that it only requires the agreement of something like 10% of the population to stage a revolution. We have had riots going on on the left all last year. The critical theory doctrine is being preached absolutely everywhere.

and those on the right are the persecuted, excluded, and censored minority.

Not just those on the right but anyone who questions the proper narrative. This is established by the mostly left wing news and media so the right falls victim to this quite often. But you wrote off the Dark Horse podcast from the lefty guy at the drop of a hat as conspiracy theory because it questions the narrative.

Out of time...