Should the government help asylum seekers?

[Barney]

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

148 countries have signed this declaration so far, including all the countries we typically refer to as First World. Yet the process of evaluating claims to asylum, and granting or refusing them, is costly. It needs a whole department with employees who will investigate claims, provide food and shelter for the asylum seekers, and then deport them if they're refused. If they're accepted, they have the right to work, but they might not speak English and will need some teaching before they can work anywhere.

In 2018, there were 63,278 asylum seekers coming to the US, 65% which were denied.

All of that costs taxpayers money. From a libertarian perspective, is this not a real human right? Is it immoral to "take" money from citizens and give it to these people? In other words, should a libertarian nation-state refuse to sign the declaration on the basis of this article?

[Ondrej]

This is a good question. I've not thought about it whatsoever so in my infinite off the cuff wisdom here we go.

I could see an argument for "no". Libertarians do observe borders and there is no claim to be allowed to come in and enjoy what we have built. In other words, justice is not violated if we prevent people from seeking asylum.

The problem comes in when people do seek asylum and you do want to do something about it (let us suppose a majority agree). And it's a much bigger problem than taxes but I think we should constrain the topic there. The question is, is it right for the government to levy a tax to hear the asylum cases. I think the libertarian answer is no. Perhaps the government could let one opt out of such a tax if they were against it or if they felt the government was doing a bad job of it etc. The funding and influx of people would track with what people cared about enough to put their money toward. This should also be the case for a lot of other things the government puts their fingers in. Is it really a concern for the people or do you just have pet project you think is really important? If it is really a concern you can measure it by how much money people will put behind it. (that is at least the measure which forces people to have "skin in the game".)

As far as the exact quote goes

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution

I agree with the first part, they do have the right to seek. (we should probably discuss rights at some point) Enjoy implies they also have the right to enter whichever country and participate. No, that is not a right. That is a privilege an asylum seeker hopes to attain.

What do I think? I think most people would agree with funding an asylum claim facility so there's probably little danger letting them voluntarily give to such an effort. Their dissatisfaction would also be known when funding dries up. Nice message to the government that they are doing a shoddy job in your opinion.

Now that I'm thinking about it. We could have a basic keep the lights on tax that funds bare bones stuff and perhaps skeleton crews of other things. Everything else would be funded by the donations of the people. It would then behoove the state to make sure everyone was as rich as possible and as generous as possible. The other major upside is that the state would have to fight for funding through performance rather than need. The people could decide to voice their displeasure in something by withdrawing their funding and the government would actually feel it. The people would matter and they would have incentive to pay attention to what government is doing.

I don't have an immediate aversion to the idea. Does it check out with you?

The argument would then, obviously, lead to what is the bare bones. Yes that is where we are now. Everything is the bare bones. That would have to be more clearly specified. I'm thinking military/borders/country security up to xxx dollars, and courts/property rights/police up to xxx dollars (and probably certain laws should be considered bare bones laws).

Basically, let's build the country that every asylum seeker wants to come to.

[Barney]

We could have a basic keep the lights on tax that funds bare bones stuff and perhaps skeleton crews of other things.

But wouldn't this, too, be theft?

It would then behoove the state to make sure everyone was as rich as possible and as generous as possible.

Is there any evidence that rich people are more likely to be generous than poor people?

[Ondrej]

But wouldn't this, too, be theft?

I think, yes. Is it better to compromise on a bit of theft to sell it people or stick dogmatically to your principles?

I keep thinking about free and open source software. There is nobody coercing anyone else to pay for these things. But it works, people donate their time or money and make amazing things happen. How would a country run like that? I have no idea, but I think there probably is a way.

Is there any evidence that rich people are more likely to be generous than poor people?

I don't know. My initial reaction is that poor people are probably more generous than rich people but I suppose it depends on how you measure it. My point was that the government incentives would be aligned with making sure people were well enough off to chip in, not to say anything about who gives more.

[Barney]

Is it better to compromise on a bit of theft to sell it people or stick dogmatically to your principles?

Well, in this case I'm interested in your principles, i.e. what your ideal society would look like. And from what I gather, it has a government which spends absolutely zero money on asylum seekers, because any money spent counts as theft and is therefore morally wrong. Am I right?

I keep thinking about free and open source software. There is nobody coercing anyone else to pay for these things. But it works, people donate their time or money and make amazing things happen. How would a country run like that? I have no idea, but I think there probably is a way.

Software is a special case for two reasons. First, because it can be copied multiple times at no cost. It is intellectual property, not physical property. So if you write a program, it costs you no differently whether a hundred or a million people download it. Therefore, if you make it free and good, you're more likely to get a million people, some of whom will donate. The same sort of principles cannot happen with physical property like food, for example. But second and more importantly, if you are capable of benefiting from an open-source software program, you are already in the top 1% of rich people in the world and are probably not worrying about where your next meal will come from. If you're in that position, and you are benefiting from someone else's hard work, then it doesn't take a particularly strong conscience to see that it would be good to recognise their work by a donation. It is much harder to see the reasons for giving to someone who hasn't earned it because they can't (the disabled, the chronically sick, the disadvantaged, refugees, etc.), either because you believe they are worth it, or to help them become able to earn in the future.

Moreover, the software culture has shifted in the last 20 years. I'm sure you remember the time when the majority of software was not open-source, yet it was pirated anyway by most people because it was so easy to do. Yet from a legal perspective, pirating a piece of software is no different from walking into a store and stealing a physical item. I think it is because of Google mainly that the culture has shifted. Google proved that you can become rich by giving stuff away for free on the internet, and then the problem of pirating evaporates into thin air.

[Ondrej]

Well, in this case I'm interested in your principles, i.e. what your ideal society would look like.

I confess, I don't know how to run a country/society. My principle is that coercing someone into giving you their money is theft. What do you mean by theft? I am mostly winging it beyond that. I've not thought tremendously how that translates into running a government. I need to read more about American history in this regard. I have heard that, for example income, tax did not always exist. In any case, even if we allow some taxation it should be minimal and actually benefit all equally (e.g. roads, military, asylum processing). For example redistributive strategies do not benefit all, that's their explicit design, these should not be in the purview of government.

Software is a special case for two reasons.

Yes, I realize this is definitely a special case as far as scaling (not software specifically but anything digital). There was a hotel in Lima run by the missionaries and they were charging for rooms (as one normally does). They decided to transition to a donation model (after much wringing of hands) and it turned out they made more money on the donation model. Now, of course, this probably only worked because it was not open to the general public or they would have been overrun with freeloaders but everyone was surprised at the outcome. I don't know where I am going with this but I think about it from time to time.

Google is a little different. They don't rely on donations but rather "sell" your attention to others who are trying to sell something. Obviously not everyone can operate this way because it requires the advertisers who are actually selling something. But I'm certainly not complaining about the "free" offerings.