Libertarianism and Immigration

[The idea]

All major recent studies of immigrants indicate that they have a high labor force participation, are entrepreneurial, and tend to have specialized skills that allow them to enter under-served markets. Although it is a common misconception that immigrants "take jobs away from native-born Americans," this does not appear to be true.

Source:
http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml

It's difficult to see the above as anything but an argument in favor of the status quo.

We are given facts about the profile of typical immigrants under the existing immigration system in the USA. Does that tell us anything about the profile of typical immigrants under a system of open immigration?

Suppose Libertarians succeeded in converting some country to a Libertarian but democratic system of government. With open immigration, what would prevent lots of non-Libertarian immigrants from arriving and eventually voting the country back to a non-Libertarian system?

On the other hand, if Libertarians advocate unlimited immigration for Libertarians only, then wouldn't that make Libertarianism look bad? ("The platform of party X includes special privileges for people around the world who belong to party X. Become a member now because we might acquire power and you don't want to miss out on the special privileges. It's time for justice. Join the fight against the status quo of entrenched power and privilege!")

[Edited in an effort to make it more coherent.]

 

[Whoracle]

Libertarianism could never survive democracy.

 

[brodski]

Libertarianism could never survive democracy.

in fact a number of libertarians (even some on these boards) have referred to democracy as tyranny.

Liberal philosophies (in the conventional understanding of liberal, not just left wing policies) are the logical antithesis of democratic philosophies.

 

[Beerina]

There is plenty of room for democracy -- in the proper sphere, which is to say elected officials deciding on types and severity of punishment for crimes against a person or their property, and the the detailed rules of civil lawsuits.



You just can't vote yourself other people's money anymore, nor outlaw their sick, sordid sexual tastes anymore.

 

[Darat]

There is plenty of room for democracy -- in the proper sphere, which is to say elected officials deciding on types and severity of punishment for crimes against a person or their property, and the the detailed rules of civil lawsuits.

...snip...

Not if your definition of libertarianism has an absolute "no force" clause in it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Libertarianism could never survive democracy.

It doesn't. 0% support in the last election and dropping.

 

[Matabiri]

You just can't vote yourself other people's money anymore, nor outlaw their sick, sordid sexual tastes anymore.

Would it be in the constitution that you couldn't? What if there was a vote to change the constitution?

 

[Darat]

Would it be in the constitution that you couldn't? What if there was a vote to change the constitution?

I think it would have to depend on the type of libertarian system in place. Strictly speaking a "vanilla" libertarian society couldn’t have a constitution, since that very constitution imposes (by implied force) certain conditions on the people.

However you could have a "constitutional libertarian" society which is what I think the majority of supporters of libertarianism on this forum generally favour.

Another “however - I would have thought even in a constitutional libertarian society there would have to be a mechanism to change the constitution, if not I can’t see how it could cope with change, especially radical change. So at some point even a “libertarian society” would be (to be “representational”) be forced to use that "tyrannical” system of democracy.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I think it would have to depend on the type of libertarian system in place. Strictly speaking a "vanilla" libertarian society couldn’t have a constitution, since that very constitution imposes (by implied force) certain conditions on the people.

Surely a US-style constitution would impose certain restrictions on the government, not the people?

 

[brodski]

Surely a US-style constitution would impose certain restrictions on the government, not the people?

but by setting aside a sphere of influence for the government, you are asking (or rather forcing) individuals to give up some of their rights, freedoms, whatever you will, to a collectivist body, the government.

As long as people are required to obey laws passed by the government, then the majority can impose its will, by force, on individuals.

 

[Darat]

Surely a US-style constitution would impose certain restrictions on the government, not the people?

I had one of my typically tortuous replies lined up but.... see brodski.

 

[brodski]

I had one of my typically tortuous replies lined up but.... see brodski.

Buy NEW IMPROVED Brodski. Supplying tortuous replies since 2005, so that Darat doesn’t have to.

 

[CFLarsen]

Surely a US-style constitution would impose certain restrictions on the government, not the people?

But since government is made up of people, the constitution would impose restrictions on people. There would be certain things those people couldn't do.

 

[Ian Osborne]

but by setting aside a sphere of influence for the government, you are asking (or rather forcing) individuals to give up some of their rights, freedoms, whatever you will, to a collectivist body, the government.

I'm not a libertarian myself, but surely if the constitution defines the limits of governmental influence rather than 'setting aside a sphere of influence' for it, this does not necessarily follow?

As long as people are required to obey laws passed by the government, then the majority can impose its will, by force, on individuals.

I think the idea of a constitution is that it prevents this happening by limiting governmental power, though it begs the question of who gets to vote on what the constitution says in the first place...

 

[brodski]

I'm not a libertarian myself, but surely if the constitution defines the limits of governmental influence rather than 'setting aside a sphere of influence' for it, this does not necessarily follow?

Governments can do anything which they are not prohibited from doing, the only way which a constitution could prevent governments from restricting freedoms of the people, would be to restrict a government from doing anything at all. By saying to a government either "you can do this" or "you can't do that" you are establishing a governmental sphere; this is not to say that it is an exclusively governmental sphere.

Governments can only effectively function by using force (whether force of the majority or the force of violence), for a government to function, it must use force to restrict the actions of its people.

Of course this whole argument assumes that "the government" and "the people" are distinct entities, as CF Larsen pointed out, that ain't the case in the real world.

though it begs the question of who gets to vote on what the constitution says in the first place...

Well, that's another nail with serious cranial injuries...

 

[Kerberos]

There is plenty of room for democracy -- in the proper sphere, which is to say elected officials deciding on types and severity of punishment for crimes against a person or their property, and the the detailed rules of civil lawsuits.



You just can't vote yourself other people's money anymore, nor outlaw their sick, sordid sexual tastes anymore.

That's a wonderful fantasy no doubt, but what are you going to do when 60, 70, 80 or 90% of the population decide that they don't like the system, votes in politicians who passes the laws and appoint judges (by whatever procedure) who'll decide that it is perfectly constitutional? You cannot impose limits on a democracy, not hard limits anyways. You can place some obstacles to make certain decisions harder to pass not make it impossible. This is not how I think the world should be, it how it is. Look at Japan, their Constitution IIRC forbids them to have armed forces, but they still have them, they're just called "self-defense forces". Big difference right?. A Libertarian Constitution would fare no better. In the end the choice is between (representative) democracy and some sort of dictatorship. Personally I'll take the democracy and if people pass laws I don't like that's a price I'm prepared to pay.