Can you have true free trade without open borders? Assuming we didn’t live in a welfare state, would immigration even be much of a problem?
It seems to me that the biggest split in libertarian idealism is the issue over immigration, and it seems to be pretty polar at that. In a perfect world, should anyone be able to cross any border and get any job at wherever if they had the ability?
Does this bring up concerns like those in the EU, who because of an open border policy among the member states, shifts people around to countries with more industry, forcing the EU to shift regulations in favor of countries with less?
Personally I am in the open border camp. You can’t really have any meaningful or fair economic liberty when capital can move around the world with relative ease while labor is rigidly restricted from doing anything similar. It is hard enough for labor to move where it is most needed to adjust to new and developing economic conditions, just due to the fact that we are dealing with human beings. Putting restrictions on it gives too much advantage to capital over labor in wage negotiations.
If labor could move with anywhere near the ease of capital (in the legal sense) I doubt we would see anywhere near the wage inequalities we see across countries.
I consider myself very pro-immigration, and admit to taking some pleasure at seeing the little nationalist utopias (social security, etc.) of Europe buckle under the pressure of added population.
NATIONS CONSENT: DECOMPOSING THE NATION-STATE by Murray N. Rothbard
"However, on 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 gen-uinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors."
I think that if people ever achieve real freedom next thing they’ll do is choose voluntary slavery. Of course, a few individuals (natural elites) would have to remain free and provide a valuable service, that of being masters. The masses would all sign slave contracts tho. It’s more economical.
Country interchangeable with nation, but not to be confused with nation-state. Maybe you should have read the journal article? Pg 7. Murray makes better sense if you’ve read the accompanying text.
Goods don’t move by themselves, they are sent from one market participant to another, the same cannot be said for immigration, the analogy thus breaks down.
Sorry to be pedantic, but “country” generally refers to a geographical region, while “nation” means a group of people who share a common culture, language, etc., and generally live in the same country/territory. So “privatized country” does make a sort of sense; it is kind of awkward, though.
I know. Rothbard outlines it as such in the journal article.
I. THE RE-EMERGENCE OF THE NATION
The “nation,” of course, is not the same thing as the state, a difference that earlier libertarians and classical liberals such as Ludwig von Mises and Albert Jay Nock understood full well. Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions. He is generally born into a “country.” He is always born into a specific historical context of time and place, meaning neighborhood and land area.
Hence, as I stated earlier. It’s not awkward at all. It makes perfect sense. IF you’ve read the article and it’s in context.
I already read Rothbard pandering to the nationalists. A ‘nation’ is just a collectivistic fantasy. A nation-state is the logical outgrowth of a mystical nation.