One of my biggest disappointments with blogs (and don’t get me started on Twitter, which is way worse) is that many of the people who comment on posts don’t engage with the author’s argument. I’m not applying this objection to commenters on EconLog because I think that, by and large, they (you) do better than commenters on the vast majority of other blogs.
I find that this failure to engage happens a lot with discussions of immigration and open borders. Recently, philosophy professor Chris Freiman, filling in on Bryan Caplan’s new blog titled “Bet On It,” wrote a post titled “There Are No Libertarian Objections to Open Borders.” His post was a little too terse and I wouldn’t have titled it that way because it doesn’t allow for libertarian objections that neither he nor I have heard of.
But what’s striking is how many of the commenters literally refused to respond to his arguments.
One of Freiman’s arguments is one that Bryan Caplan makes and has made in his and Zach Weinersmith’s graphic novel titled Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration.
Freiman writes:
The most popular objection alleges that “we can’t have open borders and a welfare state.” (This position is sometimes affiliated with Milton Friedman, but his view was actually more nuanced than it seems.) Even if we set aside the finding that estimates of the fiscal impact of immigration “are clustered around zero,” this argument is easy enough to refute. Libertarians advocate for legalizing heroin with a welfare state in place. They don’t defend state restrictions on reproductive rights even when the children will attend public schools. In short, if we took the “welfare state objection” seriously, it wouldn’t stop at the freedom to immigrate.
One commenter quoted the line, “Libertarians advocate for legalizing heroin with a welfare state in place” and replied “No, they don’t, they advocate for legalizing heroin.”
Notice how that nicely allowed the commenter to ignore Freiman’s point. The key question to ask this commenter is, “Given that we have a fairly large welfare state in place, do you advocate legalizing heroin?” Unless he’s really dense, the commenter knows that this is the issue but fails to engage.
Freiman also writes:
The second objection claims that taxpayers have the right to determine how public infrastructure is used and thus the right to restrict immigrants’ access if they choose. But this argument also proves too much. Do taxpayers have the right to prohibit people from driving on public roads if they have copies of Anarchy, State, and Utopia in the car? Surely not.
Freiman’s point is that if taxpayers have the right to determine how public infrastructure is used, there’s no stopping point. That’s why he gives the reductio ad absurdum of having Robert Nozick’s book.
How does this same commenter answer? He says: “Ok. So what does that have to do with open borders?”
What is has to do with open borders is that one of the objections to open borders has to do with taxpayers’ alleged right to determine who uses tax-funded infrastructure. One gets the idea that the commenter didn’t read the objection or just decided to ignore it and to ignore Freiman’s argument against the objection.
This failure to engage doesn’t happen only with blogs and Twitter, of course. When I used to be a regular guest on Salinas-based radio station KION, this kind of thing happened a lot when I defended illegal immigration.
I would start by pointing out that the case for illegal immigration is in some ways easier to make than the case for legal immigration because illegal immigrants tend to be more afraid of signing up for welfare programs and are even more likely than legal immigrants to come here to work.
Sure enough, the comeback would be “But it’s illegal.” That was, in the caller’s mind, the slam dunk argument.
Recognizing that the implicit principle on the part of the objector was that one should obey laws, I would point out that there are laws against adultery in some states and also laws against going over the speed limit. I would ask the questioner if he (it was always he) thought that the laws against adultery should be enforced, or I would ask if the questioner had ever speeded and gotten away with it.
Invariably, the questioner would refuse to answer but would say, instead, “How can you compare illegal immigration, with all its bad effects, with adultery or speeding?”
I would answer that I wasn’t comparing them. I was simply trying to to get the questioner to recognize that the principle of “Obey all laws” was one that he didn’t really believe. I would then point out that I noticed that he was distinguishing between illegal immigration on the one hand and adultery and speeding on the other, based on the effects of both. That, I pointed out, was where I was trying to go all along, before the questioner raised the issue of obedience to laws. “So let’s look at the effects of illegal immigration,” I would say.
Can you guess what happened next? The caller, if he was still on the line, argued that illegal immigration was wrong because it was illegal.
READER COMMENTS
Ryan M
Jun 28 2022 at 5:09pm
I hope I’m not proving your point by addressing the article itself rather than your point regarding comments… but …
I think there are a good many people (myself included) who are really conservatives, but who believe that the venn diagram between conservatism and libertarianism has a strong overlap. I often describe myself as a libertarian just for the sake of clarity – if I’m talking with someone who understands these things, I’d say that classical liberalism had a strong libertarian streak.
The problem that I often have with the big L libertarians is that they seem to take consistency to the point of ridiculousness (or, at least, to a point that is simply unfeasible – as with your example of the commenter who says “No, they advocate for legalizing heroin.”
David, I believe I’ve even had these arguments with you in other contexts – in real life, my job is the legal representation of youth in dependency cases – it’s pretty difficult to take a hard libertarian line on issues while accepting the world as it really exists [for what it’s worth, while we disagreed on the subject of drugs, I have since discovered that you are likely one of the EconLog authors with whom I most agree in general]. Where the big L libertarian finds himself is in the position of someone essentially making arguments as if his idealistic world actually exists, without recognizing that they make much less sense in the world as it is.
So, with respect to open borders, that is perhaps one area where I would simply acknowledge that I am not a pure libertarian. Immigration necessarily involves changes in the culture – it is not the only source of crime by any stretch, but it does have an impact on crime. I acknowledge that these are not “libertarian” arguments, but my response to that article would simply be to say that it’s ok to fail the purity test… maybe even preferable at times.
The other side-issue that caught my eye was the comment that “libertarians don’t support restrictions on reproductive rights…” What an interesting way to frame that issue. Libertarians generally do not advocate for pure anarchy, and they certainly do support restrictions against assault and murder. There are some examples of a situation where either choice violates some sort of “libertarian” value – the interrelation between drugs and child abuse is one of these examples of a situation that is far more nuanced and complicated than most big-L libertarians are prepared to acknowledge. LGBT “rights,” when said rights are often used as an ideological cudgel to punish those who disagree or to stifle religious liberty, are yet another example. Most recently, libertarians were largely silent in the face of state mandates involving shutdowns, masks, vaccines, badly abusing their own “harm principle” in the process.
Point being – there is no Libertarian argument against Open Borders because there is no truly Libertarian argument for or against anything. It is an ideology that takes a very gray, very complex world full of complex and self-contradicting problems, and attempts to distill everything down to a simple black and white.
Kevin Corcoran
Jun 29 2022 at 9:10am
I don’t know what libertarians you’re listening to (or not listening to, perhaps). Because pretty much every libertarian I’m aware of, in all circles, was being very, very loud about all of these topics. If libertarians seemed “largely silent” on these issues to you, I can only attribute that seeming silence to a lack of attention on your part.
I find a fair amount of other things to disagree with in this comment, but I think the crux of our disagreement would be captured by your closing statement that libertarianism “is an ideology that takes a very gray, very complex world full of complex and self-contradicting problems, and attempts to distill everything down to a simple black and white.” I’ll give Ayn Rand to you on that count. But her aside, I disagree completely. I’d challenge you to read, for example, Dan Moller’s book Governing Least: A New England Libertarianism and honestly say that this is a book that denies the complexities of life and boils everything down to simple black and white. Not only do libertarians not deny that the world is complex and filled with difficult and subtle problems, that very point is integral to the libertarian argument and worldview.
If it really was the case that life was simple and straightforward, with clear black and white solutions to things, then state control would make a lot more sense in a lot more circumstances. Regulation and legislation are much more workable when there are simple, clearly defined, unambiguously right and wrong answers to questions. But the more complex and subtle a problem is, and the more complicated it is, the weaker the case for top down, centralized decision making from the government becomes. It’s a marvelous non sequitur to suggest “This problem is complicated, subtle, and filled with shades of grey, therefore the best response is to have a single, one-size-fits-all solution implemented from the top down across an entire society, created by people operating within the incentive structure of political organizations.” Libertarians would instead say that the complexity, subtlety, and difficulty of the world’s problems is an argument for having a multiplicity of solutions available, competing with each other, allowing for different experiences and situations to be handled in ways that are more and more tailored to the specifics of each unique circumstance.
Now, you might disagree that “let a thousand flowers bloom” is a better approach than “impose a single centralized solution,” and that’s a debate worth having. But the idea that the libertarian argument for liberty depends on denying the complexity and subtlety of the world is simply false. If anything, libertarians are far more likely than most to emphasize the complexities and subtleties of the world when making their case.
Jon Murphy
Jun 29 2022 at 10:57am
On top of what Keven says, many of the arguments for libertarianism and individual freedom are precisely because the world is so complex. From David Hume and Adam Smith up through the bloggers here at Econlog, the complexity of the world is why we reject top-down plans of socialism, interventionism, and the like.
One of the seminal writings on this very point that classical liberals see the world as complex, which is why we advocate for individual freedom and limited government intervention, is F.A. Hayek’s excellent paper The Use of Knowledge in Society.
There are many, many, many other papers and talks. I would be happy to share, if you are interested.
All that said, are there groups that try to flatten everything down into binary, black-or-white, reasoning? Yes. But those appear in all ideologies, not just liberalism (for example, my Facebook recently featured a tenured, self-defined Left philosophy professor make the claim: “To fight fascism, find who oppose the fascists and join them.” We can, and should, reject that form of reasoning and embrace the complexity of the world.
Ryan M
Jun 29 2022 at 12:17pm
John Bishop
Jun 28 2022 at 5:42pm
As a small-l libertarian, my response would be “I am against the welfare state, too”.
When you ask about one policy (heroin, immigration, whatever) and the context is “only this policy is up for argument, everything else will stay as it currently is”, I don’t think it’s a bad argument to say “no, because a current practice will cause bad results”.
David Henderson
Jun 29 2022 at 11:44am
I’m not sure what you’re saying with your last sentence. Are you saying that as long as we have a welfare state, heroin should be kept illegal?
Pete S
Jun 28 2022 at 7:29pm
This is an interesting argument and there is a great deal of truth to it.
But how different are blogs and twitter in that respect to the rest of life?
If you make any kind of even slightly subtle argument people often misinterpret what you’re saying and don’t engage with the substance.
Online might be slightly worse than the rest of life due to a bit of anonymity and the ease of commenting, but perhaps not that much.
Really engaging with someone you disagree with and having a good discussion is hard and requires effort and good faith on the part of the interlocutors.
David Henderson
Jun 29 2022 at 11:45am
All true.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Jun 29 2022 at 8:52am
My objection to Kaplan’s argument is that it goes far beyond the data we have. The case that immigration at something like the levels we have seen yields greater benefits than costs to the extant residents of the US is pretty strong. But we really cannot know how that would change with literally open borders. I’m just an incrementalist. Let’s double or quintuple legal immigration (selectively reduce restrictions to legal immigration, especially for highly skilled people) and see what happens. If all goes as well as Kaplan and I think it would then we could double or quintuple again.
[N.B. Bryan Caplan’s last name is misspelled as “Kaplan” throughout this comment.–Econlib Ed.]
Jon Murphy
Jun 29 2022 at 12:14pm
The US had literally open borders until about the 1880s. That gives us lots of evidence about what would change with open borders.
John hare
Jun 29 2022 at 1:21pm
Open borders in the legal sense yes. The transaction cost of getting here was enormously higher though and served some selection process.
Jon Murphy
Jun 29 2022 at 4:38pm
True, but that hasn’t really changed much. To the extend transaction costs have fallen, though, that strengthens the Caplan argument
john hare
Jun 30 2022 at 5:07am
My wife and employees are immigrants and I have worked with immigrants from at least 20 countries. The ones I have dealt with see this country as opportunity and average doing quite well. The quibble is based on all the ones I know expended effort to get here at all. My concern is with ones that can come in with no effort and with no respect for what built this country. This is not hard core knowledge, just my concern. Roughly similar to the people that get ‘free’ government ‘assistance’ that have little incentive to get out of the welfare trap.
I do agree that immigration reform would be a major net positive. One of the roadblocks is that it is so lucrative for immigration lawyers to work with the current system. To get though the various requirements for my wife, we are spending considerable time and money to get her status squared away.
Jon Murphy
Jun 30 2022 at 11:51am
Which is precisely 0. Movement has become cheaper, yes, but it still requires effort, even if all legal barriers were stripped away. Immigrants do not choose where to live randomly.
John hare
Jun 30 2022 at 4:48pm
At Jon 11:51 am. Obviously I disagree. Transportation is fairly easy now. People with little skin in the game tend towards less effort. Removing a lot of the immigration nonsense would be good. Removing all controls and responsibility, which is one interpretation of open borders, I think would be on net bad.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Jun 29 2022 at 6:15pm
Thanks for the correction.
Have you considered adding a “edit” function to the posts?
Kevin Corcoran
Jun 29 2022 at 8:53am
I also have this experience. I can’t count the number of times when debating an issue, I’ve said to someone “You say the government should control X, because X has condition Z. But Y also has condition Z. Do you think the state should be in control of Y too?”, and the response is “But X isn’t the same as Y!” But they know perfectly well that isn’t what I’m asking. The question isn’t “Is X the same as Y?”. The question is “Do you really believe that the state should control things that are Z, or could it be that you just think X is something the state should control, and you’re using Z as a post hoc rationalization for why that should be?” This is one great strength in Michael Huemer’s writing on this topic – he does a marvelous job of showing how virtually every argument people use to justify state activity is one that its own advocates would reject, if it was used in any context other than justifying the state action they find desirable.
Mark Z
Jun 29 2022 at 2:37pm
“In short, if we took the “welfare state objection” seriously, it wouldn’t stop at the freedom to immigrate.”
This isn’t a convincing refutation though. I actually think – heretical an opinion as it may be in libertarianisn – that it’s valid to argue that a policy that violates citizens’ liberty may justify a corrective policy that also violates citizens’ liberty. To take a ridiculous hypothetical example, if the federal government passed a law saying that people wearing green hats can legally commit murder, then a city responded by passing a law outlawing wearing green hats, I think the latter policy is quite understandable. Sure, it infringes on people’s right to wear green hats, but in net, it may be good for liberty if the people whose liberty is protected from green-hat wearing murders by the city’s law outweighs the infringement on non-murderers’ right to wear green hats.
Qualitatively, immigration and reproductive rights are similar. Open borders in conjunction with the welfare state allows some immigrants to parasitize off of other people. The extent and severity of the rights violations permitted under this combination may be mild enough that laws restricting immigration aren’t justified, but that doesn’t mean the general argument is invalid.
If I were to formalize the position you and Freiman seem to be supporting here, it’s that a marginal infringement on personal liberty, on any axis, is unjust; or even further, that we should abolish any law infringing upon people’s liberty, even by itself, regardless of how its effects combine with other laws. E.g., libertarians should support legalizing green hats in my example, by itself, even if it’s not possible to repeal the law legalizing murder by the green-hatted. I don’t think this is remotely self-evident though. And I can conceive of circumstances where the state permits immigrants to violate the rights of others so frequently and severely that reducing immigration restrictions would be liberty-decreasing. Whether such circumstances are practically likely is another matter, of course. But I think there likely are other public policy issues where reducing legal restrictions actually makes people less free by allowing some people to violate other people’s rights.
Jon Murphy
Jun 29 2022 at 4:42pm
That’s not too heretical. It’s the liberal justification for government that it wields coercive power to protect liberties (see, for example, Adam Smith).
I disagree, both with that example and that it supports your point. Outlawing green hats is not a corrective policy, so it’s not an example of your point. Additionally, it is not an understandable policy as it doesn’t address the underlying problem: the Federal legislation you mention.
Mark Z
Jun 30 2022 at 12:44am
How is it not a corrective? It solves the problem of legalized murder (a serious threat to citizens’ liberty) at the expense of a minor infringement of people’s right to wear green hats.
Sometimes, addressing the underlying problem is impossible.
Jon Murphy
Jun 30 2022 at 11:48am
It doesn’t correct or solve the problem; it compounds the problem. It just pulls the shade down over the window and pretends the problem isn’t there.
Mark Z
Jun 30 2022 at 3:25pm
It doesn’t pull the shade down over the problem. It solves the real problem of legalized murder in the scenario, at a minor cost. Are you categorically rejecting the idea that we should ever consider what the best policy at the margin is, given that the globally optimal policy is politically impossible? How is this not just making the perfect the enemy of the good?
Jon Murphy
Jul 1 2022 at 8:25am
It doesn’t solve the problem, though. That’s the point. It compounds the problem, particularly from a liberty perspective, by adding more infringements on top of the original infringements. The cost is not minor: it’s exponentially growing. To solve the problem, you actually need to solve the problem. Not do something and pretend the problem is no longer there.
Of course not. But “politically impossible” is too often a weasel word. It’s too often assumed without any real reason given
David Henderson
Jun 30 2022 at 11:56am
Actually, Mark Z, I agree with you the way you set it up. If it’s politically impossible to stop the policy of allowing green-hatted people to commit murder but politically possible to ban the wearing of green hats, I would favor the latter.
I’m not sure how connected that is to the issue at hand, but I agree with your choice in this extreme hypothetical.
Jim Glass
Jun 29 2022 at 9:19pm
Is the implication that there are no credible non-libertarian objections to open borders? Or non-economic objections? I was near to a libertarian when I was young, and this type of narrow world view is good part of what me moved away from being such. For instance, the three objections discussed in the piece don’t come anywhere close to real-world objections such as…
There’s been much worry on this site about the rise of right-wing populist politics. Like this?…
The credible objections to open immigration are sociological and political.
As it happens I have an old friend who’s an economist in Sweden. Over the last 20+ years as we Americans have continually lamented how our country is falling apart, he always reassured me: “The USA is tops and the whole world knows it. People vote with their feet. You get all the best immigrants, and the rest of us get all the worst ones”.
Worst immigrants? Is this a concept libertarian economics is aware of?
Personally I am very much pro-immigration, generally. The USA wouldn’t exist as we know it, much less be tops in the word, without it. But immigrants to the USA have forever been forced to travel across oceans and/or learn a new language to move here, “filters” which have made them the very best by measures of being motivated to work to make a new life here and adapt into American culture.
But let’s not be spoiled and blindly assume in analysis that the quality of past immigrants to the USA is any kind of general norm. And libertarian considerations are a long, long way from all considerations.
Jon Murphy
Jun 30 2022 at 11:47am
No. The post is about libertarian objections, not non-libertarian objections.
Jim Glass
Jul 1 2022 at 8:03pm
OK. Hmmm… So libertarians recognize credible non-libertarian objections to open borders? And libertarians can remain in good standing as such while arguing that state power should be used to block open borders, citing these credible objections, to prevent fiascos as in Sweden?
I don’t recall seeing any do that, but haven’t really been looking, it’s plausible, works for me. Can you recommend any I’ve overlooked?
I used to read Caplan a lot, but not so much since he moved on. Does he, or any other ‘name’ libertarian, have any analysis of practical facts-on-the-ground situations where immigration has been a big deal, like Sweden, Syria, out-of-Ukraine today, for that matter back to the Roman Empire (which had huge experience with both “good” immigrants and “very bad” immigrants)?
You gotta admit that the examples and follow-up comments in the guest post by Freiman were a pretty long way from any facts on the ground anywhere. (I note that Freiman is a professor of philosophy, which was one of my majors in college. I’m a very practical facts-oriented guy and, not to be too snarky, his whole discussion there reminded me why I moved on from philosophy as well as libertarianism.)
Comments are closed.