Posted on 01/30/2005 3:14:41 PM PST by beavus
"If I have to pick between Ayn Rand and God I certainly won't pick Ayn..."
A collosal AMEN to that!
You wrote: >>"I used to approve of open borders, on the purist economic model. The problem with that model (Von Mises, et al) is that, like the Marxist model, it sees people as interchangeable units, not taking into account the very tangible cultural frictions, not to mention outright crime, that such mass migrations bring with them. According to the classical ecomonic theory, Muslim immigration is good for Europe too, because of declining native populations and the need for imported labor. But this ignores countless factors pure economics doesn't take into account."<<
Excuse me, but -- There is no "problem" with the Austrian Model with respect to cultural differences. All that the pure Austrian Model (or libertarian model) represents is the Rule of Law, pure & simple. That, simply translated, means that people can form voluntary contracts of any type or specificity.
The CONTENTS of those contracts -- are up to the individuals involved. These contents may contain MANY odd things ('I will only hire workers who abstain from alcohol,' etc.). But so long as the contents are agreed to voluntarily, they are valid.
Please explain how the Rule of Law conflicts with multiculturalism.
Thanks.
P.S. -- Are you an economist? Do you teach at Auburn University, NYU or George Mason, by any chance? Thanks for the discussion.
:)
Is this a pop quiz???
I think they work well together to destroy cultural norms and promote anti-social behavior. People are not naturally good all the time, in all circumstances. Floods of alien immigrants, importing their often violent cultural attitudes, cause an inevitable clash. Just read the headlines of any newspaper. Tell me again that mass Muslim immigration is good for Europe.
Any rule of law, yours or mine, requires respect and a certain virtue of character. Many immigrants lack that, coming from a society based on graft or tradional class/caste/tribal privilege. It takes TIME and effort to create a good citizen. Open borders means allowing our culture to be overwhelmed, our understanding of our Constitution of be watered down, schools dumbed down, etc. It's a burden we are not morally required to accept, this unlimited altruism toward the world's huddled masses. If you like open borders, are you also a 'one worlder', ie, would you like to see contracts between individuals replace the 'arbitrary' borders and laws of nations and states, or does a nation, such as the United States of America, have the right to set its own standards for admission, and set its own, very culturally specific norms for behavior (for example, laws against hard drugs, prostitution and gay marriage)? This is where libs and conservatives part company, with Randists somewhere (I guess, since I am not a Randist) in the middle.
Are you an economist? Do you teach at Auburn University, NYU or George Mason, by any chance?
No, I just have common sense, some experience with real people, and the right to express myself, until and unless JR or Mods intervene. To paraphrase George Putnam: This in one FReeper's opinion. I welcome yours.
>>"People are not naturally good all the time, in all circumstances.... It takes TIME and effort to create a good citizen." <<
That's what the 2nd Amendment is for. :)
Look, -- I've listened to George Putnam, and I listen to Dennis Prager nowadays, too. As an economist, I simply don't think "ideas" matter, I believe that only INCENTIVES matter (price signals, COSTS or consequences for certain behaviors, etc.)
People will "behave" themselves if there are CONSEQUENCES (penalties, punishments), and also rewards.
If those incentives are firmly in place, backed with a strong legal system - voila, a "civil society."
I realize there are economists - like James Buchanan, and many classical liberal philosophers, who think as you do -- that we only need to encourage an "ethics" of freedom an personal responsibility -- that if the social institutions are in place and people share common moral beliefs, THEN we will have a peaceful, civil market order.
I think all it takes is a hand gun, and the ability to enforce contracts. That's not cynical, it's just a realistic approach to human conduct. Sometimes "actions (or, to borrow from Mises' title, 'Human Actions') SPEAK LOUDER than words." (words, meaning: institutional beliefs, moral suasion, used to 'convince' people to "be good.")
And this approach has some empirical support: You ought to read some of the economics literature in the area of econ called, "Law & Economics" -- it suggests that micro level (decentralized) control of force, handguns, during the expansion of the West in the US for example, quite nicely worked to enforce property rights & promote civil conduct - for example. It is a very interesting area of study. I tend to "go there," to explain/understand the evolution of civil society.
I long ago abandoned Social Contractarianism as basically silly and vacuous -- lacking in any real, concrete social-policy content -- after studying it extensively.
And as historian Robert Higgs has observed, even with a firm "Constitution" designed to protect individual freedoms in place, -- there is always the loop hole of 'The Emergency Powers Act' allowing big government intrusions & regulations back in, at any time -- due to some "social emergency," dontcha know. Let's keep things nice & decentralized -- it works. Power corrupts, absolute power.... You should read Higgs' work, sometime; he has some keen insights, though it may seem (on the surface) that he's cynical & pessimistic. What he is doing is calling for the "solution" of Hayekian spontaneous order as opposed to social contract, because he understands that people respond to incentives, and government officials are "self-interested maximizers" who can't be trusted -- or rather, CAN be trusted, to follow their OWN self-interests ...as economists predict!
Hope you find these thoughts helpful!
Cheers,
Pam in Los Angeles
I agree mostly, but this social contract thing is misunderstood. Of course no one signed an actual document, but social obligations are simply univeral moral principles applied to a particular society at a particular time. You agree to put up with quite a bit of law you don't agree with (due to majoritarian rule) in order to avoid the much worse situation of having no social order at all. My understanding of social contract doesn't make one a slave to the State, just responsible to other honest citizens.
Imo, US citizenship should be received only two ways: One, as a natural born citizen, it's your birthright, bequeathed by the sacrifice and hard work of those who came before. Or two, you EARN it, by learning English, studying our history and Constitution, taking a test and pledging a solemn oath. To hell with this open borders sentiment. I even disagree with GW on his 'jobs that Americans won't take' talk is his SoU speech. There is no such thing as a job no American will take. Gimme a break. Sure, you can import a peasant from Bolivia willing to do it for $3 an hour, but that's the achilles heel of classical economics. The value added (from the more efficient labor) is hardly worth the social cost of educating them, their children, keeping them out of gangs, and not balkanized and manipulated by liberal politicians. You can say with truth that more gun rights and severe penalties will keep people honest, but right now we are LOSING the war on drugs AND the war on gang culture. Much better to avoid having to exercise our 2nd Amendment Rights, wouldn't you agree? Food for thought anyway. Thanks for the exchange of ideas.
I Agree, public costs (in terms of social services) are a Big minus, when it comes to open borders and open labor markets. That's why it is a tough call. But -- I still support free contracts, and -- I really like the policy reform SWEDEN has adopted (I read about it in the Economist), where they charge new immigrants a flat fee of around $8,000 FOR the public-sector "start-up" costs (social services) of entering the country and becoming citizens (education, etc.) Cruel? I don't think so. Pretty cool if you ask me, -- these are simply 'user fees'. heh, hehe. Hard to believe Sweden would do that, but -- it's a rational policy response to the MASSIVE free-rider problem they have experienced in Europe and here in the U.S.: the massive cost of illegals' kids in schools (taking up resources just to learn English, when that language SHOULD ALREADY HAVE BEEN MASTERED!!), using E.R./medical services "freely" (and causing local hospital bankruptcies & closures) etc.
Wouldn't it be great if Bush suggested such a plan... yeah - riiiight. That would happen
Still trying to figure out WHAT the specific content of a "Social" contract would be, since I am an individualist (no, this is NOT intended as sarcasm, I have studied this Topic in depth, and finally concluded that an all-inclusive "collective contract" would be entirely vacuous..... Leaving me with, voila, PRIVATE, person-by-person, voluntary, individual market Contracts, with No State. ) :)
Good talking to you,
Pam, Econ Ph.d, in Los Angeles.
Besides, I wonder who would enforce all those countless private contracts. Look at how difficult it is to litigate anything these days. Every other adult would have to be a judge, I think, to handle all the traffic. And since many people are dishonest, and many people would have to be judges...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.