I’m now cruising to Bermuda. Which has me thinking: In an open borders world, cruising would probably drastically decline. Why? Because cruise ships show the logic of open borders in stunted form.
Think about it: On a cruise ship, people of all nations – and all skill levels – work together. Top-notch pilots and mechanics from Scandinavia ply their craft alongside cabin stewards and janitors from the Third World. Via comparative advantage, their cooperation allows them to provide an affordable, high-quality vacation to eager consumers.
So where’s the stunting? Simple: This cosmopolitan cooperation is illegal on dry land. Resources therefore pour into the unregulated sector, creating a beautiful tourist experience. But that’s nothing compared to what laissez-faire could accomplish.
By analogy: Remember the famous private plots of Soviet agriculture? The socialist government owned all the land… except for a tiny fraction in private hands. Yet this tiny fraction of private land produced a quarter to a third of Soviet foodstuffs! All the pent-up potential of Soviet farmers poured into the one legal outlet. Cruise ships work the same way: Immigration restrictions funnel labor into the one place where humans of all nations can legally work side-by-side. Loopholes in destructive policies are a good thing, but there’s no substitute for repeal.
P.S. Here are my earlier thoughts on the economics and philosophy of cruising.
The post appeared first on Econlib.
Cruise ships are a dictatorship, run by private companies. The multiracial staff have no voting rights. If they could vote on where to steer the ship, whether alcohol should be banned, what clothes women should have to wear, what books should be banned and what speech is acceptable to say, I doubt the harmony would last very long.
The owners of the ships control who boards either as passengers or crew. Imagine a bunch of third world refugees boarding and demanding that they be paid but not paying a fare or earning a wage. Do that thought experiment.