Bryan, considering your arguments for more open immigration policies and my impression that you support Pareto optimality as a reasonable metric, how do you reconcile this with public concerns about unconstrained illegal immigration, particularly regarding the entry of criminal organizations such as Venezuelan gangs and Mexican drug cartels into the U.S. and the resulting decline of high trust communities into lower trust environments? Given these challenges, do you believe there are any limits to immigration that could be justified by your economic principles to maintain both economic benefits and the safety of high trust communities?
Libertarians believe that the collapse of a trust in a society is good, since it reduces the ability of the people to politically organize for redistributive policies. Which is obviously nonsense — there’s plenty of “gimme” socialism in low trust societies, but that’s their angle.
As long as GDP goes up by another 0.7 % the suffering of Americans who have to live with the consequences of his policies is immaterial. In fact, given that the sufferers are mostly the dirty unwashed working class, it might even be considered a feature, not a bug.
Which "Libertarians believe that the collapse of a trust in a society is good, since it reduces the ability of the people to politically organize for redistributive policies,"? I am unfamiliar with anyone making that claim.
So, Hanania then? I would hardly call him a star, but I suppose he is fairly high profile. Still, I would not say that "Libertarians believe that the collapse of a trust in a society is good"; it certainly isn't a plurality from what I have seen.
I would also note that that isn't exactly the claim he is making in the article you link. Maybe he makes that argument explicitly somewhere else, but he isn't talking about the collapse of trust here but rather the willingness to support redistribution to groups that are not one's own, dispelling the notion of "welfare is us taking care of us."
To be fair, Bryan is attempting to win the argument -- he'd like to convince voters.
The same voters who have had no ability at the ballot box to get the border shored up. The majority has never voted in one decade for the demographic changes that happen in the next. Bryan isn't the enemy here.
I don't think Bryan is in favour of 'unconstrained illegal immigration'. In fact, I think he wants to abolish illegal immigration altogether, by legalising migration.
How does allowing more legal immigration help criminal organisations?
In any case, criminal drug cartels only exist because prohibitions on certain drugs, which Bryan is probably also against. Economic orthodoxy suggests at most taxing these substances, not banning them. The limited experience with marijuana legalisation so far shows that companies in the formal economy quickly out-compete random criminals, when they are allowed to.
Basically, identify exactly what you are concerned about, and find a policy to fix exactly that. So far example, if you are worried about a breakdown in trust, at a minimum you can figure out roughly how much that costs people, and then tax the migrants that amount and distribute it amongst local voters. (Or come up with a better policy than what I just slapped together in 30 seconds of thinking.)
Imagine leaving San Francisco and breaking into Finland by sneaking past agents and then complaining that you can't properly sue someone for not hiring you for a job. Incredible.
Bryan, considering your arguments for more open immigration policies and my impression that you support Pareto optimality as a reasonable metric, how do you reconcile this with public concerns about unconstrained illegal immigration, particularly regarding the entry of criminal organizations such as Venezuelan gangs and Mexican drug cartels into the U.S. and the resulting decline of high trust communities into lower trust environments? Given these challenges, do you believe there are any limits to immigration that could be justified by your economic principles to maintain both economic benefits and the safety of high trust communities?
Libertarians believe that the collapse of a trust in a society is good, since it reduces the ability of the people to politically organize for redistributive policies. Which is obviously nonsense — there’s plenty of “gimme” socialism in low trust societies, but that’s their angle.
As long as GDP goes up by another 0.7 % the suffering of Americans who have to live with the consequences of his policies is immaterial. In fact, given that the sufferers are mostly the dirty unwashed working class, it might even be considered a feature, not a bug.
Which "Libertarians believe that the collapse of a trust in a society is good, since it reduces the ability of the people to politically organize for redistributive policies,"? I am unfamiliar with anyone making that claim.
Doctor Hammer, let me introduce you to one of the stars of the Libertarian Cinematic Universe, Dick “Shakespeare” Hanania: https://www.richardhanania.com/p/diversity-really-is-our-strength?utm_source=publication-search
So, Hanania then? I would hardly call him a star, but I suppose he is fairly high profile. Still, I would not say that "Libertarians believe that the collapse of a trust in a society is good"; it certainly isn't a plurality from what I have seen.
I would also note that that isn't exactly the claim he is making in the article you link. Maybe he makes that argument explicitly somewhere else, but he isn't talking about the collapse of trust here but rather the willingness to support redistribution to groups that are not one's own, dispelling the notion of "welfare is us taking care of us."
To be fair, Bryan is attempting to win the argument -- he'd like to convince voters.
The same voters who have had no ability at the ballot box to get the border shored up. The majority has never voted in one decade for the demographic changes that happen in the next. Bryan isn't the enemy here.
I don't think Bryan is in favour of 'unconstrained illegal immigration'. In fact, I think he wants to abolish illegal immigration altogether, by legalising migration.
How does allowing more legal immigration help criminal organisations?
In any case, criminal drug cartels only exist because prohibitions on certain drugs, which Bryan is probably also against. Economic orthodoxy suggests at most taxing these substances, not banning them. The limited experience with marijuana legalisation so far shows that companies in the formal economy quickly out-compete random criminals, when they are allowed to.
You might be interested in https://openborders.info/keyhole-solutions/
Basically, identify exactly what you are concerned about, and find a policy to fix exactly that. So far example, if you are worried about a breakdown in trust, at a minimum you can figure out roughly how much that costs people, and then tax the migrants that amount and distribute it amongst local voters. (Or come up with a better policy than what I just slapped together in 30 seconds of thinking.)
The link to https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/e321/lab7.htm is dead.
https://archive.is/BYZPb seems to be in the archive, though.
Imagine leaving San Francisco and breaking into Finland by sneaking past agents and then complaining that you can't properly sue someone for not hiring you for a job. Incredible.