It sounds sophisticated but it boils down to "when there is a common interest that people’s individual actions don’t necessarily maximize, I think that there is a role for the government is to make good “trades” to maximize this common interest (and not make the bad trades)"
Much of the case for open borders by Bryan is questioning that t…
It sounds sophisticated but it boils down to "when there is a common interest that people’s individual actions don’t necessarily maximize, I think that there is a role for the government is to make good “trades” to maximize this common interest (and not make the bad trades)"
Much of the case for open borders by Bryan is questioning that the government should make these choices, both from a moral and and economic efficiency perspective
That doesn't mean nobody makes these choices (e.g. adverse selection decisions are done by private organisations, businesses, landlords, individuals).
Where Bryan's case is challenging is when people don't see past the premise above of "government should organise common interest" (at which level of government? size? and people just assume it's the nation state or the US federal government).
He's trying to give people good reasons that makes it fit into their way of thinking, but that's eventually where people find inconsistencies or aren't able to grasp with the full idea.
It sounds sophisticated but it boils down to "when there is a common interest that people’s individual actions don’t necessarily maximize, I think that there is a role for the government is to make good “trades” to maximize this common interest (and not make the bad trades)"
Much of the case for open borders by Bryan is questioning that the government should make these choices, both from a moral and and economic efficiency perspective
That doesn't mean nobody makes these choices (e.g. adverse selection decisions are done by private organisations, businesses, landlords, individuals).
Where Bryan's case is challenging is when people don't see past the premise above of "government should organise common interest" (at which level of government? size? and people just assume it's the nation state or the US federal government).
He's trying to give people good reasons that makes it fit into their way of thinking, but that's eventually where people find inconsistencies or aren't able to grasp with the full idea.