This is still "it makes those of us already here less well off than otherwise" in slightly different clothes. It's not a good argument against a welfare state.
This is still "it makes those of us already here less well off than otherwise" in slightly different clothes. It's not a good argument against a welfare state.
therefore, if you get made worse off by policy X, that policy is bad.
This is not a valid argument.
I'm not saying "it makes people worse off" is a bad argument *in general* - but it is a bad argument when deployed against immigration, because it is implicitly based on a premise that whoever is being made worse off *deserves* whatever benefits they're losing.
You do not have any more moral right to the substantial surplus that comes from being a US citizen than a potential immigrant. Arguing that immigration is bad because it takes what are effectively unearned rents from one group and distributes them to another group that arguably *did* earn them is not remotely persuasive.
Also I'm pretty sure even the claim that it would make existing citizens worse off is empirically wrong.
But when the people who are being made worse are the ones who decide, and who have the monopoly of force to restrict entry, then you do need to persuade them.
Going back to the original article, Dan is arguing that something like open borders is simply not politically feasible, and a more moderate position is needed if you care about persuading real people to move in the direction you prefer rather than just winning a philosophical debate that barely any actual voters care about.
I don't think the "rents" of the first world are unearned. I believe in Hive Mind. I think the first world is what it is because of the nature of its residents. If you mass introduce lower quality residents, the "rents" of having a functional society go away.
Maybe you feel that having a good IQ or whatever is unearned, but that is life buddy.
This is still "it makes those of us already here less well off than otherwise" in slightly different clothes. It's not a good argument against a welfare state.
If you break into my house and steal my stuff, I'm worse off and you're better off.
And to the extent crime has negative impacts beyond the actual damage of the crime, it can be net negative beyond the zero sum transfer.
You appear to be arguing as follows:
1. if someone robs you, you get made worse off
2. you getting robbed is bad
therefore, if you get made worse off by policy X, that policy is bad.
This is not a valid argument.
I'm not saying "it makes people worse off" is a bad argument *in general* - but it is a bad argument when deployed against immigration, because it is implicitly based on a premise that whoever is being made worse off *deserves* whatever benefits they're losing.
You do not have any more moral right to the substantial surplus that comes from being a US citizen than a potential immigrant. Arguing that immigration is bad because it takes what are effectively unearned rents from one group and distributes them to another group that arguably *did* earn them is not remotely persuasive.
Also I'm pretty sure even the claim that it would make existing citizens worse off is empirically wrong.
But when the people who are being made worse are the ones who decide, and who have the monopoly of force to restrict entry, then you do need to persuade them.
Going back to the original article, Dan is arguing that something like open borders is simply not politically feasible, and a more moderate position is needed if you care about persuading real people to move in the direction you prefer rather than just winning a philosophical debate that barely any actual voters care about.
I don't think the "rents" of the first world are unearned. I believe in Hive Mind. I think the first world is what it is because of the nature of its residents. If you mass introduce lower quality residents, the "rents" of having a functional society go away.
Maybe you feel that having a good IQ or whatever is unearned, but that is life buddy.