The Best Open Borders Conversation
with Aporia's Noah Carl
Five years ago, I tweeted this:
Unsympathetic readers took this as further proof of my insufferable arrogance, but Aporia’s Noah Carl was impressed. Impressed enough to invite me on his podcast and try to convert him to a view for which he has little sympathy: the cause of open borders.
We talked about three months ago, but due to a big backlog, our podcast just released. It’s an unusual format, because Noah lets me walk him through my argument, step-by-step — and let’s me repeatedly check whether he’s still on board. Noah has a brilliant and careful mind, so even his small concessions are valuable in my book.
Since this is reality, I don’t actually convert Noah in real time. I probably never will. But all insufferable arrogance aside, I think you will be amazed at how far I get. Listen to the whole thing — or read the transcript.
Thanks for the kind words. I enjoyed our conversation.
I've seen a few interviews between "conflicting" intellectuals of this kind before. One or both sides explain themselves, and they ask a few questions, but they kind of tip-toe around the really challenging stuff that might cause strong irreconcilable disagreement. I know from things Noah has written that there were areas he could have pushed back on Caplan more but simply choose not to.
I don't know if there is a way around this. If things got really heated it wouldn't really help either party personally. And "winning" the debate, if such a thing could be done through conflict, really wouldn't change public policy.
I think a better format for these debates might be to have stated "falsifiable" criteria that the other person could focus on. "I would change my mind on this issue if X, Y, and Z were true."
Caplan sort of offers this "I would be against Open Borders if it caused Civil War", but such a hypothetical is rather hard to prove.