"Labor is more productive in the First World than the Third". Is there any hope or path for the third world to improve? Must the end state of this situation be that the third world be nothing but vacant land containing only the skeletons of the immobile?
"Tremendous opportunity to enrich mankind and end poverty" is reminiscent of Sam Kinison's "move to where the food is" bit. You hint at some limiting principle, "This doesn’t mean that immigration restrictions are never justified". But,
the rare reasonable restrictionist claim of "larger offsetting costs" are too often scoffed at and ignored via policies. "But in percentage terms, they’re almost invisible. Instead, the standard restrictionist moods are anger..." If something is ignored and unaddressed, that doesn't make it invisible. If the "larger offsetting costs" aren't addressed, what is the appropriate mood of the payers of that cost? The most promising way for the pro immigrationist to change the mood of restrictionists would be to put the offsetting costs front and center - put a number on them and recognize who is paying. There's a collectivist vibe in not allowing for some anger for those paying that cost, if it exists.
> Trapping innocents in poverty because of the long-run costs of immigration seems unfair, but after exhaustive study we’ve found no other remedy
ummmm Im not in power to put forward nuanced sane plans, there two offerings, endless immigration with human trafficking, rape thru jungles and probably some child sex slavery into over crowded cities while throwing stolen tax money at them and zoning laws still exist. Or ... not doing that. Can I ask that all migrants are put into new cities, zoning laws abolished? ... Well no. So the endless problems that come from being a housing price led economy including the debt slavery of the next generation in a big bubble that wasn't allowed to pop at least 15 years ago (if not before then) thats still just escalating.
More people raises the demand for housing, housing supply is kept artificially low and the major cities have homeless drug addict populations; I dont know when things break, but forgive me for thinking they will and quite selfishly Id like a home.
What wars do you think you'd consider, without the benefit of hindsight, a good idea for the US to get into? WWII after Japan bombed Pearl Harbour surely? What about the first Gulf War, or defending Bosnia, or going into Afghanistan to seek Bin Laden?
Since government is a legal monopoly on the use of force within a given territory, a logically consistent pacifist would be an anarchist. Is that why you're an anarchist? Of course, one can be an anarchist without being a pacifist. Do you oppose the use of force in self-defense?
"Labor is more productive in the First World than the Third". Is there any hope or path for the third world to improve? Must the end state of this situation be that the third world be nothing but vacant land containing only the skeletons of the immobile?
"Tremendous opportunity to enrich mankind and end poverty" is reminiscent of Sam Kinison's "move to where the food is" bit. You hint at some limiting principle, "This doesn’t mean that immigration restrictions are never justified". But,
the rare reasonable restrictionist claim of "larger offsetting costs" are too often scoffed at and ignored via policies. "But in percentage terms, they’re almost invisible. Instead, the standard restrictionist moods are anger..." If something is ignored and unaddressed, that doesn't make it invisible. If the "larger offsetting costs" aren't addressed, what is the appropriate mood of the payers of that cost? The most promising way for the pro immigrationist to change the mood of restrictionists would be to put the offsetting costs front and center - put a number on them and recognize who is paying. There's a collectivist vibe in not allowing for some anger for those paying that cost, if it exists.
> Trapping innocents in poverty because of the long-run costs of immigration seems unfair, but after exhaustive study we’ve found no other remedy
ummmm Im not in power to put forward nuanced sane plans, there two offerings, endless immigration with human trafficking, rape thru jungles and probably some child sex slavery into over crowded cities while throwing stolen tax money at them and zoning laws still exist. Or ... not doing that. Can I ask that all migrants are put into new cities, zoning laws abolished? ... Well no. So the endless problems that come from being a housing price led economy including the debt slavery of the next generation in a big bubble that wasn't allowed to pop at least 15 years ago (if not before then) thats still just escalating.
More people raises the demand for housing, housing supply is kept artificially low and the major cities have homeless drug addict populations; I dont know when things break, but forgive me for thinking they will and quite selfishly Id like a home.
What wars do you think you'd consider, without the benefit of hindsight, a good idea for the US to get into? WWII after Japan bombed Pearl Harbour surely? What about the first Gulf War, or defending Bosnia, or going into Afghanistan to seek Bin Laden?
Would caplan be willing to take in some undocumented immigrants into his on home. Feed and house them? I doubt it.
Since government is a legal monopoly on the use of force within a given territory, a logically consistent pacifist would be an anarchist. Is that why you're an anarchist? Of course, one can be an anarchist without being a pacifist. Do you oppose the use of force in self-defense?