DISQUS

Ben A · 2 years ago

Denying a poor 3rd world person US citizenship may make him worse off. So too, denying him access to your property makes him worse off. In the second case, the defense you would suggest for the institution of private property seems to be: "yes, but a system of private property, in the main, makes everyone better off." Ok. But the defender of nationalism will argue that unitary nation states, in the main, make everyone better off. You may think the former claim true and the latter claim false, but that's by no means obvious, and must be argued.

Indeed, there are many who think that nation states are crucial guarantors of systems of private property. If so, it seems you may find something to like about those national boundaries after all. Again, this may be wrong, but it's hardly an unusual, unpopular, or unsupportable view. Why do you think it is mistaken?

John S Bolton · 2 years ago

The reason that the poorest billion or two or more should affirm the regime of immigration restrictions is that it allows for progression of productivity, which is disfavored if labor is always available at the same or lower cost, any time there is occasion to increase production. If Yale had open admissions it would be unfavorable for new processes of production being invented there. If America had open admission, and by magic there were no hostiles even of the welfare-grabbing kind, the entire world would lose that portion of productivity increase which arises from the higher prevailing wages for menials and more-skilled here. If a rollback occurs from stagnation of technical progress, the infectious agents will change faster than medicine can counter them, and sweep through, taking out 90% even of vulnerable populations in the tropics. In any case loyalty is owed to the net taxpayer of our citizenry, when a foreigner comes in on net public subsidy, increasing the level of aggression here There is not moral interchangeability between citizen and foreigner. One proof of this is that treason, which is defined in the constitution, cannot be committed by a foreigner here, only by a citizen.

John S Bolton · 2 years ago

Similarly, what do you think of this reasoning? The differentials in per capita production between the richest and poorest nations are of absolutely INDISPENSABLE importance for ages to come, to maintain the MOMENTUM of forward motion, of progress of civilization and especially technology. The more immigration the richest nations have which comes in at the same or lower wages, the more this will tend to take away from the momentum of progress in productive technology.

southpaw · 2 years ago

Ben A has it right.

The claim that we should retain property rights but abolish meaningful national boundaries may not be trivial, but it sure is eccentric.

It's worth noting that nation states organized around the western, democratic model have done a pretty uniformly creditable job of making people within their borders better off. When you have a system with diverse nations and diverse outcomes, it seems questionable to single out a shared trait--boundaries--as the explanation for all the bad outcomes and none of the good ones.