Livid Libertarians, Welfare and Immigration (contd.)

A lot of livid libertarians have been         e-mailing us lately. They didn't like my recent         article /becker.htm highlighting Nobel Laureate economist Gary S. Becker's         acknowledgement that the welfare state, which         did not exist during the last Great Wave of         immigration (1890-1920), has fatally altered         immigrant incentives, making open borders         impractical. Becker's concession is an important         step in the slowly-developing realization that         the folk-memory of American intellectuals is not         applicable to immigration policy today.

Yeah, I know, I know - this libertarian         lividness was partly my fault. I referred         genially to "libertarian loonies." I         thought that, after nearly thirty years of         libertarian fellow-traveling in the         establishment press - including authoring the only         major magazine article ever on         Hayek's plan to privatize money (Forbes,         May 30 1988; not online, alas, but it's still a         good idea) - I was family and could make a JOKE.

I was wrong. Libertarians, like the student         Marxists of the 1960s whom they so much         resemble, don't generally have much sense of         humor (with the exception of Colin Colenso, an         affable Australib.)

For the record, I prefer libertarians to         student Marxists. And I happen to think the         libertarians are basically correct: the welfare         state has negative consequences. But the fact is         that the welfare state exists. It has real         political support. It is not going away soon.         Immigration reform cannot wait until it does.

Note, also, that none of my correspondents         actually deal with the point I made: the problem         with the welfare state is not just         "welfare" but transfer payments of all         sorts - notably public education and hospital         emergency rooms, which are now in effect a free         medical service for immigrants. If you think         cutting welfare is tough, try not educating         children or turning away the sick.

My correspondents' failure to deal with this         point is very typical of what happens when you         try to confront one well-established reflex         (Welfare Bad!) with a new argument. Even         intelligent people just don't get new arguments         very quickly. You have to repeat them several         times. This is a big problem in the immigration         debate. Immigration simply did not exist as a         problem until after the 1965 Act. By that time         much of today's punditocracy was already adult -         or as adult as it's ever going to be.

Immigration is a government policy, however,         and some libertarians are thinking seriously         about it - notably the "paleolibertarians"         grouped around the Von Mises Institute http://www.mises.org/.         Ralph Raico edited a fine issue of the Journal         of Libertarian Studies (Summer 1998) http://www.libertarianstudies.org/journals/jls/JLS13_2.asp on the subject. It included an eloquent dissent         from the open borders bugaboo from John Hospers,         who actually received an Electoral College vote         as the Libertarian Party's candidate for         President. Recently, there has even been a         sighting of intelligent life at Cato - a         friendly review of George Borjas' definitive Heavens         Gate: Immigration Policy and the American         Economy http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691059667/vdare by Ronald Bird in the current Regulation         Magazine http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n3/reg23n3.html (Cardinal Crane, call your Inquisitor!)

Some letters, with comments:

From: Eugene J. Flynn ejflynn@earthlink.net

"...the libertarian loonies' knee-jerk         comeback - 'let's just abolish welfare for         immigrants!'" No libertarian I know says         that! What they say is abolish welfare for         everyone.

"America's post-1965 immigration         disaster" - do you mean the fact that         citizens from independent states of the Western         Hemisphere could no longer come to the U.S. when         they wanted to (no quotas) or do you mean the         Great Society solidified the welfare state and         THAT changed the type of individual who wished         to come to this country?

Pax vobiscum,

PB: And dulce         et decorum est pro patria mori to you! In fact,         some libertarians were saying precisely that -         raising the so-called blue card proposal to deny         welfare to immigrants - in the exchange we         posted between Milton Friedman and the delegates         to the 1999 World Libertarian Congress /friedman.htm.         As for the "type of individual"         immigrating, that was changed by the 1965         Immigration Act - the selection process is a         (perverse) statute-based government policy,         which operates independently of whether there is         any welfare at all. I do agree that welfare etc.         has changed the type of immigrant who stays in         the country - failures are no longer winnowed         out.

************

From: Colin Colenso colincolenso@ozemail.com.au          http://www.geocities.com/colincolenso/

Australian Libertarian Society

An article you wrote was recently linked to         via http://www.lewrockwell.com/.         [Thanks, Lew!]

I noted your comment "...the libertarian         loonies' knee-jerk comeback - "let's just         abolish welfare for immigrants!" (No-one         could be so impractical? These are people who         seriously debate whether traffic lights are         unacceptable government coercion.)"

Not being so shallow that I would take         offense, 'as a libertarian', but such a flippant         generalization as an argument against the         abolishment of a government welfare system seems         out of place in a well-written article.

Maybe I am not aware of an intelligent         argument you have presented against this         libertarian policy. I would think that         relegating such intellectual giants as Hayek,         Rothbard and Mises to the "loony" heap         indicate a certain lack of awareness. Maybe I am         wrong... I'm never afraid of an education.

I'm off to picket my local traffic lights.         Damn socialist telling me when to cross!!! When         will it end?

PB: For my         attitude to welfare, see above. Rothbard and,         much less well-known, Mises, were against open         borders.

************

From: Jeffrey Schwartz  jeffreys1493@worldnet.att.net

As a libertarian, I resent your slandering us         with your statement that we see traffic signals         as government coercion. That is an absurdity.         Libertarians have nothing against orderly         traffic and rules of the road.

Although we believe that private corporations         would run the roadways much better than the         government does, if such private ownership was         allowed, we do not support unsafe roads or         promote traffic accidents. Please do not portray         us as "loony" by giving such         inaccurate descriptions of our beliefs.

Most libertarians also agree that open         borders in a welfare state would create trouble         - trouble for the welfare state! Open borders         would create so much pressure on the welfare         state that the welfare state would quickly         collapse, economically and politically. Support         for government welfare would quickly evaporate.         We would have a free country again! And that is         what libertarians want! We want an END to the         Welfare State AND open immigration! Open         immigration will quickly lead to the end of the         welfare state.

PB: In other         words, if you've got rats - welfare - burn down         the house. Not just welfare would be ended by         open immigration.

November 2, 2000