kevg Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Hi there. Stef interviewed Bryan Caplan (an anarchist/voluntaryist economist at GMU) back in 2012 on his book on voting (I couldn't find the podcast number because caplan and other terms didn't come up with anything on fdrpodcasts, but the youtube video ID is hsJhpzyJox8). Dr. Caplan has been very active on immigration and argues for completely open borders (primarily to double world GDP, and any potentially negative effects would be drowned out by that). I think it would be fascinating for Stef to chat with Dr. Caplan on immigration issues. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Ed Moran Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 That would actually be an argument for radical egalitarianism if he were to include the current welfare laws and forced association laws into his analysis. It is also a slight of cruelness if it were to imply some people would be raped who would otherwise be able to avoid rape with closed borders. I'm not saying some people deserve to live among rapists more than others, but I see it as reprehensible to subject someone to an increased propensity of being raped to increase world GDP. Again, that's if the current laws of forced association and welfare were assumed. If you take those out, open borders worldwide would seem to me to be a significant step closer to anarchy. That said, how likely is completely free immigration worldwide without the political interventions of welfare and forced association? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevg Posted March 29, 2016 Author Share Posted March 29, 2016 I emailed Dr. Caplan just to see if he was interested and he said yes. I'll forward his email to operations at FDR. Matt, I'm not sure but Dr. Caplan helped co-start a new website which deals with a lot of objections: http://openborders.info/ There's a start on your questions here: http://openborders.info/welfare-objection/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Ed Moran Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 People who don't realize (or don't care) that their arguments are only applied to white people by world leaders don't deserve a platform. It's just ridiculous to argue for open borders as if economists haven't been arguing that forever, and as if it hasn't already proven to be theoretically beneficial. The problem with open borders for countries like America and Germany are that they are accepting many more migrants than other countries, and are becoming filled with low IQ, crime bearing, rapist populations. Stefan hasn't ever argued against the basic free market policy of open borders on the whole, so the debate couldn't possibly be about that. If the debate is that countries like America and Germany specifically are better off for accepting migrants who are non white and multicultural, then I really don't think a guy as smart as Caplan deserves to be on the show justifying the acts of terror and violence that are a direct result of immigration policies of these countries. For god's sake, we just had a person who had their friend killed on the show. I find that site and the bleeding heart libertarians dishonest, detestable, and a running mill of the same tired straw men over and over, not to mention ridiculous articles based on rhetoric and metaphors about how words like "illegal alien" will follow you around and destroy your life. These guys were never principled, and it's showing all too clearly now that have no basis to make any contributions to the unrest and terror that is elevating around the world. "Worldwide open borders so we can double GDP" What world do you have to be living in to make such an impractical argument as this??? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasTheIdealist Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 The problem with open borders for countries like America and Germany are that they are accepting many more migrants than other countries, and are becoming filled with low IQ, crime bearing, rapist populations.So, the problem with individual liberty is that it subjects everyone else to low IQ individuals and criminals, therefore we should restrict the liberty of people? Why don't you support statism completely if you believe this? Or do you somehow think that only the freedom of immigration subjects people to negative influences? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevg Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 People who don't realize (or don't care) that their arguments are only applied to white people by world leaders don't deserve a platform. It's just ridiculous to argue for open borders as if economists haven't been arguing that forever, and as if it hasn't already proven to be theoretically beneficial. The problem with open borders for countries like America and Germany are that they are accepting many more migrants than other countries, and are becoming filled with low IQ, crime bearing, rapist populations. Stefan hasn't ever argued against the basic free market policy of open borders on the whole, so the debate couldn't possibly be about that. If the debate is that countries like America and Germany specifically are better off for accepting migrants who are non white and multicultural, then I really don't think a guy as smart as Caplan deserves to be on the show justifying the acts of terror and violence that are a direct result of immigration policies of these countries. For god's sake, we just had a person who had their friend killed on the show. I find that site and the bleeding heart libertarians dishonest, detestable, and a running mill of the same tired straw men over and over, not to mention ridiculous articles based on rhetoric and metaphors about how words like "illegal alien" will follow you around and destroy your life. These guys were never principled, and it's showing all too clearly now that have no basis to make any contributions to the unrest and terror that is elevating around the world. "Worldwide open borders so we can double GDP" What world do you have to be living in to make such an impractical argument as this??? Hey Matthew, I'm certainly no expert on this topic but I'll do my best to respond. Mostly I'm going to be asking questions to help clarify... > People who don't realize (or don't care) that their arguments are only applied to white people by world leaders don't deserve a platform. Do you mean that the arguments in favor of open borders forget to take into account the effects of non-white people? > The problem with open borders for countries like America and Germany are that they are accepting many more migrants than other countries, and are becoming filled with low IQ, crime bearing, rapist populations. Do you have any statistics on these three dimensions of IQ, crime, and rape by immigrants? The OpenBorders site has some pages on crime, terrorism, etc. under the "Harms to Immigrant-Receiving Countries" tab > If the debate is that countries like America and Germany specifically are better off for accepting migrants who are non white and multicultural The proposed debate (at least for me, they might decide something else if they ever do it) would be about Caplan's proposal to open all borders as much as possible wherever possible and the pros and cons. > For god's sake, we just had a person who had their friend killed on the show. Of course that's terrible. > "Worldwide open borders so we can double GDP" What world do you have to be living in to make such an impractical argument as this??? As far as I understand the basic argument, history has shown, and economic theory proposes, that while there are obviously negatives to the free flow of people, the net effect is positive, and in the case of immigration, extremely positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Ed Moran Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 "Do you mean that the arguments in favor of open borders forget to take into account the effects of non-white people?" What I mean is that when arguments for open borders are given, they are taken by the mainstream media and political establishments to justify increasing migrants who have tended to be 1) very low IQ 2) more criminal on average 3) have cultural values in opposition to the native population. I have no problem with open borders on the whole, and I am positive Stefan does not either. However, if you take for granted that completely open borders for all countries on the planet is not achievable practically, then the practical consideration currently is whether countries who do have more open borders are justified morally or by consequences of their admittance of immigrants, who in practical reality are tending to be comprised of populations with the characteristics I mentioned. I want to emphasize I think open borders are a great thing, but that at this point it is a completely theoretical discussion, just like pointing out the advantages of a free society is a completely theoretical discussion. As long as current laws exist as they do, specifically welfare and forced association laws, increased immigration or open borders for only particular countries can hardly be seen as preferable or moral for the achievement of a free society, since it has been seen and information on the show has been provided to indicate that multiculturalism erodes free market values, increases crime and social distrust, and creates a lowering of wages for the natives who are among the bottom strata of IQ in their society already. I have nothing against theoretical discussions, but my push back is especially strong against this discussion because it has already been hashed out that free movement of individuals is necessary for a free society, and primary for increased economic growth. Why is this discussion important now, when there is the possibility that it excludes focus or could muddy the facts about selective immigration, multiculturalism, and what "open borders" translates to practically by the rulers who decide what immigration policy is in the current stratosphere of world governments. In terms of statistics, illegal immigrants from Mexico to US are on welfare at triple the rate of the native population. Some catastrophic number of those crossing the border have committed rape (this is something Donald Trump made public, the exact fact escapes me but I will look it up after) There are also elevated single mother households I believe, which has been statistically linked to anti social behavior and crime. Refugees are even worse I believe with regard to sexual violations, rapes, and come from countries with average IQs in the 70s. Besides this, both groups vote for more government on average (why they are let in at all) which cripples economic progress. All these statistics come from FDR's shows, and I will link to where the information was provided. I think that will be your best resource for understanding the arguments. By the way my outrage was not at all towards you, but certain arguments put forth by some libertarians. "The proposed debate (at least for me, they might decide something else if they ever do it) would be about Caplan's proposal to open all borders as much as possible wherever possible and the pros and cons." So then would he not be defending the influx of the populations I am talking about, since apparently letting more people into a country they desire to emigrate to, regardless of their personal characteristics, is a good thing? The huge problem with the GDP argument and why it annoys me is that GDP is a statistic that includes government expenditures, and also if something like a rape were to occur, it would increase GDP for the hospital visit and the prosecution of the rapist. What I am trying to point out is that increasing GDP is an arbitrary goal, and if someone proposes a population should take on a risk of something horrendous as an increased likelihood of rape, government plunder, socialism for the benefit of increased GDP, then I don't see how that is a good argument for increasing GDP. It goes back to the old argument that if you give a guy a free bag of skittles, and only one skittle is poisonous but you don't tell him which, you are not actually doing him any favors; despite that he now has 20 safe skittles in his possession, one is horrendously bad and muddies the entire bag. By the way I'm not saying there aren't benefits to letting immigrants in, I'm saying that to only talk about the benefits and not compare them to the risks for the people who actually will be subjected to them is dishonest (not you, but some libertarians do this sometimes). Sorry for the long post, that's about all I got. I know you're not an expert like you said, but I wouldn't mind any corrections or important objections I failed to address if you see any. It will take me a day to edit in the links to FDR shows with sources, so check back in a few days if you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevg Posted March 31, 2016 Author Share Posted March 31, 2016 Hey Matthew, I don't have much time to respond right now, so just a few thoughts: First, I don't know much about this subject except for watching a few videos by Stef and Caplan and rummaging around OpenBorders.info a bit. I started this topic to propose a debate between Stef and Caplan and not to debate it myself, because I quite simply haven't researched it much. Second, and again I haven't researched it much, so this is just one perspective and I haven't checked all his sources or statements, but here's a bit of an older video by Caplan making some points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYk00Ufiqb4&t=4m49s Related to your points, he discusses culture, voting, welfare, and crime (in the Q&A - surprisingly saying immigrants have lower crimes rates. See also http://openborders.info/blog/moral-imperative-open-borders-trumps-pun-intended-immigrant-crime-rates/), amongst other things. I think he also goes well beyond just purely theoretical grounds, arguing for practical alternatives like immigration surtaxes, tests, etc. Your responses mentions other libertarians who deny more practical concerns, but I don't think Caplan nor I fall into that, so I don't know how that's relevant in this discussion. I don't see why low IQ is inherently a problem. If an immigrant with a low IQ takes a job no one else wants right now and has a net positive effect, then their IQ seems like an irrelevant variable. I agree GDP is imperfect, but if one of the main questions is whether or not immigration has a net positive or negative effects, then we'll need some other way to measure that to decide. Are there alternative measurements? I certainly understand your perspective better now and at no point have you offended me, so your outrage, given your premises, makes total sense. I'll check out those statistics once they're up when I find some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Mister Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 So, the problem with individual liberty is that it subjects everyone else to low IQ individuals and criminals, therefore we should restrict the liberty of people? Why don't you support statism completely if you believe this? Or do you somehow think that only the freedom of immigration subjects people to negative influences? No, you're not looking at the larger context. Allowing people of low IQ and incompatible culture is only a problem in a welfare state/democracy, when they are subsidized by the State and can vote against you. Furthermore, within a situation of freedom, there ARE natural, economic and social limits on immigration which are not present in modern Western welfare states. You have a very hostile way of talking about things which is very off-putting. It doesn't mean you're wrong, just annoying. I hope you will accept this criticism of your communication style in general. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Ed Moran Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Do you have any statistics on these three dimensions of IQ, crime, and rape by immigrants? The OpenBorders site has some pages on crime, terrorism, etc. under the "Harms to Immigrant-Receiving Countries" I thought I checked that out on the site and didn't see a lot of what is presented by FDR taken into account, but I will check it out more because I did only glance for a few minutes. The claims about the factors that make multiculturalism not so great at all are all together here: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46173-central-immigration-forced-multiculturalism-topic/ And upon thinking about it, I think yes, it is a fair characterization to say that current immigration discussions tend not to take into account the effect on the native population, especially whites and east asians, who tend to pay the most taxes, be the most free market oriented, commit the least crime, have higher IQs, and lower welfare usage rates. I don't see how they benefit on the whole from multiculturalism, though there is the argument some corporations selectively benefit from the cheap labor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevg Posted April 1, 2016 Author Share Posted April 1, 2016 > I thought I checked that out on the site and didn't see a lot of what is presented by FDR taken into account, but I will check it out more because I did only glance for a few minutes. You're right, it looks like those high level tabs on that page just outline the arguments but don't actually refute them, but then they have blog posts that try to deal with them (see my last reply), so I'll email them and tell them that they're organization is very confusing > The claims about the factors that make multiculturalism not so great at all are all together here: I'll check that out next week, thanks > And upon thinking about it, I think yes, it is a fair characterization to say that current immigration discussions tend not to take into account the effect on the native population, especially whites and east asians, who tend to pay the most taxes, be the most free market oriented, commit the least crime, have higher IQs, and lower welfare usage rates. I don't see how they benefit on the whole from multiculturalism, though there is the argument some corporations selectively benefit from the cheap labor. The Caplan video above covers some of that, but I certainly see some of the points. It's been an interesting discussion, thanks. This is really why I want two experts like Stef and Caplan to debate because it seems to me that these two people both have reasonable perspectives and evidence and I'd really like to see that hashed out more 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Ed Moran Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 I definitely appreciate the discussion as well. I think there was some discussion between Stefan and Garrett Jones about differences in their opinions on the effects of immigration towards the end of the interview ("Why Your Nation's IQ Matters"). I can't recall it very well, but I thought it was relevant upon watching it, and Caplan and some of his claims are also brought up. I actually have a pretty high regard for Caplan, so I will hold out for more nuance in his position since in my experience, he has a lot of data and economic reasoning behind his arguments. I can't remember what how he justifies the NAP though, which might be relevant. I appreciate the video you linked, which I'll check out. The last thing I wanted to say about GDP versus other measurements, is that I think (not totally sure) there is a moral stand one can take on the question which might not make the economic analysis as relevant. That is to say, if there are actions which will reasonably or certainty will increase the amount of aggression towards a population, they can be deemed as more immoral than a practical alternative which would imply less aggression. So if mexican immigrants leave their country for america specifically because they can get more welfare, and they are statistically doing it at 60% or higher rates, and also if they are more prone to vote for aggressive government programs, it would seem a moral justification could be used towards keeping these certain populations out. This is isn't the most polished argument but something I just wanted to offer. Thanks again for the chat it was a pleasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gee Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 From an article on the page linked by OP In addition, Jewish history may have imprinted upon Jews a tendency to support open borders. For the last two thousand years, many Jews have migrated from place to place, either because of expulsions, a need to flee oppression, or the desire for improved economic circumstances. For example, Spain forced hundreds of thousand of Jews out of the country in 1492. Even in 2015, given the rise in anti-Semitism in Europe, Jeffrey Goldberg asks, “Is it time for the Jews to leave?” He also notes that “for millennia, Jews have been asking this question: Where, exactly, is it safe?” http://openborders.info/blog/islamophobic-case-open-borders/ Couldn't find any case made for open boarders in Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gee Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Crap that was the wrong link! Sorry. http://openborders.info/blog/jews-support-open-borders/ here is the right link. (my post is awaiting approval). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts