July 20, 2010

The Right is Wrong on Immigration

Filed under: Immigration — Tags: , ,

There are many things I like about the conservative movement.  The conservative Heritage Foundation, for example, espouses principles of free enterprise, limited government, and individual freedom.  These are principles I share all the way down to the core of my moral vision.  On many political issues I find myself agreeing with the rhetoric of conservatives and even sometimes the proposals of the main conservative political party – the Republican Party.

But on the single political issue I care most about, prevailing conservative opinion seems to me so audaciously, breathtakingly wrong that I scarcely believe that I truly have any principles in common with conservatives.  Or that c­onservatives have any principles beyond simple xenophobia and a national collectivism.

That issue is immigration.  In my hubris, I continue to hope that most conservatives simply haven’t thought the issue through.  Most, though not quite all, of their rhetoric, I believe, bears this out.  In the spirit of this somewhat bold assumption I wanted to take the opportunity to lay out in moderate detail why I think the arguments against open immigration are either badly wrong or wrongly bad – or both.  I will be posting a new section of my argument on this blog every day for the next week and a half or so.  It may take a while before I get to your favorite argument for walling foreigners off from America, but if I neglect it in this series altogether then please let me know.  If the arguments I do make are weak, sound off in the comments!  The sections of my argument, subject to possible revision, will be as follows:

* The Moral Obviousness of Open Immigration

* The Rule of Law

* National Security

* The Utilitarian Argument

* The Prudential Argument

* The Externalities of Immigration

* Fairness

* The Bad Analogy

* The Psychology of Nativism

* Ideological Cancer

* Systemic Forces

* Credit Where it is Due

* Conclusion: What Should We Do?

* Addendum: What About Citizenship?

said Wallace Forman @ 10:07 AM. Comments (3)

October 21, 2009

Libertarianism and Culture

Reason magazine has an interesting online debate up on the connection between libertarianism and culture.  I support Todd Seavey’s position – there is none.

said Wallace Forman @ 1:33 PM. Comments (0)

September 11, 2009

Capitalism and Socialism are Opposites, Not “Two Complementary, Good Ideas”

The following was originally written for Americans for Tax Reform, where I am an intern:

Perhaps the most frustratingly incoherent part of Obama speech Wednesday was his repeated portrayal of the market and government planning as just two possible, non-exhaustive, mutually-reinforcing “solutions” to the current health care “crisis”.

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada’s — (applause) — where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody.  On the right, there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own…. I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches.

Obama likes to present his plan as a sort of third way between government-run health care and the market, incorporating, as he said, “the best ideas of both parties together”. This is essentially nonsense. Our health care system cannot be made “more free market” and “more government-regulated” simultaneously.

The free market and government planning are exhaustive opposites. Every health care choice is either made freely by consumers selecting their most favored option, or it is chosen for them by government mandates. Under a market system, for example, consumers can either choose to buy health insurance through their employer or on the individual market. In a planned economy, by contrast, the government may order them to buy through their employer.

President Obama leaves little doubt as to which direction he will take our health care system:

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those — especially the young and the healthy — who still want to take the risk and go without coverage.  There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage.

And that’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.  (Applause.)  Likewise — likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers.

But we can’t have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees.  Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.

Obama’s plan, at its heart, requires that consumers be deprived of their free choice, so that the government can micromanage insurance premiums based on arbitrary notions of “just cost distributions”. This is, at its heart, socialism.

said Wallace Forman @ 5:54 PM. Comments (0)

August 23, 2009

The Monopoly Power of Government

If you dislike the service and selection provided at your local Borders book store, you can use another merchant.  You can go to Barnes and Noble, or a small independent book-seller, or buy from Amazon.  If you don’t like the cheeseburgers at McDonald’s, you can go to Five Guys for lunch instead.  If your apartment is lousy, you can search around for a new one.  If you don’t like your doctor, you can get referred to a different one.  If you don’t like your employer, you can switch jobs.  If you don’t like your friends, you can hang out with other people.  If you don’t like your girlfriend, you can break up with her.

But if you don’t like your current government, you have to find a new country and a new bookstore, burger place, apartment, doctor, job, friends, girlfriend, and more.  You may have to learn a new language, and you will have to make expensive travel arrangements and pay shipping costs for whatever possessions you want to bring along.

This is the monopoly power of government.  There are high costs to shifting the system of laws under which we live, costs that allow our government to charge us far more for the security it provides than the cost of providing it.  These costs are exacerbated by our uncertainty, risk aversion, and limited individual knowledge of our alternatives.  The “shareholders” of government – some members of the controlling majority – may benefit from the profit created by this monopoly power.  Or they may not,  if multiple overlapping majorities simultaneously extract different “profits” from different groups.  But as a whole, society always suffers.  Economists would say that there is a “dead-weight loss”.

From this monopoly point of view, the efficient government is one that is not able to price above its cost.  This might be achieved by states so small that people could hop between them without having to change the other circumstances of their lives.  Or it might be fostered by radical decreases in transportation costs.  If a man could live in London and work in New York without suffering any travel costs (time or money), both countries would have less leverage over him.

It is hard to predict what types of laws and regulations would be adopted by the competitive state.  But one thing seems clear.  The redistributive burden thrown on the most productive citizens of a state represents no competitive pricing of the services it provides them.  It is a monopolistic extraction of profit and odious to any person who would have a state treat its citizens equally.

said Wallace Forman @ 3:46 PM. Comments (1)

May 5, 2009

Worth Reading: Two Concepts of Liberty

by Isaiah Berlin

In this seminal essay on freedom, Berlin discusses two clashing concepts of liberty: negative liberty, or freedom from coercion, and positive liberty, the freedom of the “true self” from interfering influences.

The version of the essay that I read, which contains some strange typos, is available here.

said Wallace Forman @ 11:51 AM. Comments (0)

October 18, 2008

Another Victim of Putin’s Russia

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , ,

Apparently, Prime Minister Putin and I share a similar taste in dogs.

said Wallace Forman @ 4:28 PM. Comments (0)