Immigration Restrictions

[brendan]

I never said that immigration should be curtailed to stop poor people coming, I merely said that there is limit to the number of people we can absorb before we experience detrimental effects.

Alright have it your way. This argument that immigration should be limited by because poor people might come and go on welfare really reveals the hollowness of the standard rationales for the welfare state, "help the poor", "show some compassion towards the poor" etc.

Once again, please tell me where I said that people should always be blocked.

Where did i impute that to you? I never said that.

To a degree that is done. The taxes that the states receive are put into the state. An example of something a state does for the benefit of her residents is the Channel Deepening project in Port Phillip.

But your missing the point. I am not debating "what is". I am asking "what ought to be".

detrimental effects.

And what are they exactly?

[bubble sunglasses]

 Hey Brendan, how much taxation/govt coercion of the fruits of peoples' labour do you think is optimal in Australia? What rates do you propose? And what [if anything] do you think should be payed for with taxes money?

[brendan]

Well thats like asking me how many times should a man beat his wife.

The question is not how much is desirable, but rather what activities is it justified for government to be involved in?

Should it be involved in giving out $5k of someone else's money for every baby born?

Should it be involved in .... etc.

Then there is the question also of what kind of taxes. Some kind of taxes are much more harmful than others though they may yield the same revenue. Compare payroll taxes to petrol taxes.

Then there is also another consideration i outlined before. That when government spends a dollar, it hasn't just costed society $1. You hear a lot of reports of TV like "Govt will spend $x of taxpayers money on XYZ". But that really doesn't show you how much it really costed society. Because to spend $1 of taxes you had to collect that dollar, people had to fill out forms which wastes their time, you had to set up a bureaucracy to administer the whole tax system, you distort people's incentives to work which reduces the overall wealth of society. People have worked how much this all adds up to. It come to $1.35 for each $1 that a government spends. So it costs society $1.35 for government to spend $1. So when you hear reports in news that the government will spend $x, just remind yourself that has costed society $1.35x .

There's another consideration also that I don't think that $1.35 incorporates and that is how well or how efficiently the government spends that $1. I'll quote Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman to illustrate:

"There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income."

Now in Australia, total taxes as a fraction of GDP is around 32% for the 2005-2006 fiscal year.

This phenomenon of corrupting influence of having the power to confiscate other people's money and spend it as you please, has not just suddenly been realized within the last 20 years. "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton. It's been around for ages, and it comes down to the incentives that people face. If B is spending A's money on C, B is not going to be very careful regarding cost and value, compared to the situation where B would spend his own money, on himself.

It's a relatively broad topic and you would come across it if you study [i]Public Choice Economics[/i] at University level.

[bubble sunglasses]

Well thats like asking me how many times should a man beat his wife.

The question is not how much is desirable, but rather what activities is it justified for government to be involved in?

Should it be involved in giving out $5k of someone else's money for every baby born?

Should it be involved in .... etc.

Then there is the question also of what kind of taxes. Some kind of taxes are much more harmful than others though they may yield the same revenue. Compare payroll taxes to petrol taxes.

  Well "how much?" gives you the option of saying "zero"
   
   

[bubble sunglasses]

  You have previously espoused, to paraphrase, the view that "your body and the fruits of your labour are your property, no-one is allowed to harm it/them or take it/them away".
  This clearly requires some sort of enforcement in modern-day Australia. Up to you to tell me if you disagree, or if you agree, whether you consider anything else worthy of taxpayers money, and *how* much, to give your argument any credibility.
  The Liberty and Democracy Party [or any other party], for obvious reasons, needs to publicize solid figures as part of their fiscal policy, not just say "no tax is good" or "higher/lower taxes than we have at present" are desirable.
  I am thankful to you and Coblin for having obliterated the fallacious idea my Mum brought me up on, : "left-wing -good, compassionate; right-wing -bad, often heartless", [and she, a bloody intelligent person, (currently writing physics literature acclaimed by prominent physicists,) proves, as you have iterated that being intelligent doesn't preclude you from being conceptually very wrong.] It would help me more to know more exactly where you stand.

[brendan]

Asking how much is like like asking what kind of mobile phones will be available in the future. We just don't know. It could be any number.

All us libertarians know is what activities government is justified in getting itself involved in and what activities it shouldn't be involved in. One of them that it should be involved in is providing a judicial system and law enforcement to, protect the sanctity of each person's body, and property and contracts. That very involves taxation because of such service's positive externalities. Same with national defence.

We don't have a specific number because it's not really necessary to give one. And to give a specific number risks making the same mistake that we accuse others of making. Furthermore there may be technological advances that remarkably reduce the costs of government engaging in the activities that it should be in, that I cannot simply foresee.

That's why I say it is better to look at what government is doing.

[bubble sunglasses]

 ok thanks for that. But you would need an exact figures, even if they are subject to change. The size of said defence force, for example would be a subjective issue, even if it were agreed that defence in the true sense of the word were all that was required.
 And can you appreciate how I see limited govt spending on social security as having positive externalities? [though how much, is again, subjective.]

  I also say I'm a "libertarian" or at least "somewhat libertarian"  
   I was wondering whether to support the LDP, although I remember strongly disagreeing with their policy on shooting/gun-owning; that's for another thread

[mark_alec]

that is the point. is not putting a "cap" or "limit to the number of people" the same way as blocking? what makes those that can come through more deserving than those who do not?

Luck, the same reason that I get a good life because I was born in Australia and not a third world country.

Australia cannot possibly accept everyone in the world that needs asylum.

[mark_alec]

Well thats like asking me how many times should a man beat his wife.

No it's not. If you are going to disagree with me, tell me exactly how a question about appropriate levels of tax is related to domestic violence in a marriage...

[enwiabe]

Brendan usually gives terrible analogies. Like his titanic one, more like a titanic disaster AMIRITE.

[midas_touch]

that is the point. is not putting a "cap" or "limit to the number of people" the same way as blocking? what makes those that can come through more deserving than those who do not?

Luck, the same reason that I get a good life because I was born in Australia and not a third world country.

Australia cannot possibly accept everyone in the world that needs asylum.

I concede my knowledge on the issue is limited, but this is why I think that free immigration is merely an utopian idealisation. If such was the case in real life, then you would have hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions of people leaving their countries for Australia , and other first world countries each year. However, countries can only take in so much before it places significant strain on their economies, and becomes a detriment to the immigrants in the form of trying to find housing and being able to gain stable employment.

[brendan]

Well thats like asking me how many times should a man beat his wife.

No it's not. If you are going to disagree with me, tell me exactly how a question about appropriate levels of tax is related to domestic violence in a marriage...

Actually, the question wasn't addressed to you and they are similar in that both involve the use or threat of violence against the individual.

[brendan]

I concede my knowledge on the issue is limited, but this is why I think that free immigration is merely an utopian idealisation. If such was the case in real life, then you would have hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions of people leaving their countries for Australia , and other first world countries each year. However, countries can only take in so much before it places significant strain on their economies, and becomes a detriment to the immigrants in the form of trying to find housing and being able to gain stable employment.

Nop that wouldn't happen, because it's just like chemistry/physics, there are opposing forces, and an equilibrium will be reached.
http://fora.tv/2008/04/24/Gibril_Faal_on_Migratory_Equilibrium
"Gibril Faal argues that the fear of uncontrolled influx of immigrants with open borders is unfounded because a sustainable equilibrium will be reached naturally."


Suppose there was higher demand for housing, then house prices would rice, then consequently supply would also rice as producers of houses build more houses to take advantage of the increase in prices.

Also labour is already quite globalized, when firms look for labour they don't just look to within one country, they can outsource, etc.

What is an "economy"? What is but the hundreds of thousands of private individual transactions between parties every single day.

Here is another video
http://fora.tv/2008/04/24/Viv_Regan_Advocates_Freedom_of_Movement

[brendan]

Interesting little piece of writing:
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/10/modest-proposal-for-anti-immigration.html
"And while anti-immigrant loud mouths concentrate mainly on Mexicans who cross into the United States, without government permission, there is another group of individuals who arrived in vast numbers and who consume massive amounts of social welfare. These anti-welfare activists ignore them entirely.

In an average year over four million of these individuals arrive in the States. And I’ve looked up some of the numbers of what they consume. The United States government, at all levels, doles out in excess of $500 billion every single year in order provide them with free state education. Police resources spent to keep these individual in check amounts to around $14.1 billion per year.

The reality is that these individuals do, over the course of their first two decades in the country, commit far more crimes than the average American. In fact, they commit a higher percentage of crimes than do the illegal immigrants. A report from the state of California, that I read, said that it is almost impossible to accurately estimate how much these people cost due to crimes they commit but the report said all estimates “conclude that nation-wide costs are in the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars annually.”

And I’ve seen some horrifying numbers. These people are more prone to use illegal drugs than average. They are more likely to be involved in drunk driving, as well as automobile accidents, than average. They are more violent and more crime prone than average. The social costs they impose on society are in the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars every single year, probably the trillions of dollars.

One in three of them relies on government services for their health care. Add billions more for that. And, unlike the Mexicans who immigrate illegally, they are entitled to massive amounts of welfare. The Urban Institute estimates that these individuals consume around $333 billion per year in entitlements alone. That doesn’t include all the money spent on crime control or the cost of those crimes or what is spent on education.

The arrival of these 4 million+ people every year consumes vast amounts of government spending. Far more than we could ever accurately calculate. And none of this includes the trillions of dollars in private spending.

And what do they put into the system? Unlike the typical illegal who comes to America to earn a living these new arrivals rarely enter the job market during their first two decades in the country. Those that do tend to take part-time work at minimum wage. It takes around 20 years or more before they are acclimated sufficiently to the culture before many of them make their first tentative steps into the employment market.

Who are these individuals that impose such massive government expenditures and contribute so little to the economy for such an extended period of time? Babies.
Every child that is born in the United States racks up massive amounts of government spending for at least the first two decades of their life. The Justice system spend billions to keep them in control. And the largest program of wealth redistribution in the world is the American educational system. A typical education, through high school, could cost the taxpayers anywhere from $100,000 to $160,000. Then many of them go on to subsidized higher education as well which, depending on where they are studying and for how long, can double the educational costs.

And unlike illegal immigrants they rarely find employment until decades after they arrived.

Would these social costs, imposed unwillingly on others, therefore justify government restrictions on reproduction? If not, why not?

...

It’s hard to rile up people to hate kids. It’s easy to get them to hate foreigners... If it were really welfare that concerned them they’d spend more time lobbying for government restrictions on giving birth. I would be curious though, to see exactly where they would build the wall to prevent reproduction."

[mark_alec]

Nop that wouldn't happen, because it's just like chemistry/physics, there are opposing forces, and an equilibrium will be reached.

Clever use of science there, I must believe you know because you are talking about equilibrium.

Suppose there was higher demand for housing, then house prices would rice, then consequently supply would also rice as producers of houses build more houses to take advantage of the increase in prices.

It is not in our interests to force housing prices up by increasing our population dramatically through migration.

There is some truth in what you say. If there were open border for migration then an equilibrium would eventually be formed. But that equilibrium would be such that the standard of living would be lower than it is now, which is something that we want to avoid.