Murray Rothbard explains the absurdity of immigration laws

Rothbard wrote:

>The loss to everyone as consumers from shackling the inter-regional division of labor and the efficient location of production, should not be overlooked in considering the effects ofimmigration barriers. The reductio ad absurdum, though not quite as devastating as in the case of the tariff, is also relevant
here.

>As Cooley and Poirot point out: If it is sound to erect a barrier along our national boundary lines, against those who see greater opportunities here than in their native land, why should we not erect similar barriers between states and localities within our nation? Why should a low-paid worker . . . be allowed to migrate from a failing buggy shop in Massachusetts to the expanding automobile shops in Detroit. . . . He would compete with native Detroiters for food and clothing and housing. He might be willing to work for less than the prevailing wage in Detroit, “upsetting the labor market” there. . . . Anyhow, he was a native of Massachusetts, and therefore that state should bear the full “responsibility for hiswelfare.” Those are matters we might ponder, butour honest answer to all of them is reflected in our actions. . . . We’d rather ride in automobiles than in buggies. It would be foolish to try to buy an automobile or anything else on the free market, and at the same time deny any individual an opportunity to help produce those things we want.

>The advocate of immigration laws who fears a reduction in his standard of living is actually misdirecting his fire. Implicitly, he believes that his geographic area now exceeds its optimum population point. What he really fears, therefore, is not so much immigration as any population growth. To be consistent,
therefore, he would have to advocate compulsory birth control,to slow down the rate of population growth desired by individual parents.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/uiO_ZT5bSqk
original.antiwar.com/rothbard/2010/03/02/war-guilt-in-the-middle-east/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Reminder that libertarianism is explicitly condemned by the Catholic Church since it sacrifices all other forms of social belonging on the altar of economic activity

Remember when the Catholic Church was relevant?

Yes, it still is. Libertarianism on the other hand...

How about I don't want to get rhodesia'd.

Sage and then kys. Alternatively, pass laws requiring everyone to act and work like high-IQ white males.

...

Merchant arguments from a Jewish intellectual. Gdp does not increase living standards and even if it did there are far more important things

>there are far more important things

Such as?

In a rich but unsympathetic an-cap society, you'd get completely different kinds of migrants, and your society would still need some way to vet them to avoid having criminal networks screw over the system by networking your immigration system.

Where are we most likely to see an ancap society develop? If it happens on earth, it's likely to happen in a zero-resources asscrack - an arcology, a floating island, or some unvalued no man's land. None of these have any way to make use of illiterate vegetable pickers. There will be no migrants to a zero-resources asscrack until people know how they're going to avoid starving there.
What if it happened in space? Immigration would be an absolutely monstrous challenge. That makes social systems into a detail - and I think it throws the question into stark relief. Who gets into a space station?
Why care less about conditions on the ground in spaceship Earth?

(((Murray Rothbard)))

Jews apply the exact opposite standards in their own countries #openbordersforisrael

youtu.be/uiO_ZT5bSqk

Open borders for Israel!

seeing retarded alt rightists unironicallt embrace Hitler makes ancapism seem more and more like the adult ideology we need.

them posting (((rothbard))) as if that was an argument is actually another point for ancapism.

Not dealing with crime and racial hate? Oppression? Not being bred out or killed off as a people?

For real, you are literally asking what is more important than money.

Go to a poor country where you are relatively rich and see what it is like to live there. Look how the UK voted for brexit even though all the people were told it would make them poorer. Living standards are are not solely determined by the economy.

What is more important? How about health, happiness and well-being. How about a sense of identity, society and community.
Rothbard notes the difference between races in intelligence and temperance is self evident. The right to self determination is so basic and gos for beyond economic arguments

If you were against crime, you would be against the US government, the most criminal entity in the world.

>sneaky Jew Rothbard does his sneaky thing

This video is not available

Reminder that LIbertarianism is a kike philosophy pretending to be Murrican Patriotism.

That's all true. But what Rothbard isn't taking into account is obvious racial inferiority and inherent lazyness of third world immigrants.

I'm willing to let go of this little bit of edge in economy for social stability. That's why I'm free market capitalist and you're an anarchist - capitalist

The absolute state of londonistan.

See you in 15 years reginald.

So basically ancaps want a series of multi-racial enclaves? A bunch of wealthy, technologically advanced cities that are overrun with Asians and Jews instead of blacks and Arabs? Where the only unifying culture is consumption?

Pass.

>a jew hates that people don't like unchecked immigration
wew lad what a shocker

Rothbard was a non-religious Jew. There isn't an ounce of Jewish self-identity in his writing.

What if I simply don't want to live next to darkies?
What do lolbertarians say to that?

Why do you care? I have Mexican neighbors. I don't talk to them. It's no skin off my nose.

You've got to read bowling alone. Part of why multi racial societies don't work is because, like you and your neighbors, people just don't want anything to do with each other.

You know not caring and not talking to your neighbors is a problem right?

Do I really need to have an excuse why I do or do not want something on my own land?
If a community unilaterally agrees that they want things to be a certain way, who's to say they don't have the right?

Why should people care about each other? Nationalism is mass delusion. Markets will maximize the total welfare in society even if everybody is totally self-interested. You don't need anything else.

that is fucked up. And it's fucked up that you think that's normal. People are supposed to talk to and know their neighbors. The modern lifestyle of not knowing your neighbors is counter to any previous society

Communities don't have rights, only individuals. A majority in a community don't have the right to dictate how the rest of the community associates with foreigners.

>oy vey goy, you don't need spiritual fulfilment in your life
>all you need is material goods
>speaking of which, I have a loan offer for you, goy
Libertarianism and AnCap are just as Jewish as Communism.

please can i have ur bbs

This is another thing that's touched upon in Bowling Alone. Statistically, people tend to be happier in homogenous societies.

>only economic indicators matter
now you went full 16 yo autist

+

And this is why lolbertarians will never win. You only care about money and the market. You're liberals with a right-wing economic edge.

>MUH CONSUMERS
>MUH MARKET
>NATIONS BEGIN AND END AT THEIR ECONOMIC SYSTEM

Are libertarians autistic?

...

maybe, but we're still right
get fucked

(((((Muray Rothbard))))))

Because you say so? Nah, any person or class of peoples can demand or have provided for them rights, and can attempt to shirk or have demanded of them duties. By whom? Anyone who cares to try, the most successful of these being the sovereign, which is going to calculate on a different time scale than the market obsessed anarchist, who ignores relevant cultural and political externalities of immigration from other races especially when welfare exists.
Who is going to risk their lives to defend a stranger's markets? Ultimately, you've got to hold land.

suck a dick, my dude
respectfully- deepthroat that shit

individual rights come before the collective good any day of the week, sir
nobody cares if you say otherwise

yes

>A majority in a community don't have the right to dictate how the rest of the community associates with foreigners.
Yes it does. Here in England you don't get any rights at all, based on our 1689 Bill of Rights (still valid as part of our constitution) unless you are specifically a Protestant and subject of the Crown.

The economy is secondary to the Nation.

yes

Any system that can't maintain a border is doomed to fail.

>As Cooley and Poirot point out: If it is sound to erect a barrier along our national boundary lines, against those who see greater opportunities here than in their native land, why should we not erect similar barriers between states and localities within our nation?
Because the people inside the nation's borders want each other to be there. NEXT QUESTION

Yes goy, all borders are products of racist evil white men. Let thousands of undocumented 3rd world trash into your country, you're not RACIST are you?
Now if you'll excuse me I need to blow up another Palestinian village and sterilize some Eritrean migrants at the border.

Self-interest is a versatile thing covering many particulars of motive.

Rothbard was anti-Zionist. Chill out.

original.antiwar.com/rothbard/2010/03/02/war-guilt-in-the-middle-east/

People are interested in their investments in norms, which are by definition communal and can easily go to nation scale.

What is the value of a persons labour? the answer is supply and demand for those particular skills..
The influx of migrants from developing countries are predominantly low skill migrants, these will put a downward pressure on the wages of everyone that possess skills at the same level and are employed thereof.

No amount of education can alter this, since IQ is in some way deterministic in the possible skills you can possess.
Immigration will cause a relative reduction in living standards for a large number of people - that is why (in a democracy) that there is laws against it.

Also: Slow down population growth?? what would be the purpose of that??

This is exactly the argument Rothbard was ridiculing. You can't see the absurdity of your own argument.

So brave!

Social cohesion.

Racial solidarity.

Sovereignty.

Survival of your tribe.

Lower crime rates.

But most importantly and this is the big one, no shitskins.

Worked for me.

He grew up. Whatever.

Shill thread.

Lolbertarians is the reason Sweden went from taking too many immigrants to full overdrive mass-replacement mode.
Pic related is the Libertarian mutt (grandparents were lithuanian and british mulatto) who got the ball rolling and talked incessantly about how bad Swedes are.