Murray Rothbard explains the absurd economics 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 of immigration 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 his welfare.” Those are matters we might ponder, but our 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.

>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.

Yeah execpt that would infringe on the freedoms of other americans, just like erecting "similar barriers between states and localities within our nation". It's really not a hard issue to grasp, immigration laws are a pragmatic solution to this problem - we can't limit americans' freedom of movement upsetting the labor market, but we can do that with foreigners as they lack the rights and priviliges of nationals.

Except Massholes and Detroit are both part of the USA. Tijuana is not. Especially when giving government benefits to illegals is common.

only a diaspora jew couldn't see the difference between international immigration and state to state moves or migrations within a nation

Milton Friedman said: "There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state, but in a welfare state it is a different story: the supply of immigrants will become infinite."

So you an give the leftists their open borders, but you then have to dismantle the entire welfare state- you can never have both.

The problem is that you use the word "americans" in your argument. That's a made up distinction. That's the whole point.

Soooo "welfare queens" are the only thing saving "real Americans" from being economically bulldozed by Asian tech migrants who will automate away all the jobs. How ironic.

his entire argument is framed in the perspective of a consumer who wants things to be as cheap as possible.

>other Americans
That's a worthless line. There are Americans you'd loathe more than anyone else on earth and there are non-Americans you'd prefer the company of a trillion times over to the average 'American'.
You're basing an ideological position on an unsubstantive factor.

EVERYONE is a consumer.
The reference frame of a consumer is a reference frame EVERYONE shares.

but you can't be ONLY a consumer. it's not a balanced argument.

and it ignores the social and cultural aspects of mass immigration entirely.

nationalism is for the mentally deficient

Your arguing against an ancom, you might as well stop while

i don't put much stock in peoples flags here on Sup Forums

i think rothbard was talking about white migration only here.

he wasn't aware that there is an elite occult satanic sect that plans to enslave the human race by mongrelizing it through massive immigration of third world subhumans and jewish banking supremacist elite to guide them all from above.

Here IS a balanced argument - most people are the producers of an extremely small number of goods, and consumers of thousands of goods.
Free market competition makes more people better off than does government favoritism which picks winners and losers and drives up the costs of goods for everyone else but a particular producer.
It is the diffused general interest which is served by free markets, and only concentrated special interests which are served by political thuggery and favoritism.

>ignores that everyone is also a producer.
>red-black flag

I... wut...

>It is the diffused general interest which is served by free markets

i don't pay taxes to serve foreign interests, at least in principle. we elect leaders to represent OUR needs and OUR interests, not to line the pockets of a few shareholders who want to save a buck by importing foreign labor.

>ignores
>literally say
>most people are the producers of an extremely small number of goods, and consumers of thousands of goods

You don't pay taxes to serve anyone but political goons who happily take it from you.
It's not "shareholders and foreigners" that you want a free market for - you want a free market so that your money GETS YOU MORE. So that YOU are made better off by things in your life being better and cheaper relative to your income.
You are made poorer when the goods and services you buy are artificially made more expensive by anti-competitive political intercession.

>being better and cheaper relative to your income.

most certainly not of better quality. and it is arguable whether or not foreign competition in the workplace makes them cheaper relative to my income.

if anything, i'm arguing against government and industry favoritism, because they seem to prefer foreign workers.

>better quality
You get a choice between what you think is or isn't worth your money in a competitive market. If there are "less quality" but cheaper alternatives, those function as substitute goods in most cases and drive the price of the more quality things YOU might want to buy instead down by their existence on the market.

This is the kind of fuckery sand niggers argue because they don't understand the logic of Western civilizational organization. Nation-states are organized along the geographic boundaries of a kin people who are similar in language, customs, religion, etc. Nation-states are sovereign. Sub-units like U.S. states are NOT sovereign. They are not treated like separate countries. We are all organically part of the mother country. Taking his logic, why even have state, county, or city limits?

Jews don't like nation-states. It goes against the DNA of The Wanderer.

NEVER THE JEWS

NEVER USURY

>NEVER USURY

>NEVER THE JEWS

>NEVER INTERNATIONAL FINIANCE.

t. anacap

>You get a choice between what you think is or isn't worth your money in a competitive market.

and i usually weigh my options carefully.

foreign competition benefits employers far more than domestic workers.

and we haven't even touched on social or cultural issues.

why don't you start a usury free bank?

They exist; where do you think Muslims put their money?

Also, the passionless automatons that Libertarians seem to think humans are never ceases to stun me.

>foreign competition benefits employers far more than domestic workers
That's not true - foreign competition against what YOU IN PARTICULAR are producing may be worse for you, because you have to be more competitive than you would otherwise have to be to turn a profit, but foreign competition against the way wider array of products and services that you are NOT a producer - but instead are consumer - of are way to your benefit, in that you have better, cheaper, and a wider variety of goods and services available to you than you would have without that extra competition.

can you link me to a website of one?

Name one thing that a single nation has a monopoly on.

We founded our empire on clothing, but where is the British clothing industry now?

so what's to stop them from working in their own country? why aren't their skills just as valuable there?

Huh?
Why are you asking that question?

They can - and more often than not do - work and stay in their own countries.
And their skills are not as valuable over there because they don't have the same capital apparatus. The cost of things relative to their incomes is much much higher in their countries because they're simply not as productive, largely due to lack of capital (both human and material).

He finally begins to understand what makes the state. Borders.

>because they don't have the same capital apparatus.

and why is that?

>Muh economy / muh free trade!

...I know he's a Jew but non-jewish white men LOVE this argument too. For example, White South Africans BROUGHT blacks into their country by the millions to work on the farms because they could pay them 1/12th the wage of whites. Now look at them? Full on genocide against whites. inb4:

>muh empathy!! Muh white altruism!

...You faggots and your faggot ancestors weren't empathetic to the plight of the """poor""" black man...You were GREEDY. Every last one of your countries is getting BLACKED because white men are addicted to slave labor. I feel zero pity on every white Christian cuck who gets beaten down by savage pavement apes, or when Stacie gets raped to death by coons. Future you faggots chose.

And this my friends is why you never trust a Jew.

Largely because they've been fucked over by governments - especially China and the former Soviet blocs.
Money doesn't get allocated productively when most production is centrally planned by dipshit bureacrats thousands of miles away.

They have less income because they're paid fuck all. Chinese get paid shit and they're productive enough to blow the rest of the world out.

It all comes down to a race to the bottom when globalist industry takes a dominant position.

I was highlighting that we were able, due to our geography and livestock (rolling rivers and sheep) we were able to produce something no other nation could produce: clothing so cheap it undercut entire national efforts. But where is that now? It was undercut itself by nations who could get away with worse treatment of workers and less pay for them.

>economics
>science

>They have less income because they're paid fuck all
Please list us the functions of labor pricing.

Another example: Saudi Arabia brings millions of shitskins in their country so slaves work instead of them. Now look at them? No genocide against Saudis! Why is that? Because you don't know how to herd slaves.

He later renounced all the stupid arguments he made here and advocated for immigration restrictionism on the basis of maintaining the innate quality of the population and preventing demographic political strategies by statists. Old Rothbard > Young Rothbard

so rather than try to build a better, educated workforce of americans, they'd rather import foreign workers who have a propensity toward cronyism and fuckery?

>Asians
>automate away all the jobs

Damn you’re fucking retarded.

Asians are soulless machines (can't argue this) so he is right. Asians already automated all their jobs.

Yeah that's good. The Arabs are good at dealing with sub-humans. White men? Total fucking cucks 24/7.

You want to know the harsh truth about the history of the white race? It's this: for 8000 years white men have been making the same mistakes...They import shitskins, lose control, get cucked, then white-flight to a new smaller area and the white population shrinks. The Pharoahs were white. DNA evidence proves it. How many whites are left in Egypt? The middle East? Turkey? They ALL used to be ruled by whites. Now they're totally non-white mongrels.

White history proves one thing and one thing only: white male cuckoldry and weakness will never be fixed. Eventually the white race will go extinct. The end.

They automate anything that is cheaper to do so than paying a man to do. The only real options are the race to the bottom—to be cheaper than the machine, or be replaced.

There aren't any. The wage is just something that the employer wishes he didn't have to pay. You could argue it in context of a Just wage, but I doubt you'd take that as an argument.

People are going to do what they think is the best for themselves. That often includes using higher-skilled and more productive American labor. There's a reason Americans make so much money while simultaneously having better purchasing power for their dollars, and it's not competitive market restrictions - it's mostly because we have lots of material capital and a much better apparatus for building human capital.

>There aren't any
Jesus Christ.
This is bong education?

>Eventually the white race will go extinct. The end.
Arabs are white :^)

underrated post

Hello Chaim, working hard for your shekels I see.

i'm still waiting for you to show me a single profiting and operating bank that doesn't use usury.

SLIDE THREAD

>material capital

this won't last forever and we're in some serious debt.

The U.S. is incessantly investing in new capital.
Capital investment is at an all-time high right now.

These two have the right response

Immigrants taking advantage of social programs, that have been paid for by taxes of legal residents and built to counteract current economic problems experienced by legal residents, undermines those programs and wastes government funds. Not to mention, that there is in no way a bar on legal immigration, as the government can let in those it believes represents beneficial future Americans, at a rate that current economic standards allow an influx of new residents. the wall is strictly to deter the unsanctioned movement of non nationals, who, as stated, take advantage of welfare economy unjustly whilst simultaneously bloating the labor market. An immigrant doesn't even need to take a job to drive down prices, as the prevalence of increased labor in general will lead to reduced wages, when a company can continuously hire from an artificially increased labor pool

Additionally, it is foolish to compare the Massachusetts man with a Detroit man, as there are laws in place dictating wages to prevent scalping of such kind we experienced during the industrial revolution; whereas illegal immigrants being paid less is a circumvention of the established laws to the detriment of those who obey them.

White race isn't even a real race, it's a genetic anomaly. The cause of being white is the same cause as autism: lack of sun exposure during pregnancy. Doubt it's a concidence. Whites were always autistic by wanting everyone to be like them.

If he's only talking about European immigration then he's not necessarily wrong.
The problem is that he isn't stating the difference of brown VS white immigrants. This is a general failing of all lolbertarians.
They pretend all men are equal in ability, when this is demonstrably untrue.

I actually don't know what point you're on right now, reading that last post with respect to context of the conversation.
Being pessimistic about capital prospects for sake of continuing contention?

you dont measure the fucking economy according to states and localities Rothbard you suspicious sounding ass academic lol

my focus is waning and i lack the economic background to argue further. but i know when i'm being fucked over.

>dont think for yourself goy. Let me do the thinking for you.

It's a government bank. Why would you allow usury banks in your country at all?

>To be consistent, therefore, he would have to advocate compulsory birth control, to slow down the rate of population growth desired by individual parents.
>Implying we're not doing all of this already on our own, without laws or anything.
But, not import more refuugees so rothbards retarded argument still holds.

(((((((((((Murray Rothbard))))))))))))))

This, and it has to be equal with all participating states

Immigration is used to get rid of the welfare state. Its win-win situation for lolbertarians as they get cheap labor and get rid of "socialism".

Well no. See, I'm a man. You're both women, (or men so feminized as to be no different) which means you lack the ability to identify as part of a group beyond immediate relationships. As an American man, I inherently care more about Americans as a group identity. This is why men can build functioning societies, they're willing to sacrifice.

>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.

No you dumb fucking heeb, I just don't want the country filled with taco niggers.

>Murray Rothbard explains why the Libertarian Party consistently sells its ideology about as well as the Greens

California is what you get when you allow unlimited migration. They flood the country, naturalize, and then vote for gibs. Period. If you began with a libertarian state you'd end with a socialist one anyway.

>be cheaper than the machine
This is a defeatist attitude.
You should be better than a machine

>If you began with a libertarian state you'd end with a socialist one anyway.
only in a democracy

The purpose of the state is the protection and well-being of its citizens. The effect of a citizen moving freely within the country and working for lower wages would be zero-sum as the negative impact on the economy is balanced by the positive impact of the well-being of the citizen pursuing what he desires which isn't the case if an immigrant would negatively impact the economy.

Enough spics will bring about a tipping point eventually

If you think you can compete with the low wages of the entire third world, you're a fool

Women are generally tend to be collectivist and identify themselves in groups. It's also a quality of people with lower IQ to try to simplify the world into simple concepts like "good guys and bad guys", and self-identifying with a group they arbitrarily label "the good guys". Oooga booga bix nood - you're a commie senpai.

You're dead wrong. Read the study. Women are less group-identified, they only think of themselves and people immediately around them. I'm an American nationalist. This precludes communism because I don't want Americans to starve to death.

These attributes are characteristic of Jewish culture, yet they have high IQs

from CoC

Women are more group identified, and being more group-identified is intellectually cancerous. It's a disease of subservient bootlicking and lack of rational conscious thought. You have nothing in common with a commie from urban Commiefornia, yet you'd (say that you would) murder and be murdered if LA "dared" tried to stop being in the same political union as you and voting for politicians you hate who make rules about your life you despise.
You're a fucking commie.

Since all I said about IQ was that people with lower IQ TEND toward tribalism - which is a forfeiture of rational thinking to group conformity, tradition, and consensus - my statement is not made less true by an observation of a group with high IQ that nevertheless tend to forfeit their own rational thought to group-think.

>Women are more group identified

All of the science disagrees with you. They are not group identified, they are relationship-identified.

>You have nothing in common with a commie from urban Commiefornia

That's just retarded. Language and culture exist, despite the Jews trying to destroy it for 50 years.

Having disagreements doesn't stop you from caring about people you fucking autist.

I know that wasn't the argument you were making, but decided to mention it still. Jewish backing of political, shit science has been deadly for science

Women support collectivism - you see this in every country. They can't stand individualism because they can't stand the notion that they might not be "a part of something". What? You think university leftist whales are individualists? Have you actually listened to their political policy proposals and notions of human identity?

No - the point is that you are working against both your interest and the interest of that commie in urban Commiefornia when you DEMAND that that commie not secede from the same political union as you.

>Immigration is used to get rid of the welfare state

That... doesn't make sense.

Hoppe absolutely destroys Rothbard on immigration.

Nothing else to even discuss.

It can make sense in a Nordic country:
>high social cohesion, white population
>import shitskins
>now have a distinct ethnic underclass, a la USA
>social cohesion gone, group conflict of interest, people don't feel like paying for welfare in this new setting

Fucking retard
You left out the fact that there's now millions of shitskins voting to sustain the welfare state
All you've done is make the welfare state more burdensome and perpetual

I'd rather have less money and less spics desu

Even in a country like Sweden, shitskins make up only a small portion of the population. And these guys don't vote or assimilate, they aren't a big enough constituency to be pandered to like in the US

They probably aren't intelligent enough to even discern our parties from one another, they are pretty much all the same

He also said that immigration without consent of the native population (i.e. property owners in a community) is tantamount to trespassing.
This is a view echoed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Lew Rockwell, two of Rothbard's most eminent proteges.
Humans are free to choose who they associate with. Don't make Rothbard out to be a limpdick open-borders faggot. The man loved civilization and he knew what had to be done to defend it.

This is what I'm talking about. He DID see the incompatibility of antagonistic cultures and he defended free association to the hilt.

Fuck you OP

For now. Don't be so quick to scoff at the US it could very easily be your future.
Especially if your delusional hopes of more shitskins = freer markets + more liberty is representative of your countrymen.

People need to be less conflict averse and more willing to think about alternatives political scenarios to "one big huge political group for hundreds of millions of people who want nothing to do with one another".
More people around who make more obvious that fact helps. Rather than try to preserve the status quo, you should be happy when people invite minor ruin unto themselves to that people will finally start to wake up.

Rothbard changed his views later on and made much more compelling points about immigration from a libertarian perspective.

>If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no person could enter unless invited to enter and allowed to rent or purchase property. A totally privatized country would be as closed as the particular property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. and Western Europe really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.

one american moving to another state adds no new competition to the american market, whereas introducing an illegal immigrant to the market does thus depressing the value of low skill work

Oh, I do know that, I'm not the Finn who posted the original comment. It's some sort of Laffer curve, I reckon, where going past a certain point will start increasing shitskin political influence enough to make up for the middle-class Finnish population losing faith for the system