One of my biggest frustrations with blogging (and don’t get me started on Twitter, which is even worse) is that a lot of people who comment on posts aren’t involved with the author’s argument. I’m not applying this objection to commenters at EconLog because I think that, in general, they (you) do better than commentators on most other blogs.
I see that this failure to engage in discussions on immigration and open borders is much more likely to occur. Recently, Chris Freeman, a professor of philosophy, wrote a post on Brian Kaplan’s new blog entitled “Bet on It” entitled “No Objection to Freedom to Open Borders.” His post was a little too trivial and I wouldn’t headline it that way because it doesn’t allow libertarian objections that neither he nor I have heard.
But the surprising thing is how many commenters have refused to answer his argument.
One of Freeman’s arguments is that Brian Kaplan created and made his and Jack Weinersmith’s graphic novel titles. Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Migration.
The most popular objection complains that “we cannot have open borders and a welfare state.” (This position is sometimes associated with Milton Friedman, but his perspective was actually more concise than that.) Even if we set aside this search to estimate that the financial impact of immigration is “clustered around zero,” the argument is fairly simple. Refute Liberals advocate for the legalization of heroin with a welfare state. They do not protect state restrictions on reproductive rights even when children go to public school. In short, if we take the “welfare state’s objection” seriously, it will not stop at freedom of immigration.
One commenter quoted the line, “Liberals advocate for the legalization of heroin with a welfare state” and replied, “No, they don’t, they support the legalization of heroin.”
Notice how this allows the commenter to ignore Freeman’s point. The key question to ask this commenter is, “We have a fairly large welfare state. Are you talking about legalizing heroin?” If he’s not really dense, the commenter knows it’s the problem but fails to get involved.
Freeman further writes:
The second objection claims that taxpayers have the right to determine how public infrastructure is used and thus limit the right of immigrants to access if they so desire. But this argument also proves much more. Do taxpayers have the right to ban people from driving on public roads if they have a copy? Anarchy, state and utopia In the car? Of course not.
Freeman argues that if taxpayers have the right to determine how public infrastructure is used, there is no stopping it. This is why he gave the reductio ad absurdum of having a book close to Robert.
How does this same commenter answer? He said: “Okay. So what does this have to do with open borders?
One of the objections to opening the border with the open border is with the so-called right of taxpayers to determine using tax-funded infrastructure. One gets the idea that the commenter did not read the objection or simply decided to ignore it and ignore Freeman’s argument against the objection.
This failure to get involved doesn’t just happen with blogs and Twitter, of course. When I was a regular guest on the Salinas-based radio station KION, a lot of these things happened while I was defending illegal immigration.
I will start by mentioning that the case of illegal immigration is easier to do in some way than the case of legal immigration because illegal immigrants are more afraid to sign up for welfare programs and even legal immigrants are more likely to come here. To work.
Sure, the return would be “but it’s invalid.” That was, in the mind of the artist, the slam dunk argument.
Acknowledging that the underlying principle on the part of the objector was that one must abide by the law, I will mention that some states have laws against adultery and also laws against speeding. I would ask the questioner if he (it always was) thought the law should be enforced against adultery, or I would ask if the questioner ever stepped up and walked away from it.
Always, the questioner refuses to answer but instead says, “How can you compare illegal immigration with all its bad effects, adultery or haste?”
I will answer that I was not comparing them. I was just trying to convince the questioner that the “obey all laws” principle is one that he didn’t really believe. I will then mention that I have noticed that he is distinguishing between illegal immigration on the one hand and adultery and speed on the other, based on the influence of both. Before the questioner raised the issue of obedience to the law, I mentioned where I was trying to go. “So let’s look at the effects of illegal immigration,” I would say.
Can you guess what happened next? The caller, if he was still in line, argued that illegal immigration was wrong because it was illegal.