Libertarian here.
Is there any sound argument against not having open borders?
The way I see it, the pros far outweigh the cons:
>larger labor market
>lower costs due to lower wages
>savings get passed onto you
>lower priced consumer goods due to no import taxes and regulatory costs
>more competition
>have the upper hand against countries like China
>less bureaucracy
The only con I see would be a strain on welfare which would need to be eliminated, once you do that there's nothing but benefits.
Believe it or not, individuals derive utility from things other than favorable macroeconomic indicators
well, welfare would also get stretched out beyond belief from pacos taking all of it for themselves. eventually, the class devide would become wider, and then...
RACE WAR NOW
Lower wages is not good for people already fucked by stagnant wages.
move to a better job market
This is a common misconception, fellow Libertarian.
>Labor shortages cause economic growth by reducing inefficiency in the market
>Lower costs from lower wages are an illusory gain due to loss of purchasing power parity
>Consumer goods price loss is more than offset by price gain in utilities, land, and other necessities
>Competition, in practice, mostly stays flat outside of unskilled labor markets, which creates a long term net economic drain by disadvantaging young native workers (the Millennial NEET problem)
>Overpopulated countries, like China, gain the most from open borders because their overpopulation is relieved by excess workers leaving for greener pastures. Underpopulated countries get excess labor supply, exacerbating wage suppression, unemployment, and low opportunity for young workers
>More bureaucracy due to more people
Welfare is just the diarrhea on the shit cake.
>larger labor market
Unironically thinks wetbacks are coming here to work and not just for the free stuff.
there wont be free stuff with open borders, zero walfare.
plus you can move to other countries with open borders to work too, its a two way street
>not having a country
that's an antiquated concept in the 21st century, country is where the home is
There's not only private property, but also empirically proven commons. These diverge from communal Services and institutions to norms and values. Open borders make it possible to get the benefits of these commons without any cost or commitment to them. Essentially, the Investment loses value and society destabilizes.
Ironically, you're talking about an economic fad based pretty much on that idea. And, in fact, the idea is not entirely wrong. Immigration of people moving to better job markets does indeed increase GDP!
Look to China to see this proven. From Deng's desocializing of China until today, the GDP has increased explosively. Much of that is from immigration. You might be confused as to who is immigrating to China. The answer is almost no one, China has some of the strictest immigration laws in history.
Chinese people are immigrating to Chinese cities from rural China and have been for 30 years now. 90% of the immigration growth effect is actually from urbanization, not immigration per se. The influx of people to a growing city drives growth in every sector. But like anything else, there's a critical mass. Established cities do not benefit from an influx of people. Even simply existing cities with a stable labor supply do not benefit unless there is massive investment in infrastructure and construction to kick start the growth.
>Is there any sound argument against having open borders?
Fixed your grammar retard.
With automation being implemented across various industries, couldn't having a large number of young unskilled workers become a massive liability
That's an idea, not a political possibility in any democratic society. People don't vote to get rid of welfare and neither do elected politicians. Even the middle class and wealthy do not vote to get rid of welfare in sufficiently significant numbers.
You're certainly not going to find the political capital to sell getting rid of welfare in exchange for open borders. Randian Libertarians and Neocons are the only movements even somewhat in favor of implementing that idea, pretending they could legislate as they pleased.
No because if you remove the minimum wage you have a lot of competition
>the working class, the backbone of your culture gets destroyed because much profits for degenerate ((((1%ers)))
No thanks
Also, based position
>lower costs due to lower wages
Dude, are you like 12 years old? Who the fuck thinks that if an employer finds a way to save money that he or she would pass the savings onto the consumer?
You'd have to have a childish understanding of economics to think that would happen.
>Caring about the economy more than the health of the society.
They unironically do, and they do it on the cheap, which is most of the problem.
The immigrants are actually saving Europe from economic collapse
what about worker's injury compensation? Overtime pay? the threat of unionization? worker theft? Health care?
Automation removes the need to worry about all of these things
Okay.
This evening, when you go to sleep, i want you to leave the door open.
Have fun with your open border.
Stable Communities matter if people are to build happy, non degenerate lives. A perfectly flexible labor market precludes this possibly
literally everything you said is wrong you fucking retard.
>be a libertariacuck
>want open borders
>want the nation to still exist
>don't see the problem with that
job creators would create those incentives for you to keep more skilled workers if they so desire, but its just a social contract that you enter and agree those are not needed for because of the greater net gains
don't like your compensation? find a different job, simple
Also a libertarian here.
We need a wall and a strong border to protect our people from migrants and economical invasions.
This is the only way to secure a future for our culture, safety and purity.
I hate wetbacks. How's that for an argument, lolbertarian?
>libertarian here
>open borders
What new kike bait is this?
Longterm effects of having multiracial societies cause the destruction of the nation and cancel out any positive effects of open borders.
Do you close the doors on your house, why ?
thats subjective and not proven to output economic growth
culture is subjective
nice one
read some Jeffrey Tucker and get educated
I see you're enjoying your retirement, Speaker Ryan.
This. The pragmatic Libertarian is a nationalist and see the government as a tool to protect individual citizens from outside threats, corruption, and criminals.
Ah so nothing subjective needs to be defended. High IQ argument bud.
>Is there any sound argument against not having open borders?
Yes, I don't believe my culture, my people, and my children should be destroyed for short term monetary gain during my lifetime.
But with the much larger labor market, Increase in competition, and lack of any worker protections, wouldn't that greatly decrease compensation offered if the employer can simply find someone else?
With entry level fields either being automated or having their pay cut to unlivable levels wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that skilled trades and occupations would be next?
>let in browns
>they vote your rights away
OH NO NO NO!
>let in browns
>they vote to steal your wealth via socialism
OH NO NO NO!
With no criminal code it would be perfect. If I was in the US, I would definitely come to shoot beaners just for fun.
Yes, but this would create thousands more jobs, and decrease costs everywhere, so losing your job isn't a big deal cause you have more to choose from, and cost of living would also decrease because of competition
I addressed this in detail , but you ignored it because you're an uneducated brainlet regurgitating your enthusiasm for bad economics you read in a trendy book
>Is there any sound argument against not having open borders?
The more people there are in a country the more threats there are to you and your private property
>Is there any sound argument against not having open borders?
Yes, see pic. If groups of people actively work against society, they make society worse off as a result.
Just read Jeffrey Tucker, he explains it all in detail my friend
>larger labor market
We don't have a market to support that much unskilled or even low skilled labor. Remember all the manufacturing was moved to Chinkland. Also, it's a fucking stupid idea.
>less bureaucracy
You mean more beauracracy. The more ethnic groups there are, the more lobby and advocacy groups there will be. It's literally like inviting the barbarians at the gates inside your city and asking them to be polite. It's already been disastrous with the ones we've invited in so far.
open borders destroy nations
free trade requires open borders
free trade destroys nations
>Yes, but this would create thousands more jobs
How would this create jobs? You are literally flooding the market, and removing any protections that have allowed many to work
>and decrease costs everywhere
Are you familiar with any large corporation. Employees and customers are the last people companies invest in. lower labor costs would be used to increase profit margins (rewarding shareholders and a small number of corporate heads). You have NO way to guarantee this wouldn't happen
>inb4 you say businesses would compete with each other
There is also no guarantee that the largest businesses wouldn't combine together to monopolize their respective industries, creating barriers to entry that no small business can compete with.
Jobs would come back from China if the us labor market offered competitive wages (remove minimum wage)
>libertarian here
natsoc here, I suck cocks
You are assuming theres no problems with clashing cultures i assume you dont care about unions or organized labor but you probably care about not dying in a terrorist attack. A small stream of immigrants who intergrate in 3-5 generations is manageable but bringing in potentially equal amounts of two opposing view points may innevitably lead to large scale conflicts. Not to mention the potential harm being done to the emigrated countries losing human labor when many able bodies can leave in drothes and only elderly and disabled are left to work in farms and factories.
Sure he explains it all, but that doesn't stop him from being a dolt. Dolts can explain all kinds of things. Try reading someone who bases their ideas on broad empirical studies rather than cherry picked econ memes.
Questions for libertarians
Since you claim that government is the main reason for everything bad happening with the economy then why did wages stagnate and the 2008 financial crisis happen after the government had deregulated capitalism and the banks in the 80s?
Also if as you say everything would be run much more smoothly and efficiently if we were to just get rid of welfare and other government institutions when in the 19th century workers were treated like slaves, forced to work 18 hours a day, child labor was common and people lived in boxes like cattle, it was only when workers rights and unions, and other institutions concerned for the welfare of humans formed to keep capitalism in check that put an end to all the injustices and harm caused by capitalism.
And the ridiculous assumption that monopolies are formed because of government sponsorship is just false, since there's been talk of breaking up these companies such as Amazon and Google and regulate them for a while now. These companies don't want competition since that's bad for business.
Why isn't OP responding to this
Wages don't mean shit if you don't have the industry to support them.
You must live in gated community to want garbage people to flood in
Sage and kys
There is a broad consensus among economist that immigration is beneficial for the economy.
The basis for that statement is that all people are the same.
It's a false premise.
Open borders=rapid increase in population=oversupply of unskilled labor=chronically low wages+housing shortages=higher rents
As usual, the (((rentier class))) benefits
>after the government had deregulated capitalism
false premise
>2008 financial crisis happen
ratings agencies have a government enforced cartel and defrauded banks. The justice department also sues to enforce loans to niggers
how new are you, when did you come from reddit, and when are you going back?
>free trade requires open borders
no it doesn't
additionally they just look at gdp
so "good for the economy" is synonymous with "good for the government", not "good for everyone"
even still, culture and genetics are real so economics is downhill from that regardless
>Bunch of authoritarians move into your lolbertarian society
>Nigger communists take all your stuff
Grow up
>Since you claim that government is the main reason for everything bad happening
I don't claim that. The government has an outsized role in the economy, though.
Wages stagnated because the entire US economy was heavily advantaged over the rest of the world following WWII, due to the literal leveling of most industrialized countries. By the early 1970's, the rest of the world had become competitive with the US and US companies had become inefficient from a lack of serious outside competition and to a lesser extent from poor trade and economic policies. As a result, manufacturing, the mainstay of our economy, weakened.
The 1970's also saw a large increase in low skilled migrants that continues to this day. Obviously, government has a big role in this, but your caricature of Libertarianism (shared by OP) would do the same thing by not interfering with or controlling immigration.
Then multinational corporations decided to treat low wages as a competitive advantage and moved factories overseas. All this together created a downward pressure on real wages.
While this was happening, deregulation did harm the economy. Financial giants created derivatives markets and other forms of gambling on the stock market, totally disconnected from actual performance. Many companies stopped paying shareholders and/or started selling stocks without voting rights. Rather than raising wages or lowering prices or investing in their growth, companies collected record setting profits and occasionally swallowed up smaller businesses.
Really, Libertarians are pro-regulation. Free markets are ideal constructs, as the prophet Adam Smith foretold. They don't exist in the real world. The closer you get to them, the better the economies work. But without regulation, companies become predatory rent-seekers and form monopolies. Pragmatic Libertarians are trust-busters.
Everything you just stated makes no sense or is relative to what caused the financial crash, kys muttbrain,
> false premise
Why?
Everything isn't about economics. Lower prices doesn't make up for losing the spiritual core of a country.
I'd rather be a little poorer and have jobs available to Americans (people of European descent) than I would a booming economy.
Libertarian here. Here's an experiment you can try:
Remove all doors and fencing/walls from your property for a year and compare the before and after.
because it has nothing to do with the economy, just move
Yes and they are susceptible to fads like anyone else. Another idea with broad consensus among economists is that independent central banks are beneficial for the economy, but studies and metastudies show they are no more or less likely to have a positive impact than a government run central bank. The Economist published an article on it recently.
See also
There are strong reasons to suspect mass immigration is not the panacea it has been sold as. Similarly, the claim that globalist economics have brought the world out of extreme poverty is contraindicated by rapid technological advance and the resale of rapidly obsolete high tech to the developing world.
>my economics is predicated on the abolition of government welfare
>voters desires on government welfare is irrelevant to my economics
muh spiritual core
nice objective argument there
>laws have nothing to do with the economy
Uhh yes they do.
>just move
>whites leaving a country has nothing to do with the economy of that country
There's a reason nearly all of the first world countries are white.
>muh economics
Economic prosperity has been objectively proven to not increase happiness. People having a purpose increases happiness. Everyone was better off when the world had feudalism.
>it's another episode of "real life is an economic abstraction"!
flag related, burn on sight
You can't look at real circumstances like that mate, you are supposed to autistically follow highly idealized models.
If your nation is growing (startup phase) then immigration helps
if your nation is restructuring then immigration hurts
USA is a developed market in need of a huge restructure (poor wages 4 kids, overpriced houses, gridlock congress, etc.)
Immigration today in USA only favors 1% and maybe 2-3% through consumerism. More strip malls and more traffic does not help your quality of life.
Borders have been a thing for a long time for good reason. Do you leave the doors and windows open in your house when out? Of course you don't
To be completely honest, I used to believe so hard in the models that I went to Home Depot to hire a perfectly spherical illegal immigrant to be my bangmaid. I was so disappointed that I couldn't find one that I've become a reactionary.
I have doors and windows to protect my private property, not to protect my internal house economy
libertarianism will in itself create many authoritarian ethnostates as people naturally self segregate and the agreed upon rules within each area will be designed to keep undesirables out.
>makes no sense
because you have no idea what caused the crisis retard
>false premise
because the specific deregulation a. wouldn't have done anything to prevent the situation and b. because the idea that anything has been significantly deregulated over the last 100 years is fucking laughable
...do you think the States have interstate border controls? Have you just been advocating for people to be able to move from California from Texas without going through border controls?
There has been dozens of studies done on the effects on immigration on all levels of the economy, including the effect on native workers wages. The studies show that the effect on wages after a large spike in immigration is negligible or positive after few years it happens.
You can make your cultural and genetics arguments, but those are fundamentally not libertarian arguments.
No but apply that principle at the global level.
Americans should be able to work in Canada, or Mexico, or China, and vice versa.
There are no pros kike. The only pros are more votes for the liberal kike party.
>fundamentally not libertarian
whats your point? it isn't mutually exclusive with libertarianism and is used in conjunction to come up with policy
depends.
Is your nearest neighbour one of the worlds largest and most violent narcostates?
also economics is almost entirely not falsifiable, studies haven't "shown" anything because the amount of variables is limitless and nothing can be isolated
This is patented bullshit. Nobility was regularly corrupt and everyone else were as close to slaves as one could get. There was disease and warring everywhere. Secondly, a good economy with strong consumer confidence (which requires that buying power is in the hands of consumers) directly affects all aspects of first world societies including education. The only reason why it would not is because said systems are defunct or corrupted, which is something that built up over the past few decades.
Niggers and spics
I did not make any cultural or genetic arguments and the fact that you dismissed studies on China migration and studies on US labor markets reeks of you being one of those self-righteous globalist morons who think that democracy is obsolete, history is over, and everyone who disagrees is a racist fascist. Get bent.
you never did answer my question, user
corporate person hood is just socialism for rich people.
We do not live in a "free market" economy, we haven't since the central bank was formed and probably even before that. If you get rid of ageless soulless multi-national corporate monsters you could actually have a free market again.
a libertarian who can't tell the difference between private property and national borders?
So your saying that capitalism was never deregulated? lol...either you have been living under a rock all this time or just clearly retarded.
Unfettered capitalism was supposed to boost the market economy which was stagnating at the time, and it did boost the market only at the expense of the workers and rest of societies welfare, by crushing unions, workers rights. By deregulating the banks made it possible for them to lend money with each other without paying any taxes, also indulge in predatory lending which led to the financial crash. Corporations got free to sort of do what they want with little restriction from authorities, so they chose to send the jobs oversees and the ones they couldn't outsource they invented short term contracts and gig economy jobs that exist today, and then these giant tech monopolies got formed that don't pay any taxes and does everything they can to prevent competition by either buying up the competition or restrict their access to the market.
Pro open border people shoot for better economy.
Pro closed border people shoot for lower murder rates, rape, crime etc. and Mexican gov stats say they have a ratio that’s 2 times ours when you talk about crime, also 70 to 80% of women that cross the border get raped. Plus in some states of Mexico 12yearold consent for sex is legal there it would be totally ethical to keep them out. 30% illegal guns are made in Mexico and brought here.
>free trade requires open borders
Says who? No it fucking doesn't
>free trade destroys nations
200 years of substantive economic evidence says otherwise.
>Economic prosperity
That's a loaded strawman, you can stick anything in there. Today's poorest people in America live better than kings did 200 years ago. The problem is not "prosperity" the problem is lack of economic freedom. All of the choices are made by governments or corporations individuals have almost no options in daily life