From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Dec 30 2001 - 03:52:01 MST
"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
>
> Harvey deferred when cryofan asked about the sticky problems
> of libertarianism and immigration. I tend to agree with
> Harvey that there isn't an easy solution, but I will attempt
> to parse some of the stickybuns...
>
> > Since the Extropian movement is heavily invested in libertarian
> > philosophy,
>
>
>
> > which purportedly stresses individual rights and property
> > rights, how do the Extropians reconcile the "open borders" philosophy
> > advocated by Extropians,
>
> This trips *right* into the transhumanist ethical dilemma.
> I'll state it as harshly as I can -- do "individual" rights
> (from which property rights derive as an enforcement mechanism)
> entitle one to claim a greater share of the computronium (matter
> & energy) and thereby deny others with relatively equivalent
> a priori claims their fair share?
>
Individual rights say nothing about denying anyone their "fair
share" of anything. Classic individual rights are largely
negative - rights to not be interfered with in the pursuit of
life, liberty and so on - rather than postive rights that one
can demand of others. There is nothing inherent in pursuing
one's own life that necessarily deprives others of anything at
all. On utilitarian grounds at least, some effort toward
insuring that as many others as possible can maximally
contribute is likely to be in the interest of self and society.
> I think this can be simplified -- "Which is better -- natural
> selection or fairness?"
>
I think that is far too simplified. Both are really muddy
concepts when applied to societal ethical questions.
> I'm fairly sure that I've said it before but it is probably worth
> repeating -- if you opt for fairness (the human "social animal"
> preference most likely) you are likely to end up with sub-optimal
> adaptations.
>
But it is not at all clear that simple adaptation a la some
social darwinian model are at all applicable much less optimal
to such a question. So the "which is better" starts with an
artificially delimited set of alternatives in my view.
> This is in some respects a recasting of the captialism vs. socialism
> or communism approaches to societal organization (yea, I'm sure the
> readers well versed in political history may slice this analogy into diced
> ham, but from my arm-chair position [not too different from J. Q. Public]
> it works).
>
To me these are more doubtful and befuddling analogies that
don't really address the question at hand cleanly.
> > with the fact that most American citizens oppose open borders
>
> In spite of the fact that most Americans are descended from
> people who took advantage of relatively open borders.
> In part this is natural human xenophobia and in part this
> is simple economics -- wanting to preserve the advantages
> (position, connections, environmental adaptations, etc.)
> that one has developed over one or more generations.
>
But that bit of reasoning assumes relative scarcity and static
models of wealth. Both of these are increasingly dated. One
already has the clear advantage. Why is it also necessary or
felt to be so to deny entry completely to others? To me, this
could only be justified if one's own position was not
sustainable in the face of competition. But in this case, it is
not in the interest of "natural selection" to preserve that
which is relatively competitively inept.
> Make it really simple -- Why should I as a taxpayer with
> no children in the city of Seattle be paying taxes to educate
> the children of the XYZZY class of immigrants? The only
> rational arguments I can make for this are if I plan to be
> an employer and I expect to need an educated workforce
> (or an extropian who would like more educated rational
> people in the world -- but that is probably really stretching
> the public educational system).
>
That doesn't make it simple. It confuses the root issue with a
lot of other questions about what you should have to pay for as
a taxpayer generally. However, you do hit on one part of the
benefit of supporting immigration and that is to possibly
produced more skilled workers and rational people. That the
public education system is sorely lacking is an aside not
especially relevant to the specific question of course.
> The immigration system by its very nature was designed to
> promote production -- ~200 years ago it was designed to
> promote the production of furs. ~100-150 years ago it was
> designed to promote the production of metals and food.
> ~50-100 years ago it was designed to promote industrial
> manufacturing. It is my sense that the immigration policy
> is now passed on because those of us whose ancestors at one
> point were able to use it as a point of leverage feel it
> is only just that others should be able to do so as well.
> In other words its a "generous gift" and not a "right".
>
This also seems not terribly relevant. If we have open borders
and there are no jobs doable by the immigrants then they will
not continue to come in. If we have jobs and training
opportunities then we get benefit and competitive advantages by
letting them in. Gift vs. right has nothing really to do with
it as I see it.
> To resolve this problem from an ethical perspective, one has
> to construct a complete view of precisely what obligation
> any human has with regard to the survival opportunities
> of any and each other human.
>
Perhaps it is better tackled not from so much an obligation
basis as from the relative benefit to oneself of enabling more
human beings to have a better life. One such benefit was
mentioned above in the increase of trained and intelligent
persons which in turn means that there is a larger intelligent
workforce to be applied to projects of great interest and
benefit to us.
> > Seems as if Extropians would wish to trample
> > the individual rights of most Americans by implementing open
> > borders--not to mention taking the food out of the mouths of working
> > class Americans by lowering wages with immigration...
>
Since it is increasingly unlikely that the majority of US jobs
or even a non-declining number of them are relatively unskilled
and since many skilled jobs go begging, I hardly see why more
immigration of the mostly unskilled is likely to have any real
effect on the wages of skilled workers nor why increasing the
number of skilled workers is not a net benefit. If the costs
of some types of labor go down then the costs of what is
produced is less which is a net benefit to all consumers of
those goods and services. Also, in the case of more skilled
work especially, the cost of producing something new and
beneficial in the world goes down. Again, this looks like a net
benefit.
I would also like to point out an incipient contradiction.
Above the supposedly more positive benefits of natural selection
are heralded in even complex problems like this one. However,
later on there is urging to abandon the free market / natural
selection mechanism of letting the jobs go to the lowest capable
bidder.
> One could have an open border policy with no guarantess of
> "rights to work" policy. With sufficiently strict enforcement
> there would be no lowering of wages. One could have a
> "right to work" and "pay social security" with no rights
> to benefits.
>
There is no "right to work" now for non-immigrants so it is a
canard to claim it as relevant for immigrants. Wages should
reflect the relative value and supply dynamics of labor, they
should not be strictly enforced by some non-market mechanism.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:55 MST