Written by Isaac Morehouse | 16 December 2008

The Economic Argument
Arguments against immigration on economic grounds basically boil down to “They took our jobs!”. Some feel that allowing people to freely cross borders will result in a flood of low-wage labor that will “steal” jobs from natural born citizens. Labor is a factor of production, just like raw materials or financial capital. Restricting the flow of capital and labor will always decrease economic prosperity. Access to more resources – human or otherwise – always increases wealth and opportunity. If this does not make sense to you, I recommend Frederic Bastiat’s “What is Seen and What is Unseen”, chapter 7, as well as his brilliantly satirical “Candle Maker's Petition”

The Culture Argument
Others argue that immigration must be restricted in order to protect the nation’s unique cultural heritage. I submit to you that any culture which must be maintained by force is not an authentic culture and is probably a bad one. Cultures freely arise because they provide benefits to those who participate in them. Cultures are always changing. Getting government in the business of protecting culture is dangerous and counter-productive. First, who gets to define what constitutes culture? Bureaucrats don’t have the best track record in such matters. Second, do we really want to live in a culture that is forced upon us by government prohibitions, restrictions and mandates? (I know this stands in contrast to PI's stance, but in my opinion the same goes for language, which is part of culture.)

The Welfare Argument
Advocates of limited government sometimes argue against immigration on the grounds that immigrants make use of the welfare state and increase the cost of government. State-sponsored welfare programs are a problem. Stopping immigration because immigrants might use welfare programs treats one tiny symptom, not the disease itself. If you routinely dumped garbage on your front lawn and found raccoons frequenting your property, would you try to ban raccoons or would you clean the up the garbage? Though I think the vast majority of immigrants immigrate for jobs, freedom and opportunity, I’m sure some come and make use of government handouts (though far less than U.S. Citizens, and on average less than they pay in taxes). The handouts are an attractive nuisance and should be addressed on their own merits, not by attempting to ban the free movement of people.

The Safety Argument
Some argue that allowing easy immigration will bring bands of criminals into their country and make them less safe. First, if something is a crime it is already, by definition, illegal. Threats to life and property are already protected against via the existing police/military operations. Putting up a wall and stopping anyone from crossing it on the grounds that some of them may be criminals is ludicrous. By this logic, governments should perpetually engage in random home searches because they might discover criminal activity. Closed borders probably don’t stop criminals, but let’s pretend that they could; if we could keep foreign criminals out by keeping out anyone foreign, what would we gain? We’d have spent tons of resources keeping out foreigners, most of whom aren’t criminals, and we’d have that much less to use fighting domestic crime. Banning people from movement because some of them may be criminals is even dumber than banning gun ownership because some people may use them for crime. I trust PI readers to see the many problems with pre-emptive Minority Report style crime fighting.

The Right Argument
Freedom to immigrate can be defended from several angles, but I believe the most important argument is based on rights. Imagine you and I have pieces of property that share a border. You wish to traverse my property and I wish to let you, but lawmakers prohibit it. What business do they have dictating whether we can make decisions about our own property? Sure, they were democratically elected, but what business do others have of voting to determine how you and I peacefully use our property?

What if government issued a decree that business owners were prohibited from hiring anyone born on a Tuesday? It’s no different when they prohibit hiring anyone born in another country. Shouldn’t the business owner be free to hire whom he wishes? If an individual wishes to travel, work, buy, or sell peacefully and all other parties involved agree, why should government prohibit it?

When you think up other arguments against immigration, ask yourself why they should not also be applied in state to state immigration? City to city? Home to home?

At bottom I think much anti-immigration sentiment comes from a fear of people unlike us. I support anyone’s right to be prejudiced, or to associate only with those of like culture. But putting that attitude into public policy not only hampers wealth and progress, it violates my right to associate peacefully with whom I choose.

Written by Isaac Morehouse | 16 December 2008

Encouragement to those who want to spread the message

Most people value liberty.  At their core, most people prefer freedom to coercion, choice to mandates, and peace to violence.  Many people just don’t know it.

Libertarians often lament the difficulty of convincing the world that freedom is the most moral and practical choice.  But understanding the nature of the struggle is key to overcoming it.  As tough as it seems, convincing people of libertarian ideas is seldom like pulling teeth.  It’s more like introducing them to alcohol for the first time.

It’s unfamiliar, a bit too strong and kind of weird.  The first taste doesn’t sit well.  The second isn’t much better.  A little more time and a few more tries and it’s tolerable, but certainly nothing to write home about.  Before long life is enhanced by it's frequent enjoyment and the initiated find that they do things under its influence they couldn’t have imagined before.  (Inevitably, some pictures of those things end up on Facebook, but before long they go from embarrassing to brag-worthy)

With drink and liberty, you must start sweet, without much potency.  Starting with Ludwig von Mises’s Human Action is like introducing an abstainer to alcohol with a keg-stand.  The uninitiated typically respond to “foo foo” very well.  At first they’ll tell you it’s the sweetness they like, and that they could do without the potent ingredients.  Keep serving them.  Soon, the sweetness will be an unnecessary afterthought, and they will imbibe to get the good stuff and get it fast.

There’s something in human beings that almost universally reacts to alcohol.  It’s nearly always an acquired taste, yet throughout history the peoples and societies that have tried it have fallen in love with it, created new versions of it and even invented elaborate games and festivities around it.  It is enjoyed by people of every race, religion, language and custom.  So it is with liberty.

If someone coughs and winces a bit when you offer them their first taste of liberty, don’t be discouraged.  Sweeten it up, serve it again and wait for the results.  Soon they’ll be a “social” libertarian; next they’ll brag about how much liberty they can handle, and finally, if the substance works its magic, they’ll be consuming Human Action even when alone.

-----------------

Note: Don't get carried away. Like all analogies, it obviously breaks down at some point. Too much alcohol is very, very bad.  Freedom on the other hand, like truth and justice, is not something that can be had in excess, as it is itself the mean between vices.  If you're in a huff about this claim, read this.

Written by Matt Fay | 15 December 2008

The real reason for the August conflict in the Caucasus

 

I’ve figured it out!  I had long suspected it but now I’m sure of it.  The war between Russia and Georgia was over none other than the Prometheus Institute.  

Anybody Confused?

Well, let me explain.  In Greek mythology Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to the people - i.e. giving knowledge to the people.....Just like us!  When Zeus and the other gods discovered his treachery Prometheus was bound in chains in the area now known as the Caucasus Mountains - near modern day Georgia (the one by Russia, not the one by Florida).  I’m guessing that those megalomaniacal Russkies realized how dangerous it was that we here at the Prometheus Institute are providing so much knowledge on free markets and individual liberty to the people from all the publicity PI gained being recognized by the Stevens Institute and winning a Templeton Award.  They must have figured a war with the Georgians would offer them an opportunity to extinguish our inspirational fire.

Sound a little far fetched....or perhaps a bit of a stretch in attempting to shamelessly plug our organization’s recent recognition?

Well, this explanation is absolutely ridiculous in attempting to explain Russia’s “invasion” of Georgia this August, but the explanations offered by American politicians and media personalities as to how the Russians wished to reconstitute its lost empire or that Russia was commencing a campaign to attack democracy itself amounted to, in light of recent reports, something only slightly less farcical.

Written by Isaac Morehouse | 12 December 2008

A lot of people are surprised by recent political developments.  Whether the open sale of a Senate seat or the open socialization of financial and automobile companies, it seems there is a lot to be in shock over.  The shock leads to anger; anger at the political process and politicians and who-knows-what.

I don't think we should be shocked.  There is nothing shocking or unusual about politicians acting in their self-interest instead of that of their constituents.  That is all they have ever done.

We shouldn't be shocked by massive socialization.  That is what we have asked for.  We demand to be promised a world without risk and without failure; interest rates that constantly fall and house and stock prices that constantly rise - as well as wages, but not CEO wages or profits.  These are mutually incompatible goals.  They are impossible to achieve.  Yet we demand that our politicians promise them and "do something" about them.  We might as well ask that they make it rain more and less at the same time.  Not only are they incapable of doing it, even if they could the goals are not realizable at the same time.

What we see happening right now is, in a way, business as usual.  That does not mean we shouldn't have righteous indignation over violations of liberty and logic.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop it.  I mean simply that surprise and paralyzing anger are bizarre and unproductive responses.  It's analogous to eating dozens of cheeseburgers every day for years while growing steadily heavier and one day looking at the scale and acting shocked at your own weight and looking for someone to blame.  What did you expect?  Is this honestly the first time you've noticed it?

Stop acting like some injustice suddenly and surprisingly befell you.  That only engenders a sense of helplessness.  We created this monster and we can kill it.

Killing it requires a belief among us that government is the problem and that there is NOTHING they can do to make things any better except get the hell out of the way.  We have to stop being babies and expecting things from government they cannot do, or even expecting decent behavior.  As long as we're asking them to do bad things, we can't expect good people to do bad things goodly.

Don't get mad.  Don't be surprised.  Realize the mess we're in and that we are the only ones who can get us out.  Resolve to stop expecting government to fix it and start asking them to shut up and leave us alone.  No matter what it sometimes feels like, we are in the end their master.  Let's start acting like it.

Written by The Prometheus Staff | 17 November 2008

From the economy to terrorism, America faces difficult new challenges.  In these times of uncertainty, the question is one of national evolution: can America adapt to the economic, demographic, technological and security challenges of the new century?  Moreover, what specific policies can aid this evolution?

The American Evolution provides intriguing new insights on these questions, by introducing the idea of evolutionary choice theory, a synthesis of evolutionary science, quantum mechanics, systems theory, complexity economics, and other emerging sciences of progressive change.