I am serious. My freedom allegedly causes problems therefore you want to curtail my freedom. Even though the problems are not caused by me and in fact I acted peacefully throughout. Does this argument of yours that you use against me remind you of another argument that is used against both of us by others?
The free movement of labor and capital is one of the strongest ways to keep rapacious governments and special interests in check. Are you opposed to tax havens, if not why are you opposed to labor havens?
I have the freedom to associate with whom I wish. If this "causes major wage stagnation (etc)" that is not my problem. In fact it may well work to my advantage. If there is an over supply of a resource and prices drop that opens opportunities to use those resources in new ways. This is the price system in action and neutering it via coercive intervention also causes problems in the long term.
Most of what you and others are worried about are the results of previous interventions in the labor market and other ill-advised actions by legislatures.
Here are some hypothetical for you:
What if I had an idea for a business that could employ many Americans but I chose not to, and you found out would you force me to start the business?
What if I had an idea for a business that could employ many Americans but I chose to open off-shore somewhere would you force me to open a facility here?
What if I had an idea for a business that could employ many Americans but I chose instead to automate and use robots. Would you force me to hire flesh & blood Americans instead? What if I used robots made in Mexico?
What if I had an idea for a process or product that would lead to the elimination of an entire industry and put 100,000s or million's out of work would you try to stop me?
At what point am I not to be in thrall of your political/economic motives and be free to live my life? At what point do you stop your trespassing against me.
Because I don't want Americans to try to earn a living inside the US at the prevailing income level of China ($6,076) or India ($1,492). I'm a libertarian because I think it is the best political ideology I've found thus far for preserving freedom/liberty, social stability and prosperity. That said, there are some common Libertarian beliefs that are insanely stupid, if not dangerous. Open borders and public utilities are perfect examples. The first would not be a problem if the entire world was roughly equal (or equal enough) in cost of living, prevailing wages, development, economics, civil rights, etc. Until then, it's a horribly bad idea.
I dislike illegal immigration for two reasons. First is, illegals generally consume public resources (hospital, police, benefits) but do not equally pay into the system (no income taxes, FICA, etc). Second is, unequal playing field that distorts the labor market.
You do have the right to association. The answer is to all your questions is "No". No one can or should be able to force you to start a business in the US, with or without labor. I'd claim this would be closer to the South and slavery rather than libertarian ideals. H1B visa holders are not necessarily indentured servants, but they're only different by the width of a razor and that depends entirely on the will of the company. It is not right to them, or we Americans. Libertarian != anarchist.
Even if national borders and the right to control persons and material coming into the country were not kosher with Libertarian ideals, I'd still say "Screw that". If the Libertarian end goal was to to install an oligarchy of a handful of wealthy who would debase US standard of living to third world country status, I'd be the among the first to drive a tank through their doorways. It's bloody well not. It is and should be a means of promoting the stuff we do want (freedom, liberty, prosperity) and not the stuff we do not want (totalitarianism by government or individuals). Totalitarianism and repression is wrong whether it is done by individuals or states (which are merely a collection of individuals), Warren.
I do understand your position, and agree with 99.9% of it. I am simply disagreeing with the border control part.
You airily dismiss well-reasoned and self-evident points instead of defending your case. And I'm not the serious one?
Please explain how the economic premises you are operating off of are either ethical or cogent. And how they are fundamentally different from any other arguments for gun control or prohibition and so forth.
I've heard the populist/envy/mercantilist/political grubbing arguments ad nauseum and they do the proponents no credit. So maybe make your case based on economics and ethics. Or not, Up to you.
Libertarian != anarchism. I believe the federal government should run a court system, set few and reasonable nation wide standards and defend our borders against entry in violation of reasonable laws on the matter. This is ethical, cogent and practical. This does not unnecessarily deprive folks of liberty without due process. Unless you are an anarchist, you are giving up SOME rights in order for a social structure. You give up the rights to say, take away the rights of others arbitrarily. I'm as suspicious of "social contract" as anyone else, but there are some responsibilities that come with being in a civilization. You can't smash people over the head and take their stuff. You shouldn't be allowed to use the town well as your latrine. etc, etc.
Are there such things as "economic borders?" If so, can you define them? Yes, there are borders. Borders are "the edge of our country's territory, including all entry and exit points to our territory". Economic borders would be economic edges of our country's territory, including all entry and exit points of our territory.
How much intervention is too little? When the intervention is arbitrary, excessive, contrary to the best interests of the entire territory, etc.
How much is just right? Minimal level necessary to safeguard the border against import of persons or material in violation of our laws, which should be few and reasonable. Social engineering is not "necessity".
How much is too much? Can you reliably keep just right from becoming too much? Anything not the minimal level of necessity. Meh, no one knows.
Is using force and coercion better than letting the price system work?Sometimes, yes. We used force and coercion against slave owners. Each and every slave owner deserved death. So did anyone in the entire trade. Not executing all persons involved in the slave trade was the greatest moral failure of the Civil War, and showed its deepest of flawed execution.
We hung Nazis at Nuremberg. We shot pirates off the coast of Somalia. The guy who tried to steal my car stereo was brought to jail by force and coercion.
Force and coercion are necessary to preserve order. But, by their nature, they should be kept on tight restrictions and employed only when absolutely necessary. "Minimal necessary to maintain freedom, liberty and prosperity" should ALWAYS be the ideal to strive for in this case.
