Sunday, June 30, 2019

Sane, genuine libertarian system wouldn't enable peaceful mass migration

Last night, I accidentally watched Soph's gaming streaming channel – again, for an hour – and while I didn't find it too important that Kabbalah in Minecraft has frozen over, I did want to learn something new.

And it's just my conclusion that this 15-year-old girl is more likely to teach me new things about politics, society, and Generation Z than the likes of Ben Shapiro or even Jordan Peterson. First of all, she must share some rare genes with me – I would like to know what they are. It's not just about the identical views on political issues but also the authentic, natural individualism, lack of desire to integrate into herds, and the related pattern of smiles and non-smiles and many other things.

OK, fine, so she has often agreed to be called a libertarian. So have I. It's normal. We're supporters of the individual freedoms, abolition of the government, and stuff like that. It's somewhat accidental that this label gets appropriate at some point – classical liberalism has meant almost the same thing but the term "liberalism" has been hijacked by the far left, anti-liberal folks.

In the U.S., libertarians often look like a minority of fringe whackos which is strange because as I see it, much of America has been built on libertarianism.



Let's accept that we're libertarians in the axiomatic system of this blog post. We just want to know what it means. Libertarianism is often about a talk about fantasy lands with policies that seem impossible to be introduced in a foreseeable future of the real world. But we may still want to know: What would libertarianism say about important events that are actually taking place in the world around us? How would our perfect libertarian world deal with these things?



Libertarianism and immigration is obviously one of the first questions that we would consider in this context. OK, everyone who has watched at least a bunch of Soph's videos must understand that she's against mass immigration – and so am I – and you would expect the commenters on her DLive gaming channel to be leaning in the anti-immigration direction, too.

But your expectations would be wrong. Almost everybody – even in that room that is composed of people who might be considered Soph's fans – prefers to make pro-immigration, would-be libertarian statements such as
A stateless libertarian utopia is a global society without borders where everyone may move wherever he or she wants and employees would be hiring anybody, including lots of exotic immigrants etc. No government would be preventing them from doing so.
The same claims prevail on the Wikipedia page I have linked to, too. Clearly, "left-wing libertarians" are in control of that Wikipedia page. But holy cow, these assertions are so totally wrong.

In a world where people are really free (free of the government-mandated restrictions and bans), they may do lots of things but they will still face various hurdles that were created by other people – who were free to do things, too! And everyone would still be constrained by the laws of mathematics and physics, among others. "Libertarianism" claiming that "humans must be free to break the laws of Nature" is just a nuttiness. One of the manifestations of the freedom is that people start to define their ownership and defend it – we are talking both about mobile and immobile assets (and perhaps even intellectual property, patents, and copyrights).

Even if you don't include "the private ownership" among the defining axioms of an ideal libertarian society, the free people will surely invent this concept because it's good for them. It's good for a person to have a place to live – a home that can't be easily disabled others. People need or want to have many other kinds of assets, too. If they can't defend their ownership individually, they will hire someone else who does the work or they will spontaneously team up and create their own militias etc.

Why? Because private ownership is good for them and most (or at least many – many important) people know it.

Much of our world actually does include more or less free people, at least in some respects. And even without any government pressure, most people buy doors and locks for their apartments or build fences or walls around their houses – because they think it's a good idea to protect their property and their privacy from others. Would this behavior go away if there were no governments? It wouldn't. What would happen if there were no governments in the world and people were really free? You should need just a minute to realize that:
A libertarian world of truly free people is a world with billions of walls and fences.
They're absolutely unavoidable. I am not saying that fences and walls are good for everybody. I am not even saying that they're certainly good for the "whole" – e.g. for mankind. But what I am saying is that there is a huge fraction of humanity that finds walls and fences important. And in many cases, the importance seems vital or existentially needed and many people will do a lot to make sure that these walls and fences are built and preserved.

It follows that the stateless world composed of free humans isn't similar to "one country that covers the whole globe". Instead, the stateless world composed of free humans is similar to a world with a huge number of countries and alliances. To one extent or another, almost every house and almost every village is behaving as a country. They will defend their integrity and interests in various ways. There are good reasons for individuals to do so – and there are also good reasons for groups of individuals to team up and create shared defenses etc.

More generally, free people in the world of a libertarian utopia would create lots of structures that are analogous to structures in the world around us simply because they're needed. They're a good idea. And after all, some of these things in the world around us were actually created by free humans from the bottom up and their association with the "evil government" is a distortion of reality.

In a stateless libertarian world with the current location of the people, Africans and Muslims could still prefer to move to Europe or the wealthy Western world. But would they be able to do so? One part of the answer is clear. Most of the motivation would evaporate because there would be no governments that actually pump hundreds of billions of dollars into subsidies for the masses of immigrants. If that welfare were erased, most migrants that are moving towards Europe today would actually lose the motivation to do so. Don't forget that the unemployment rate is some 75% among the new exotic immigrants.

Some exotic migrants may still want to get to the Western world, get a serious job (or start to make a good kebab), and not rely on the government at all. And their potential employees may like the new – and probably cheaper – workers as well. And many of us, "far right" pundits, sometimes eat kebab – I surely do. ;-) But that doesn't mean that this migration would take place. Why? Even if you eliminate all the migrants who are moving mainly because of the subsidies that they will directly receive from the Western governments, the mass migration will still lead to extra expenses and disadvantages.

Even the subset of the exotic migrants who don't "expect any explicit subsidies" from the Western governments will have a higher crime rate, incompatible cultural habits, higher natality, higher frequency of diseases that are almost unknown in the West, greater need to get some education which would be more difficult, and more. Equally importantly, most of the current – mostly white etc. – inhabitants just don't want the demographics of their homes to dramatically change because they want their ownership to "sort of" continue after they die, too: most people want relatives or similar people to be in charge of the land and assets for decades or centuries in the future. It boils down to the selfish genes.

For all these reasons, such a world of free people will spontaneously create – from the bottom up – many anti-immigration policies that are often realized by governments in the real world. These policies aren't artificial acts that depend on an evil government. Instead, the governments do many of these things because there are good reasons for that – current inhabitants of some territory actually want them or demand them, at least in some territories (like Central Europe). So even if these portions of the government became non-existent, the people would reinvent and rebuild these structures again, from the bottom up!

So Africans or Arabs could be de facto prevented (and we won't discuss any "de iure" because in a stateless world, there aren't truly "totally, uniquely, and canonically official" courts, so there is also no "de iure") from stepping on some roads, streets, into the private schools, and lots of other things. Extra hurdles would be created by the people who consider the mass immigration to be a net damage – people who see too many disadvantages, costs, and risks induced by mass immigration. And the employers who would prefer new, cheaper workers could find out that the fight against these hurdles becomes too hard and they would give up their dreams.

Once again, if the people became free and the governments were abolished, there would be many hurdles preventing people from migration en masse. The left-wing libertarians seem to assume that all these hurdles slowing down migration are social constructs by the evil governments. But it just ain't so. What the governments are doing is just something that real people on the ground actually want to do – and they would be doing it, or something equivalent, even if no government existed!

It's possible that the fans of mass immigration in Sweden would manage to destroy all the walls and hurdles – even in a hypothetical Sweden without any government. But I assure you that in Czechia, even if the government didn't exist (and, like in most countries, about one-half of the nation would be happy if the prime minister suddenly evaporated), the people who prefer to build the fences – physical and administrative fences – would win. This victory in the domestic conversation (if not a civil war) has no easy relationship with the government. Governments really reflect the desires of the actual citizens – in most cases. Well, in some cases, governments deviate too far from the wishes and interests of the people – and it may mean that such governments are going to be removed pretty soon. But governments create not only visa requirements and other hurdles of migration. Governments are also inventing things like quotas for foreigners that encourage migration. So here in Czechia, we surely view the efforts to accelerate the Islamization of Europe to be the work by an evil government (primarily the European Commission and the government of Germany) that wouldn't exist if people (and we're thinking about Czech people who are still allowed to decide about their Czech basin) were really free and in control of things!

Finally, I want to make a more general point about the left-wing libertarians.

The assumption that the "truly free humans on Earth would enable unlimited mass migration" seems to be just one important example of a much more general misconception shared by the left-wing libertarians. They seem to mentally live in the vacuum and they assume that
most institutions and social structures that are linked with a government in the real present world just wouldn't exist if the people were really free.
But in almost all cases, this "vacuum" assumption about freedom is totally incorrect. I have mentioned that walls, fences, visas, and anti-immigration policies would be reinvented and rebuilt even if the governments were abolished – this part of government would be "reinvented" from the bottom up because it's a good idea according to very many people or many important people.

The anti-immigration policies are just example of the fallacy. Another example is the hatred towards fiat money and commercial banks that is also widespread among the left-wing libertarian vacuum-dwellers. I would argue that the would-be fanatical support for the cryptocurrencies that is justified by "libertarianism" is a manifestation of the same incorrect assumption that the free people surely want to live in the vacuum – an assumption that also makes most of them believe that the world of free humans would see huge mass immigration.

You know, there is nothing wrong with the fiat money and commercial banks. After all, we may argue that the monetary systems, banks, and other things were largely created by free people from the bottom up because those were a good idea. People barter traded. Then they discovered reserves in precious metals or marten skins or other commodities. Those weren't terribly useful so they invented coupons that gave one rights to get some amount of gold or a marten skin etc. These coupons, or banknotes, were more convenient for payments than anything that was used before. The banknotes remembered in trustworthy databases – electronic money – were even more convenient, but only in some scenarios. In recent centuries, kings and governments were responsible for the codification and propagation of the money – and for the enforcement of mechanisms that guarantee that the money keeps its value, plus minus an error margin, a value defined according some rules that make it credible.

But even if kings and governments didn't exist, people would eventually end up having low-inflation money, banknotes, commercial banks, loans, and many other things, too – simply because those are clearly useful. The modern world would break down rather quickly if people were prevented from using the fiat money or something really, really close to it. So in a world where the money wouldn't exist for a while but people's intelligence or experience would exist, the money would be reinvented by private companies. The trustworthy – probably strong – company guaranteeing the stability and freedom from risks that you will lose everything would probably be the most successful emitters of the private banknotes. These companies could need executioners, bodyguards, and maybe armies. The idea that "the best money is the money connected with the weakest player i.e. most liberated from the big players" would be falsified in the real world because this belief spread among the cryptocurrency cultists is dumb beyond imagination. Rational people prefer to hold the U.S. dollars, a currency of the strongest country in the world, over children banknotes in a village in Zimbabwe and they have very good, rational reasons for this preference.

Much of the Bitcoin religious cult is driven by this totally irrational hatred towards the "big or even central authorities", such as commercial banks and central banks, that guarantee some loans or the persistent value of banknotes, and many other things. But they work fine and have properties – like the stable value of the money – that make them much more usable than e.g. the Bitcoin and similar would-be replacements. The authority of the commercial and central banks is clearly a good thing, not a bad thing, that makes it safer for the people to use their products and services.

(Two weeks ago, Soph published her BTC and BCH – Bitcoin Cash – wallet addresses on Twitter. Replies included a sectarian war, well, mostly BTC fans' attacks on BCH. In a DLive broadcast, she complained that this reaction of the people was so stupid and she couldn't give a damn. I couldn't agree more with her. Needless to say, BCH is somewhat better for small payments because the BTC fees have returned to $5 per transaction again and BCH fees are negligible. That's what could actually matter for her, not some general partisan lines of the two camps.)

In this text, I have described two important examples of structures – anti-immigration hurdles, policies, and walls; and monetary systems with commercial banks – that would be recreated by the free people in a government-less libertarian society simply because they're good ideas, and in some cases, almost necessary ideas for the survival in the modern world.

The left-wing libertarians aren't really planning a world where the humans are free. Instead, they are thinking about a global government that prohibits people from doing many things that people have good reasons to do – like installing doors and locks, building walls, defending their families and villages against invaders, joining a promising system with banknotes of a predictable value, and founding and using commercial banks that may lend and borrow.

My two examples – anti-immigration policies and monetary systems with banking – aren't the only ones. Clearly, a world with the free people would gradually reinvent lots of other things that we know from our world with the governments, too: armies, police, courts, and schools. Yes, maybe they would recreate some patent offices, NASA, centers for particle physics, trade unions, welfare systems, environmental inspections, and perhaps other "socialist" things, too. It's just silly to assume that the free people would prefer not to have most of these things. Well, I think that some of the newest creations by the governments (think about the EU commissioners responsible for the 26th gender etc.) are really counterproductive (and have expenses exceeding the benefits) but only nuts believe that the seemingly government-related structures that have existed in much of the world for 200+ years are "evil" and would be completely and forever abolished in a free world.

Left-wing libertarians seem to hate everything that is big – but free people often want to build big things and widespread networks. Programmers and entrepreneurs have good reasons why they want to offer their products or operating system in huge areas, perhaps globally, and the consumers often find out that the global accessibility of Microsoft products or McDonald's is good for them, too. No government is needed for that.

At the end, the left-wing libertarians don't really want the world of free people but rather a world where the people must obey some arbitrary, left-wing – and almost certainly harmful if not suicidal for life – ideological criteria such as the condition that people on Earth have the duty to float in the vacuum, welcome other people who float in the vacuum, and they must float without any cash. Given all these huge differences between left-wing libertarians and proper or conservative libertarians, I find the usefulness of the very term "libertarianism" questionable.

And that's the memo.

No comments:

Post a Comment