Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Human Rights, Free Movement, and the Social Contract
A libertarian’s driving concern is with maximizing the fundamental rights of all people. I often find myself bumping up against the “Social Contract,” which works as a circuit breaker to that logic. Up until now, I’ve tried to wave away the Social Contract, as most radical libertarians tend to do because of its inconvenience.
I have since concluded this is the wrong way to go about it. It’s foolish to ignore the utility of the Social Contract and the good that has come about under it, even if it is correct that it ultimately should be replaced by something better.
Part of what makes the Social Contract so useful is that it attempts to guarantee the rights of those under it. Presumably, the Social Contract does not give us fundamental rights, but instead asks us to curb some of our fundamental rights for guaranteed benefits. We give the state the power to coerce taxes from us so that it can protect us from harm and run a system that respects our private property.
The question I have is: when does the Social Contract overstep its bounds? I think we all agree that there are curtain rights that can’t be taken away (even if they can be slightly limited) by The Contract – namely life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, under the Contract we are necessarily safe to travel around the land to live life and pursue happiness. But, is “traveling” a human right we had before we entered into the Social Contract, or is it a benefit? Do you have a right to travel from your private property to another’s that would accept you? Would society be justified in not letting you personally travel for any reason, as long as it properly passed a law?
If travel is a fundamental human right, is part of the Social Contract to guarantee our benefits at the expense of the rights of foreigners? Is that necessary to ensure the viability of our Contract? If a foreigner would respect your property as much as any native, does our Social Contract allow us to infringe on his fundamental human right, even if he agrees to abide by our Social Contract? An agreement most of us had no choice in?
I hope this sparks discussion because I would like to get a better understanding of what exactly the Social Contract entails.
Published in General
That is in no way reflective of my argument. Families have been paying children to some extent Society has so far understood that their will be children and that they will be a part of the society. That does not make a given country responsible for every child or person in the world.
I don’t think the charges would be as nominal as you think if you look at all the government and non-profit services and all private and public infrastructure. Let’s use your example of children, none of your new open boarder immigrants have children? The US spends $10-12,000 per student per year. Will they pay that up front as well? School attendance is compulsory so they can’t stay home.
I would take such an up front fee in place of our current system. I believe many would be willing to take it. (Sorry if I misrepresented your argument. It’s especially hard to get things right with text without making certain assumptions.)
The CBO scored the recent Senate immigration bill (not Open Boarders) and stated that just this bill would raise interest rates based on increased demand for capital. What gives your new immigrant the Moral Right to make me pay more money for a home, car or credit?
Immigrants can help the economy and lead to some growth that is why we have legal immigration. City’s and schools need to be able to plan for the future. New waves of immigrants that were not fully planned for would lead to the need for new schools. This is generally paid for by a school bond in my area. Regardless of the possible long term benefits, there is a short term cost, my property taxes are increased. What Moral Right does the new immigrant have to take my money in the form of increased taxes?
Yes there are benefits to immigration. But you cannot argue that there are no costs, even if only in the short term. If there are any costs what so ever then why shouldn’t the members society get to decide how there money is spent. What moral right does the immigrant have to take money from me?
No more of a moral right than any free-loading citizen (i.e – they don’t have one). As for the real short term costs, estimate the costs and charge the immigrant accordingly; it would be a more humane barrier than not allowing them in at any price.
Do you not own a home? If you did, your current home would increase in value as well. That’s one of the “wins” for part of the population. In other respects, what you’re basically asking is what gives an immigrant a moral right to compete with you? Aren’t conservatives pro-competition?
No, I think you have it. But you are rapidly moving away from the poor person anywhere in the world getting to come to America because they could be good Americans. Or payment of a “nominal fee”. Your open borders plan becomes open boarders for the rich or upper middle class of other countries. That’s fine if that is what you want but it is not the poor person from Kenyan who would be a great American but is being punished by the location of their birth.
Is it consistent with your starting argument of the Moral right to travel, if the exercise of this right costs tens of thousands of dollars?
No I am not asking about competition at all, interest rates rise for all people, I can’t compete my way out of an interest rate. It is just more money taken from me based on your open door policy. Any appreciation in the value of my home comes when I sell it. Up front all I get is an increased property tax valuation and higher property taxes. That does not impact the increased cost for a car or other credit. I have great credit, I will get a loan, I am not competing for a loan or credit. I am just paying more for it.
How is taking more money from me, because some one showed up in the country uninvited, a competition?
What moral right does the immigrant have to take money from me?
No more of a moral right than any free-loading citizen (i.e – they don’t have one). As for the real short term costs, estimate the costs and charge the immigrant accordingly; it would be a more humane barrier than not allowing them in at any price.
So because there are free-loading citizens in my society, costing me money, I have no right to try to limit others from costing me money?
For every cost that I have pointed out your answer has been estimate the cost and charge them. Where are all these wealthy immigrants coming from that they can’t already make it into our country? At what point do you leave the Moral right to travel and our current immigration by quota’s and become immigration and right to travel only for the wealthy? The right to travel if you have tens of thousands of dollars is not really the right to travel and open boarders that you started with.
This happens every time.
Me.) I’d like open borders.
Other.) But look what it will cost me.
Me.) Well, would this alteration fix your objection?
Other.) Now you’re changing your position.
Me.) No I’m not, I’m offering a compromise.
I don’t think we should charge them those fees because bidding up the price of something is not “stealing.” Every human increases cost on other humans, but I don’t believe it gives us a right to regulate them because I’m not a social democrat.
And it wouldn’t be “only for the wealthy.” I think you’d be surprised how many immigrants would be willing to take out a loan on their expected American earnings. If the fee makes you whole, you shouldn’t have an objection on these grounds.
I’d like to say it was my own invention, but that cannot possibly be accurate. Truly though, I don’t remember which authors contributed to this brilliant and unimpeachable insight.
It might have come partly from watching Quills, the Geoffrey Rush movie about the Marquis de Sade.
Hey…those of you who zeroed in on my joke about what is a right…it was a joke!
“Presumably, the Social Contract does not give us fundamental rights, but instead asks us to curb some of our fundamental rights for guaranteed benefits. We give the state the power to coerce taxes from us so that it can protect us from harm and run a system that respects our private property.”
This is a pretty good thought, though even after reading the stuff on “traveling” several times I still couldn’t understand what you were getting at. We have private property and with it comes the right to restrict access to it. Each country has its own arrangement with its citizens and visitors. It is based on property rights and the agreed upon distribution of services paid for by local taxpayers. Local law determines the details and what may or may not be a “right”.
In Europe the social contract defines healthcare as a right. You get healthcare whether you paid for it through taxes or not. Here, the contract is that you pay for it unless you can’t, in which case charity takes over. Judeo Christian values.
I have a hard time beginning to quantify how a person in Zimbabwe or rural India is increasing my costs simply by existing. To what ever extent they are they always have and I can do nothing to limit this. To my specific examples they are not increasing my interest rates, my taxes or using for free the schools my taxes have supplied.
Actually the new American social contract is that it’s not just a right, it’s an obligation. You aren’t simply free to pay for it, you are REQUIRED to pay for it.
Foreign aid.
This is voluntary aid. We elect representatives they vote to give aid. This is more similar to the legal immigrant. We agreed to have them in the country and we agreed to give Foreign aid. Kenya did not show up at the federal reserve and claim a right to our money.
It appears that though you have read my post, you have misunderstood my meaning. I suspect, based upon youf need to say you “understand how frustrated you must be”, that I am, in your mind, close to being a “bitter clinger” as it were. The condescension does rather drip off your lips.
However, resorting to an attack on me is dodging my point so let me try again:
You are making a moral argument for open borders. I am making a moral argument that the first duty of Government is to preserve the polity, and therefore it is moral to control borders.
The reasons for wanting to limit immigration, are, alas, immaterial to my argument.
You did not open this saying “I would like Open Borders”. You make the case that anything other than Open Borders is immoral.
People are making moral arguments that others do not have the right to change nations at will. I have yet to see any reference to anything other than a vague Libertarian principle of “I can do it if it does not directly hurt you”.
I have posted a very valid reason, using the social contract of a government, as to why it is moral to have controls on the borders. You have not refuted that. In fact, you dismissed it with a wave of you hand that I am just being anxious.
Citizens have rights that do not belong to non-citizens.
As you say.
Thought Experiment:
Nation A has totally Open Borders. Nation B does not. A is a better place to live because it is a modern, tolerant, secular place of freedom and capitalism. B is autocratic, poor and its people have unhappy lives.
Now, let’s further say that B is joined by C, D, E, F all in the same basic state as B, and all close or bordering A.
People start to move to A. A lets them in. As A fills with others from the B-F, the character changes. Eventually, A stops being the great liberal nation that it is, and it is no different than B-F. Maybe worse, because maybe, not outnumbered, the people of A are a persecuted Minority.
Thinks I am crazy? What would happen if Israel had 100% open borders?
What happened to German culture after the wall came down?
Half a conquered nation of people of the same culture is reunited after it is freed. Not sure how that fits my example above. Care to elaborate?
I apologize. It was not meant with condescension. You have good intentions and I truly sympathize because it must really suck to be in your position. I also sympathize with the workers who would be worse off, I just believe they would be worse off because of their current protected status. You say they have a right for the government to give them that protected status and I believe this is superseded by the rights of people to individual self determination. That they have a right as a human to be treated exactly how we treat each other in this country. This doesn’t mean the government and people have to listen, just that it would be correct for them to do so.
If de Sade is your source, do you consider homicidal pedophilia to be a right? I find it hard to overstate the degree to which I believe faith in the moral guidance of de Sade to be misplaced.
I have not seen Quills, and would not be remotely surprised if it dramatically misrepresented de Sade’s views.
By bringing the wall down, West Germany imported a minority of the less numerous East Germans. The limited (but not trivial) cultural harm they suffered thereby might be comforting to those worried about Canadian immigration, but I do not believe this to be the chief concern of many Ricochetti.
What is the source for these rights?
You have not made the argument that open borders is a “right” at all. You have asserted it.
It appears that you think it is such a right, that one should allow people to move in, change the rules, and destroy the protection of rights that you support.
That is a weird stance to take.
The same source of all rights. We naturally respect these rights when we interact with someone on the street. We wouldn’t usually ask for their papers because we suspected they weren’t the right type of human. It’s common decency.
I’m not sure what you mean by the source of all rights. I believe I derive rights from contracts, constitutions, statutes, regulations, treaties, common law, and God, for instance. Those sources of rights result in dramatically different results, and ought not to be conflated. Generally when rights are discussed on Ricochet, we are talking about Constitutional, legal, or contractual rights.
Do you mean, for instance, that I have a legal or Constitutional right to enter the United States?
Or, wait, am I being overly legalistic about this? Do you really mean that customs and border protection shouldn’t ask for documents at the border because general citizens would not typically ask for them in the street?
Do you often ask people how much they earn? I’d consider that question ruder than asking them their immigration status, but I support the IRS checking people’s papers.
When I’ve talked to Brazillians with girlfriends who were underage for the jurisdiction we were in (California), I did not ask the girl’s age (they volunteered the information), but I endorse those police charged with statutory rape going to the effort to find out who is raping whom, despite the intrusive, gossipy, nature of that questioning.
Sometimes, when dealing with criminals, one has to be a little rude to protect the rights of others.