Economía
Estos foros están cerrados. Podéis debatir en Red Liberal.
Libertarianismo y la Libre Inmigración
Enviado por el día 3 de Agosto de 2006 a las 05:40
Mientras no se violen los axiomas de 'no agresión' y de 'propiedad privada', todo es permitido dentro de una sociedad liberal.
---------
A LIBERTARIAN CASE FOR FREE IMMIGRATION
Walter Block
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_4.pdf
“None are too many.” — Reply of an anonymous senior official in the government of Canadian Prime Minister McKenzie King to the question, “How many Jews fleeing Nazi Germany should be allowed into this country?”1
All merchants shall have safe and secure exit from England and entry to England, with the right to tarry there and to move about as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and right customs, quite from all evil tolls, except (in time of war) such merchants as are of the land at war with us. And if such are found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be detained, without injury to their bodies or goods, until information be received by us, or by our chief justiciar, how the merchants of our land found in the land at war with us are treated; and if our men are safe there, the others shall be safe in our land. 2
In this paper I will attempt to analyze laws limiting emigration, migration, and immigration from the libertarian perspective. I will defend the view that the totally free movement of goods, factors of production, money, and, most important of all, people, is part and parcel of this traditional libertarian philosophy. Like tariffs and exchange controls, migration barriers of whatever type are egregious violations of laissez-faire capitalism.
I begin by briefly reviewing the libertarian philosophical perspective. Next, I appraise each of these elements of the movement of peoples from this vantage point. Then, I consider— and reject—a series of possible objections. I conclude with an overview.
LIBERTARIANISM
Libertarianism is a political philosophy; as such, it is a theory of the just use of violence. Here, the legitimate utilization of force is only defensive: one may employ arms only to repel an invasion, i.e., to protect one’s person and his property from external physical threat, and for no other reason. According to Murray N. Rothbard:
The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.
If no man may aggress against another, if, in short, everyone has the absolute right to be “free” from aggression, then this at once implies that the libertarian stands foursquare for what are generally known as “civil liberties”: the freedom to speak, publish, assemble, and to engage in . . . “victimless crimes.” 3
---------
A LIBERTARIAN CASE FOR FREE IMMIGRATION
Walter Block
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_4.pdf
“None are too many.” — Reply of an anonymous senior official in the government of Canadian Prime Minister McKenzie King to the question, “How many Jews fleeing Nazi Germany should be allowed into this country?”1
All merchants shall have safe and secure exit from England and entry to England, with the right to tarry there and to move about as well by land as by water, for buying and selling by the ancient and right customs, quite from all evil tolls, except (in time of war) such merchants as are of the land at war with us. And if such are found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be detained, without injury to their bodies or goods, until information be received by us, or by our chief justiciar, how the merchants of our land found in the land at war with us are treated; and if our men are safe there, the others shall be safe in our land. 2
In this paper I will attempt to analyze laws limiting emigration, migration, and immigration from the libertarian perspective. I will defend the view that the totally free movement of goods, factors of production, money, and, most important of all, people, is part and parcel of this traditional libertarian philosophy. Like tariffs and exchange controls, migration barriers of whatever type are egregious violations of laissez-faire capitalism.
I begin by briefly reviewing the libertarian philosophical perspective. Next, I appraise each of these elements of the movement of peoples from this vantage point. Then, I consider— and reject—a series of possible objections. I conclude with an overview.
LIBERTARIANISM
Libertarianism is a political philosophy; as such, it is a theory of the just use of violence. Here, the legitimate utilization of force is only defensive: one may employ arms only to repel an invasion, i.e., to protect one’s person and his property from external physical threat, and for no other reason. According to Murray N. Rothbard:
The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.
If no man may aggress against another, if, in short, everyone has the absolute right to be “free” from aggression, then this at once implies that the libertarian stands foursquare for what are generally known as “civil liberties”: the freedom to speak, publish, assemble, and to engage in . . . “victimless crimes.” 3
Libertarianismo y la Libre Inmigración
Enviado por el día 3 de Agosto de 2006 a las 05:42
I shall contend that emigration, migration, and immigration all fall under the rubric of “victimless crime.” That is, not a one of these three per se violates the non-aggression axiom.4 Therefore, at least for the libertarian, no restrictions or prohibitions whatsoever should be placed in the path of these essentially peaceful activities.
-------------
1 Irving Abella and Harold Troper, None is Too Many: Canada and the Jews of Europe, 1933–1948 (Toronto: Lester and Orpen Dennys, 1982), p. ix. I owe this citation to Phil Bryden and Jenny Forbes.
2 From chapter 41 of the Magna Carta, cited in Samuel E. Thorne, et al., The Great Charter: Four Essays on Magna Carta and the History of Our Liberty (New York: Pantheon, 1965), p. 133. I wish to thank Ralph Raico for bringing this quotation to my attention.
3 Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty (New York: Macmillan, 1978), p. 23. For another definitive vision of libertarianism, see Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy (Boston: Kluwer, 1993).
4 For a listing of dozens of other archetypes, none of which necessarily violate the libertarian non-aggression axiom, and all of which are reviled by many, see Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable (New York: Fox and Wilkes, [1976] 1985).
...
-------------
1 Irving Abella and Harold Troper, None is Too Many: Canada and the Jews of Europe, 1933–1948 (Toronto: Lester and Orpen Dennys, 1982), p. ix. I owe this citation to Phil Bryden and Jenny Forbes.
2 From chapter 41 of the Magna Carta, cited in Samuel E. Thorne, et al., The Great Charter: Four Essays on Magna Carta and the History of Our Liberty (New York: Pantheon, 1965), p. 133. I wish to thank Ralph Raico for bringing this quotation to my attention.
3 Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty (New York: Macmillan, 1978), p. 23. For another definitive vision of libertarianism, see Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy (Boston: Kluwer, 1993).
4 For a listing of dozens of other archetypes, none of which necessarily violate the libertarian non-aggression axiom, and all of which are reviled by many, see Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable (New York: Fox and Wilkes, [1976] 1985).
...