Bryan Caplan Says Milton Friedman Is Wrong About Open Borders

Bryan Caplan Says Milton Friedman Is Wrong About Open Borders


Milton Friedman famously said you cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state. Economist Brian Caplan begs to differ. Caplan makes his case in his latest book,
“Open Borders The Science and Ethics of Immigration.” It’s a graphic novel he co-produced with artist Zach Weinersmith, who’s best known as the creator of the popular web comic, “Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.” The book takes on all the arguments against open borders one by one. From concerns about assimilation, terrorism, and fairness, to Friedman’s oft-quoted libertarian objection. Caplan sat down with us to talk about why immigration works, if he thinks he’ll see open borders in his lifetime, and why he likes to pick fights in his books. Bryan Caplan you seem to love to pick
fights basically all of your books have been insanely controversial topics this
one is no exception open borders is generally considered a
radical idea are you a radical yes I am but
especially I’m someone who figures that if is a conventional idea someone else
write the book or the books already written 20 times so I feel like my value
added is to find the orphan topics topics where they have great merit
position has great merit but almost no one else loves them and I like to adopt
them and say look I love you I will raise you I will make you strong and
then I will unleash you on the world and let the world see how much they should
have given you how much credit they should have given you how how quickly
they were to dismiss you when actually this was a great idea so yeah that’s
really what I do with all my books is I try to find ideas that otherwise
probably the book wouldn’t be written at all and then I write the book India for
me that’s very motivating because it’s the thought of if I don’t do this no one
will and that’s why I picked the topics I do have you always been in favor of
open borders or did you have a conversion moment let’s see so when I
was in high school I actually had to write an essay on immigration for my
bioethics class and I was definitely not in favor of open borders then I was
someone who basically said immigrations good as far as it goes we need better
simulation so still when I actually changed my mind probably it was actually
just reading libertarian authors and saying this isn’t a proper role for
government but what really radicalized me was
the philosophy it was actually seeing what research were saying about the
actual games of open borders because there’s so many different policy reforms
you could talk about but what really counts what would make an enormous
difference in the quality of life for large numbers of people one of the
biggest things in fact the biggest results that you can get out of
empirical research is no one in economics has ever come up with a better
policy reform than radical liberalization of migration because
there’s so much human talent that goes to waste in countries where they aren’t
able to accomplish much and they could just move freely to another country
people could do so much more they could lift themselves out of poverty by their
own bootstraps but the law doesn’t allow it
Soniya work by researchers like Michael Clements he has this famous piece of
subtitle trillion dollar bills on the sidewalk and that’s what got me thinking
not only is this a good idea but it’s an incredibly important idea and since very
few people are pushing it I should be someone that does it why a graphic novel
why would you make this sort of abstruse academic argument in graphic novel form
so several reasons so one of them is that a lot of the arguments that I make
about open borders involve thought experiments and I found thought
experiments just work a lot better if you can see them rather than just
picture them in the eye of the mind also I notice from reading a lot of these
nonfiction graphic novels cuz I’m a voracious reader of the stuff that’s the
very best of them don’t give a simplistic low-level story instead the
very best of them combine words and pictures just convey a lot of
information extremely economically and I wanted to model myself after the greats
like Larry donek whose cartoon history the universe and five volumes is a
fantastic work and I would just make it the textbook for history across the
whole world if I were given that power so I mean I just realized there was so
much opportunity to go and combine words and pictures to convey a lot of
information very readily and in a short amount of time and then you know finally
it was just something very different and I thought it was really fun and you know
I’ve seen if I could do this wouldn’t this be a great experience for me now
there’s a problem I can’t draw which is where Zach Weiner Smith comes in you
also added probably about one out of five jokes
buddy and since he’s also a professional humorist as well as an artist a lot of
this role was to tell me my jokes did not suck and so people say the books
funny of course authors gonna say that but this is a funny book read it it’s
true in the opening of the book you do have a sort of historical section where
you look back at the history of immigration of restriction in this
country and you say one reason we know that open borders can work is because we
had them essentially until really the 20s yeah that argument I have attempted
to make in similar conversations I find that you get the instant response but
things are different now so Brian aren’t things different now oh so they are as
to whether that makes immigration better or worse as a very interesting question
I deal with this later in the book so me on the question of assimilation many
people have rightly said well now it’s a lot easier to move to a country and then
use modern communications and transportation to not really adapt new
country and that’s true as far as it goes
however modern communication and transportation have also already moved
Western and especially American culture outwards to the rest of the world so you
can see things like now there’s about a billion people who don’t live in
countries that are officially english-speaking and yet speak fluent
English in 1900 it would not have been so in 1900 a Sicilian migrants is not
just going to show up a bellows island speaking probably no English never
having seen electricity maybe and now you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone in
the whole country of Italy that is so out of touch with modern culture so what
I call this pre assimilation I say that we have in the modern rose a lot more
pre assimilation where immigrants are already not only linguistically but
culturally and economically adapted to life in more advanced countries so they
really can hit the ground running you know I’ll also say it’s new it’s
there’s a big difference Mena policy that’s never been done and a policy it
was very successful for a very long time and then stopped and especially why I
think the history does matter is that it’s very hard to find anyone including
the most ardent immigration restriction s who think that it was a good idea to
stop the immigration in the way that it was done almost everyone looking back
will say all right the complaints they had then were off base and if the
complaints are so similar to the complaints now and they made sense to
people the time which really should make you wonder
could there be some built-in human bias towards xenophobia and pessimism that
leaves human beings to overrate the dangers of immigration such that when
you will have some distance in perspective you see how silly that the
complaints are but when you are caught up in the moment you have trouble
accepting that maybe you could be wrong you said earlier that it was reading
various libertarian thinkers that kind of brought you into the open borders
mindset but there are certainly a plenty of libertarians self-described
libertarians who don’t favor open borders you address some of those
arguments in your book there they’re literal they’re not straw men I guess
they’re stick men but they’re little they’re little stick figures in taxation
is theft t-shirts who are clamoring across your lawn given our expected
viewership here at Reason TV could you talk a little bit about those arguments
and your replies to them sure so there’s two sets of arguments
that we can think about here that libertarians have made so the kind of
argument that I think are terrible and fairly clearly so are the ones saying
look well just as I can exclude people from my house American can slewed people
from the country because this is our collective property and it might apply
to people like this is that’s what you think you really shouldn’t be a
libertarian because if that’s what you think then you have no principled
objection anything government does people are not allowed to set up a
church inside my house therefore government should be able to decide what
religions are able to be practiced here you can’t set up a store or an export
import firm inside of my house the air force should be the people the united
states that decide which businesses to license attend which for which countries
we get to trade with and so on so if you really think that the country
collectively Bron belongs to the citizens and we the people of the right
to do with this country what we want then you have abandoned any kind of a
principled libertarian argument certainly you don’t have a right to have
a gun in my house right so who why should he be able to have a gun in
America if America doesn’t think that you should show me a that’s a kind of
argument that is popular with people who like principled philosophical arguments
although you know it’s just such a terrible argument and one where the
people are making it on such an ad-hoc basis where it’s only for that purpose
they ever make the arguments they would never allow government to do anything
else by the same logic now the libertarian arguments that I
think are vastly better and I try to address them with great seriousness
are especially one saying first of all that due to the welfare state we can’t
afford to let immigrants in because it would break the bank right so there’s
that one in Milton Friedman as many libertarians have keep emailing me as if
I’d never heard of it but yes so have you heard it yes guys it’s Milton
Friedman in the book this tells me the quote that I have heard from any other
vegetarians saying essentially you cannot have free migration and a welfare
state right so I have a chapter right just go over the numbers say well it
depends it’s complicated you can’t do this kind of math in your head you’ve
got to actually do this the slow painstaking boring work of crunching the
numbers or at least reading the slow boring painstaking work that other
people have done and in that chapter I come away saying look we can imagine a
welfare state so generous that it would break the bank but the u.s. is not such
a welfare state for a bunch of reasons which I’m happy to go into then and then
you know the argument that I take it as much more serious is maybe the
immigrants are gonna come from countries where they love liberty even less than
Americans do and we’re going to vote to turn us in to Venezuela or something
like that so yeah this is an argument where I understand the logic of it but
it comes down to an empirical question is it really true that’s non-native
people in this country or that bad if we go and look at subgroups or we try to
figure out how would the composition of immigrants change if anyone who wanted
to could come how bad would that be me and so I mean I just go through the data
there and I just say look this there may be some small effect but it is no one
even in the right ballpark to justify this extreme violation of human freedom
which is what immigration restrictions really are this is not like saying that
you’re not allowed to go and have a bonfire in your backyard or something
like that this is something where you are taking
billions of people who would like to move from desperate poverty to the first
world to get a job and rent an apartment to capitalist acts of seemingly
uncontroversial seemingly a seemingly uncontroversial pedigree and say well
tough luck you’re stuck in Haiti right subi and why because you don’t have a
piece of paper from the government so I mean am I going to get mad bill that you
can’t go and cut hair without a license but look
at the way the US government treats would-be Haitian and migrants and say
that’s fine it’s it is a great and bizarre feat of moral blindness and your
case for the most part rests on the argument for increasing legal
immigration although you do address the various iterations of illegal
immigration over the years because I do think that’s the other place where
sometimes you get libertarian disagreement is okay maybe more
migration would be good maybe it would be good for people be good for the
country but what about the rule of law right and you know for that for that
what I say is when someone says I’m against illegal immigration sometimes I
am totally Institue because I think it should be legal right now I have found
that is a totally unpersuasive argument because most people who are worried
about illegal immigration it’s not just the fact that it’s illegal that bothers
them they think the law serves a good purpose something I don’t think I
actually talked about that much in the book but I have blogged on it is when
exactly is it that a law is sufficiently bad that it’s okay to break it all right
now there’s a knee-jerk reaction of you should never break the law no matter
what’s and I think sometimes even your rule of law libertarians will say this
and then for them I’ll say okay so you always try the speed limit every single
time you never go mile over the speed limit and then it’s like so alright fine
idea right well are you doing something evil right and for this it’s like well
here’s the thing it would be kind of inconvenient to drive the speed limit so
it’s okay to break the law it’s like well it’s okay to break the law for just
a matter of inconvenience then how about if the law is trapping you and your
children and dire poverty when all you want to do is move to Miami and shine
shoes is it okay to break that law right and you know to my minds you know the
the case for breaking immigration laws is much stronger than the case for
speeding speeding laws actually serve some very plausible social function
right and the harm that you could do to someone from driving too fast it really
is a very serious one and it’s a small cost to you so that was the kind of
thing that maybe libertarians should Bend on but for this when you’re saying
look you have no right to live anywhere in the first world no right to do any
job in the first world tough lock you’re born in Haiti too bad suck it up that’s
the kind of law where for libertarians to stand up for that seem
very odd to me so in addition to sort of answering these libertarian arguments
you also I think like one page each just bang through the basic ethic and ethical
and moral systems available so you do utilitarian argument you do a Content
argument you kind of hit all of those and then there’s a moment in this book
where after you have devastatingly established the case for open borders
you say okay but we might not get open borders so now let’s talk about what
else we can do and you call them keyhole solutions right why do you call them
that I’m actually borrowing this from economic journalist Tim Harford and so
he notes that it’s standard in modern surgery to try to not do a lot of extra
damage to the patient while you are helping them so old-school civil war
surgery just involves hacking off body parts and hoping that you don’t get more
gangrene but modern surgery you’ll usually try to do the smallest incision
you can to address the very specific problem so you don’t wind up causing
further harm in the process of fixing whatever was bothering in the first
place and Tim Harford said so similarly for a lot of different policies that we
have we can usually think of a cheaper more humane way of dealing with the
problem so you know there’s things like what to do about air pollution you could
go and write a phone books worth of regulation or you could go and say
there’s a tax on pollution and you can do as much as you want but you have to
pay for it which then gives people incentives to always be looking for
better and cheaper ways to reduce pollution and gives incentives for
innovation to figure out better ways of doing it so that you can then sell this
products so it’s much better in terms of cleaning up things at a low cost
right and then similarly for immigration borrowing Tim’s idea I said why don’t we
go and listen complaints and try to figure out cheaper more humane ways of
addressing the concerns again things like Milton Friedman’s story you can’t
have unrestricted immigration and a welfare state all right great let’s just
take that for granted and say how about we go and let immigrants in but we give
them reduced access to benefits for a while which by the way we already do
some extent so it’s not like a science fiction idea rather it’s one that was
already on the books and we just turn up the dial to a higher level until people
finally calm down so I talked about this for many other concerns
people have but again each case the idea is first listen to the complaint what
exactly is it the same about immigrants that’s bothering you and then second is
there anything any way of addressing this problem other than saying kick him
out and keep him out right and this is actually something that I was struck by
in that last section it seems like you spent much more time reassuring readers
or reminding them that the status quo was already morally worse or that we
were already doing the thing that you might intuitively see as morally
objectionable in these various solutions I mean I found even as I was reading you
said okay sure let’s let people in but give them you know fewer access to
social services let’s only let some subset of people in from a region or you
know a culture and I had but I imagine isn’t very common intuitive reaction of
like well wait that’s not fair and both before and after each argument you sort
of said we’re already doing this we’re already doing this my thing is still
better why did you feel like that section of the book needed those
reassurances when the much more radical arguments earlier in the book didn’t or
you didn’t do it as much right so in the first five chapters of the book I’m
trying to convince people of what I think in the next chapter I’m trying to
bargain with people that I have failed to convince that’s really what’s going
on right and you know I’m an economist and I’m a parent so I’m used to the idea
of bargaining with people and trying to say all right what exactly is it that is
keeping us from getting your signature on the page and so that’s what I’m
really trying to do in that chapter let’s close we’re talking about the
dedications to the book which I thought were very striking um tell me about
yours and then if you can tell me a little bit about tax mom my wife got out
of communist Romania when she was six years old and then was stuck in Italy
for another six months while the US government tried to figure out whether
she and her dad were spies right and so yeah so you like your family well it was
a classic immigration story they came to this country with nothing
her dad especially he had been a Alecto manager and electrical plant when he was
back in Romania and then at the US he’s 43 and has to learn a new language and
be a janitor right and he did all this so that his daughter could have a better
life and so I dedicated the book to my wife and her family for being part of
the country story and just for being an
example of the kind of people that so many people say should not be allowed
here because they’re not good enough for us and only why do you think they’re not
good enough what exactly is it about them that is so horrible that you don’t
want them breathing the same air as as we do and then for a Zak
so my co-author had family in Poland and the former Soviet Union and some of them
got out before the US immigration laws made that almost impossible and he is
descended from that branch of the family and then the rest stayed and as far as
you can tell they all got murdered by either the Nazis or the Communists and
so he actually put out a request if anyone knows of any surviving relatives
of mine who might have made it out or somehow kept their head down if you
could just let me know have you gotten anything back about that I don’t think
that he has unfortunately but maybe some viewer at reason will know where the
long-lost branches the Weiner stiff of the Wiener Smith family have ended up so
final question do you think that you will live to see open borders or
anything that closely approximates it hmm let’s see how old am I again no so
yeah seems highly unlikely so a big part of my work is distinguishing between
what should happen and what I actually think will happen so I mean honestly I’m
just one person I think this is a book that is very persuasive as far as books
go but the most persuasive book in the world just isn’t that persuasive to most
people unfortunately I wish I could do better if someone else knows how to be
more persuasive that would be really good this is my best shot I think it’s
the kind of thing where you’ve got to win people over very gradually you got
to focus on the young because older people have generally just locked down
and made up their mind and actually I do all say I feel better about the fact
this is the only book I’ve ever seen where my little kids reading over my
shoulder so this is a book actually while it isn’t written for adults and
yet people who are much younger I’d say a precocious 7 year olds could read the
book with profit so of course I have dreams and fantasies about a whole
nation of children read this book and so then within 25 years they’ve won things
over and we do get this my honest answer is I think open borders will happen
eventually but unfortunately happen after
so rich that most the games are no longer there and on that pessimistic
optimistic note thank you very much Brian Catherine thank you very much
always a great pleasure

100 Comments on "Bryan Caplan Says Milton Friedman Is Wrong About Open Borders"


  1. I live in a small, former mining community in the UK. The pit was closed in the 1990s. As a way of offsetting increased unemployment and social breakdown, the government re-developed the site for small manufacturing and warehousing.

    However, thanks to the policy of the then Labour government of opening borders to new EU countries, the bulk of the new jobs went to Polish and Lithuanian citizens recruited directly from their home countries. They were employed at minimum wage and below, and under oppressive working conditions. The population of the village increased by some 25% over 2-3 years.

    This led to considerable resentment among local people, including some conflict with the new arrivals. But the lasting resentment is against the company which had profited from the open border policy, and especially against the government for failing to ensure new jobs went primarily to local people. In 2016, the local people voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU, something repeated across communities in the UK with similar expereinces.

    My objection to open borders, then, is:

    1. it disadvantages disempowered local working class communities;
    2. it advantages exploitative, unprincipled employers;
    3. it engenders inter-communal conflict;
    4. it undermines existing low-levels of trust in the political system and leads to support for populists of both left and right.

    All this to salve the consciences of the metropolitan middle-classes.

    Reply

  2. His argument completely breaks down at 9:53. Suddenly logic is out the window and he begins appealing to emotions. Fraud hack.

    Reply

  3. Friedman’s words is often cherry picked. In the same lecture he also stated “… we ought to be welcoming immigrants. In the same tradition, as the tradition, which enabled the rest of us to get here.”

    Reply

  4. 'Human talent'. Is that what it's all about? Uh Huh. Ya right. Read up on the plight of the Bolsheviks my friends. Ps- it didn't end well…

    Reply

  5. Advocating for extreme Libertarianism while simultaneously welcoming in people from socialist countries that will never vote Libertarian. Also a lot of wishful thinking on the assumption of virtue, merit, and english fluency of people that already sidestep the legal immigration pathways.

    Reply

  6. If you are AGAINST open boarders you hold a non individualistic, non libertarian, anti market position. Open boarders is not the socialist position, it is the freedom position. Be aware and own that you are arguing for a socialist and nationalist policy. We can debate culture, welfare, and all the rest, but don't be one of the people in the comments who mixes up socialism and liberty.

    Reply

  7. It's not that people aren't good enough to be citizens. A country has the right to regulate immigration. We do want to make sure we aren't letting in hardened criminals.

    Reply

  8. Also why are they immigrating at all it’s not like there is a monopoly copyright on the constitution other countries can adopt liberalism they didn’t have to choose socialism and they don’t have to put up with it

    Where did the founders immigrate to when the British government oppressed them

    Should we not force them to stay in their countries and be the change in it they want to see and liberalise them

    Have you ever wondered why isn’t Haiti like America or a liberal democracy that the reason Haiti is a shit show might be because of shit cunts that live there

    how would importing these shit cunts be beneficial for the social security of the individuals that live in the host state

    And I also remember these now failed states in the past demanding that us white evil exploitive imperialist to decolonize their countries

    now they show up on door step demanding refuge, welfare access to our economy And then call our institutions racist and our people white supremacist in the countries that our four fathers built through blood sweet and treasure

    I am well aware of my privilege and don’t want to see it squandered by these locust who have no allegiance to our freedom, our security to our future

    Reply

  9. Immigration should be up to the owner of the property. If you want people on your land starving with caps in hand, that should be up to you.

    Reply

  10. If you open the borders Mexico is going to open it's prisons, go North. Let in the gangs that killed the women and children a couple of weeks ago. These professors need to get out in real life. We use to ride horse and buggy but we moved on.

    Reply

  11. Quite an interesting title for his book, considering science and ethics are no where to be found near an open borders argument.

    "Slavery: the science and ethics of owning another human being."

    For any open borders loons, if this statement looks absurd, now you know how I feel. Also, ib4 some neoliberal comes in crying ' false equivalency', it's only because you refuse to see the unethical nature of having open borders. I mean, how can slavery be unethical when you're also providing shelter and food to them? It's all post modern bullshit with these people.

    Reply

  12. Most of our immigrants are coming from Mexico. It is a third world country, not exactly up to speed.
    Changing demographics is the biggest threat to liberty in the USA
    Not because of the color of their skin but the ideas in their heads

    Reply

  13. Bryan Caplan, how about you take a look at Robert Putnam's studies on immigration and diversity: less societal trust and less community involvement. Putnam is a leftist as well.

    Also, open borders is an affront against one of the basic tenants of libertarianism: the non-aggression principle.

    When someone starts a club that only allows a certain group of people to join but other people attempt to force themselves into the club meetings without invitation, that goes against the non-aggression principle. It's called volunteerism and forcing one self onto another or into a group of people is NOT volunteerism!

    These open border "libertarians" aren't libertarians at all when they break the basic principle of non-aggression via open borders…

    Reply

  14. This is all great theory but in practical terms of how humans work out society in reality, I say it is bunk. "Moral blindness" because foreigners can't just come here?
    This is coming from the same guy who admits his own privileged tenured position as a professor is basically robbing college students. (Generally speaking).
    I do not understand why the argument or comparison to the United States being like one's home is invalid. Why can't we as a collective Nation decide who comes into our country the same as we as a family decide who comes into our home? Maybe a better analogy wouldn't be a home but it might be our property and businesses and everyday life? Don't we have a say in how others are allowed into our life? Before I get labeled some sort of xenophobe and white supremacist let me say this: I could care less what color somebody is or what country they're from. The only thing that matters to me is that someone that will come here will assimilate and put the United States first. That may be an old-fashioned idea but I'm sticking with it.

    Reply

  15. Reading the comments it is clear that people just don't listen to arguments. The majority of commentators did not even watched the video, just keep repeating the same old regurgitated talking points. You can't change someone's opinion using facts and logic if the opinion isn't based on facts and logic. The biggest irony of all is that the people with the weakest mental capacities are the loudest ones about the IQ of the foreigners.

    Reply

  16. That poem was written by Emma Lazarus (proto-socialist, proto-zionist), had nothing to do with original meaning of Statue of Liberty, beacon of Liberty. Emma was in her career concerned mainly about Eastern European Jews. According to Paul Gottfried (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYPAvT-3Fvs) this ethnic group being responsible for apparent Leftism in US Jewish population, which was until the influx from Eastern Europe, mainly Conservative.
    Bringing thoroughly vetted anti-Communists from Romania is arguably better idea then bringing millions unchecked from countries where Socialism is very popular.
    Economic benefits are highly disproved. Societal costs are not taken in to consideration – trust and cohesion takes very long to built. Political costs are obvious. Conservatives losing state after state just to ethnic makeup and Libertarians can close the shop completely.
    Yes, Mexican immigrants won't compete with Mr. Caplan any time soon for his job in CATO institute.
    And since he states "I rejected Christianity because I determined that it was, to be blunt, idiotic." he probably welcomes the dilution of WASP element in USA.

    Don't forget to advocate for open borders in Israel. They gonna love you.

    Reply

  17. My main objection (worry, really) is that too many of the immigrants don't seem to value freedom, or come from countries that do, and so might end up outvoting the rest of us freedom-lovers in the medium and long run. Bryan didn't address this one to my satisfaction here, but I'm getting the book, and if he does so convincingly there, then that'll settle for me.

    Reply

  18. Why is there ALWAYS a jew at a center of open borders, socialist agenda(s) and finance(straight out of true-&-proven toolbox for undoing nations) meanwhile in Israel they build border walls everywhere and ever so higher it seams?

    Reply

  19. It's easy to argue against dead men. Friedman would invite him to argue and genuinely listen to his point of view. Then a slight smile would come across Milton Friedman's face as he begins to annihilate his argument with such devastating finality that his soul is debunked from existence, replaced with a burned-in shadow of Milton's smiling face and glasses.

    Reply

  20. I try to defend my Jewish colleagues against accusations that they all wish to dilute (Christian) White countries for their own subjective safety and economic benefits. It gets harder every day. Big irony is they are creating the monster they so fear – White Tribalism. I sincerely feel sad for the common sense Jews. Because they will catch the flak, meanwhile this pseudo intellectual will be sailing to Israel or Argentina. I recommend interview two brave German Jews (from Ukraine and Uzbekistan) did supporting AfD party in Germany (slandered as Nazi by mainstream), denouncing Jewish Community leadership which takes part in 'welcome refugees'.

    Reply

  21. His argument in a nutshell: Friedman is wrong because it wouldn't really be that bad. The argument is tendentious because this guy posits that he's taking a middle-ground empirical position (never mind that predicting the future is never empirical until you measure that future), while Friedman is an absolutist. No, Friedman is anything BUT an absolutist. When saying that a welfare state and open borders don't mix, Friedman is stating a general principle, not making an absolutist statement. "It wouldn't really be that bad" is a remarkably weak argument against Friedman's principle. He doesn't deny the point so much as say that it isn't absolutely true. Even I can agree that it isn't absolutely true (mostly because the real world is complex and lots of other factors come into play), but still believe that Friedman is mostly right. If you're going to adjust immigration policy, keeping an eye on incentives (such as a welfare state attracting people who don't want to work for a living) is essential.

    Reply

  22. This is what's wrong with smart white people; they are in a bubble of intellectual idealism. No real-life experience. Mexico is run by Mexican men. Africa is run by the black man, and so on. Are you saying white people are superior? Of course you are. DNA is off-limits in your thinking. Negative human behavior has to be managed. Freedom has to be preserved at all costs. You are full of yourself. Which means you are full of shit.

    Reply

  23. Hoppe would explain it to him how even in AnCap society voluntary association principle would negate open borders. He would also explain why Rothbard left Cato Institute for Mises. Like when Koch brothers, proponents of importing cheap labor, screwed him over.

    Reply

  24. We can have it all! Limitless candy AND liposuction! Free sex and devoted husbands! Hate the whites and everyone gets along anyway! Country music and brains!

    Reply

  25. #TooFarLeft

    Education is a good investment from an individual, family, community or national perspective and tuition free education will reduce the burden from the root on our medical expenses too for example.

    Healthcare for all is actually CHEAPER with the insurance industry off of the table along with most of the time lost due to billing among many other reasons.

    A universal basic income (UBI) is CHEAPER than all of the thousands of individual federal, state and local social safety net programs including things like Social Security and unemployment insurance, etc with all of their budgets, overhead expenses and inefficiencies eliminating the humiliating need for people to lose time to prove their poverty to qualify for aid.

    Internet for all is a great and necessary investment to give everyone the opportunity to study, search for work, work remotely, etc online.

    Solar power is CHEAPER and electric vehicles are soon to be CHEAPER to make and already are considerably CHEAPER to maintain and operate, especially if charged from your own solar power.

    What do you think will happen to crime rates, peace and equality in general after we launch a $15 min wage, education, healthcare, a universal basic income and internet for all, raising the starting point of capitalism from zero, we'll let you die with no money, to a level of life with dignity, reducing societal daily fears on a massive scale and freeing us to welcome the automation revolution with open arms rather than with fear and great harm? 😀

    #EqualityMovement #CelebrateSelflessness #SomosUno #StillSanders

    Call me overly positive, but I think we’re leaving the era of ‘greed is good’ and celebrating wealth and entering an #EraOfAltruism and equality.

    #BuildBridgesNotWalls #SomosUno

    Reply

  26. Take the screens off your windows at home and dream of a reality where the only things that enter your home improve what is already inside your home. He sees people of value stuck inside countries where their value is discounted and believes the best way to get them to a place where they can be put to use is take the screen off. Sounds like something I believed when I was 5. Then I discovered how the world actually works. Reality sucks. Yes it does but it is the only reality we have.

    Reply

  27. It’s quite sad to hear people who see government as the problem and criticize leftist for trying to solve government created problems with more regulation to do exactly that when stating we need to solve a problem created by the government (people immigratint to welfare) by more regulation (yes, immigration laws are exactly that).

    Reply

  28. Unlimited immigration from around the world. A free for all. The us will become a 4th world country in less than a 100 years. What nonsense!

    Reply

  29. I don't see why the keyhole solutions are not widely accepted by the people in these comments. Liberty is one and indivisible.

    Reply

  30. I appreciate the interview and perspective even though I’m completely against “open borders” for the U.S. at this time. I would love to see the day if/when humans achieve “world peace,” allowing open borders EVERYWHERE.
    In the meantime, we’re not there yet. The world can not get stronger by crippling its most thriving nations and economies. You don’t shoot your winning players. You allow them to be their best and then show the other players what’s possible, if they choose to duplicate “what works.” It’s a terrible idea to drag your best players performance down, in order to let the developing players play. In the end, everyone (the world) misses out on the chance to gradually become its very best!
    I am so grateful and blessed to live in the United States. My heart goes out to those out in the world who may be less fortunate. As much as I genuinely want to help people in need around the world but I feel it’s my moral duty as a U.S. citizen to first get myself “in order,” then my neighborhood, then my city, state, and then the citizens residing in my country, the United States. Once our country is no longer full of suffering, homeless people, then I would want to graduate to helping people outside our country. This concept is universal and scalable in countless examples. One of the most common everyone’s heard, are the step-by-step instructions for applying oxygen masks, in the event of any loss in cabin pressure. Apply yours first and then help others.
    Using this metaphor, the U.S. barely even has its own oxygen mask on at this time. We must pause any major migration for now, firmly “secure our mask” as a country. This means we, as caring citizens, help ALL the current suffering and struggling U.S. citizens, who already live here but desperately need help.

    Reply

  31. I watched and listened with an open mind, but I think Caplan failed to make a strong case for either the moral or economic arguments as to why open borders is a better idea.

    Reply

  32. is he this Bryan Caplan: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/10/they_scare_me.html
    He is Jew, right?
    Yes, he is: https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=77037

    What are those fucking psychopath up to?

    Reply

  33. Soooooo colonialism was a good thing??
    Have you asked Mexico or Syria or canada or China if they will do the same thing??? Bet you they tell us to suck a fat one

    Reply

  34. Until the immigrants turn citizens or their offspring vote for communism because white left indoctrinated them that they deserve free stuff and white skin people are all racist…
    Like those who come to America just to burn American flags and raise their native country flag, just look at commifornia ~

    Reply

  35. looks over his arguments
    great, he's advocating that people look towards gene pollution as a solution against his proposed policies

    Reply

  36. If we want to keep a welfare state for all of our old fat boomers on pensions, we need young working immigrants.

    Reply

  37. Yeah. Did not address the socialist values of immigrants… Also, minarchism allows the the government the legitimate role of protector, of which border control is a part… Also, the dislike ratio 🤣🤣🤣🤦🏿‍♂️

    Reply

  38. migration is not freedom of movement. I am not "free" to move into the house that you own. Given that a country is collectively owned by its people, you'd need consent from these people to move in. Stop 👏 confusing 👏 freedoms 👏 with 👏 privileges 👏.

    Reply

  39. Milton Friedman was always quoting the moral argument, not the economic one. I find it hard to believe he erred on this topic. Even God put borders on Eden.

    Reply

  40. CAN you have a welfare state? Well you have x$ to spend on n people, x$ was chosen to minimally hurt the n people, but also take care of them when one is in need. If now the y people come on top of the n, but they are a net drain on the x balance, well that's just not fair. Can't sustain yourself? GTFO

    Reply

  41. i want to commend ReasonTV for giving time to different points of view even if it's from absolute troglodytes.

    Reply

  42. Did she want to flush out any of the statistics he's using in his book ? You wouldn't understand because….statistics ? I understand 4% unemployment is better than 10% unemployment. Boy that got some real thinkers at ReasonTV.

    Reply

  43. To be so “libertarian” as to enable the transition of society to one that would intentionally seek to oppose “libertarianism” and advocate for even greater centralized authority is a truly an unwavering commitment.

    Reply

  44. Open borders would be great if all countries were equal. They are not. 90% of the earth lives on less than those in the US and could improve their lives by moving to the US. If these 6 billion that would love to come here did…it would be the end of the Republic. Think they wouldnt all come here? Look how many pour in, knowing it is illegal. Millions. It would be hundreds of millions if the border was open. Anyone that cant see that deserves the consequences of their ignorance…but our children and grandchildren dont. These idiots want to commit National Suicide…and take us with them. Like a freakin death cult.

    Reply

  45. Hereby Conceived, "Trickle Down Taxation", TDT. It is the idea that a tax on "wealth" starts at the top and pillages everyone all the way down to the bottom.

    Reply

  46. Open borders goes against one of the basic and fundamental tenets of libertarianism that one should not do harm to others. Open border in importing potentially millions of people will hurt the people currently living in the US. Massive numbers immigrants do not assimilate, they will bring massive amounts of crime, they will make the first world into the 3rd world. The problem with this guy is he doesn't understand the concept of nationality or the fact that people are not the same. The 1st world owes no responsibility to the 3rd world for the mess they are in.

    Reply

  47. Open borders and caravan migration; Europe and the USA. US has restrictions and Europe remains somewhat porous. There exists the test bed and control group for welfare state and endless immigration.

    Peppered throughout his talk seemed to be references to skilled English speakers as migrants seeking better economic opportunities elsewhere. Means testing is not open borders no matter how much Orwellian double-speak is applied.

    Reply

  48. you don't need open borders to have a ordered immigration that picks out people that actually want to work and have the talent.
    only big companies and those who come inside gain anything.

    Reply

  49. bias? 3rd and 4th generation immigrants from Turkey are less integrated than even the first generation was. that is a fact, not a bias.

    Reply

  50. To the interviewer: It is very important when discussing a concept (open borders for example) to begin by defining terms. It is not at all clear that different people have the same understanding of this term.

    To the writers of the comments on this and other Reason videos: First, what part of freedom of movement don't you understand? It's the most basic freedom there is for humans and even other animals. Second: many of you must have come here thinking that libertarianism is some kind of right-wing philosophy. It's not. Libertarianism is an optimistic philosophy that sees great potential in humanity. The right, just like the left, believes that people are garbage and can't be trusted to live free. Please give us a chance.

    Reply

  51. Comparing how your government treats domestic businesses to withholding a travel visa from someone in Haiti is ridiculous. Nobody is forcing that person to stay in Haiti, by denying entry into one other country. Apples and snow tire comparison, and a logical fallacy.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *