> If the system of open borders plus a modern welfare state that you propose is "true, ethical, and internally consistent" why haven't any of the more than 190 countries around the world come to this obvious conclusion and built what you say is needed/ideal?
Note, I support ending both immigration suppression laws and also ending the welfare state.
However, I don't think that ending immigration suppression laws should be contingent on ending the welfare state.
The exercise of many freedoms, such as the ability to have kids, ride motorcycles, or move between US states might also increase the burden on the welfare state
But just as I don't think that the existence of the welfare state gives the state right to dictate who can have kids, I also don't think the existence of the welfare state justifies stripping the right of immigrant and citizen to trade and associate with each other.
As for why the policies I prefer (free markets + no welfare state) aren't more popular yet, I think it takes time for good policies to spread.
Human culture is emergent, distributed software that runs on the three lbs of salty bacon floating in our skulls.
Given that humans are galvanic porkbots that communicate via flapping meat modems, it's a marvel that our governments function as well as they do.
Humans have only recently evolved from other great apes, and we still have a bunch of subsystems in our brains that made sense when we were bands of primates on the savannah, but which are dysfunctional now.
For example, when we were savannah apes, xenophobia made sense. A neighboring band of apes had little of benefit to offer (except for females), and they competed with us for resources (food/water/mates) and posed the risk of disease.
Nowadays though, due to the invention of trade, money, and specialization of labor, other primates can offer tremendous wealth by working with and trading with us.
But that new reality is very recent in our evolutionary history, and our culture (and biology) still hasn't fully adapted.
Bryan Caplan summarizes four of these systematic, dysfunctional biases here:
https://reason.com/2007/09/26/the-4-boneheaded-biases-of-stu/
There are also incentives for parasites to take advantage of these biases benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else.
For example, by fomenting hatred of the Jews, Hitler was able to rise to become dictator of one of the most powerful, technologically advanced countries in the world.
Even though Nazi policies ultimately caused tremendous harm to Germany and the world as a whole, it was in the self-interest of Nazi leaders to push for such policies, as they won great wealth and power by doing so.
IMO, Trump foments hatred of immigrants for similar reasons: doing so has enabled him and his cronies to ascend to rule the most wealthy country that has ever existed.
It's also much harder for dysfunctional states to survive if their most productive citizens can easily flee. Dysfunctional states also don't like immigrants who know of and promote better alternatives. Modern authoritarian leaders also often rely on labor unions for money and "muscle", and unions typically don't like immigrants who are willing to work harder for less money than the unions.
That's why most authoritarian states have strict immigration suppression laws (on both entry and exit).
This article on public choice summarizes much of the research on politicians (and their cronies) as self-interested actors:
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html
The persistence of these biases and parasitic forces doesn't mean that they are _desirable_ though. Nor does it mean we should just throw up our hands in despair.
It wasn't that long ago that slavery, monarchy, and theocracy were widely considered just, ethical means of organizing society (still are, in a few places). Yet the ideologies that supported those practices are in long term decline.
IMO, nationalism and socialism are in long term decline as well, albeit fitfully and slowly.
Note, I support ending both immigration suppression laws and also ending the welfare state.
However, I don't think that ending immigration suppression laws should be contingent on ending the welfare state.
The exercise of many freedoms, such as the ability to have kids, ride motorcycles, or move between US states might also increase the burden on the welfare state
But just as I don't think that the existence of the welfare state gives the state right to dictate who can have kids, I also don't think the existence of the welfare state justifies stripping the right of immigrant and citizen to trade and associate with each other.
As for why the policies I prefer (free markets + no welfare state) aren't more popular yet, I think it takes time for good policies to spread.
Human culture is emergent, distributed software that runs on the three lbs of salty bacon floating in our skulls.
Given that humans are galvanic porkbots that communicate via flapping meat modems, it's a marvel that our governments function as well as they do.
Humans have only recently evolved from other great apes, and we still have a bunch of subsystems in our brains that made sense when we were bands of primates on the savannah, but which are dysfunctional now.
For example, when we were savannah apes, xenophobia made sense. A neighboring band of apes had little of benefit to offer (except for females), and they competed with us for resources (food/water/mates) and posed the risk of disease.
Nowadays though, due to the invention of trade, money, and specialization of labor, other primates can offer tremendous wealth by working with and trading with us.
But that new reality is very recent in our evolutionary history, and our culture (and biology) still hasn't fully adapted.
Bryan Caplan summarizes four of these systematic, dysfunctional biases here:
https://reason.com/2007/09/26/the-4-boneheaded-biases-of-stu/
There are also incentives for parasites to take advantage of these biases benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else.
For example, by fomenting hatred of the Jews, Hitler was able to rise to become dictator of one of the most powerful, technologically advanced countries in the world.
Even though Nazi policies ultimately caused tremendous harm to Germany and the world as a whole, it was in the self-interest of Nazi leaders to push for such policies, as they won great wealth and power by doing so.
IMO, Trump foments hatred of immigrants for similar reasons: doing so has enabled him and his cronies to ascend to rule the most wealthy country that has ever existed.
It's also much harder for dysfunctional states to survive if their most productive citizens can easily flee. Dysfunctional states also don't like immigrants who know of and promote better alternatives. Modern authoritarian leaders also often rely on labor unions for money and "muscle", and unions typically don't like immigrants who are willing to work harder for less money than the unions.
That's why most authoritarian states have strict immigration suppression laws (on both entry and exit).
This article on public choice summarizes much of the research on politicians (and their cronies) as self-interested actors:
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html
The persistence of these biases and parasitic forces doesn't mean that they are _desirable_ though. Nor does it mean we should just throw up our hands in despair.
It wasn't that long ago that slavery, monarchy, and theocracy were widely considered just, ethical means of organizing society (still are, in a few places). Yet the ideologies that supported those practices are in long term decline.
IMO, nationalism and socialism are in long term decline as well, albeit fitfully and slowly.