[extropy-chat] Economic consensus on immigration

[Lee Corbin]

Anders writes

> spike wrote:
> > One aspect of libertarianism that I always
> > choked on was the notion of open borders.
> > To this day I still can't quite see how such
> > a policy could ever work.
> 
> I must admit I have the opposite problem. Why wouldn't it?

It depends on perspective: as a *group* this could be disastrous:
What if the Romans had opened their borders in 220 B.C.? They 
shortly would have ceased to exist as a distinct culture or as a
distinct people. Latin would have been swamped.

As for *individuals*, it's another matter. One and even all of
one's currently living fellows might economically benefit from
unrestricted immigration.

> Of course, I tend to annoy my fellow Swedes by suggesting that it would be
> a good thing to have a few hundred thousand Russians colonize our northern
> inland and make it productive. (the usual rejoinder is that they wouldn't
> want to)

But why Russians? The Swedish government should issue invitations to
the most needy and prolific people it can find, e.g. Moslems from
several places in the world, or Mexicans. Why shouldn't the Swedish
government feel a moral obligation to do what I suggest? After all,
*economically* it'll quite possibly help Sweden, but even if not,
it will certainly help whatever country the newcomers arrive from.

Besides, economic issues aside, *think* of the benefit to the 
immigrants themselves!

> Borders are so arbitrary. If they are a good thing, wouldn't it make sense
> to add a few within current nations? If that is bad, why not remove a few
> between nations? And if that is bad too, how come all nations have the
> perfect size?

They got that way because evolutionarily some groups (tribes) in the
past wished to preserve their own identities and values as a group.

Lee