Unlike a lot of libertarians, I am interested in preserving America’s cultural roots. Part of that involves a recognition that immigrants do not have those roots and that there is a big difference between coming here to work and coming here to be American. Most illegals from Mexico have no desire to become Americans, even just in terms of citizenship. I don’t want that type of immigrant to be allowed to live here and exercise any influence here. I’m willing to forego some of the economic benefits like cheaper fast food in order to have my kids grow up in a more American America.

Unlike a lot of libertarians, I am interested in preserving America’s cultural roots. Part of that involves a recognition that immigrants do not have those roots and that there is a big difference between coming here to work and coming here to be American. Most illegals from Mexico have no desire to become Americans, even just in terms of citizenship. I don’t want that type of immigrant to be allowed to live here and exercise any influence here. I’m willing to forego some of the economic benefits like cheaper fast food in order to have my kids grow up in a more American America.

Incidentally, it keeps low-cost producers overseas (plus would-be immigrants) poorer for no good reason. This, in turn, undermines American security interests because we are seen as a selfish global pariah where we could be extending friendly tendrils of trade.

Incidentally, it keeps low-cost producers overseas (plus would-be immigrants) poorer for no good reason. This, in turn, undermines American security interests because we are seen as a selfish global pariah where we could be extending friendly tendrils of trade.

The same is true of immigration. Admitting more low-skilled immigrants may moderately depress the wages of some low-skilled Americans (although I’m told the evidence suggests this effect is very small if it exists at all). But it greatly benefits American consumers as a whole, who enjoy lower prices a larger, more robust economy. Restricting immigration doesn’t protect Americans from foreigners. It harms some Americans for the benefit of others, incidentally hurting foreigners in the process.

If all of this is so obvious as to be a truism, I apologize.

I think the zero-sum game issue was more along these lines: strong IP laws may or may not be bad for developed countries (we obviously differ), but they are much worse for developing states. At the very least, such states don’t seem eager to adopt them on their own. The whole WIPO/TRIPS stuff has been all about trying to tie IP protection, which developing states don’t want, to free trade advances, which they typically do. One might think of this as raising the cost for developing nations to signing onto free-trade agreements; at the margin, one might expect fewer FTAs to be signed. That, at least, was my gloss.

Thus, whatever immigration policy emerges in the US will have an enormous impact south of the Rio Grande well beyond Mexico. This will occur precisely at a time when Latin America is swerving left, with country after country drifting back to anti-American, populist stances: Venezuela in 1999, Bolivia last year, perhaps Mexico, Peru, and Nicaragua later this year. If the perception of further US hostility toward Latin America persists, the tilt toward an irresponsible, demagogic left will harden.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/cas…

Also, PLN, your brief discussion shows you balancing the implications and trade-offs between IP and trade, thus I don’t think we’re that far from each other.

My disagreement with the original post is that Tim seemed to imply that we have some zero-sum game of free trade (or FTAs, I’m not sure which he means) vs strong IP laws.

You may say, “Ah, but George Lucas is entitled to his monopoly on all things Star Wars.” Perhaps, perhaps not; all domestic industries seem to think they are entitled to be the lone supplier to “their” markets.

No man is an island, and no country is either in todays world. Jorge Castenada said it very well:

Thus, whatever immigration policy emerges in the US will have an enormous impact south of the Rio Grande well beyond Mexico. This will occur precisely at a time when Latin America is swerving left, with country after country drifting back to anti-American, populist stances: Venezuela in 1999, Bolivia last year, perhaps Mexico, Peru, and Nicaragua later this year. If the perception of further US hostility toward Latin America persists, the tilt toward an irresponsible, demagogic left will harden. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/castaneda8

Free trade and open immigration to anyone who claims that they want to work seem to be the libertarian equivalent of the worker’s revolution. Once they’re in place, it’ll all be swell! Hell, there was a Cato@Liberty post recently bemoaning the apparent shortage of low-skilled labor! Is that why Northern Virginia is practically overflowing with illegal immigrants?

I think that the standard libertarian sentiments on labor and trade issues are naive and unrealistic, and ultimately destructive to liberty. A government that acts like an impartial administrative body, allowing the economy to be raped by foreign businesses with massive foreign government protection and financing, and a population diluted by waves of immigrants, is not going to be a government that gives a bloody hoot what you think about anything. It won’t represent you because you gave up any pretense that it should represent you and your people’s interests in the face of state-backed competition abroad. These things tend to cascade without exception from a seemingly innocent start into a horrible mess.

I do agree with Noel that copyright does not have any inherent conflict with free trade. Why would it, since it’s a separate issue that often gets tossed into a FTA?