Reblog: The Open Borders Manifesto

I repost here a copy of the open borders manifesto, which I first shared on this blog one year ago today, on Open Borders Day, 16 March 2015.

This seems especially pertinent now that the UK Government are moving to introduce, in April of this year, the spectacularly illiberal measure of imposing a minimum earnings threshold of £35,000 pa* for non-EU citizens wishing to live and work in the UK.**

"Freedom of movement is a basic liberty that governments should respect and protect unless justified by extenuating circumstances. This extends to movement across international boundaries.

International law and many domestic laws already recognise the right of any individual to leave his or her country. This right may only be circumscribed in extreme circumstances, where threats to public safety or order are imminent. We believe international and domestic law should similarly extend such protections to individuals seeking to enter another country. Although there may be times when governments should treat foreign nationals differently from domestic citizens, freedom of movement and residence are fundamental rights that should only be circumscribed when the situation absolutely warrants. 

The border enforcement status quo is both morally unconscionable and economically destructive. Border controls predominantly restrict the movement of people who bear no ill intentions. Most of the people legally barred from moving across international borders today are fleeing persecution or poverty, desire a better job or home, or simply want to see the city lights.

The border status quo bars ordinary people from pursuing the life and opportunity they desire, not because they lack merit or because they pose a danger to others. Billions of people are legally barred from realising their full potential and ambitions purely on the basis of an accident of birth: where they were born. This is both a drain on the economic and innovative potential of human societies across the world, and indefensible in any order that recognises the moral worth and dignity of every human being. 

We seek legal and policy reforms that will reduce and eventually remove these bars to movement for billions of ordinary people around the world. The economic toll of the modern restrictive border regime is vast, the human toll incalculable. To end this, we do not need a philosopher’s utopia or a world government. As citizens and human beings, we only demand accountability from our own governments for the senseless immigration laws that they enact in our name. Border controls should be minimised to only the extent required to protect public health and security. International borders should be open for all to cross, in both directions."

Originally from http://openborders.info/open-borders-manifesto/

Happy Open Borders Day!  Spread the word.


* £35,000 pa is way above (~35%) the median income in the UK, which according to the ONS was £496 pw in December 2015, which equates to £25,802 pa.  The government claims that the £35,000 figure was arrived at because it was the median pay of the UK population in skilled jobs which qualified for Tier 2 ("graduate level") at the time of the Migration Advisory Committee’s consultation in 2011.

** Note there are exceptions to this rule.  The new restriction only applies to a certain group of immigrants, specifically those working in what the government defines as "graduate level" jobs.  There are other exceptions in specific circumstances also.

See also here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/118060

Chris Dillow on Laffer Curves

Chris Dillow blogs on Laffer Curves over at Stumbling and Mumbling.

A slice:

"8. There are two contrary but tenable positions here.  One is "the revenue-maximizing tax rate might be high, but high taxes are undesirable because they infringe freedom."  The other is "The revenue-maximizing tax rate could be low, but high taxes are justified to reduce the adverse effects of inequality."  Both of these positions are rare - which makes me suspect that there's quite a lot of motivated reasoning on both sides."

My position is something akin to the former, i.e. "the revenue-maximizing tax rate might be high, but high taxes are undesirable because they infringe freedom."

Worthwhile reading the whole thing, it is short and contains a lot of clear insight.

Open Borders Manifesto

"Freedom of movement is a basic liberty that governments should respect and protect unless justified by extenuating circumstances. This extends to movement across international boundaries. 

International law and many domestic laws already recognise the right of any individual to leave his or her country. This right may only be circumscribed in extreme circumstances, where threats to public safety or order are imminent. 

We believe international and domestic law should similarly extend such protections to individuals seeking to enter another country. Although there may be times when governments should treat foreign nationals differently from domestic citizens, freedom of movement and residence are fundamental rights that should only be circumscribed when the situation absolutely warrants. 

The border enforcement status quo is both morally unconscionable and economically destructive. Border controls predominantly restrict the movement of people who bear no ill intentions. Most of the people legally barred from moving across international borders today are fleeing persecution or poverty, desire a better job or home, or simply want to see the city lights. 

The border status quo bars ordinary people from pursuing the life and opportunity they desire, not because they lack merit or because they pose a danger to others. Billions of people are legally barred from realising their full potential and ambitions purely on the basis of an accident of birth: where they were born. This is both a drain on the economic and innovative potential of human societies across the world, and indefensible in any order that recognises the moral worth and dignity of every human being.  

We seek legal and policy reforms that will reduce and eventually remove these bars to movement for billions of ordinary people around the world. The economic toll of the modern restrictive border regime is vast, the human toll incalculable. To end this, we do not need a philosopher’s utopia or a world government. As citizens and human beings, we only demand accountability from our own governments for the senseless immigration laws that they enact in our name. Border controls should be minimised to only the extent required to protect public health and security. International borders should be open for all to cross, in both directions." 

That is from http://openborders.info/open-borders-manifesto/

Happy Open Borders Day!  Spread the word.

The Bedroom Tax is not a Tax

Warning: This is a bit of a bugbear of mine, what follows is pretty much just a rant.

Disclaimer: Just to get it out in the open before I get any complaints about defending this unpopular policy: I am not a fan of the under-occupancy penalty, I think it is unfair to large numbers of people, many of whom will be among the most vulnerable members of our society (minorities, the poor, the sick and the disabled).  This post should not be taken as a defence of the policy, which I oppose.  This post is merely about the term "bedroom tax" which is an inaccurate and misleading way to describe this policy.  I think it may also be counter-productive for opponents of the policy to label it such, in much the same way as calling anyone who disagrees with your political leanings a communist, a Nazi or (most commonly) a fascist.

[Begin Rant]

Let me state explicitly and to avoid any ambiguity: the "bedroom tax" is NOT A TAX!

I'm talking about the under-occupancy penalty - to give it it's proper name - which is part of the Welfare Reform Act 2012.

So, if it's not a tax, what is it?  It is a reduction in benefits paid out to people living in council housing deemed to have "spare" or "unoccupied" rooms.  Some people may read this and think to themselves "what's the difference?"  I suspect that that's how the colloquialism "bedroom tax" came about in the first place.  Someone has equated a withdrawal of benefits to a tax.  And taxes are bad, right?  So, the bedroom tax must be bad!

Whilst I agree with the conclusion, it is not because of this argument.  The problem here lies in the first premise, that equating of a withdrawal of benefits to a tax.

From the perspective of an individual, a reduction in benefits and the levying of a tax may look the same and may have exactly the same consequences for the individual concerned.  For example, imagine Dave currently works part-time in a low wage job, he doesn't earn enough to pay Income Tax or National Insurance (Social Security) contributions.  He also receives some money paid to him by the government in benefits of some sort (e.g. Child Benefit, Working Tax Credits, Carer's Allowance, etc.).  Now, imagine the government alters the tax rules, so that Dave now has an annual tax bill of £200, but his benefit payments remain unchanged.  The effect of this is obvious: Dave is £200 per year worse off, he's going to have to cut back on £200 per year of consumption (or saving) or draw into any savings he may have.

Now, lets imagine an alternate scenario where Dave's tax bill (from Income Tax + NI) remains zero, but in this alternative universe the government reduces Dave's benefits payments by £200 per year.  What is the effect on Dave and his consumption?  The answer of course is exactly the same as in the previous scenario where Dave's benefit payments were untouched, but he was taxed more heavily: Dave is again £200 per year worse off and he's going to have to cut back on £200 per year of consumption.

This is, I suspect, where shallow thinking has led some to conclude that:

Reduction in Benefits = Tax

Therefore,

Under-Occupancy Penalty = Bedroom Tax

The problem with this equivocation is that taxes and benefits are not morally equivalent.  This becomes apparent if, instead of looking at it from the perspective of a single individual affected by the changes, we look at it from the much wider perspective of society as a whole:

If the government reduces the benefits it pays out to Dave, it must also reduce the amount it taxes Nick (all other spending remaining equal), since all benefits payments are someone else's taxes.  The government has no money of it's own, it merely shuffles money around between individuals.  This offsetting benefit to Nick exactly cancels out the harm done to Dave (in strict monetary terms).  Whether or not this is good or bad policy depends on the specific circumstances of Dave and Nick and crucially it requires a value judgement.  A similar story can of course be told regarding taxes, albeit the opposite way around.  If the government increases the taxes it charges Nick then it can increase the benefits it pays out to Dave.  Again, a value judgement is required to judge the merits of such a policy change.

The key difference is that a tax is the government taking money by force (or the threat of force - if you don't pay your taxes you can go to jail) from an individual who has rightfully earned that money.  A benefit is the government giving out money which it did not rightfully earn (whoever paid the tax to fund that benefit did).

Viewed in these terms then a reduction in benefit is seen to correspond to a reduction in tax, or in other words a reduction (however minor) in the coercive power of the state.

An increase in tax is precisely the opposite - an increase in the coercive power of the state.

From the libertarian perspective the former is unambiguously a good thing and the latter a bad thing.  However, that being said, policy changes that reduce the coercive power of the state still have to be weighed up against the harm that they inflict upon individuals.  In my opinion there is a long list of more desirable policy changes which could be made to reduce the coercive power of the state which I'd rather see implemented (e.g. university tuition fees and prescription fees in Scotland) and the under-occupancy penalty scrapped.

[End Rant]

Caplan & Boudreaux on Nationalism

Bryan Caplan has written an open letter to nationalism, which is posted here.

Don Boudreaux reflects on this at Cafe Hayek.  A slice from Don's post (do read the whole thing, it is full of Don's characteristic wisdom and insight):

"I reject also the superstition that that particular political institution... is a faithful representative of that multitudinous and extraordinarily complex and diverse group of individuals commonly called “the American people.”  Indeed, I go further and reject even the possibility that such a group of people can possibly ever have anything reasonably called “a representative” or an agent or agency that carries out its ‘will.’  (Groups of people have no ‘will.’  It is mistaken anthropomorphism to imagine otherwise.)"

"I feel no, I owe no, and I will never give any allegiance to any nation or any government as such.  My allegiance is to whatever peoples and institutions promote human freedom, flourishing, and peace."

Well said.  It is heartening to know that we share this world with such clear thinkers as Boudreaux and Caplan.

If you don't vote you can't complain!

I was inspired to write this post after turning on my TV this morning to be greeted by the image of Ian McMillan (who I had no idea who he was until today) on BBC Breakfast talking about the Newark by-election.  Quite apart from the fact that he also seemed to believe (erroneously) that a single voter could make a difference (even in a closely contested by-election, how often does it come down to a single vote?), he also made the following declaration:

"If you don't vote, don't complain.  If you don't vote it's nowt [sic] to do with you."

This seems to be a ubiquitous sentiment amongst people of various political leanings.  It is also something with which I happen to completely disagree.

Firstly, the fact that a person has (correctly) concluded that their vote has a negligible chance of making any difference whatsoever and therefore (rationally) decided that there are better uses of their time* than reading through flyers, manifestos, propaganda and other policy documents does not in any way make their opinions and preferences carry any less weight than someone who has made the alternative choice to vote.  Every single person is equally entitled to their opinion and equally entitled to complain, campaign, support or protest in whatever (peaceful) way they see fit, this extends to those who either could not or chose not to vote.

Secondly, refraining from voting can itself be a form of protest.  Admittedly, the problem with protesting in this way is it isn't possible from voting turnout figures to distinguish those who didn't vote out of protest from those who were apathetic, lazy or indeed simply had better things to do*.

One could argue that those who don't vote out of principal or in protest actually have more of a right to complain that those of us who do.  If you happen to have voted in favour of the candidate/party/policy which wins an election/referendum you have implicitly given your consent to be governed/represented/constrained by said candidate/party/policy and legitimised the use of certain powers and constraints over you and those you care about.  Even if you vote against the eventual winner, by participating in the election/referendum process you accept that process as legitimate and therefore implicitly accept the outcome of that process.

Say that you voted for the Libertarian Party at the last General Election.  Since the Libertarian Party have no MPs you would feel that your views have little to no representation in Parliament.  Chances are high that your representative in the House of Commons is either a Conservative or Labour party member (possibly a Liberal Democrat).  Whichever of the major parties they represent, you didn't vote for them.  You think that this therefore gives you the right to complain about them, their party and everything they do and stand for.  However, you still participated in the process which saw them elected.  You just don't like the outcome in this particular instance, in other words you don't like the choices that most other people have made.  But, you agreed to participate in the process which resulted in that outcome!

I say free speech to all.  This means it doesn't matter whether you vote or not you still have every right to express your opinions in whatever peaceful ways you see fit.  Let the non-voters complain if they've got something they think is worth complaining about!


* Some examples of better uses of ones time than voting include: spending time with ones family / friends / loved ones, working to provide for oneself and ones family, spending time at a hobby, doing some DIY/redecorating to improve ones home, enjoying a good meal, enjoying a music concert, etc.