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.

Sentences I Could Have Written

"Those people who make their living by devising and offering better mousetraps to willing buyers are too often portrayed as villains, while those other people who promise to forcibly take the fruits of the mousetrap factories from their creators and ‘re-distribute’ those fruits to the masses are portrayed as heroes."

That is from Don Boudreaux commenting on an 1883 essay by William Graham Sumner.

Alex Salmond doesn't understand the legitimate role of government or the point of a constitution

In the lead-up to the Scottish Independence referendum Alex Salmond was interviewed on Reporting Scotland on the 13th August 2014, where he stated that he desires to protect the NHS and maintain health services "free" at the point of use.  Whilst I don't necessarily agree with that (which I realise is a very uncommon and unpopular point of view in the UK) it is a position that many reasonable people hold.  I fully understand that where people sit on this issue, and others like it, is largely the result of subjective value judgements.  However...

Salmond then went on to state his desire for a written constitution (fine - this is a goal that I can completely get on board with) and that he would work to ensure that in an independent Scotland "health services free at the point of use" were constitutionally protected as a right.

I have to be very careful here, because I don't want to understate the significance of this:

THIS IS AN ABSOLUTELY INSANE, CRAZY, WACKY, RECKLESS, OUTRAGEOUS AND DOWNRIGHT TERRIBLE IDEA!!!

Regardless of your subjective values and your opinion on whether or not you think healthcare should be provided by the state, or by private providers, or some combination of the two, the notion to protect this as a "right" is a total nonsense.

You cannot have a "right" to healthcare that's free at the point of delivery just as you cannot have a "right" to housing or watermelons or education or yachts or mortgage advice or courier services that are free at the point of delivery.  What all of these things have in common is that they cost money to provide - in order to receive them they first must by produced (at some cost) by someone else.  You can't have a "right" to them because that would put an obligation on someone else to provide them at their own cost.

A "right" to free healthcare for you is an obligation to provide free healthcare on your Doctor.  You don't expect to go to work and get paid nothing for your labour so why should your Doctor?

Russell Brand on Stephen Fry on Religion

A friend linked to this video of Russell Brand responding to some comments made by Stephen Fry in a recent interview on the topic of religion.

Brand describes Stephen Fry as “aggressively” not believing in God.  This attempts to immediately set-up a narrative in which Fry is the “aggressor” or oppressor and therefore by arguing against him, Brand is attempting to portray himself as a defender of the oppressed.  Fry certainly doesn't come across as “aggressive” to me in the clips shown in this video.  To be fair to Brand, I haven’t watched all of the Stephen Fry interview, so maybe there are moments when he does get more “aggressive”, although this would seem quite out of character for Fry.  How many people do you know who would be likely to describe Stephen Fry as “aggressive”?  I find such tactics underhand, manipulative and odious.

Stephen Fry’s response to the question of what he’d say to God if he exists was a statement about the problem of evil, which I am yet to see a convincing refutation to.  Brand’s response to this is to ignore it, instead preferring to talk a load of nonsense about “literalism” then segue into quoting from Robert Lanza’s book ‘Biocentrism’ regarding supposed “flaws” in received physics.  These “flaws” consisting of the fact that if any of 200 physical parameters, laws or forces in our universe (e.g. the strong nuclear force, gravity, etc.) were slightly different the universe as we know it, or at the very least the Earth and/or life would not be able exist and that it therefore  “strains credulity” that they are random.

Note that Brand hasn't presented any sort of an argument here one way or another re: the existence of God or the problem of evil.  He has completely ignored Stephen Fry’s point (why on Earth did he bother showing the first clip if he was going to talk about something completely different anyway?!), then presented an argument from incredulity (read: logical fallacy) re: the existence of the universe / life as we know it.

In response to the second and third clips, he rambles about a “connected consciousness” and an “unknown force” behind everything in the universe.  He doesn't present any evidence for such wild assertions.

I could go on, but this post is already long enough; besides it hardly seems fair to pick on Russell Brand intellectually - it’s like having a boxing match with a 5 year old and the 5 year old has his hands tied behind his back - it’s just not fair.  Brand would do well to stop his mouth for a few moments and engage his brain instead of spouting off this sophistry.  The man is a charlatan and an ignoramus.  He’s almost like the anti-Stephen Fry.

I baulk at the notion of giving Brand more publicity and traffic to his YouTube channel (not that he needs it) where he spreads his ridiculous views. Although, given how little traffic this blog gets, I don't think it's something I need worry much about.

On the plus side, I have developed a new heuristic: If Russell Brand says something, the opposite is highly likely to be true.

Democratic Crisis? Really?

Oh, and I'd just like to add the following in addition to my post on Wednesday regarding compulsory voting:

Describing this as a "democratic crisis" is extremely melodramatic.  It is nothing of the sort.  A democratic crisis would be an accurate description only if there had been a coup and we were now being governed by a military junta or something of that magnitude.  Do these people have no sense of perspective and proportion?

Just look at the "balance" given by the BBC:

"Historically Britain has a tradition of resistance to radical reforms to the constitution. But campaigners say dramatic solutions may be required to tackle what is often described as a democratic crisis. 

Critics question whether changes to mechanics of the voting system will address this crisis."

It's just taken as given that both proponents and opponents of this proposal view this as a "crisis".  I suspect the reality is that the vast majority people, including politicians and the media, understand fine well that it's nothing of the sort.

Questions from the BBC which we can answer

"Should voting (or actively abstaining) be compulsory?"

No.

To extend that answer:

No, voting* should not be compulsory in a modern liberal democracy.  Contrary to what David Winnick may believe, voting is not a "civic duty".  It is more important that people have the option to vote and the free choice whether or not to exercise that option.  It is more important also that the people who do choose to exercise that option to vote, do so in the most measured, best informed and fairest manner possible.  In short, there is no civic duty to vote, but if you do vote there is a civic duty to vote well.**

Fining people for not voting* is not necessarily conducive to anything positive in terms of "democracy", "political engagement", "civic participation" or indeed getting the most out of the political process.  Indeed, it seems likely to be counter-productive in some regards - what advantage is there in forcing people, who otherwise would not bother to vote to do so?  If 16 million people either do not care enough or actively do not want to vote, what benefit is there in forcing these people to vote?  Do you think that the majority of these 16 million people are likely to be particularly well informed on politics?  Do you think they'd be able to tell you the difference between the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrats?  Could they tell apart David and Ed Miliband, or Ed Miliband and Ed Balls?  Could they name the current Home Secretary?  If not, then what is there to suggest that these people would all vote in a fair, measured and informed manner?  I fail to see how introducing to the process an additional 16 million ill-informed votes improves our democratic process.

As briefly noted in the BBC article, a high turnout does not indicate a politically engaged electorate when it is mandatory to turnout to vote or face a fine or worse.  Surely no-one is fooled by this, which is as transparent as the fact that sticking "Democratic People's Republic of" in front of your country's name does not make said country either democratic or a republic.  Ultimately what is being proposed here is government mandated violence against those who refuse to vote.  Some readers may think that "violence" is being a bit melodramatic, it's only a fine after all, but if you don't pay that fine you will be taken to court and probably lumped with an even bigger fine, which if you continue to leave unpaid will lead to you eventually being imprisoned, and if you resist being imprisoned, well then things can get really nasty.  This is not a road that any modern liberal democracy should be in any rush to go down.


* or actively abstaining

** When I say people have a duty to vote "well" I emphatically do not mean that they should necessarily all vote for the same candidate or political party, in particular I do not mean that everyone should vote the same way as I do (people interpret things differently and even when furnished with all of the same facts there is still ample room for differences of opinion on the relative importance of various issues and there are always differences in different persons value judgements).  All I mean to suggest is that prior to voting, citizens seek to ensure that, within the circumstances, they are as well informed as possible on the key issues, politicians, parties, etc. such that they are able to make a reasoned decision.

Check out these Retro-style Travel Posters from NASA

NASA have released these three stunning, high-quality travel posters to celebrate the exiting discoveries of the Kepler telescope.  Since its launch in 2009, NASA’s Kepler telescope has discovered more 1,000 alien worlds.

The posters are reminiscent of travel billboards of the 1920s, 30s and 40s and depict three of the exoplanets previously discovered by the Kepler telescope.  Al are available for download as high-resolution images from JPL's website and are the work of the space agency's visual strategists Joby Harris, David Delgado and Dan Goods.

[Hat tip to Amusing Planet for the link]

Quotation of the Day...

From Don Boudreaux:

"… is from the abstract of Solomon Polachek’s and Carlos Seiglie’s important 2006 paper, “Trade, Peace and Democracy: An Analysis of Dyadic Dispute“:

At least since 1750 when Baron de Montesquieu declared peace is the natural effect of trade, a number of economists and political scientists espoused the notion that trade among nations leads to peace….  The greater two nations’ gain from trade the more costly is bilateral (dyadic) conflict.  This notion forms the basis of Baron de Montesquieu’s assertion regarding dyadic dispute.  This paper develops an analytical framework showing that higher gains from trade between two trading partners (dyads) lowers the level of conflict between them….  Crosssectional evidence using various data on political interactions confirms that trading nations cooperate more and fight less.  A doubling of trade leads to a 20% diminution of belligerence."

A slice from the rest of Prof. Boudreaux's post, which is well worth reading in it's entirety [emphasis added]:

"When people trade they must engage with others, mostly strangers; when people trade across political borders they must engage with greater numbers of strangers still.  This trade, though, makes the strangers less strange to each other, because each learns better what the other is like and what the other likes and dislikes.  Trade is peaceful, and so it reveals to each trader the other’s humanity; war reveals the other’s brutality.  Each party to every trade gains; with war, one party certainly losses, and even the ‘winner’ might well, in the end, have lost so much to have made the entire activity a losing proposition."

and to file under sentences I wish I'd written:

"The retaliation incited by war is negative-sum and stupid: “You killed someone whose passport is issued by the same agency as that issues my passport, so I’ll kill someone whose passport is issued by the same agency that issues your passport.  That’ll teach you!”"

Did Industry Cause Nations?

That is the title of an excellent post by Robin Hanson over on his Overcoming Bias blog.  A slice:

"Nation states still thrive on a widely held belief that “the world is naturally made of distinct, homogeneous national or tribal groups which occupy separate portions of the globe, and claim most people’s primary allegiance”. But anthropological research does not bear that out, he says. Even in tribal societies, ethnic and cultural pluralism has always been widespread. Multilingualism is common, cultures shade into each other, and language and cultural groups are not congruent. …"

Thoughts on the Scottish Independence Debate

Warning: This post is very long and somewhat wonky.

I realise that I'm quite a bit behind here, but I only had the time to watch the debate last weekend and then had to find the time to write all this down during the last week.


General thoughts:
I found Alex Salmond to be relatively weak, particularly on the issue of a formal currency union with the rest of the UK.  He was evasive of questions that obviously made him uncomfortable.  He quoted Darling out of context and several times referred to obscure documents rather than answer questions directly.  I find the case for independence to be lacking, particularly of any really good, practical reasons for why we should want to be independent.

Alistair Darling's performance was perhaps slightly stronger, although he missed a few tricks.  His best moments were when he quipped to Alex Salmond that "I didn't vote for you." and with his observation that a formal currency union between Scotland and the rest of the UK would require agreement on both sides.  I think Darling was needlessly evasive when questioned by Salmond on whether he thought that Scotland could be a successful independent country, probably out of fear of how it would look of how he might be later quoted out of context (judging by this debate, most likely by Salmond himself).


Opening Statements:

Alex Salmond opened by citing figures of 49 out of 71 Commonwealth countries and 12 out of the 28 EU countries are the same size or smaller than Scotland [pop. 5.3 million]; presumably by way of example that there are plenty of successful small countries and that therefore Scotland could be as well.  The 49 out of 71 Commonwealth countries figure is disingenuous, since not all 71 of these 'countries' are independent states - for example England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, St. Helena. and the Cayman Islands to name but a few which are not.  There are 53 independent states in the Commonwealth, 31 of which are smaller than Scotland, one - Singapore [pop: 5.4 million] is about the same size and another one - Sierra Leone [pop: 5.8 million] is not much bigger.  I'm absolutely baffled as to why Salmond would present these figures like this, since the reality doesn't weaken the point he was making anyway.  The 12 out of 28 EU countries figure is perfectly reasonable; there are 9 EU countries smaller than Scotland and 3 of roughly the same size: Slovakia, Finland and Denmark.

He mentions the large number of food banks in Glasgow and rhetorically asks how there can be people reliant on them in this prosperous country [Scotland].  The implication presumably that it is due to failings on the part of the UK government in Westminster.

He then alludes to the Trident nuclear weapons at Faslane and states that £100,000 million (i.e. £100 billion) is planned to be spent on them "over the next generation", of which £8 billion is "Scotland's money" (by which he means is the equivalent paid in tax by the people of Scotland in order to cover this expense).  This is a drop in the ocean compared to other government expenditure, something I've already covered in another post here.

He mentions that for more than half of his life Scotland has been governed by parties that "we" didn't elect at Westminster and that these parties have given us the "Poll Tax" and the "Bedroom Tax" (which of course is not a tax).

Salmond ends his opening statement by stating that: "No-one, absolutely no-one will do a better job of running Scotland than the people who live and work in Scotland." this is a very reasonable point taken in isolation, but it strikes me as somewhat ideologically inconsistent to support Scottish independence on this basis whilst simultaneously expressing a desire for an independent Scotland to remain within the EU.  He's essentially taken polar opposite positions regarding the UK and the EU.

Alistair Darling's opening statement contained exactly what you would have expected it to, he stated that he was proud of Scotland and wants it to prosper, but doesn't believe independence is the best thing to do and cited the strength of the UK.  He advocated a "best of both Worlds" approach.


Economic Prosperity & Social Justice:
The debate began with the themes of economic prosperity and social justice, which were bizarrely lumped together.  Economic prosperity is self-explanatory enough, but the definition of "social justice" is more difficult to nail down and I suspect many people understand it to encompass various different things.  The reason I find it odd that these two things are lumped together is that certain things which some people would consider part of the definition of "social justice" I view as being at odds with economic prosperity.

Darling claimed that as part of the UK, Scotland enjoys unimpeded access to a much bigger market.  This would be a good point were it not for the existence of the EU, which provides the same benefit across all 28 member states.  He also observed that Scotland enjoys additional security as part of a bigger country.

Alex Salmond stated he had a "vision for Scotland" which includes a prosperous country/economy and a 'just' society; at no point did he define what he meant by 'just'.  He referenced over 30,000 children in Scotland in poverty due to social security changes (he wasn't specific on what social security changes specifically).  He also mentioned the "bedroom tax" (a misnomer since IT IS NOT A TAX!) affecting 80,000 families in Scotland.  He didn't offer any discussion on how these issues would be any better/worse in an independent Scotland.

Salmond went on to cite a "risk assessment" by a "major accountancy company" completed "last week" which ranked Scottish independence as the 6th risk behind the UK leaving the Euro amongst other things.*  The whole point was rather incoherent - how do you compare such a diverse wide array of potential risks that may or may not affect a nation and rank them.  Even if you can do so, the 6th biggest risk is really high up the list of all possible risks (which is an infinitely long list).

Asked about the risk that the Union will keep pensioners poor Alistair Darling noted that being part of a bigger, stronger economy spreads the risk.

On Salmond's point that an independent Scotland would always get the government "it" voted for Darling quipped that he didn't vote for Alex Salmond.  As I mentioned here this was more than just a joke, it highlights an important fundamental truth about democracy.

Right at the end of the first part of the debate a gentleman in the audience asked Alex Salmond how ending peoples reliance on food banks is to be achieved in an independent Scotland, whether it is by encouraging people who are able to make a contribution or whether by raising taxes and paying out more in benefits.  Unfortunately ITV cut back to their "spin room" immediately after this excellent question was asked and they never returned to it for the rest of the debate, so Salmond got away without having to detail any specifics of his proposed means to this end.


Cross-Examinations:
Darling pointed out that a formal currency union between Scotland and the rest of the UK would require agreement on both sides.  Darling was very persistent in trying to get an answer out of Salmond on what is his plan B if an independent Scotland is unable to negotiate a formal currency union with the rest of the UK?  I found Salmond's response to be very weak, he repeatedly avoided the question stating only that a currency union was in Scotland's best interests and that he would therefore push for that.  When pressed on the issue he refused to give any clarity on any alternative arrangements.  A casual observer could easily take this as an admission of not having a plan B.

Salmond referenced the Fiscal Commission Working Group Report, which you can read in full online here.  Salmond referred to page 4 of the report, but that's just part of a Foreword, the actual bit we're interested in here is Chapter 7 (pp. 121) and the "Technical Annex - Assessment of Key Currency Options"

In a nutshell, the report sets out 5 potential options for currency in an independent Scotland:

1. Formal monetary union with the UK
2. Informal monetary union with the UK (sterlingisation)
3. Join Euro
4. Set-up new Scottish currency (floating exchange rate)
5. Set-up new Scottish currency (fixed exchange rate)

Salmond quoted Darling speaking on Newsnight Scotland describing a currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK as "logical" and "desirable" for both countries.  This is selective quoting by Salmond who has cherry-picked these words specifically to make it look like Darling has either backtracked (Gasp! Someone changing their mind? - How awful!) or is being disingenuous now.  In fact, if you watch the clip you'll see Darling has been remarkably consistent in his views on a potential currency union - he states that it makes sense within the context of political union (and points out that this is what we have now!).  Watch the clip here and get the full context of his comments for yourselves.

Salmond then quoted David Cameron saying that Scotland could be a successful independent country and pressed Alistair Darling on whether he agreed with this statement.   I think Darling was needlessly evasive of this question.  I think Salmond was probably correct when he stated that Darling probably does agree with the statement, but just doesn't want to say so for fear of how it will look (or possibly for fear of how it will later be quoted out of context by Salmond).  I think this was a waste of an opportunity for Darling, he could have said something along the lines of:

"Yes, I do, but I think that Scotland can be even more successful as part of the UK."

Or, he could have asked Salmond to clarify exactly what he meant by "successful"?  There are all sorts of different criteria by which we could reasonably measure success.


Audience Questions:
Alistair Darling pointed out that public spending per head in Scotland is higher than in the rest of the UK - something that he supports.  I disagree that this is necessarily something to be supported in and of itself.**  That being said, I think Darling's answer touched on two important points: firstly, that Scotland is financially better off as part of the UK; secondly, and more importantly, even if Scotland would be financially better off if it were independent from the rest of the UK, using this as a justification for independence is on shaky moral grounds.  An analogy: the 10% of richest people in the country could be financially better off were they independent from the other 90% as they then wouldn't have to subsidise or support poorer members of society - does anyone seriously think that's a good justification for the richest 10% to secede from the rest of the UK and declare themselves independent?

It's interesting that there's a general narrative amongst the nationalists that the Scottish people would be better off financially if Scotland were independent from the rest of the UK (since they wouldn't be subsidising others in other parts of the UK on average), but at the same time they pursue statist policies, including taxpayer funded higher education, taxpayer funded medical prescriptions, etc. and that they don't seem to see a contradiction in these positions.  The whole nationalist narrative is full of contradictions and seems to be based around a general xenophobia or misplaced feelings of oppression rather than based on any fundamental principles as such.

Darling references this IFS report and suggests that in the event of Scottish independence, in the early years of independence circa £6 billion of cuts would be required.  I'm assuming Darling has estimated this from the figure of £6.4 billion reported in Table 1 (pp. 19) as the budget deficit of Scotland in tax year 2010-2011 (the most recent year covered in the IFS report) based on a geographical share of North Sea oil & gas revenue (the most realistic, but also the most optimistic case).

Darling described "free" (read: taxpayer funded) higher education as a "theoretical right" in reference to cuts of 130,000 college places.  I don't like this - basically because it is an outright nonsense.  "Free" higher education cannot possibly be a right for anyone because it costs resources to provide.  This is the distinction between negative rights and positive "rights".  If there were a right to receive education without paying for it directly that would put an obligation on someone else to pay for that education - who is that someone else and why should they be paying rather that the person receiving (the vast majority of) the benefit of the education?  This blog post is already far too long to get into a detailed discussion of such concepts, so I'll save any further comment for another day.

Alex Salmond answering questions on the issue of pensions referred to Scotland's declining working age population.  He referred also to 37,000 young people leaving Scotland each year and spoke about retaining these skilled people within Scotland and ensuring they are allowed to stay here.  He gave no details about how he planned to achieve this or how it would be any easier/better within an independent Scotland.

Darling attempted to emphasise the additional economic opportunity that comes with being a part of the UK.


Closing Statements:
Darling's closing statement was a narrative of not introducing any new borders or boundaries to increasing wealth and opportunities and the additional security that comes from being part of a larger country such as the UK.

Salmond's closing statement was a reiteration of the points he made in his opening statement.  He emphasised that Westminster governments have often not reflected the votes of the Scottish population, that Scotland is a wealthy nation with abundant natural resources and that this can be used as a basis for a more 'just' society and that no-one will govern Scotland better than the people who live and work here.


* It would have been helpful if he'd mentioned the name of the company that carried out this "risk assessment" - the cynic in me suspects that no such document exists and it's all rhetoric.
** I'm in favour of public spending being as low as possible - after all, the goal is not to spend as much money as possible, it's to get the best and most cost-effective results possible.  Put another way - we want to get as many public goods/services as possible for the lowest possible cost.  One is also reminded of the law of diminishing returns as well as the fact that one will never spend others money so carefully as they would spend their own.