4 ms·
Think about what happens when a Mexican attempts to walk to Detroit and apply for a job at GM. Violence will be used against him, and against GM, if they volunt
by blfr 11y ago
Think about what happens when a Mexican attempts to walk to Detroit and apply for a job at GM. Violence will be used against him, and against GM, if they voluntarily transact.
GM and Mexicans can't also voluntarily transact in my kitchen or in the foyer of my building regardless of what impact it would have on inequality. Violence would be used against them if they tried.
Other citizens have certain rights, that are a lot like property rights in condominiums or HoAs for example, to decide what happens in their country. If GM and Mexicans want to voluntarily transact, they can do it in Mexico, should Mexicans allow it, or some third country where they're both welcome.
Your argument is basically an argument for communism (as in common ownership, not any particular political system): if some people have what others need, why not just redistribute it?
- yummyfajitas 11y agoNo one can transact in your home without your permission, but the issue here is that I can't transact with a Mexican in my home either. I'm arguing for capitalism, and against economic protectionism. Where do you get the idea that I favor redistributing wealth?
- blfr 11y agoRight. The issue is analogous to the shared foyer of a building (where you also often cannot transact with random non-residents). You argue that people who currently have a right to their country (citizens) should abolish its borders and allow anyone to move in. Which would be like residents of a building allowing anyone into the shared space. The value of access to that shared space is what would be redistributed from residents to non-residents (leaving its depreciation in the process aside). The step from this intangible to more concrete wealth is minor, especially since, as you've pointed out, it has significant dollar value.