Tag Archives: labour

Immigration – An Austro-Libertarian Analysis


Immigration – An Austro-Libertarian Analysis

By Duncan Whitmore

Both the referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as the US President have elevated the topic of immigration to the top of the political agenda. Leftist, liberal elites – previously so sure they would arrive easily at their vision of an open, borderless world – have been scalded now that the lid has been lifted from the bubbling cauldron of the needs of ordinary, everyday citizens seeking to preserve their jobs and the culture of their homelands.

It is high time that this vitriolic, divisive and – frankly – often quite tiresome issue is put to rest. That, alas, is unlikely to happen, particularly as the political globalists seem content to plough on with their vision of open borders through the looming UN Global Compact for Migration. Listening to the mainstream arguments (or at least to how the leftist/liberal media chooses to portray them), one would be forgiven for thinking that the immigration question needs to be met by an all or nothing answer – i.e. that it is either an unqualified good or an unqualified bad. We are led to believe that it is a contest between liberals, or self-styled “progressives”, clamouring for fully porous borders on the one hand, versus elderly, conservative, racist bigots who supposedly want to keep everyone out and preserve England’s green and pleasant land for white faces.

The falsehood of this dichotomy is obvious to almost anyone who is not of the liberal-left, and, in fact, a “sensible” view on immigration is quite prevalent – that it is possible to be in favour of permitted, but regulated immigration, allowing some people to cross the border as immigrants to come and live and work in the territory of the state while denying that privilege to others. It is also recognised that immigration is economically beneficial in some situations, but not in others – i.e. when immigrants are highly skilled and productive instead of welfare consumers.

The task of this essay is to sharpen this “sensible” view with Austro-libertarian theory. We will begin by outlining the core libertarian theory concerning immigration before examining a key area for contention among libertarians – whether, in a world populated by states, any particular state should restrict or otherwise control movements across the border by persons who are not considered to be citizens of that particular state and whether this is in accordance with libertarian theory. We will then move on to exploring the economic and cultural implications of immigration policies. Read more

Advertisements

Economic Myths #15 – Unemployment


Economic Myths #15 – Unemployment

By Duncan Whitmore

One of the key indicators of the economic “performance” of any given country is its rate of unemployment. Low rates of unemployment are understood as a sign of prosperity while high rates are taken as a sign of recession and stagnation. Indeed, during the Great Depression, unemployment reached as high as 25% in the United States.

Politicians are particularly keen to monitor the rate of unemployment as low unemployment lends credence to the economic policies of those in power while high unemployment stocks the arsenal of those in the opposition. Given also that entire economic dogmas such as the so-called trade-off between full employment and inflation, not to mention the generation-long post-war Keynesian consensus are, at least, part rooted in the concept of unemployment, one would expect unemployment to be a unique and important category in economic theory.

This short essay will not explore in detail the state induced causes or aggravations of unemployment such as the minimum wage and excessive regulations heaped upon the shoulders of employers. Such topics have been examined countless times over by many economists, “Austrian” or otherwise. Rather, what we wish to concentrate on here is the validity of the very term “unemployment” itself and to determine whether it is really a useful concept in shaping so-called “economic policy” or whether it is really redundant and meaningless. Read more

Economic Myths #3 – We Need More Jobs!


During an economic malaise one of the endless reams of statistics to which pundits glue their eyes is the number of jobs that are either created or destroyed. The state makes “job creation” a central plank of its economic policy to put people back to work, and the impression that more people are being hired and fewer fired buoys their hubristic impression that we must be on the road to recovery.

In the first place, we might as well point out that, for as long as humans strive to create more wealth, there will never be a shortage of demand for productive work. Labour is the ultimate scarce commodity – however much machinery we have and whatever our state of technological progress there is no production process that does not require an input of labour (any such process which did not require labour would essentially be producing free goods). Thus, the phenomenon of involuntary unemployment is made possible only by the artificial costs and restrictions that the state places upon employers – such as minimum wages, health and safety laws, working time restrictions, taxes, compulsory national insurance contributions, etc. – which mean that employers and employees cannot work together on terms that are acceptable to them. This is on top of the distortions and upheavals of state-induced business cycles which create clusters of bankruptcies and redundancies in the first place.

That aside, however, the obsession with jobs is another example of the error of looking at an isolated aspect of economic achievement rather than at the entire picture – much like trying to boost consumption in order to further growth which we explored in myth #2. Read more

Keir Wins Debate!


Keir Martland

This lunchtime, with a sore throat, I spoke at a debate at my college.

Back to the Future?

Motion: “By looking backwards Jeremy Corbyn threatens the future of the Labour Party”

I spoke against the motion. I spoke without notes, but this is roughly what I said:

“First of all, in response to one of the speakers for the motion, it seems to me that even the Parliamentary Labour Party is largely united. The willingness of Lord Falconer and Hillary Benn even to serve in a Corbyn shadow cabinet suggests a level of unity which I found rather surprising. So, Corbyn hasn’t torn the PLP apart yet, which many of us on the right complacently predicted.

Read more

Debate: We’ve Never Had it So Good


My college’s History Society was to have a debate today, which was cancelled. Censorship! No, actually, revision sessions were scheduled at dinner. But, as the likelihood of this debate taking place before the end of the term is now virtually zero, here is what I intended to say – and will say when it goes ahead. 

Motion – ‘We’ve Never Had it So Good’

I must take issue with this motion. I find it patronising and almost 100% wrong.

Oh, indeed, some qualifications are called for. I won’t try to deny that we are all immeasurably better off than our 1914 counterparts in that we can Skype people, we can live our lives without fear of rickets, polio, or David Lloyd George , and we can go days without having to do anything involving a great deal of physical exertion. Maybe this means we are freer in some sense, but it is certainly not up for debate that we are more comfortable on the whole than our great grandparents were when they were our age. What is up for debate is whether we are, in addition to being better off in terms of lifespan and technology, better off in politics, economics, the law, society, and culture.

Read more

What to do now


David Davis

This is what I commented on on Facebook, here.

As Dr Sean Gabb has often said, the EU is “a” problem, but it is not perhaps the “real” problem.

It is however very true to say that the EU does make our lives more difficult, for that is its stated objective: but the “continental nations” have found ways around that strategy, like outright disobedience at all levels of their societies. For example, you  may buy stuff in Pounds and Ounces in French village markets: you may also decide not to observe slaughterhouse regulations in Spain or Greece, if it is not fully convenient on that day so to do….or you may decide to use a pipe-cleaner as a nursery-toy in Italy or Germany, for this is what the project requires, or you can do a traditional festival exactly as unsafely as it was intended, such as again in Spain or Sicily…the Health and safety inspectors are eminently bribable to go away and say nought.

This is something which sadly we English shall have to as a nation re-learn, having spent 14 centuries trying to eradicate it from our Body-Politic, so as to elevate as a principle The Rule Of Law.

The Rule of Law is not, unfortunately, understood by wannabe-green-subsistence-farmer-pre-capitalist-barbarians. These latter droids, horrible-to-relate, exist in vast amounts _/spcecifially inside the UK/_ inside the upper and middle-layers of our neo-Maoist bureaucracy, created in our Universities on purpose while our backs were turned.

The EU could be expelled from at least England, tomorrow, by the act of England leaving the UK, which would of course automatically invalidate ROME, the SEA, Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon not to mention others. Think about this as an interesting strategy…it would at once solve the problem of England, which generates about 90% of the tax-revenue-stream of the UK, while getting the benefit of about 12% of that. It would also concentrate wonderfully the minds of the leftist Nazi caucuses which purport to run the celtic-fringe-governed “nations”: they would be on their own. We could “give them the oil”, if they want, it would not matter either way by then. We can buy oil from Russia, which is temporarily (but not in the long term, so we should beware after about 2014) bust.

But our Atomic-SuM-Barines and Tornados would automatically withdraw from Faslane, Lossiemouth etc, for then the chaps in HolyRood House and Cardiff will be able to, and will want to, call on FranscoGerman and Soviet protection instead. We shall of course take all our warheads with us, as they represent “pollution”. I as “Foreign and War Secretary” in a libertarian government in the UK, would see to it that we had lots of these – in charge of course of de-statising “education” as I also would be.

The strategic problem faced by England lies in the hearts and minds of the droids who currently work for “the State” here in England. They are not England’s friend, for they subsist by stealing monies from English people, so as to “do jobs” that the majority of Engllish People do not regard as needing to be done.

“Immigrants” are not really the problem: they are only here because so many, many English people have become “State Droids” that there are not enough droids to do the following things. Things like cleaning the toilets in private firms and in motorway-services, repairing pipes and drains on sewage farms, digging holes, ploughing fields in the greatest Mechanised Farm In the History Of The World, killing badgers that have TB and thus poison other people’s cows next door, filling shelves in Tesco, and the like.

“Immigrants” have been brought in to (1) “rub the noses of the >right< in diversity” (the enemy has said so quite cheerfully in documents) and (2) to do the jobs that the bureaucrats now can’t do or don’t want to, and (3) to prop up the gramscoNazi vote. Immigrants themselves are thus victims of neo-leftist-anti-liberal-anti-British-leftism, and ought to be pitied, for there is now nowhere for them to hide, neither from their enemies and ours, unless they become really British (and so disappear culturally, like the “Jews” and most Poles have managed to do) which is the best thing for them.

“Lessons learned” I think, from the Holocaust, here.

The real problem lies in our increasingly-ingrained culture of statist employment, which must be broken and

« Older Entries