The Consequences of Prohibiting Immigration

Prohibitions breed violence because they shut down non-violent mechanisms of dispute resolution.  It does not matter much what good or activity is being prohibited.

Comments

[Mike Huben]

Every right is based on prohibitions. So I suppose that means property breeds violence. One of those naught consequences.

Does this mean you're opposed to property, as well as to immigration restrictions?

[John Pertz]

I think Mike Huben is certainly the Baptist variable within the theory of "Bootlegers and Baptists."

[John Pertz]

I see your point Mike, however, I think it is important for you to understand that prohibitions that prevent force against individuals are a good thing. Prof. Miron is trying argue that prohibitions that enact violence, as opposed to preventing violence, should be avoided.

[Mike Huben]

John, there is no violence involved in folks freely using Prof. Miron's house, car, credit cards, bank account, etc. The only violence would come from Miron not using "non-violent mechanisms of dispute resolution", and instead trying to employ violent people to guard "his" stuff.

"The rules one likes are the foundations of sacred property rights, those one does not like are meddlesome regulation. This is a nice trick..."
James Boyle, Libertarianism, Property & Harm

(If you're interested, you can find the ideas to rebut pretty much anything Miron says at my quotes site. http://world.std.com/~mhuben/quotes.html)

[Eric H]

"John, there is no violence involved in folks freely using Prof. Miron's house, car, credit cards, bank account, etc."

Really? So Professor Miron would graciously allow them to do whatever they wanted if they asked nicely? They would be committing neither violence nor threat of violence? I think you are so wedded to the Hohfeldian taxonomy that you have not thought this through very carefully.