You’re almost committing the fallacy yourself.

"every additional person is not just another mouth to be fed".

Quite, another mouth to be fed, body to be clothed and housed, mind to be entertained, creates more work for everyone else. Plus then you add Simon’s point.

Britain isn't small and crowded, despite what the xenophobes often say. Even if it is much more crowded than, say, France.

To see the terrifying effects of mass immigration by the culturally strange, you want a really small, really crowded island, Hong Kong or Manhattan. Or equivalently a city that has grown recently very fast by immigration despite tight, or non-existent, natural resources such as Los Angeles or Swindon.

You’re almost committing the fallacy yourself.

Only if you mis-read his article.

And eastern europeans, far from being from very different cultures, are quick to assimulate into British society, which makes the xenophobe argument even more preposterous than usual when applied to them.

Yes the "wages fund", or even Ricardo's (absurd) "iron law of wages". Wages depend on the demand for certain types of labour (different people having different skills and different attitudes to their work), output that people do not value (for its own sake not for the labour in it) will not attract wages.

Need on it's own is not economic demand. A man may be starving to death, but this is not a market for the sale of food - if the man has no money and no one will give him any (either for work or out of the kindness of their hearts).

Immigrants are only an economic gain on two conditions - no government help (including no help with housing or education for their children), and they themselves are not criminal.

More muggers and forced prostitution organizers are not needed (there are quite enough of such people who are born in Britain). And more people requesting government help (education, pensions and so on) are not needed either (again there are quite enough of such people born in Britian).

However, if an immigrant is honest (i.e. he will not violate the nonaggression principle by either direct crime or accepting govenment aid in any form) then that immigrant is indeed likely to be an economic gain - even in a country like Britian which faces severe development pressure in the south east (water shortages, traffic problems, building on unsuitable land - and so on).

Sadly there is no way to tell if an immigrant is going to ask for government aid or not - and many millions of pounds are spent (by government and private groups) informing people about their "rights".

Whilst it is impossible to tell in individual cases, it seems unlikely that low skill immigrants are going to provide more in work than they (eventually) cost in taxes and in other ways.

However, it is not libertarian to deal with a "lump" like "immigrants" - each individual should be judged as an individual.

I suppose the only way out of this is a strict private property approach. If a person can afford to, for example, pay to use the (private) streets or can find someone to pay for him (because they like him or he has some skill they value) it is likely that people would welcome them. If they could not, it is likely that they would never leave the airport or the docks and would have to go home.

Of course it is possible that some people will value the very existance of more immigrants for their own sake (as "diversity" or whatever), and will take care of them at their cost.

As economic value is subjective I would have to accept that such immigrants were indeed adding value. And, of course, people who did not value these immigrants (or placed a negative vlaue on their existance) would never have to see them as they would be maintained in the areas of the people who did value them.

Absurdly over complicated, Paul. You can hardly live in London without encountering an Eastern European working as a waiter or on a building site (the one next to me is full of Poles and Slovaks) or as a motorbike courier. They are coming here in droves and they are working in droves. How is this a problem? And as previously pointed out on this very blog, their outstanding crumpet is even doing good things for the gene pool!

if you want a really small, really crowded island, Hong Kong or Manhattan.

And those two islands are two of my very favourite places in the world. I love great cities, and these are small and crowded places by their very nature. There are benefits of density and crowds, and people who don't want to live in crowded places certainly don't have to. They certainly have plenty of non-crowded places in the UK where they can go and live if they want to.

The trouble with the "This is a small and crowded island and it is full up with people and can't take any more people" argument is that I have heard it in too many places and it always sounds exactly the same. I have heard it in Hong Kong, I have heard it in England, and (ludicrously) I have heard it many times in Australia. When people make this argument against immigration, I never believe them.

When people make this argument against immigration, I never believe them.

I do, I just think you need to fill in the missing words.

"This country/city/island/whatever is full up with people" really means "This country/city/island/whatever is full up with people who are different to me and I don't like it"

EG

I should clarify that when I say I do believe them, I don't mean that I share their belief - merely that I believe what they are saying is a sincere expression of their own belief. Or it would be if they were honest enough to add the missing words...

EG

My point exactly, Euan & Michael. (Tho' personally I've never liked NY.)

I'm sure Jonathan is reporting Browne's attitude on that matter accurately, because I've read other articles by the same commentator where he seems to lose his marbles on contemplating incomers. What's interesting is the question of whether adherence to the lump of labour fallacy is motivated by as well as a motivator for such tribalism: "We don't want foreigners taking our women/houses/jobs," is a plausible reaction from workers facing competition and trying to rationalise it, but it is also a concretised version of general distrust of outsiders. There's a connected economic fallacy, that of national competition, which partakes of the same them & us values and is quite widespread at the highest levels of policy.

...every additional person is not just another mouth to be fed, but another brain and pair of hands to create wealth.

Simon is correct but in the case of real-world immigration into the industrial world, timing is everything.

In the US, virtually all immigrants no matter how poor and ill equipped they start out will over the course of their lifetimes, say 40+ years rise to the middle class and make a net positive contribution to the national economy. This is one major reason why the US rocks.

However, short term, say

In the US the problem with illegal immigration is that we get floods of low-skill, net-consumer immigrants concentrated in relatively small geographic areas leading to an overload of the welfare state in those areas. I don't know if the same dynamic applies in Britain or not.

I'm sure Jonathan is reporting Browne's attitude on that matter accurately

Pretty much, but I think he overdoes Browne's reliance on the lump of labour. Browne's argument seems to be that eastern immigration is a Bad Thing (tm) because it depresses real wages. True enough, it does depress real wages at least in the short term, but I think this is more an indication that wages are too high in this country to start with. I find it hard to see this as more than a necessary correction to overpaid British workers.

I have an uncomfortable feeling that much of the superficially plausible argument against immigration is little more than a cover for xenophobia, petty nationalism and sometimes racism. Browne seems to be trying to put the petty nationalist case but under cover of economic reasoning. Possibly he values cheap Slovakian housemaids, but doesn't want a Slavic bourgeoisie diluting Blighty's traditional values. Whatever they are.

EG

Euan,

Many of the places where it depresses wages are areas where wages have risen in recent years due to a shortage of local labour. Household tradesmen - the classic "Polish plumber" is an example. British plumbers have in recent years been onto a very good thing, and people coming into this country from Eastern Europe to take advantage of these high wages is just an example of market forces working as they should. I don't see anything wrong with it. (Actually I see a lot right with it).

I have an uncomfortable feeling that much of the superficially plausible argument against immigration is little more than a cover for xenophobia, petty nationalism and sometimes racism.

Yes, that's roughly how it feels to me, too.

However, I don't think I quite said what I meant when I said "I don't believe them" in my earlier comment. I didn't mean to say that people who say this kind of thing don't genuinely believe it when they say it. What I did mean to imply was that people who believe this tend to believe it due to having a general hostility to immigration for a variety of reasons, and that this conception is generally used to reinforce other views.

Many of the places where it depresses wages are areas where wages have risen in recent years due to a shortage of local labour

Given the high unemployment in these areas, I suspect this is untrue. Official unemployment is relatively low in the UK, but once the legion of "disabled" are added, it comes up to around normal west European levels. It seems to me a lot of this is a result of (a) unrealistically high wage expectations, (b) the welfare trap and (c) a reluctance to perform menial work on the part of the indigenous population.

A shortage of WILLING local labour, yes, but not a shortage of labour per se.

EG

I have been accused of being "absurdly overcomplicated" - and Max may well have a point.

O.K. I will leave the economics and political philosophy and just say which immigrants I tend to like and which I do not.

Of course this absurdly unfair to individuals, but there we go.

I tend to like Eastern Europeans in general - all the Slav nations in fact. I tend to prefer some cultures to others - but there is no point in going into that.

I do not tend to like Albanians - but that may be because the ones I came upon in Northampton were criminals (involved in all sorts of bad things).

Other Albanians may be wonderful.

On the question of Islam. Albanians are not all Muslims and few are stong muslims anyway.

As for Muslims in general. Islam is too varied and complicated a culture for me to really make a brief "I like" or "I do not like" here.

There has been much conflict since the 7th century A.D. (I know Islam started in the 6th century - but it was largely an Arabian affair till the 7th century) but much good contact as well.

Would I pass a lie detector test if I said that I am totally untroubled by there being between two and three million Muslims in Britian? I doubt it, but I try to keep an open mind.

Lastly the big one - skin colour.

Do I care about people having a different skin colour to me?

Well I hope I do not care - but it is the first thing I notice.

Why do I think to myself "there is a man of a certain colour" rather than "there is a short man" or "there is a tall man"?

Well Paul
Hat's off to you. You are are reasonable and tolerant man. You're hoping for the best, shit arn't we all?
Of all immigrants to any country, let alone Britain, I'm afraid I see Muslims as the main problem.
You can talk about them being individuals with individual traits, and that's true, but when push comes to shove, they will choose their religion over the place they have chosen to make a living in, over those who have made that place an attrative place to be (Who they believe are "Lesser" than them because they don't believe in Allah).
In short they will claim their Caliphate , enslave or exterminate you (depending on how closlely DNA wise you resemble the semitic "other" tribes) or anyone else they feel like till the whole world hums to the sounds of silence.

I can't believe you libertarians are still advocating open border immigration after we were attacked on 7/7.
Even if it did make us wealthier whats the point if we can't live in safety??

In a democracy demographics are extremely important, when you allow large amounts of immigrants into our country you are effectively giving away voting power. Now I don't mind sharing voting power with people similar to me, but I don't want radically different cultures coming to Britain gaining strong voting power and then dramatically changing my country. Thats not xenophia or racism, its patriotism I like my country and want to preserve it.

A shortage of WILLING local labour, yes, but not a shortage of labour per se.

So I suppose that means you are in favour of conscripting unwilling people into certain jobs at gunpoint then, otherwise your comment would just be worthless pedantry.

I can't believe you libertarians are still advocating open border immigration after we were attacked on 7/7.

Another tribalist conception. 'We' as some sort of island fortress weren't attacked by foreigners. Londoners and vistors of, contingently, two dozen nationalities, were attacked by English malcontents, most of whom were from West Yorkshire. It was natives responsible, not their respectable and hard-working immigrant parents or grandparents.

Closing borders isn't going to stop the spread of murderous ideas to weird young men. It might just, however, make people in general more frightened of foreigners by reducing contact with them. Contrary to the saw, it is unfamiliarity breeds contempt.

According to polls taken back in July, Londoners were less spooked than other parts of the country by the tube bombings, being significantly less likely to support wholesale abandonment of civil liberties as a response.

Almost everyone in London is an immigrant, whether from New Zealand, Bolivia, Ghana, Hanover, or Stratford-on-Avon. It makes no more sense to stop people crossing the high water mark than it does the M25.

I don't want radically different cultures coming to Britain gaining strong voting power and then dramatically changing my country. Thats not xenophia or racism

Yes, it is.

The history of Britain is positively full of radically different cultures coming here and dramatically changing the country. That's basically what makes the country what it is.

So I suppose that means you are in favour of conscripting unwilling people into certain jobs at gunpoint then, otherwise your comment would just be worthless pedantry.

No, it just means that if the natives won't do - or won't do at a reasonable wage - menial tasks which nevertheless need to be done, then let's encourage people who WILL do those tasks.

EG

If you lot took transhumanism seriously, you would be creating a new race of docile bio-robotic helots to do the dirty work, instead of importing Albanian hucksters and dodgy Muslim fanatics.

The global individualistic metacontext demands technological transformation of that contemptible species homo sapiens sapiens, with all his silly inherited superstitions such as patriotism and religiosity!

I personally have only a few quibbles with the large amount of immigration currently taking place. But I'd ask those in favour of it some questions.

At the current rates, we'll need to build another city the size of Manchester every ten years.

Where's it going to go? When do we start?

At the current rates, we'll need to build another city the size of Manchester every ten years.

Why would you assume that the rate of immigration would not decline as an equilibrium is reached in wages and prospects?

Where's it going to go?

Anywhere you like, basically. Britain is not the most heavily populated country in the world, or even in the EU. There's plenty of space for that.

EG

EG:

Official unemployment is relatively low in the UK, but once the legion of "disabled" are added, it comes up to around normal west European levels.

"by pensioning the unemployed off", I should've said.

EG no it isn't.

This idea of Britain as an immigrant country is a lie, since the anglo-saxon and viking invasion we have been demographically relatively stable, yes immigrants have come but only in small numbers by proportion to the host population. What is happening now is far far more significant than anything in the past 1200 years.

guy herbert you are a delusional fool.
Those guys who attacked Britain on 7/7 might have been born in England but they didn't consider themselves 'English', they went back to pakistan for re-education in Islamic ways, as many others are send by their parents to stop them becoming too 'Westernised'.
I made no tribalist misconception, my conception is that these people attacked the British nation, the threat isn't just against London you arrogant twat.
This is whats wrong with you stupid libertarians, you consider everything an individual action, when in reality in many cases it is not, terrorism is the tribalism, it wasn't a single event by a few criminals against a few tube-stations, it was an attack by a not small group of religious fanatics against a sovereign nation of which I am part of, it was as much an attack on any Briton as it was against any 'Londoner'.

I would be against 'mass'-immigration regardless of the terrorist attacks, however 7/7 is just the proof that what a lot of people have been saying for years is correct.
Enoch Powell, rivers of blood. Now we have it, and this is just the begining.

It seems that my call of racism was not a million miles off....

By the way, I'm not a libertarian. Far from it, I'm a nasty evil pragmatic conservative.

EG

I'm a nasty evil pragmatic conservative.

At last we agree on something (I do think you are quite evil). Euan is a typical Blairite (the party matters not).

I do think you are quite evil

But at least I'm polite about it, Perry.

Anyway, are you not simply demonstrating that you have a profoundly ideological view of things, that people who hold a contrary opinion to you are "evil" simply because they don't agree with you? Presumably you subscribe to the "if you aren't for us, you're against us" type of binary ideological world-view?

Euan is a typical Blairite

Name-calling doesn't answer the questions, nor is it big and nor is it funny.

EG

I like being called a fool by people who don't even understand their own mangled quotations. Powell did not predict "rivers of blood" - he was casting himself as a prophet of future civil strife, after the Sybil in the Aeniad. And he was wrong. A handful of loonies do not make civil strife.

It is a characteristic of Sybilline prophecy, is it not, to be too obscure to allow correct interpretation until after the event? Powell knew this, of course, and was offering his vague forbodings unscrupulously - for immediate political ends, not by way of a coherent analysis. He would have been more than capable of the latter, but that wasn't his object.

Perhaps, Dave, you will enlighten us on what Nostradamus has to say on the subject.

It is not meaningful to talk about an attack on a sovreign nation unless you can explain how its sovreignty or nationhood was endangered.

*

Perry,

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Blairism is an unwillingness to engage one's opponents in argument or to acknowledge, let alone accept as valid, any view that falls outside a pre-determined, wholly instrumental, narrative. Euan certainly fails that test.

He's clearly as opposed to the dominant governmentality as the varied Samisdatistas are; and has a coherent rational point of view. Not very Blairite at all, really.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Blairism is an unwillingness to engage one's opponents in argument or to acknowledge, let alone accept as valid, any view that falls outside a pre-determined, wholly instrumental, narrative. Euan certainly fails that test.

Not at all, as Max pointed out.

He's clearly as opposed to the dominant governmentality as the varied Samisdatistas are; and has a coherent rational point of view. Not very Blairite at all, really.

Oh really? To quote Euan:

It is therefore pretty much inevitable that ALL modern societies and states are going to be more intrusive and invasive, especially when seen from a pre-industrial perspective via rose tinted retrospectacles, simply because that's the price of complex interdependency.

...and...

We live in a complex interdependent society with massive urban populations. This does require much more regulation and control than a bucolic pre-industrial society, and this has to be borne in mind.

No, that is pure Blairism. His solution to everything is more regulation and just trust the state.

Name-calling doesn't answer the questions, nor is it big and nor is it funny.

Fact is I regard you as little different morally to a member of a street gang, so I really feel little need to be polite to you. If it makes you feel any better I take the same view of any one with your views, you just happen to be the one I am exchanging comments with.

Immigration is good but we should also be able to eject recent comers who decide to be criminal - it only takes one in 10,000 to spoil it for everyone!

I would also like to see the Labour funding for the "underclass breeding programme" curtailed so the indigenous non-productive sector can melt away in a generation.

I can soon see the recent arrivals getting the vote and having nothing to do with their taxes being spent on lazy goodfornothings. That is a change in "voting patterns" I would welcome!

guy herbert writes:

"He would have been more than capable of the latter, but that wasn't his object."

Really? That's uncharacteristically definitive of you, isn't it? First you accuse the man of dealing in obscure prophecies for the sake of convenient ambiguity, then you appear absolutely certain of his inner motivation.

Personally, I think Powell both knew what he was doing and was quite right (pauses for sharp intake of breath among soi disant liberal readers, for whom such an admission is but one step away from screaming "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" outside a synagogue.

He was predicting a clash of incompatible ideologies brought about by mass immigration. And for all that you and Mr Gray like to stick your fingers in your ears, screw your eyes tight and chant 'la, la, la I can't hear you and I can't see you' that is precisely what is happening due the virtually uncontrolled inundation of Moslems into this country.

If anyone believes the London bombings were either just the start of something, or an incident in isolation, I suggest they get out a bit more and observe what is happening in some of our cities and towns.

"A handful of loonies do not make civil strife."

Tell that to the French! A country that may possibly end up in civil war as Le Pen gains strength, which he is doing.

If you care about Britain you would want to be ultra careful to stop the same thing happening here. But you are not, you people don't care about the nation state only your individual selves, now I agree that works when it comes to free market economics but it does not work when it comes to open border immigration. Out of control immigration has caused chaos all over the world and is quite probably a one of the main causes of terrorism, as groups mix together who don't really like each other.

that is precisely what is happening due the virtually uncontrolled inundation of Moslems into this country

No, it's happening because a significant proportion of the immigrants are not assimilating. That in turn is happening because there is no pressure on them to assimilate. And again in turn, there is no pressure to assimilate because there is no confidence in the host society that their principles are worth anything. Come to think of it, what is there to assimilate with - a vacuous culture apparently based on selfishness and the cult of celebrity. Big deal. A mixture of multiculturalism, moral relativism and post-imperial guilt result in a spineless host culture which can be safely ignored by those who wish to do so.

I was surprised to learn the other week that Islam is actually becoming fashionable amongst certain elements of the native youth, at least here in Edinburgh. I have suggested before that there is a morality-shaped hole in the basic human organism, and since our contemporary western culture essentially has no morality worth speaking of, certainly none beyond do what you want, it is perhaps unsurprising that the major morally strict culture in our midst is filling the gap.

Unchecked, it is, I concede, perfectly possible that Britain could in time (and perhaps not much time) become a Moslem state. Things change, and doubtless in the past the pagans were frightfully upset about all those nasty alien Christians coming in and evangelising. The tract is now, as it were, in the other hand.

The answer to that is NOT reaction, restriction, control and chucking out the wogs. Just as in the economy, when increased competition should in theory make the inefficient company raise its game, so with culture: protectionism doesn't work. Contemporary British culture is weak and spineless, and it can do one of two things - collapse, or rise to meet the competition on its own terms. If it does meet the challenge and succeed, there is no reason why Moslem immigration should be a problem. If it doesn't, then practice your Arabic.

However, an insistence on NOT requiring any coherent system of morality, of continuing with a permissiveness that many if not most people don't actually like all that much, is almost guaranteed to result in failure to meet the challenge. I have heard many, many times from people in this country that the Moslems might be a bit harsh, but on the subject of the morality or lack thereof of this society, you have to concede that they've got a point.

EG

If you want to see the future look at the Netherlands. Through the 90s the Netherlands experienced the same economic prosperity and rapid growth as the UK has in recent years. The Dutch imported the 'buitenlander' to fill the gaps. They boasted of their utopian tolerance and inclusion (sound familiar?). But of course, after a while it began to wear thin. Now an uneasy tension is apparent to any visitor who knows the country a little. And a newcomer could be forgiven for not realising that many of the sprawling housing estates were, just a few short years ago, green fields.

A writes:

"If you want to see the future look at the Netherlands"

Indeed. Alternatively, ask the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, what the price of a few cartoons is.

When Perry takes a moral stand that “pragmatic conservatism” is evil, Euan takes great offense. Saying,

Anyway, are you not simply demonstrating that you have a profoundly ideological view of things, that people who hold a contrary opinion to you are "evil" simply because they don't agree with you? Presumably you subscribe to the "if you aren't for us, you're against us" type of binary ideological world-view?

Then, in a later post, he decries the absence of strong moral stands in western society. Saying,

and since our contemporary western culture essentially has no morality worth speaking of, certainly none beyond do what you want, it is perhaps unsurprising that the major morally strict culture in our midst is filling the gap.

Individualism, libertarian accountability for one's self, is a 'morality worth speaking of'. Every time a libertarian declines to use features of the big brother state for personal gain, that is a moral stand being taken by a moral person. Turning down disability payments, not using eminent domain to acquire property for your business, not playing the personal injury law suit lottery, these are all the acts of people living by a strict moral code.

Would that a few more lived by our libertarian moral code.

When Perry takes a moral stand that “pragmatic conservatism” is evil

That's not a moral stand, it's an ideological stand. Even if it were conceded to be a moral stand, it is manufactured outrage because a moment's though reveals that the general idea of government in the much-lauded 19th century UK and US was pretty much pragmatic conservatism - in both countries, governments tended not to change things too much (conservatism) but were ready to change where necessary in the circumstances (pragmatism).

in a later post, he decries the absence of strong moral stands in western society

There is a difference between asserting a moral point of view and adhering to the childish "for us or against us, no other way" logic.

these are all the acts of people living by a strict moral code

Not as such, no. They're merely the actions of people who choose not to do these specific things for reasons which may or may not have a moral basis. Where morality is an issue in contemporary society is not the tendency to abuse welfare or the legal system, but more immediately in problems of drug and alcohol abuse, breakdown of the family structure, excessive violence, and so on. The state does have a share of the blame here, but so does wider society.

Would that a few more lived by our libertarian moral code

Actually, that's pretty much the problem...

EG

The rudeness and censoriousness that moderators constantly display here is the flipside of their impotence and irrelevance anywhere else.

Perry de Havilland is the Citizen Smith of libertarianism, and Samizdata is the Tooting Popular Front.

GCooper,

"He would have been more than capable of the latter, but that wasn't his object."

Really? That's uncharacteristically definitive of you, isn't it? First you accuse the man of dealing in obscure prophecies for the sake of convenient ambiguity, then you appear absolutely certain of his inner motivation.

No; but I am absolutely clear of the context. And I am absolutely clear that practical politicians make set-piece speeches for effect, not in order to develop ideology or metacontext. Real-world politics is a rhetorical art. I can't say what drove Powell to choose the route he did, but I can (and do) claim to deduce from what he said and how he said it the effect he was attempting to achieve.

Reference to the actual speech and its context makes it very clear that whatever else he was doing, Powell was not predicting deep cultural conflict between Muslims and the rest. His clear focus is black Carribean immigration. The references are almost all to "Negroes", and the only Asians mentioned are Sikhs. He does speak of "racial and religious differences" but only in that coupling.

He is talking about colour: "To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible." And he is doing so in the context of opposition to the Race Relations Act, which save for an anomalous provision for Jews, says nothing about religion.

Apologies, the first two paragraphs of the above should be quoted from GCooper.

"Turning down disability payments, not using eminent domain to acquire property for your business, not playing the personal injury law suit lottery, these are all the acts of people living by a strict moral code."

I turned down my government's 'bribe' of "Economic Restructuring Shares", because I feel I didn't need it. Still, I feel rather stupid for denying myself free money. And if my parents found out, they would have stripped my hide.

Sigh.

TWG

This thread seems to be getting a little over complicated. To anyone with a brain and two eyes, there are two obvious consequences of post-war mass immigration

i) the emergence of many different cultures, the vast majority of which have successfully integrated into their host country. However, one group, Muslims, has failed to do so. To blame their host country - for there is no confidence in the host society that their principles are worth anything - is nonsense. What is it exactly about Islamic societies that appeals to you, Euan?

ii) a rapid increase in the supply of blue-collar labour and a resultant downward pressure on blue-collar wages. First generation immigrants don't take middle class jobs. Their children hopefully will, but they tend not to. This is detrimental to the working class and it is a mystery to me why the Trades Unions support immigration.

Guy - to dismiss the 7/7 bombing as a West Yorkshire problem is delusional in the extreme.

What is it exactly about Islamic societies that appeals to you, Euan?

Nothing. The problem I am alluding to is the failure of contemporary western society to provide any form of meaningful moral guidance. Couple this with the basic need of society to actually have some system of moral guidance and with the unambiguous moral guidance offered by Islam and it is no surprise that many Moslem immigrants fail to assimilate - we have little to offer them other than material comfort, and whatever the merit of that it is simply not enough. It never has been.

This is detrimental to the working class

Only in the short term.

EG

"We have little to offer them"

How about the following - a free society, plentiful employment opportunities, free health care, tolerance of race, religion, gender and sexual orientation, a free education up to 21 (albeit not as good as it used to be), and a safety net for those who can't find work.

Just because Celebrity Big Brother has replaced the Church as our national meeting place, doesn't mean we have no moral guidance to offer.

Your self-loathing atittude is destructive and depressing.

Oh yes, and if you don't like what your new country has to offer, then you are free to leave at your pleasure.

Guy - to dismiss the 7/7 bombing as a West Yorkshire problem is delusional in the extreme.

I wasn't. Violent Islamism isn't (for all its ambitions of eternity) quite ubiquitous, but it is clearly more widespread than Yorkshire. I was dismissing the assertion that it was caused by admitting immigrants. I also happen to think that Islamist terrorism is neither as big a problem as it is generally made out to be, nor that it is in the strict sense terrorism. But that's a different issue.

guy herbert writes:

"I was dismissing the assertion that it was caused by admitting immigrants."

In its conception, perhaps not - but to suggest that the immigration of millions who hold a faith fundamentally at odds with the mores of the host nation is not inviting disaster must be one of the most bizarre suggestions I have read on here.

How about the following [...]

Yes, we can offer those things, although the gender and sexuality tolerance doesn't really work for them. Even so, that isn't the problem.

What we also offer is drug abuse, alcoholism, material wealth as the ultimate good, the pursuit of celebrity for its own sake, denigration of the family, general moral permissiveness, rampant petty crime and a spiritually vacuous culture. These are the problems, and these are the things they will not assimilate with. Not only that, but large numbers of the indigenes also don't like these things - hence the interesting trend of Islam becoming fashionable.

Just because Celebrity Big Brother has replaced the Church as our national meeting place, doesn't mean we have no moral guidance to offer

I'm not particularly religious, but I'm afraid this does pretty much mean we have no moral guidance to offer. What is the morality of the west? Do what you want? Every lifestyle is equally valid? Live for today?

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) that sort of moral guidance has never worked & tends only to appear in declining societies. I think the current situation of the west in the face of Islamic resurgence is remarkably akin to that of Rome in the face of Christianity. I suspect the same end result is going to come around. I don't think that's a good thing, but I don't see many people doing anything to provide an alternative outcome.

EG

While there are vast empty areas in Scotland and Wales, England is the most crowded country in the EU (if it is recognised as a country). My personal view is to welcome hard working, motivated and educated immigrants from anywhere, but to expel the lazy, education hating chavs we seem so good at breeding here.

If that is not practical, at least discourage excessive breeding. A man willing to compromise his elderly (in child bearing terms) wife's health for an unnecessary fifth child should be ostracised, not elected Prime Minister!

Economically, a reduction in birth rate and hence (ultimately) population would cause a temporary pension problem, and the total size of the economy would fall, but per capita GDP would probably not, and quality of life would improve for all. Since I can't summon up the confidence this will happen, I am planning my escape to a less crowded country (only the third most crowded in the EU, but my reasons are complex).

Apparently the libbo line is that we don't have to worry about immigrants flooding into Britain because the whole of our country doesn't yet look like Hong Kong or Manhattan Island. And if it did... why, we should be rejoicing at the universal 'diversity' rather than lamenting the boring old all-white Britain of Alfred the Great, Henry V, Shakespeare, Newton, Nelson, Wellington, Elgar, Churchill etc.

Yo, mah Anglo-Saxons! Onward and upward! Goodness gracious me!

Matt, as one of the "libbos" you mock, I'd point out that my original article deliberately did not deal with the cultural issues of immigration - which others have addressed - but the dodgy economics in Anthony Browne's article. His mistake is a version of the fixed wealth fallacy and I thought it worth pointing out.

Perry de Havilland is the Citizen Smith of libertarianism, and Samizdata is the Tooting Popular Front

I think that's unfair.

Surely Reg and the Peoples Front of Judaea is more appropriate?

EG

Euan, well you'd make a great Pontius Pilate, so spare the abuse. (And we all know what happens to abusive commenters).

Abuse?

Actually it was an attempt at humour. If it failed, then I apologise.

But I am reluctant to accept a charge of abuse given that, unlike quite a few regulars, I am almost always polite and especially given that a certain principal contributor can apparently call me a priggish little shit with impunity (and so far without the merest hint of an apology), this apparently not constituting abuse. Pots, kettles and dark colours spring to mind.

EG

Quite right Jonathan. You stated upfront that it was the economic aspects of immigration that was the crux of the arguement, vis a vis Brownes finite pie argument.
So let's look at the economics of purely illegal immigration for a start.
Nulab's best guestimate(after the election not before we all note), was about a million people, picking cockles and packing vegetables etc. These folk are being paid below the minimum wage, pay no taxes, and besides what it takes to subsist in our society, spend no money here. They are going to be paying it back to the people smugglers, who brought them here for the rest of their lives. I don't want a dog in my country to live a life like that.
The Govt estimate of how many Eastern Europeans would turn up to work here after their access to the European Union was about 15,000. We are up to 250,000 and counting. So given their accuracy on this issue, I think we can count our just pure illegals as at least a modest 5 million.
Even our perfectly legal immigrants , who pay their taxes ,are still not fully contributing to our society, because they too are putting their money offshore, by sending it to sustain relatives in their "Homeland".If that money were spent here, it would stimulate domestic economic growth, but it doesnt because it is being siphoned off, to be spent elsewhere.
Of course both illegal and legal immigrants will wish to use the facilities on offer as it were. Now these are far more "finite" in Brownes terms and are, despite huge amounts of money thrown at them, not substantially better than 10 years ago.
The NHS is still crap. The roads are still crap, the Railwa.. do I need to go on!!?(a tee up there for someone... wonder who?)
So that's just a few of the economic aspects of it.
I may be a libertarian, but I'm also a Briton, and the culture thing worries me more than the economics.
We are sleepwalking to disaster unless we wake up soon.
I am fortunate enough to be able to do a MarkE if I have to, but I don't want to be forced to dammit! I love my country, all the bits of it.
I am watching Great Britain change into Hotel UK.PLC before my very eyes. I don't like it.

If that money were spent here, it would stimulate domestic economic growth, but it doesnt because it is being siphoned off, to be spent elsewhere

Why is this a bad thing? You can say the same about the profit of a foreign-owned company, which is also expatriated abroad.

You can argue that the foreign company stimulates the economy by buying stuff here, but then so do the immigrant cockle-pickers. If you think that's not true, then to be in line with your principle you'd have to forbid Britons from working overseas and sending their salaries back here. I don't imagine you're going to complain about Britons working overseas nor about foreign companies setting up here, so I don't see how you can justify a complaint about foreign labour working here.

EG

Duh! Does the phrase Elephant trap mean anything to you Euan?

EG, much of the problems this country has are because of the attitude of people like you who attack Britain culture and celebrate all that is foreign.

The reality is much of the drugs problems are as much prevalent in immigrant communties as that are in tradition communties if not much more so.
Knife and gun crime is predominantly in Black gang culture.
Prostitution is largely connected to people smuggling gangs.

Meanwhile British culture has been pushed aside in the name or multi-culturalism.

Perry was right, you are a typical Blairite, identify a problem, then get completely confused about the cause of the problem and propose a solution that will most probably make the problem worse.

I have to agree with Euan on this argument against RAB. If RAB does not want immigrants living here to pass their own hard-won wealth to those they choose, then he - I assume it is a he - is certainly not a libertarian! His argument is a form of socialism, in fact.

As EG said, there is no difference between an immigrant sending money home and a firm paying a dividend to foreign shareowners.

I can certainly see the cultural arguments for restricting mass immigration from certain areas, largely because of concerns about assimilation. I would also suggest that immigrants should not be able to claim welfare benefits for a minimum period, on the assumption that they have not paid taxes in this country.

I cannot really comment on what RAB said about the numbers issue. A figure of 5 million does seems a bit over the top.

My understanding is that it is not strictly necessary for someone to work in order to have food/shelter/clothing/some-luxuries in the UK. Therefore, it is perfectly possible that a new person IS just another mouth to feed/shelter/etc.

When a high benefits nation is the destination, it is very likely that the 'less ambitious' will be the ones trying most energetically to get in.

Meanwhile, the 'lump of labor fallacy' may indeed be false in a free economy, but it is possible that in a controlled economy (by govs, unions, etc) the amount of work PERMITTED to be done, may be, in fact to a great degree is, fixed. Just look at all the discussions here that have refered to the difficulty of starting/maintaining/growing a new small business.

You miss my point Johnathan.
I could care less who passes what to whom.
Though I would rather we didn't do it twice, once via handouts to the "Cousins" and twice via aid to the dictators.
The Dictator aid is easier to recover though, being lodged as it is in western bank accounts.
My point was that the money is not being spent down the corner shop , to be horribly parochial with you! It is being spent ELSEWHERE!!! Now how does this benefit us?
Are the recipients re-investing in the UK ? Havent noticed it. So how does what comes around goes around keynsianism work in this instance?

I think RAB's case is sound.

I for one, do not think that unqualified free trade is a good thing for a free nation. Unrestricted free trade between nations of approximately equal freedoms and economic environments (totalitarian v. libertarian) is good, but unrestricted trade between totalitarian and libertarian nations inevitably hurts the libertarian economy.

This happens in several ways.

The economic strength of the free nations supports and perpetuates the totalitarian ones. Does any one believe that China would be in it's present state without access to the west's technology, investment capital and markets. Look at their great 'advances' during their isolationist years. When free nations trade with each other, the reciprocity is automatic and assumed. Look at the post WWII economies of US/UK.

The technology transfer from free to totalitarian nations deprives the free nations of the fruits of their freedom. The free nations contribute the technology, the totalitarian nations skim the cream.

Investment capital that would be building a rich or poor free nation into a first world economy is instead propping up despots and slave based manufacturing states.

Markets. By giving a totalitarian nation free access to our markets we allow them to 'cherry pick' our markets. Something that happens all the time between free nations. But totalitarian nations deny free nations reciprocal access to their domestic economies.

All of this results in an unbalance of all trade. We have not only exported our wealth to China, etc, we have exported our production knowledge, our production capacity, and soon, even our research and innovation ability, itself. These things do not happen between trade of equally free economies. It would be difficult to determine who contributed more to our combined wealth (US/UK) over the last fifty years, it has been extremely reciprocal.

My point was that the money is not being spent down the corner shop , to be horribly parochial with you! It is being spent ELSEWHERE!!! Now how does this benefit us?

Possibly in the same way that the dividends paid to foreign shareholders of a company operating in Britain benefit us? It is the economic activity that is the benefit, not the ultimate destination of the profit.

The economic strength of the free nations supports and perpetuates the totalitarian ones

And vice versa. That's what trade is all about. Free economies benefit by flogging stuff to the unfree, and by taking advantage of perhaps lower wages and poorer conditions in unfree states - much as we are doing right now by investing in places like China.

These things do not happen between trade of equally free economies

Yes they do, and arguably more so. Between free economies there is nothing to prevent (say) a British company operating in America from exporting the skills and processes to Britain. Between a free and an unfree economy, it is more likely that there will be restrictions on exactly what the unfree economy can expatriate.

EG

Which textbook are you quoting from Euan?

Um cos if you look for the address of the perfect market,
It aint listed.
Theory is one thing and reality is another.

RAB, your argument is nonsense. Suppose you work in say, East Anglia but go home and live in the Midlands, and spend your money there. Now I, as a proud son of Suffolk, might fulminate about those awful Midlanders "taking our jobs" and not spending their money here, etc. A silly example, but no sillier than the one that says that persons are somehow obliged to spend the wealth they earn in the locality in which they earn it.

If immigrants send money back home to say, India, then Indians get better off, spend more, and presumably can buy more goods and services, from places such as Britain. What goes around and all that.

This is market economics 101. You are just dressing up a form of protectionism in a different guise. You would be better to frame your case on cultural grounds rather than pray in aid the sort of statist nonsense that even Euan Gray can dissect.

You are just dressing up a form of protectionism in a different guise. You would be better to frame your case on cultural grounds

Cultural protectionism doesn't work any more than economic protectionism. I think there is a form of competitive market between cultures & civilisations. We happen to be, to continue the metaphor, shareholders in a declining concern no longer able to compete effectively.

EG

EG, I don't share your pessimism. The idea that our "concern" (Western, liberal civilsation) is in decline has been the stock-in-trade of cultural Jeremiads as old as the initial reaction to the Enlightenment. If things do decline it will be because defenders of liberty and the open society have lost their nerve and given in to navel-gazing.

If things do decline it will be because defenders of liberty and the open society have lost their nerve and given in to navel-gazing.

No, it will be (and is) because there is no generally shared confidence that the western model of society is the superior one, or at least one of the superior ones.

It is instructive to note that all societies in the ascendent have a more or less defined moral-philosophical view of the world, and almost all of them in decline do not, or consider that multiple views are equally valid. This - moral relativism - is one of the major problems we face in the west and it is into this gap that Islam is stepping, just as Christianity stepped into the gap left by declining and corrupted paganism in Rome.

Irrespective of the desire for liberty, people and societies seem to want, even need, a defined moral-philosophical framework in which to define themselves. A view that all lifestyles are equally valid is simply incapable of providing this. This means that it is impossible to have a generally shared confidence in your model of society because it is virtually impossible to define in any meaningful sense what that model actually is.

Islam, whatever it faults, does provide exactly that. People will be, and are, attracted to it - NOT because it is Islam, but because it is providing something that all societies need and which western society is now failing to provide for itself.

There is far, far more to this question than simple defence of liberty and an open society.

EG

Johnathan: I wasn't alluding to you but to some commenters who believe it doesn't matter how many immigrants, or what kind, come pouring in, it'll always be the same Britain. Euan Gray, who AFAIK is not a full-on libbo, shares this blitheness about the infinite inter-transferability of humanity. Some of us think the things that make Britain a fatally attractive destination for aliens would be destroyed if there were too many of them leeching off our welfare state and listening to mad mullahs. We do not believe every nation state has to look like the UN General Assembly to flourish in the modern world, either-- not that GDP growth is the be-all and end-all of a pleasant, peaceable way of life.

Prof. Hoppe has shown how limiting immigration can be compatible with a libertarian outlook, but it begs the question whether doctrinaire libertarianism isn't (as I think it is) a late millennial deformation of socialism, itself a Christian heresy-- and therefore a philosophy which is unlikely to make much appeal to the great rising oriental autarchies of the world, India and China and Japan. They don't want or need open-borders immigration. Moreover, they are well versed in genetics and don't have the same hang-ups about eugenics as the West: they may take the lead in transhumanising themselves for success while we go on paying chavettes to outbreed the bourgeoisie. So watch out!

No, it will be (and is) because there is no generally shared confidence that the western model of society is the superior one, or at least one of the superior ones.

Sounds like the same as my saying "losing our nerve".

Moreover, they are well versed in genetics and don't have the same hang-ups about eugenics as the West: they may take the lead in transhumanising themselves for success while we go on paying chavettes to outbreed the bourgeoisie.

God almighty. I guess you don't have "hang-ups" about forcibly sterilising people, then, compulsory abortions on the China model (producing sexual imbalances in the population, BTW), and other charming practices of the State. Even though I might sympathise with attempts to prevent teenage pregnancies and so forth, the sort of stuff your comment implies support for is vile.

Euan, your point about societies needing a successful over-arching philosophy may be true, but does it require the kind of authortarian value system of a religion that admits of no separation of church and state? Not necessarily. Arguably Britain became a strong force precisely when the grip of the Church was loosened in the 18th and 19th Centuries, for instance.

Euan Gray, who AFAIK is not a full-on libbo

I'm not. As I've said before, I'm a pragmatic conservative. I'm not awfully keen on the term "libbo" either, but there it is.

shares this blitheness about the infinite inter-transferability of humanity

I think we're all human beings, irrespective of skin pigmentation and philosophical view of the world & man's place therein. Mass movements of people and the ebb & flow of cultures cannot really be stopped short of reverting to a dark age. Since one of the possible outcomes of any successful Islamicisation of the west is another dark age, it is perhaps a case of damned if you or if you don't.

But it's only ONE of the possible outcomes, it isn't inevitable.

it begs the question whether doctrinaire libertarianism isn't (as I think it is) a late millennial deformation of socialism

I would agree with you on this point. It seems that quite a number of libertarians are former socialists, perhaps attracted to the ideological fundamentalism of some strands of libertarianism. Certainly, those strands at least have much in common philosophically and certainly temperamentally with harder forms of socialism.

and therefore a philosophy which is unlikely to make much appeal to the great rising oriental autarchies of the world

It doesn't have much appeal anywhere else, either.

They don't want or need open-borders immigration

They certainly don't need it, which is probably why they don't have it. We, on the other hand, DO need it for perfectly sound demographic reasons. In time, these reasons will also apply to China, India, et al. But by then someone else will be in the ascendant and our current problems will be long forgotten. Doubtless there will be twitchy Chinese people in the future fretting that these dangerous South American immigrants need to be kept out in the interests of preserving "traditional" Chinese culture & way of life.

Just as we did before them, and the Romans before us. Plus ca change...

Moreover, they are well versed in genetics and don't have the same hang-ups about eugenics as the West

How tedious. I call racism.

EG

your point about societies needing a successful over-arching philosophy may be true, but does it require the kind of authortarian value system of a religion that admits of no separation of church and state?

No, it doesn't. BUT, such a system can provide it - there are more ways than one of skinning a cat or of providing a moral-philosophical framework for a society. I've never understood why anyone would want to skin a cat, but there it is.

I quite agree that a system like Islam is not necessary to provide this framework. However, the serious point I'm making is that, somehow or other, such a framework is necessary. If a milder and kinder system will not provide it, then it is hardly suprising that the harsher one would prevail.

The problem is that there is no milder system available right now, or at least ont one that commands any popular approval. We did have one, but we're all too sophisticated now to fall for the idea of religion - so we decline and fall prey to ... er .... the idea of another religion. Perhaps the problem here is that the people who denigrate the established religion may be terribly intelligent, but they seem to overlook the fact that most other people are not particularly bright & simply don't look at life the same way they do.

I have a lot of sympathy for the atheist position, and I know perfectly well that secularists of all descriptions are hugely responsible for many of our advances, and I'm not particularly religious myself, but ... as a system for providing a coherent moral framework for a society, it doesn't seem to work very well. We need to think of something else.

Arguably Britain became a strong force precisely when the grip of the Church was loosened in the 18th and 19th Centuries, for instance

No, I wouldn't say that was more than coincidence. England was a major power in the 15th century, for example, and for some time managed to hold on to a fair chunk of France. The foundations of later imperial greatness were laid at the time of the Protectorate with Cromwell's "western design" (in itself ultimately a failure), the tussle of the Anglo-Dutch wars and the expansion of English naval and diplomatic influence.

Britain's expansion in the late 18th/early 19th centuries is rather more to do with the coincidence of being an island nation of traders than anything else.

EG

While the great religions have provided folk with a strong sense of purpose and been associated with creative things, religion has also had a stultifying impact, too. (Just ask Galileo). And let's not overlook the destructive impact of religious zeal on millions of lives, either.

Perfectly true, but the problem is that a secular culture generally doesn't provide the positive things that religion does, and it is no guarantee that the negative things won't happen - look at the USSR, for example. People aren't going to give up everything for king, country and gender-orientation-equality, and nor are others going to have qualms about inflicting brutality just because the man telling them to wears a suit rather than a dog-collar.

Give people a choice between a sophisticated and logically sound secular moral philosophy on the one hand, and on the other some wild-eyed bloke in a robe saying "do that and you'll burn for eternity," and the sad reality is that most people will listen to the bloke in the robe. This is not going to change any time soon, I fear. I think people have a deep need to believe in something greater than themselves and even greater than humanity.

Some religious people say there is a "God-shaped hole in humanity," but I don't really agree with that, at least not in the way they mean it. I think there is a morality-shaped hole in society, though, and something WILL fill that hole. I can guarantee that at least in the forseeable future that thing will not be a logically consistent secular moral philosophy. It will be religion, like it or not.

Three guesses which one is most likely?

EG

Perfectly true, but the problem is that a secular culture generally doesn't provide the positive things that religion does, and it is no guarantee that the negative things won't happen - look at the USSR, for example.

I think we need to nail down what you think is meant by a "secular culture". If it means a society in which folk do not let their lives be directed by belief in a supernatural deity, then that does not necessarily mean that such a society will not have morals, ideals, shared values, and so forth. It is often claimed by religious folk, though by no means all, that if you take away a sense of the sacred, you undermine morality. But is that true? Does the notion of respecting people as equal before the law, say, require one to believe in a God? I don't think so.

Even if you have little time for libertarian thinkers, many of them ground moral values in what they see as the requirements of human happiness, the benefits of voluntary co-operation and from their reading of human nature, rather than on a religious belief system.

Midwesterner - you are wrong. You seem to be concerned that China has made such a quantum leap. Why? Is it a dislike of the Chinese or because you think they compete unfairly.

If China stopped growing, the US would be plunged into recession. China's growth has produced inumerable benefits to US citizens. Namely, low inflation, increased corporate profitability (driven by outsourcing) leading to higher share prices, a stronger dollar (if China actually swapped it's dollars into remnimbi there would be a massive run on the dollar, which would make every Amercian poorer), and the ability of the US to run a trade deficit.

But most importantly, trade drags poorer countries up and reduces the chances of conflict ("if we stop sending our goods, then they will send their soldiers" as someone famous said).

Trade good, protectionism bad. No exceptions to this rule.

EG

moral relativism is one of the major problems we face in the west

100% with you.

But it is people like you who are the moral relativists.

there is no pressure to assimilate because there is no confidence in the host society that their principles are worth anything

Total and unmitigated moral relativist crap.

It is often claimed by religious folk, though by no means all, that if you take away a sense of the sacred, you undermine morality. But is that true?

In principle, no. In practice (i.e. in terms of getting people to follow it), yes.

Even if you have little time for libertarian thinkers, many of them ground moral values in what they see as the requirements of human happiness, the benefits of voluntary co-operation and from their reading of human nature, rather than on a religious belief system

I know. I repeat that this is not the problem. The problem is that this type of system, whilst perfectly logical and in my view entirely plausible, decent and sensible (other than several of the libertarian readings of human nature, some which frankly are really dumb), simply doesn't work for the majority of people.

It really does not matter how correct or accurate you are in this regard. What matters is who and what the people listen to. And they generally don't listen to logical analyses of secular moral philosophy. For one thing, it simply does not address the apparent persistent need of people to believe in something bigger. For another, it's overly complex, even if it is right. "God says no" works a lot better than "refer to article 156.2 on page 367 where this is explored and justified." Maybe it shouldn't, but it does. That's humanity, whatever certain libertarians think.

EG

Total and unmitigated moral relativist crap

And your justification for this gem of insight is what, exactly?

EG

RAB, your argument is nonsense. Suppose you work in say, East Anglia but go home and live in the Midlands, and spend your money there. Now I, as a proud son of Suffolk, might fulminate about those awful Midlanders "taking our jobs" and not spending their money here, etc. A silly example, but no sillier than the one that says that persons are somehow obliged to spend the wealth they earn in the locality in which they earn it.

Johnathan,

I can't speak for RAB but I can speak in defense of my support for his case.

You are overlooking the key point I was making in my previous comment. Here are a couple sentences out of my comment.

When free nations trade with each other, the reciprocity is automatic and assumed. Look at the post WWII economies of US/UK.

It would be difficult to determine who contributed more to our combined wealth (US/UK) over the last fifty years, it has been extremely reciprocal.

Your East Anglia/Midlands example does not apply unless one is a controlled economy and one is not. Unless one provides social programs and the other does not. In the case you describe, there is reciprocity. In the case of the US/UK relationship, we may have a huge hunk of your economy, but you are the single biggest non-domestic part of our economy.

What I think RAB, and certainly what I am decrying is the one way street. And before certain commenters start claiming a mutual benefit to trading with a totalitarian economy, I say we have not benefited from our relationship with China. We have exported our production capacity and production skills in exchange for massive debt in order to become industrial couch-potatoes. We have become an inter economic borrower living a wasteful life of temporary luxury acquired on an international credit card.

This never happened in our relationship with UK. As fast as we were selling to, buying from, investing in, and borrowing from the UK, you were doing the same with us.

Unilateral free trade does not work!

Pommygranate, you posted your comment while I was preparing mine. I think my case holds strong but my answer was not specifically addressed to your comment. But I will reiterate to your comment, unilateral free trade does not work. It must be completely bilaterally free. Otherwise balancing trade controls are necessary for self defense of one's own economy.

Midwesterner - but as you raise the living standards in China, wages become more expensive and US companies will seek other locations to produce their goods (as is starting to happen). Just because a country produces services rather than goods does not make it any worse off.

Let me give you another example.

Financial trade between France and the UK is one-way. French companies are allowed to buy British ones but not vice versa (see Lakshmi Mittal's battle to buy Arcelor this week). As a result, the FTSE is becoming more and more dominated by foreign companies.

Not fair, right?

Wrong.

As a result of the freer markets in the UK, the financial services industry is moving en masse to London (because of socialist regulation in France and because of Sarbannes-Oxley in the US). In addition, non-UK companies now choose London over any other city to list (NY excepted).

The net flow is jobs and prosperity to the UK.
So even though trade with France may seem unfair to us Brits, it actually benefits us more.

I just cannot think of an instance whereby reducing trade increased prosperity.

Midwesterner, you are fogging up the issues. If a statist/mixed economy country trades with a laissez faire one, both still are better off from the trade, since why else would the trade occur? You imply that investment in China by western firms is almost altruistic. I'm not sure that is how the shareholders see that!

And since there is hardly ever going to be a 100 pct laissez faire nation any time soon, I can see your argument being used to justify protectionism against large chunks of the planet, quite possibly indefinitely. The real reasons for imposing some controls would be to prevent transfer of dangerous technologies, and so forth, but that is a security issue, not an economic one.

I don't know how many commentators here actually buy The Spectator or fully read their online edition but it did strike me that the Speccie now seems to be in somewhat of a downward spiral. Apart from Mr Steyn's excellent piece on Omichael Bin Mooren ("Osama doesn’t matter any more") and Mary Wakefield's secondary piece on Polish immigration, unfortunately used to add flesh to Browne's article, there just wasn't anything else of note apart from the reviews and the minor columns.