PDA

View Full Version : Free trade of labor?




katao
08-30-2007, 03:03 AM
In the back of my mind while I'm out canvasing the world for Ron, I've struggled to reconcile the only issue I seem to have a slight disagreement with Ron. Perhaps one of you can help me understand...

Paraphrased from a fellow meetup group member:

"Whenever you hear Ron Paul say he wants free markets, he means completely free markets! He sees free markets as the only (long-term) alternative to the direction we're heading. Austrian economics helps to explain why there's only really one alternative: truly free markets (no tarrifs, no Federal Reserve Bank, no huge regulatory bureaucracies that force out competition against big corporations, no minimum wage, no farm subsidies, etc.)"

Yet there seems to be one glaring exception in Ron's acceptance of this very sound, wise philosophy -- the free trade of labor.

I completely understand the desire for a strict rule of law (despite my slight wandering towards anarchy occasionally), and thus the desire to not grant amnesty to illegal immigrants nor to give them easy roads to welfare and/or citizenship.

But to truly have economic freedom, labor must be free too! Aren't restrictions on legal immigration for work purposes essentially the same thing as tariffs? They sure seem to cause the same economic damage - artificial propping up of prices (in this case for high-labor products) and all the resulting consequences, for instance.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting Ron's strong stance on ending illegal immigration and securing our borders (which I technically agree with) and he really isn't in the Pat Buchanan philosophical camp (which I find as distasteful as wrong)?

hard@work
08-30-2007, 03:25 AM
Illegal labor would be labor provided from an illegal occupant of the territory. So by your logic that is acceptable if you understand the desire for legal immigration you also understand that illegal occupants would not be legal workers. It is not a question of who can or cannot work for whom, it's a question of legality of the individual inside of the country.

So your question is really an immigration question.

cjhowe
08-30-2007, 10:47 AM
There's a slight problem with your explanation. In America, being an illegal occupant of the territory is a status that ONLY a judge can give through due process.

constituent
08-30-2007, 11:08 AM
well.... and that for a true free market to exist, it must compensate for people entering and exiting the work force at will (freely). In other words, if you allow the gov't to selectively manipulate the pressure gradient on wages in certain sectors of the economy (by selectively allowing certain professions/skill sets entry), you are allowing the government to manipulate the labor market by
adding to or subtracting from the available pool of labor.

for a free market, one must have freedom of movement for both people and goods across bounds (geographic or arbitrary).

ARealConservative
08-30-2007, 11:20 AM
In the back of my mind while I'm out canvasing the world for Ron, I've struggled to reconcile the only issue I seem to have a slight disagreement with Ron. Perhaps one of you can help me understand...

Paraphrased from a fellow meetup group member:

"Whenever you hear Ron Paul say he wants free markets, he means completely free markets! He sees free markets as the only (long-term) alternative to the direction we're heading. Austrian economics helps to explain why there's only really one alternative: truly free markets (no tarrifs, no Federal Reserve Bank, no huge regulatory bureaucracies that force out competition against big corporations, no minimum wage, no farm subsidies, etc.)"

Yet there seems to be one glaring exception in Ron's acceptance of this very sound, wise philosophy -- the free trade of labor.

I completely understand the desire for a strict rule of law (despite my slight wandering towards anarchy occasionally), and thus the desire to not grant amnesty to illegal immigrants nor to give them easy roads to welfare and/or citizenship.

But to truly have economic freedom, labor must be free too! Aren't restrictions on legal immigration for work purposes essentially the same thing as tariffs? They sure seem to cause the same economic damage - artificial propping up of prices (in this case for high-labor products) and all the resulting consequences, for instance.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting Ron's strong stance on ending illegal immigration and securing our borders (which I technically agree with) and he really isn't in the Pat Buchanan philosophical camp (which I find as distasteful as wrong)?

The reality is we want to win.

True "free labor" would also mean an end to child labor laws - don't hold your breath waiting on Ron Paul to come out in support of that.

And how far do you take it. If you can't hire a person that has been sentenced to life behind bars - is that not also a restriction on "free labor".

I like how you think though - I'm always looking for flaws as well.

katao
08-30-2007, 11:27 AM
Very well said, ARealConservative.

The time to nitpick is after Ron wins the election!