I love old farms and skyscrapers under construction, old cars and Elon Musk’s newest spaceships. I think my ideal way of living would consist of working on a farm (or hunting/gathering out in nature) during the day and working on a high-tech project at night (call it “Jeffersonian futurism.”)
I love the very old and the very new. I see no conflict in that – but I do see a necessity.
Futurists seem to miss the fact that old things contain worthwhile wisdom and usefulness. Traditionalism seems to miss the fact that static institutions become corrupt without change. Meanwhile, the modernists are so tied up in the recent past as to be blind to both tradition and innovation.
But in the years ahead, it’s the futurists who will deliver us interplanetary travel, life-saving medical cures, and clean and renewable nuclear energy in the years ahead. It’s the traditionalists who will help us to remember the human values of fidelity (marriage, etc), individual dignity, self-reliance, and honesty are the foundations of a society that can enjoy technological progress properly (i.e. without self-destructing).
If we’re to appreciate and encourage this outcome, we need a way of thinking that embraces the dialogue between the old and new*. We need to understand that the only conflict is between the life-enhancing and the life-destroying, and that either force can be found in our newest inventions or our oldest customs.
Author Ross Douthat recently summed up the interesting fusion he posits will lead us out of the current “age of decadence” – a combination of old-time religion and high-tech futurism:
“So down on your knees – and start working on that warp drive.”
I dig it.
*Credit to Jordan Peterson for first (in my experience) formulating this yin-yang interplay of liberalism/openness and conservatism/orderliness.
1. Guatemala has dramatically improved over the last two decades. Multinational businesses are now all over Guatemala City. Restaurants and luxury products are all over, but so are businesses that cater to average Guatemalans. Local grocery stores are packed with familiar international brands and products. There are multiple Walmarts. Even Costco is there, doing business as Pricesmart. We argued about whether the Oakland Mall was more impressive than Tyson’s I, but it was definitely a tough call. Smartphones are naturally ubiquitous. Whenever we strayed from the tourist areas, we saw ordinary citizens enjoying simple material pleasures like Pollo Campero.
2. When I last visited Guatemala, the high-end businesses seemed grossly overbuilt; the shiny malls were almost empty. Now, however, Guatemalans actually seem to be consuming the fruits of progress. The cavernous Oakland Mall was packed at lunchtime on a weekday – and the pedestrianized streets near the National Palace were full of locals. La Aurora Zoo was world-class, but we saw no other foreign tourists.
3. Our sponsors at UFM strove to keep us perfectly safe. For the first few days, they drove us everywhere. Yet almost every local assured us that four guys walking around Zone 10 in broad daylight were extremely safe. By the end, we were walking comfortably through a wide range of neighborhoods, though only by day. Crime is clearly down, thanks in no small part to massive private security. Even small stores often have heavily-armed guards, and razor wire is almost always in your field of vision.
5. The greatest danger to pedestrians is probably the poor sidewalks; there are many dangerous pits even in elite neighborhoods. The problem is so dire and the cost of fixing it is so small that I’m surprised that local businesses haven’t raised money to solve it. I know Latin America’s philanthropic tradition is weak. Yet good publicity aside, wouldn’t the Oakland Mall soon recoup a $50-100k investment in the surrounding sidewalks? Would local government really block this public-spirited initiative?
6. We didn’t have to walk far to see absolute poverty. No one looked malnourished, and even kids living in shacks and huts usually wore new, store-bought clothes. Still, we saw families living in shacks (in Guatemala City, especially near the airport) and huts (especially on the drive to Yaxha). During one severe traffic jam, we saw kids under ten washing car windows. We also witnessed several families of clowns busking in the streets.
7. By official measures, Guatemala is dramatically poorer than any of the Caribbean islands we recently toured, with per capita GDP of $3200 nominal and $7600 PPP. Yet this is mightily difficult to reconcile with what we saw with our own eyes. Overall, the Caribbean islands looked a lot like the road from Flores to Yaxha – a mixture of modest modern houses and primitive shacks and huts. Everything else in Guatemala looked vastly better than St. Maarten or St. Kitts. While this partly reflects higher population, the biggest contrast is that almost every Guatemalan looks like he has useful work to do. The Caribbean islanders, in contrast, have high levels of desperate peddling and outright idleness.
8. Guatemalan prices confused not only us, but local economists as well. Grocery prices are very high. Guatemala’s Pricesmart and my local Costco sell many identical goods, so I can confidently say that the former’s prices were roughly twice as high as I normally pay. Local chains were even pricier. One prominent local businessman blamed Guatemala’s low port capacity – and impishly shared his thrilling plans to build a big new port in the near future. Restaurant meals aren’t cheap either; everything from fast food to premium steaks costs about the same as it would in Virginia. The only product that was blatantly cheaper than usual was Uber – about one-third of the U.S. rate. (Since gas prices were a bit higher than in Virginia, drivers’ take-home pay must be low indeed). Other services, such as tour guides, were also big bargains.
9. As I toured Guatemala, I couldn’t help but notice how happy the people looked, especially the women. I wondered if my impression could just be confirmation bias, but now that I’m back home I’m confident that the contrast is stark. Guatemalan men look at least marginally happier than American men. Guatemalan women look much happier than American women. You could say that this merely reflects cultural differences in expressiveness, but that strikes me as sheer stubborn denial.
10. UFM was the jewel of our visit. UFM could well be the most beautiful of the hundred-odd universities I’ve toured in my life. Built in a ravine, it elegantly blends distinctive architecture with gorgeous tropical flora. UFM also hosts two stunning museums – Popol Vuh (archaeology) and Ixchel (textiles). Best of all, UFM is an academic libertarian paradise. The ideas and imagery of my intellectual heroes adorn the whole campus – Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and Ludwig von Mises are only the beginning. Yet there is no sign of dogmatic orthodoxy. Good manners prevail; faculty and students are eager to hear new ideas and debate old ones. Unlike most other institutions, UFM administrators are especially intellectually engaged. UFM President Gabriel Calzada Alvarez was overjoyed to talk ideas with my sons for hours.
11. The students of UFM look even happier than the rest of their countrymen. You could say this is because they’re drawn from Guatemala’s richest families, but so are Americans in the Ivy League – and those kids are hardly pictures of good cheer. The gender gap was so big that I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t seen it with my own ideas; female UFM students appear extraordinarily happy. UFM econ’s male/female ratio is also strangely low; several of the classes I taught were virtually all-female.
12. My Guatemalan audiences took to Open Borders like fish to water. The cultural and political threat of Muslim immigration was the sole recurring objection. In Guatemalan eyes, Latin America and the U.S. share a common Judeo-Christian culture, so many were surprised to hear how many U.S. citizens view Latin Americans as culturally alien or even unassimilable.
13. On the latter issue, the Guatemalans are plainly correct. Pre-assimilation to the North American way of life is prevalent and intense. Virtually everyone at UFM speaks and understands English well. About a fifth of the public signs in Guatemala City are entirely in English, and an additional third are in Spanglish. The Guatemalan elite already lives the American dream, más o menos. The average Guatemalan struggles to do the same. A dozen different people emphatically described Guatemalans as “deeply conservative,” but Tarantino was on t.v. every time I flipped the channels.
14. Even Guatemalan libertarians rarely complained about specific domestic government policies, but if you look at their Economic Freedom of the World ranking, there is plenty to decry. Guatemala gets great scores on Size on Government and Sound Money, and a good score on Freedom to Trade Internationally. Yet it gets an awful score for Legal System & Property Rights, and an even worse score for Regulation. New construction projects are all over Guatemala City, but one of the locals told me it takes 2-3 years to obtain permission to build. Imagine how much construction there’d be if you cut the delay down to 2-3 months or 2-3 weeks!
15. So what do Guatemalans complain about? I asked one of my classes to tell me what most bothered the average Guatemalan; then I proposed workable policy responses for each problem. Their first answer was “corruption.” I suggested hiring a team of Swiss or Singaporeans to take over Guatemala’s internal affairs department. They saw the logic of importing trustworthiness, but told me that Guatemalans wouldn’t accept it. Their next answer was “traffic.” I proposed electronic road pricing. They again saw the logic, and again told me that Guatemalans wouldn’t accept it – even if the gas tax were abolished at the same time. My students also saw crime – especially kidnapping – as a grave problem. They were almost dumbstruck when I suggested a big switch from incarceration to flogging, even though Guatemala’s indigenous peoples already heavily rely on corporal punishment. In a poor country with heavy corruption and high crime, the case for flogging is mighty indeed. Just ask criminal-justice reformer Jason Brennan!
16. If I had to move to another country, Guatemala would be high on my list. First and foremost, I love the UFM community. American liberalism and conservatism are intellectual dead-ends, and I would enjoy forever escaping from both. I also prefer to be around very happy people, and on that score Guatemala handily beats the U.S.A. Guatemala does have some scary features, but the longer I stayed, the more I relaxed. Yet for now, I continue to prefer the U.S. Wages are obviously much higher here, and PPP measures notwithstanding, a dollar goes further in the U.S. than in Guatemala.
17. The Mayan archaeological sites we visited deserve all the hyperbolic adjectives people apply to them. The contrast between the pyramids and the palaces, however, is vast. The pyramids you leave thinking, “Human beings made these?! Without wheels?!” (As well as, “They performed human sacrifices here?! What the hell was wrong with these Mayans?!”) The “palaces” of the Mayan leaders, in contrast, look smaller than many apartments in Fairfax. To reverse Galbraith, the Mayan elite lived lives of public affluence and private squalor.
Why so much agita over whom belongs under the label of conservative? By her very nature, a member of the human species is conservative. And furthermore, drone or pirate, he is a principled conservative. The principles are two: self interest and tribal interest. Self preservation and preservation of kind encompass all other principles. Higher levels of interest differentiate among the interests of tribes.
The furtherance of either principle is conservative. It conserves and optimizes its object — the lifetime of the individual or the culture of the collective. Conservatism as a political suasion is only the thinnest veneer on a deep stratum of true conservatism.
The new Uncut Gems is further evidence for a thesis I’ve long maintained: Contrary to popular opinion, Hollywood makes a lot of socially conservative movies. When you strip away the glamorous actors and cool music, the message is clear: Live a responsible bourgeois life or you will soon be severely punished.
This is most obvious for hard-boiled crime films. The lead characters in such stories engage in an array of impulsive, brutal, and parasitical behaviors. Before the movie ends, almost all of the characters have been shot, stabbed, beaten, imprisoned, or ostracized. Many are dead, often in grotesquely inventive ways. Howard Ratner, the lead character in Uncut Gems, repeatedly commits fraud and adultery. He spins a web of lies and makes high-stakes gambles. In each scene, he acts on his worst impulses. For every success his duplicity brings, two failures spring. When he thinks he’s won, another criminal murders him. Even if Ratner had survived, though, his dishonesty and lechery would have cost him his family.
The same goes for The Godfather saga, Goodfellas (or any Scorsese crime movie), Pulp Fiction (or any Tarantino crime movie), Fargo (or any Coen brothers crime movie), Snatch (or any Cockney crime movie), as well as Scarface, New Jack City, and Boyz n the Hood. In crime movies, people who engage in criminal behavior suffer, usually at the hands of their fellow criminals. If they don’t get you, the cops will.
While crime movies focus on men, their female characters also catch hell. Women who sleep with criminals – usually against their family’s advice – end up pregnant and abandoned, if not beaten or murdered. Don Corleone treats his wife with old-world gentility, but she still lives to see her eldest son full of lead. (Michael, her youngest son, has the filial piety to delay the murder of his elder brother until after her death).
The message of all this cinema: Follow the path of bourgeois virtue. Work hard, keep the peace, abstain from alcohol, have very few sexual partners, and keep your whole family far away from anyone who lives otherwise. Think about how many fictional characters would have lived longer if they never set foot in a bar.
Is this the message the writers intend to send? Unlikely. Instead, they try to create engrossing stories – and end up weaving morality tales.
True, Hollywood could make movies where criminals are “victims of their toxic social environment.” It could make movies where the people who face retribution are the self-righteous bourgeoisie who “created toxic social environment in the first place.” (This is arguably the plot of Natural Born Killers, though that’s giving it too much credit). Such stories, however, would be sorely lacking in emotional truth. You can’t credibly depict the life of a criminal without showing his choices; and when you see his choices, you see all the ways he could have done otherwise, “toxic social environment” notwithstanding.
Similarly, you could make crime movies that end before the criminals get their comeuppance. Yet such stories would be dramatically inert. If a bank robber gets killed on his eighth heist, audiences want to see heists number 1, 2, and 8. If the bad guy gets it in the end, who cares about his intermediate successes? Let’s fast forward to the Day of Reckoning.
Does this mean that Hollywood movies actually crime? I doubt it. The viewers most in need of lessons in bourgeois virtue are probably too impulsive to reflect on the moral of the story. They’re captivated instead by the gunplay and machismo. Yet if you’re paying attention, the moral of these stories remains: Unless your parents are criminals, listen to your parents.
Tearing down all barriers to migration isn’t crazy—it’s an opportunity for a global boom.
The world’s nations, especially the world’s richest nations, are missing an enormous chance to do well while doing good. The name of this massive missed opportunity—and the name of my book on the topic—is “open borders.”
Critics of immigration often hyperbolically accuse their opponents of favoring open borders—a world where all nationalities are free to live and work in any nation they like. For most, that’s an unfair label: They want more visas for high-skilled workers, family reunification, or refugees—not the end of immigration restrictions. In my case, however, this accusation is no overstatement. I think that free trade in labor is a massive missed opportunity. Open borders are not only just but the most promising shortcut to global prosperity.
To see the massive missed opportunity of which I speak, consider the migration of a low-skilled Haitian from Port-au-Prince to Miami. In Haiti, he would earn about $1,000 per year. In Miami, he could easily earn $25,000 per year. How is such upward mobility possible? Simply put: Human beings are much more productive in Florida than in Haiti—thanks to better government policies, better management, better technology, and much more. The main reason Haitians suffer in poverty is not because they are from Haiti but because they are in Haiti. If you were stuck in Haiti, you, too, would probably be destitute.
But borders aren’t just a missed opportunity for those stuck on the wrong side on them. If the walls come down, almost everyone benefits because immigrants sell the new wealth they create—and the inhabitants of their new country are their top customers. As long as Haitians remain in Haiti, they produce next to nothing—and therefore do next to nothing to enrich the rest of the world. When they move, their productivity skyrockets—and so does their contribution to their new customers. When you see a Haitian restaurant in Miami, you shouldn’t picture the relocation of a restaurant from Port-au-Prince; you should picture the creation of a restaurant that otherwise would never have existed—not even in Haiti itself.
The central function of existing immigration laws is to prevent this wealth creation from happening—to trap human talent in low-productivity countries. Out of all the destructive economic policies known to man, nothing on Earth is worse. I’m not joking. Standard estimates say open borders would ultimately double humanity’s wealth production. How is this possible? Because immigration sharply increases workers’ productivity—and the world contains many hundreds of millions of would-be immigrants. Multiply a massive gain per person by a massive number of people and you end up with what the economist Michael Clemens calls “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk.”
Or do we? An old saying warns, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.” Far lower levels of immigration already inspire vocal complaints. After presenting my basic case in Open Borders, I strive to evaluate all the common (and many not-so-common) objections to immigration. My bottom line: While open borders are undeniably unpopular, they deserve to be popular. Like every social change, immigration has downsides. Yet when we patiently quantify the downsides, the trillions of dollars of gains of open borders dwarf any credible estimate of the harms.
The simplest objection to open borders is logistical: Even the largest countries cannot absorb hundreds of millions of immigrants overnight. True enough, but no reasonable person expects hundreds of millions to come overnight, either. Instead, immigration usually begins slowly and then snowballs. Puerto Ricans have been legally allowed to move to the United States since 1904, but it took almost a century before Puerto Ricans in the United States came to outnumber the population left on the island. Wasn’t the European migration crisis an unmanageable flood of humanity? Hardly. Despite media outcry, total arrivals from 2014 to 2018 came to less than 1 percent of the population of the European Union. Many European countries—most notably West Germany during the Cold War—have swiftly absorbed much larger inflows in the past.
The standard explanation for these asymmetric public reactions is that resistance to immigration is primarily cultural and political, not economic or logistical. While West Germans welcomed millions of East German migrants, a much lower dose of Middle Eastern and African migration has made the whole EU shiver. Aren’t economists who dwell on economic gains just missing the point?
Yes and no. As a matter of political psychology, cultural and political arguments against immigration are indeed persuasive and influential. That does not show, however, that these arguments are correct or decisive. Does immigration really have the negative cultural and political effects critics decry? Even if it did, are there cheaper and more humane remedies than immigration restriction? In any case, what is a prudent price tag to put on these cultural and political effects?
Let’s start with readily measurable cultural and political effects. In the United States, the most common cultural complaint is probably that—in contrast to the days of Ellis Island—today’s immigrants fail to learn English. The real story, though, is that few first-generation immigrants have ever become fluent in adulthood; it’s just too hard. German and Dutch immigrants in the 19th century maintained their stubborn accents and linguistic isolation all their lives; New York’s Yiddish newspapers were a fixture for decades. For their sons and daughters, however, acquiring fluency is child’s play—even for groups like Asians and Hispanics that are often accused of not learning English.
Native-born citizens also frequently worry that immigrants, supposedly lacking Western culture’s deep respect for law and order, will be criminally inclined. At least in the United States, however, this is the reverse of the truth. The incarceration rate of the foreign-born is about a third less than that of the native-born.
What about the greatest crime of all—terrorism? In the United States, non-citizens have indeed committed 88 percent of all terrorist murders. When you think statistically, however, this is 88 percent of a tiny sum. In an average year from 1975 to 2017, terrorists murdered fewer than a hundred people on U.S. soil per year. Less than 1 percent of all deaths are murders, and less than 1 percent of all murders are terrorism-related. Worrying about terrorism really is comparable to worrying about lightning strikes. After you take a few common-sense precautions—do not draw a sword during a thunderstorm—you should just focus on living your life.
The most cogent objection to immigration, though, is that productivity depends on politics—and politics depend on immigration. Native-born citizens of developed countries have a long track record of voting for the policies that made their industries thrive and their countries rich. Who knows how vast numbers of new immigrants would vote? Indeed, shouldn’t we expect people from dysfunctional polities to bring dysfunctional politics with them?
These are fine questions, but the answers are not alarming. At least in the United States, the main political division between the native- and foreign-born is engagement. Even immigrants legally able to vote are markedly less likely than native-born citizens to exercise this right. In the 2012 U.S. presidential election, for example, 72 percent of eligible native-born citizens voted versus just 48 percent of eligible immigrants. Wherever they politically stand, then, immigrants’ opinions are relatively inert.
In any case, immigrants’ political opinions don’t actually stand out. On average, they’re a little more economically liberal and a little more socially conservative, and that’s about it. Yes, low-skilled immigrants’ economic liberalism and social conservatism are more pronounced, but their turnout is low; in 2012, only 27 percent of those eligible to vote opted to do so. So while it would not be alarmist to think that immigration will slightly tilt policy in an economically liberal, socially conservative direction, warning that “immigrants will vote to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs” is paranoid.
Note, moreover, that free immigration hardly implies automatic citizenship. Welcoming would-be migrants is a clear-cut blessing for them and the world. Granting citizenship is more of a mixed bag. While I am personally happy to have new citizens, I often dwell on the strange fact that the Persian Gulf monarchies are more open to immigration than almost anywhere else on Earth. According to the Pew Research Center, 76 percent of people in Kuwait—and 88 percent in the United Arab Emirates—are foreign-born. Why do the native-born tolerate this? Probably because the Gulf monarchies generously share their oil wealth with citizens—and jealously protect the value of citizenship by making naturalization almost impossible. You do not have to ignore the Gulf monarchies’ occasional mistreatment of immigrants to realize that it is much better to welcome immigrants with conditions than to refuse to admit them at all. Migrants—mostly from much poorer parts of the Islamic world—accept this deal, however unfair, exactly because they can still do far better in the Gulf than at home.
In Open Borders, I have the space to address many more concerns about immigration in more detail. What I can’t do, I confess, is address the unmeasured and the unmeasurable. In real life, however, everyone routinely copes with ambiguous dangers—“unknown unknowns.” How do we cope?
For starters, we remember Chicken Little. When people’s warnings about measured dangers turn out to be wrong or overstated, we rightly discount their warnings about unmeasured and unmeasurable dangers. This is how I see mainstream critics of immigration. Their grasp of the basic facts, especially their neglect of the tremendous gains of moving labor from low-productivity countries to high-productivity countries, is too weak to take their so-called vision seriously.
Our other response to unmeasured and unmeasurable dangers, however, is to fall back on existing moral presumptions. Until same-sex marriage was legalized in certain countries, for example, how were we supposed to know its long-term social effects? The honest answer is, “We couldn’t.” But in the absence of strong evidence that these overall social effects would be very bad, a lot of us have now decided to respect individuals’ right to marry whom they like.
This is ultimately how I see the case for open borders. Denying human beings the right to rent an apartment from a willing landlord or accept a job offer from a willing employer is a serious harm. How much would someone have to pay the average American to spend the rest of his or her life in Haiti or Syria? To morally justify such harm, we need a clear and present danger, not gloomy speculation. Yet when we patiently and calmly study immigration, the main thing we observe is: people moving from places where their talent goes to waste to places where they can realize their potential. What we see, in short, is immigrants enriching themselves by enriching the world.
Do I seriously think I am going to convert people to open borders with a short article—or even a full book? No. My immediate goal is more modest: I’d like to convince you that open borders aren’t crazy. While we take draconian regulation of migration for granted, the central goal of this regulation is to trap valuable labor in unproductive regions of the world. This sounds cruel and misguided. Shouldn’t we at least double-check our work to make sure we’re not missing a massive opportunity for ourselves and humanity?
All of my books have been controversial. Yetsofar, almost no prominent critic has accused any of my books of being “ideological” or “dogmatic.” Instead, they open the books and engage the arguments. As a result, even staunch critics almost always find some common ground. Few deny me a minimal, “While he goes too far, some of what Caplan is saying sure seems true…”
I hope this pattern of reactions to my books continues. I fear, however, that I’ve reached the end of the line. Immigration has become so ideological during the last five years. Pessimism about immigration is almost a litmus test for conservatism. Yet there is no fundamental reason for this change of heart. Yes, today’s immigrants are heavily Democratic. As I explain in the book, however, this is a recent pattern. During the Reagan era, immigrants were almost equally divided between the two major parties.
While it’s tempting to blame the changing national origin of the immigrants, this doesn’t hold water. Indian-Americans are the richest and most socially conservative ethnicity in modern American, yet they’re probably even more Democratic than Hispanics. What’s going on? I say we’re seeing the Respect Motive at work. Immigrants have turned away from Republicans because they no longer feel the heartfelt welcome that leaders like Reagan once eloquently voiced.
When I say this, I fear that conservative readers will feel attacked. I also fear that liberal readers will amplify those fears by attacking them. My hope, however, is conservatives rediscover Reagan’s perspective – and liberals will show appreciation for those who do. Support for immigration used to be bipartisan. It can be bipartisan again.
Wishful thinking? Perhaps. With Zach Weinersmith’s help, however, it’s not hard to visualize…