Open Borders — Yes or No? An Analysis

Objections

One of the principle objections to open borders is due to the fact that our world today has severe wealth inequalities between nations, ironically, a direct consequence of closed borders. This wealth inequality means that wealthier countries, were they to adopt an open border policy, will always be exposed to significant increases in migration from the citizens of poorer nations. This problem was summed up by the nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman who said:

“With an unlimited supply of immigration, and limited resources from the host nation, a policy of open immigration would just not be sustainable for the host nation.”

Because dismantling the welfare state is an untenable solution, this leads to three things:

  1. ‘Solutions’ such as the exclusion of migrants from accessing welfare;
  2. Morally reprehensible outcomes such as the acceptance and legalisation of policies such as the imprisoning of families inside cocentration camps.
  • and itdoesn’t take into account the factors which might prevent an individual from moving such as financial limitations, psychological barriers and cultural expectations.

Incoming Crisis.

Whilst it took only around 5 million migrants to practically bring the European Union to it’s knees, there is an incoming crisis that unless is adequately solved, will make the current crisis seem like a walk in the park.

“at lower poverty lines ($1.90 according to the UN’s definition of extreme poverty), the national redistributive capacity to end poverty emerges thus poverty is a matter of national inequality”

However…

“At the $10 poverty lines, which is associated with permanent escape from poverty, global poverty remains a matter of global inequality, as while national resources could address global poverty at the lower lines, such resources would not be enough to end poverty at $10 per day.“

In other words, even if a nation were to fix all it’s internal issues (with corruption being the main one), that still wouldn’t be enough to allow it’s citizens to permanently escape poverty. The relationships that currently exist between nations make this an impossibility. This might explain why people would feel compelled to clamber aboard rickety old boats and risk their own lives ones life to escape this trap. When you have a situation where someone, no matter what they do is unable to escape poverty, they are left with one option and that is to leave the area. For the nationalist to believe that the people who suffocated to death under the weight of the meditarenaon ocean were trying to steal their mind-numbingly boring, unskilled, low paid, job shows a person proundly ignorant to the realities of todays world and thoroughly brainwashed to their own nationalist propoganda. Again, whatever your stance on immigration may be, building walls (no matter how high) — do not treat the symptoms of the problems.

Why Universal Basic Income & not other welfare programs?

Due to its integrate-ability into the existing economic system the UBI is by far the most practical solution to reduing this global migrational pressure. And by utilising the invisible hand of the market, the UBI would do so far quicker than any other available policy in the toolkit.

Now the big question is…

How can we as a society afford this?

Easily. Very easily in fact.

Unless…

All transactions in society went through a decentralised globally distributed ledger and were taxed automatically via a smart contract (smart taxation). It would literally take a few lines of code to implement this tax on all transactions going through the BIS — Bank for International Settlements (the ‘central banks central bank’).

What about privacy?

Individuals transaction information & history will be hidden from public view with the use of privacy enabling technologies. The only information required for the smart contract to work is the total amount of transactions on the network.

Aren’t transaction taxes bad?

Now some say that a transaction tax is bad for markets (mostly lobbyists for the banks). That is simply not true. Financial transcation taxes increase the difference between the price of ‘the spread’, NOT the price of the asset itself. In fact, an absence of a financial transaction tax probably negatively effects asset prices as it makes speculation far more profitable which increases overall market volatility. The following page is dedicated to answering this question in more detail here.

Thanks for Reading.

If you would like to get into contact, please send me a message.

--

--

--

Scheming - Plotting

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Recommended from Medium

Let’s Call a Spade a Spade

What are the types of business loan? [2022] , Types of Business Loan in Hindi?

The political anemia of the Ontario NDP will be their demise

Bahawalpur is mostly consists of

The fight for digital sovereignty: what it is, and why it matters, especially for the EU

The Subjective Freedom of “Travelling while Black” and Coming of Age in Post Apartheid South Africa

How to become a politician in India | How To Inc.

ROSE UNPLUGGED EXCLUSIVE: Trump Says ‘They Have Destroyed This Country in One-and-a-Half Years’

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Gido Fawkes

Gido Fawkes

Scheming - Plotting

More from Medium

Did Pink Floyd get it right when they said that ‘We don’t need no education?’

One big step for Carbo Culture, one giant leap for carbon removal!

7 effective ways to reduce your carbon footprint right now

Vernal Equinox 2022