The Summer 2016 UK Political and Constitutional Crisis

[Razgovory]

A country wanting to "unilaterally" set its own immigration policy??  The nerve.

Question:  Which is more important to you?  Immigration or capitalism?

[OttoVonBismarck]

The dichotomy between "single market" and "freedom of movement" that is seen in this thread and elsewhere does not really exist in EU law. This is how it is defined in the TFEU, Article 26:
The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured

Eh, it's distinguished in English language news (including British--which I read a lot of), surely you're familiar with the reality that legal specifics and common usage aren't really  one and the same, anywhere. If you read things that Boris Johnson etc are saying they frequently discuss the free movement of peoples and the free movement of goods and services as distinct concepts.

Legally they may be intrinsically linked, and I believe they are absolutely linked politically as well, but Languish isn't the only place discussing it in these terms.

[derspiess]

A country wanting to "unilaterally" set its own immigration policy??  The nerve.

Question:  Which is more important to you?  Immigration or capitalism?

Why do I have to choose?

[Valmy]

A country wanting to "unilaterally" set its own immigration policy??  The nerve.

Question:  Which is more important to you?  Immigration or capitalism?

Why do I have to choose?

Because free flow of labor is important in a functional capitalist economy. Which is also why state limitations on immigration when the economy demands labor tend to fail so spectacularly. I don't really see the difference between state limitations on labor or capital.

[Razgovory]

A country wanting to "unilaterally" set its own immigration policy??  The nerve.

Question:  Which is more important to you?  Immigration or capitalism?

Why do I have to choose?

Because that's the issue both in Britain and the US.  In both places the Anti-immigrant forces are partnered with protectionist and anti-free trade forces.  You can have one or the other, but not both.

[derspiess]

I've been saying "Libertarianism in one country" for a while now, so I guess my answer would be "Capitalism in one country" (with free trade).

[Valmy]

I've been saying "Libertarianism in one country" for a while now, so I guess my answer would be "Capitalism in one country" (with free trade).

Well I guess that is true. The states cannot start imposing immigration restrictions on other states. I don't think it can exist feasibly with free trade though. Once you let capital start roaming around but keep the people in or out it undermines the system. Before, when everything was actually pretty much limited to one country, the interests of the people and capital were the same. When those start to become decoupled it creates a difficult political environment. Or, at least, It seems to be creating a difficult political environment.

[derspiess]

I can live with it.

[Razgovory]

I've been saying "Libertarianism in one country" for a while now, so I guess my answer would be "Capitalism in one country" (with free trade).

I'm not sure what that means.

[Valmy]

I can live with it.

Well I hope so because that is what is developing

[Jacob]

I've been saying "Libertarianism in one country" for a while now, so I guess my answer would be "Capitalism in one country" (with free trade).

I'm not sure what that means.

It sounds like it means that capital should get the benefits of libertarianism and competition, but labour should not. If it is in the interest of, say, a business to move their business overseas they should not face any problems in trading their product in their recently abandoned home market. However, if someone wants to move to where there's a better job available to them, they should not necessarily be able to do so.

[Admiral Yi]

It sounds like it means that capital should get the benefits of libertarianism and competition, but labour should not. If it is in the interest of, say, a business to move their business overseas they should not face any problems in trading their product in their recently abandoned home market. However, if someone wants to move to where there's a better job available to them, they should not necessarily be able to do so.

You of course omit the ways labor benefits from closed borders and the ways capital loses from open borders.

[Valmy]

You of course omit the ways labor benefits from closed borders and the ways capital loses from open borders.

I would agree there are trade offs. But the point is their interests become decoupled.

[LaCroix]

But the point is their interests become decoupled.

[Jacob]

It sounds like it means that capital should get the benefits of libertarianism and competition, but labour should not. If it is in the interest of, say, a business to move their business overseas they should not face any problems in trading their product in their recently abandoned home market. However, if someone wants to move to where there's a better job available to them, they should not necessarily be able to do so.

You of course omit the ways labor benefits from closed borders and the ways capital loses from open borders.

Sure, but my assumption is that open borders and free movement is a benefit to both labour and capital, in aggregate.

Is there a convincing argument that lack of mobility is to the advantage of labour overall, especially in situations with free movements of goods and capital?