Sigh

So what am I supposed to think about this. Apparently, the argument that Sowell (whom I usually agree with) is making is that the only reason "illegals" do jobs that "no Americans will do" is because they are willing to work for less, and in their absence, employers will need to pay more, up to the point where Americans will do the jobs. Or, presumably, somewhere between the cost of "illegal" labor and "legitimate" American labor may lie the labor-cost point where employer-capitalists are better off investing capital in increased mechanization and automation.

Bruce McQuain, much to my disappointment, seems to applaud this argument, even though it rests on a sneer: "illegal."

Well, let me be the one to stand up for libertarianism, then. The freedom & liberty position, first and foremost, respects the rights of the employers here; i.e., the capitalists; i.e., the owners. Libertarian doctrine holds that employment arrangements are between employers and employees, and it's nobody else's business.

Here's what I wrote in two comments to that Q&O entry:

So let me get this straight. "They do jobs Americans won’t do" is flawed because if we kept out the "illegals," then the market price of labor for particular jobs will increase to the point Americans will do them.

I don’t see anything particularly novel or earth shattering about this "revelation." Keeping Americans (by force, I will add) from purchasing cheaper alternatives in labor, whether from Mexico or anywhere else, is no different that denying them the freedom (by force, I will add) to purchase cheaper alternatives in cars, computers, household goods of all sorts.

Wow, Neo-"Libertaian" Protectionism. Just bloody wonderful.

I get this response:

Keeping Americans (by force, I will add) from purchasing cheaper alternatives in labor, whether from Mexico or anywhere else, is no different that denying them the freedom (by force, I will add) to purchase cheaper alternatives in cars, computers, household goods of all sorts.

Well, your blog is somewhat aptly named, I guess.  That logic is truly uncommon.

The scary quotes around illegals was a nice touch, too. Using illegal immigrants to do labor reduces the market pressure to mechanize the jobs in question so that individual workers are more productive. Perhaps we would be better off with cheaper alternatives to labor.

My further reply:

Silly, silly Mark.

First, those decisions are made by capitalists (hint: capital investments), not by Neo-"Libertarian" theorists or central planners. In other words, restricting Americans (by force, i.e., at gunpoint) from purchasing labor at the lowest price they can obtain, such that the inflated price suddenly makes capital investment a bargain is no different than restricting their access to raw materials or components (i.e., making them "illegal") at the lowest price they can obtain, in hopes of achieving the same sort of result.

It’s all protectionism, and there isn’t any difference at all.

...Including using sneers such as "illegal," which have no basis in economic or ethical reality. If being able to see beyond such self-limiting, mind-created, unreal restrictions down the the essentials of such things is uncommon logic, then I’ll certainly bear that charge.