An Alternative Trolley Problem: Immigration, Not Global Aid

By On August 20, 2012 · 34 Comments · In Economics, Social Justice

(In response to Jessica’s post.)

So, here’s the trolley problem:

  • A runaway trolley is on course to kill five innocent people. I can switch the trolley to another track, saving the five but killing one (let’s call this guy Bob.)

Is it okay to kill Bob in order to save the other five people? Most people say yes. Bradley Gabbard argues that if you say yes, then you should be committed to having governments provide global aid to the poor.

Let’s modify the thought experiment, though. Imagine you have the following three options:

1. Do nothing. Five people die. Bob lives.
2. Pull the switch one way. Bob dies. The other five live.
3. Pull the switch a second way. Everyone lives. World GDP doubles.

In this scenario, I think it’s obvious 1 and 2 are impermissible if 3 is an option.

What’s the relevance? I think in the real world case of fighting global poverty, we have something close to option 3. It’s called open immigration. Immigration restrictions may be the single most inefficient policy governments implement. When economists estimate the welfare losses from immigration restrictions, they tend to conclude that eliminating immigration restrictions could nearly double world GDP. (E.g., See table 2 here.) Immigration has a much stronger potential to help the poor than global aid. Most people would benefit from open immigration, but the world’s poor would benefit the most.

If we really want to help the global poor, we’d be very cautious about advocating global government to government aid, or even government to NGO aid. After all, such programs have little history of success. Often, all aid does is buy the local dictator a fancy airport and some guns to shoot the locals.

Tagged with:
 
  • tomkow

    Actually this is not what philosophers call “The Trolley Problem”. It is only half of it. You have to notice the other half to see why it’s a problem. For an explanation see:
    http://tomkow.typepad.com/tomkowcom/2011/04/trolleyproblems.html

    • martinbrock

      I would also push the fat man (in principle). If the fat man shoots me to avoid being pushed, I don’t really blame him, and I wouldn’t convict him of murdering anyone, not me and not the five others who die.

      I suppose the fat man has a right to his life and to defend himself from me, but this right does not change the rightfulness of my act in my way of thinking. Rights can conflict. Everyone can’t have everything to which he has a right. Life is not so simple, however legalistic politicians want to simplify it.

      Of course, the man on the other track could also shoot me before I redirect the trolley, and I wouldn’t blame him either.
      Furthermore, if the state charges me with murder, I’m not shocked to find a jury convicting me, and I wouldn’t much blame the jury either. Legalistic thinking is common regardless of what I think of it. That the same jury would not convict me for redirecting the trolley is interesting psychologically, but it’s irrelevant otherwise.
      I see no contradictions here, possibly because as a mathematician, I have a high standard for what constitutes a “contradiction”. People have odd preferences in diverse circumstances, but this diversity is not contradictory. It is complexity.

  • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

    Jason,
    I’m sure that you sincerely believe that this would never happen, but just suppose that open immigration would turn the U.S. into a society that closely resembles Pakistan or Saudi Arabia (bastions of human rights, of course). Would you still be in favor? What makes you so sure–if you are–that this possibility is unrealistic?

    • Sergio Méndez

      Mark:

      I think it is unrealistic in many ways. It is unrealistic because it assumes that the only immigrants that will come to the US are people from Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. It is unrealistic because it assumes that all immigrants from those countries have or necessarily share the core beliefs of their states. It is unrealistic cause it assumes that the only vehicle for change is the ideological commitment of persons living in that territory (and not other factors such as technology, life conditions, etc etc). It is unrealistic because it assumes immigrants change the host societies but are not changed by them too. And anyways is stupid cause it overlooks the fact that your own government and your own prevalent ethnic ruling class isn´t already pushing the country into the direction of an authoritarian humans right violator country (as evidenced not only by the traditional US foreign policy, which is criminal, but by the increasing authoritarian tendencies of the US government from within – patriot act, department of homeland security, police brutality etc…-.

      • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

        Without debating with you all the “unrealistic” reasons you cite, I think in general that nations have the governments they deserve. From the polling data I have seen, the citizens of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia support the core, anti-liberal values of their governments. If you openly espouse atheism or try to convert people to Christianity in those nations, the local population will kill you without waiting for governmental help. As for all the flaws of our society, while they may be grave, I think it is quite insane to not acknowledge a profound difference in the protection of human rights here versus many Islamic (and other) states. In any event, while you and I can debate the empirics, this is not the main point. Suppose for the sake of argument that I am right and you are wrong on the empirics, and that open borders would change our society into something like Pakistan; are you still for open borders? I, and I daresay most Americans, are not.

        • Sergio Méndez

          Mark:

          You asked why it will be unrealistic to think that the US can be turned into a Saudi Arabia or a Pakistan by allowing open borders. I have given you many reasons, and then you chose not to debate them. I wonder why. Regard of what you have said, I have yet to see evidence that the people in those nations all share the same values spoused by their respective goverments. I also have to see what moral justification you have for the claim that people deserve to be under “authoritarian regimen” or deserve the goverments they have (when they haven´t even the chance to elect them).So, no, I am not willing to make your suposition, not even for the sake of argument, because after all we can make the same supposition (for the sake of argument) with any other population (suppose native white christian americans change the US into an authoritarian regime…will that be cause to expell them from their homes?). Is silly, and with all due respect, it is just a mask for racism and xenophobia.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            I don’t want to debate this empirics with you because I am afraid it would be a huge waste of my time. But, by happy coincidence, this just happens to be in today’s news (I don’t expect it to convince you of anything): http://news.yahoo.com/pakistan-girl-jailed-accused-blasphemy-191418897.html.
            As for the rest, you have an interesting way of doing philsophy, i.e. when confronted by a hypothetical case entirely within the bounds of empirical possibility, simply refuse to discuss it. Nice.

          • Sergio Méndez

            Mark:

            Well it is you who used asked if the possibilitty is unrealistic. When shown why it is, you decided to switch the terms of the debate. So if those are the standards by which you debate, I can see why you will not want to debate the empirics of me. I agree with you it will be a huge waste of time. No question about that.

            Regarding your news, I wonder if that incident is telling of all pakistany population, so you to make your grotesque generalizations.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            If you will go back and look, I asked Jason (not you) a question regarding how he (not you) could be so sure of his assumption, if he was indeed certain. Feel free in the future not to respond to my questions to other people if you feel that my comments/questions have no merit. OK?

    • SimpleMachine88

      I think not allowing immigration would turn America into a country that closely resembles Communist Albania. Without immigration, there would be no America.

      If your point is just that you don’t like Muslims, I’d just say that American Muslim’s are excellent people, because they are Americans of course. Foreign Muslims are tiresome and annoying because all foreigners are. So are the French. And Saudi Arabia is not run by Saudi Arabians, it’s run by the Saudi royal family. Saudis move here because they are sick of not being allowed to drive, because screw Saudi Arabia. Immigrating is like saying “AMERIC-UH!”

      • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

        Not worth a reply.

    • martinbrock

      Granting your supposition, I’d want open migration, so I could move out of a United States becoming more like Saudi Arabia.

      But I can’t take the supposition seriously. Why would a Saudi Arabian desiring a totalitarian theocracy imposing medieval standards want to move to the United States? Why wouldn’t this person prefer to stay where he already has what he wants, and why would his immersion in a far more liberal American culture not change him more than he could ever hope to change the liberal culture?

      Many past immigrants to the United States have been conservatives with a theocratic bent, the Pilgrims for example, but they didn’t create a homogeneous American culture conforming to their utopian visions in fact. Home grown theocrats haven’t fared much better. I don’t know how devout Mitt Romney is, but he doesn’t seem to threaten me with a Mormon theocracy, and I wouldn’t feel much more threatened living in Salt Lake City.

      Aside from the Amish, these groups couldn’t even sustain small, utopian communities for very long, and a continuous stream of immigrants from many divergent cultures, exposing residents of these communities to divergent ideas while also seeking to assimilate into them, arguably explains the failure of utopian visionaries to realize their visions.

      • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

        Western Europe has very significant Muslim populations because of economic migration. Has living in France transformed its 10% Muslim population: I don’t think so. Sweden is a great bastion of liberalism, right? Malmo is Sweden’s third largest city. So google Malmo and anti-semitism, and see what pops up. Has Sweden tramsformed its Muslim population? We have much less of a problem, obviously, but that doesn’t mean that open borders would end well.

        • martinbrock

          Yes, living in France has transformed its 10% Muslim population. I’m completely convinced of this transformation without meeting a single French Muslim, because I understand the inherently malleable nature of the human organism.

          I’ll wager a week’s pay, mine vs. yours, that polls of second generation French Muslims, or some similar measurement, find significant differences between the attitudes of French Muslims and their Saudi Arabian counterparts.

          Accounts of anti-Semitic Muslims in Sweden aren’t particularly relevant. Hardly a generation ago, anti-Semitic Germans practically wiped out European Jewry, and the population of European Jews has never recovered, but German attitudes are not static. Anti-Semitic Muslims (and Germans and Russians and Americans) will always be with you, but you focus only on the Muslims here.

          While you browse the web for evidence reinforcing your presumption, why not account for a group like Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice?

        • Sergio Méndez

          Actually the evidence points, for example, that large numbers of muslim inmigrants, and their sons and daughters, have became secularized. The accounts of the protests in France for example, show they had little to do with religion -actually islamic organizations condemed the protests-. But as Martin Brock points out, people like Mark Friedman want to imagine islamic inmigrants as some sort of fanatics that do not change with society, with an innamobible nature. Is a convinient way to create and maintain an enemy, a treat.

        • martinbrock

          Here’s an interesting article on anti-Semitism in Malmo.

          http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/11587/swedish_jews_raise_issue_of_malm_mayor_s_anti_semitic_comments_with_social_democratic_party_leader

          The mayor of the city made a statement characterized as anti-Semitic. Is he a Muslim? No. His “anti-Semitic” statement claims that a Swedish nationalist party with an anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim agenda has “infiltrated the Jewish community in order to push their hate of Muslims”.

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            The point that I was making about Malmo, which I thought would be quite clear, is that in heavily Muslim neighborhoods any (identifiable) Jew (based on his/her clothing, appearance, etc.) walking through will be subject to verbal harrassment and/or physical attack. The situation in Malmo is mirrored in other major Western European cities with large Muslim populations. Of course, there was a recent murderous attack on Jewish children by a Muslim extremist(s) in Toulouse, France. I am not asking anyone to take my word for serious anti-semitism in Europe. Those who are at all interested should go on the net and do your own research. Here is a recent report from the Wisenthal Center that documents this: http://www.wiesenthal.com/atf/cf/%7B54d385e6-f1b9-4e9f-8e94-890c3e6dd277%7D/EUROPE_AND_THE_JEWS_2012-DRAMATIC_RISE_IN_ANTI-JEWISH_ANTI-ISRAEL_PREJUDICE_V3.PDF. But, if you don’t trust the Wiesenthal Center, do your own research.

            In it not just Jews that are targeted, of course. The names Salmon Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, and Ayaan Hirsi Magan Ali should be familiar to all. If not, where have you been? The intimidation from Islamic radicals has even reached these shores. In 2009 Yale University Press published a book by Jytte Klausen titled “The Cartoons That Shook the World.” The book covered the riots the caused 200 deaths following the publication by a Danish newspaper of cartoons that mocked the prophet Muhammad. But, over the author’s protest, Yale refused to reproduce the cartoons in the book! See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/books/13book.html. So, “it can never happen here,” until it does.

            Just to be crystal clear, I don’t claim to know what an open borders world would look like. But, neither does anyone else. Thus, I think it is perfectly legitimate when considering this issue to ask “what if” questions. If that offends people, well….get over it.

          • martinbrock

            I dispute the assertion that any identifiable Jew walking through any any Muslim neighborhood anywhere will be subject to verbal harassment and/or physical attack. Such a broad, categorical statement, describing a billion adherents of a thousand year old religion, rings hollow. It reminds me of the stereotypes tossed around by north-eastern liberals about white racist attitudes in the south-eastern United States.

            White racism existed and still exists in the south, but even at the height of racial tensions during the civil rights movement in 1960s, such a broad characterization of southern whites was very far from the mark. I was there at the time, and statistics on racial violence substantiate my personal experience. This violence was often worse in Chicago and Los Angeles than it ever was in Birmingham or Atlanta, even during the height of forced racial integration.

            Jews have problems with many Muslims in the 21st century largely associated with Zionism and the displacement of a Muslim majority in Palestine with a Jewish majority largely through statecraft. These problems are very significant, but the effects are not remotely close in scale or severity to the treatment of Jews by Europeans in the 20th century. While we’re herding billions of people into warring factions, in our collective imagination, let’s keep a little historical perspective. Imagining a war always precedes fighting one.

  • martinbrock

    Your point on immigration is excellent, but it has nothing much to do with runaway trolleys.

  • SimpleMachine88

    No no no, the question is is it acceptable to kill Bob to save five AMERICANS. Random Canadians or Lithuanians or Somalis are THEIR problem. Still in favor of immigration though.

  • Richard Chappell

    Just a reminder of what Gabbard actually wrote: “it would be permissible for Bob to redistribute my goods in order to save innocent lives dying needlessly around the world. [...] Now, it does not follow that we should implement such a policy since there are many considerations needed to decide if such a policy is wise, but the fact that such a policy could be justified is an important result.”

    For myself, I too agree that open immigration (or something close to it) is a first-best policy. But that’s compatible with redistribution also being justifiable, if done well. (A big “if”, as you note.)

  • Joseph R. Stromberg

    “A land where people may freely travel will be a land of the free.”

    Not if TSA has anything to say about it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=193112608 Chris Bertram

    Since I’m in favour of nearly completely open borders, I hate to rain on Jason’s parade, but this post (not untypically for Brennan) takes projections of economic effects by economists at face value. I think there’s every reason to be sceptical. In the EU after 2004, open borders were established between some of the wealthiest countries and some very much much poorer ones. Undoubtedly there were some welcome and positive effects on economic growth. But if you look at a “world” composed of the UK, Sweden, Ireland PLUS Poland and the Baltic states, you don’t get the kind of enormously positive effects on the total area that the OP suggests. And, of course, that was when a boom economy was simply sucking in labour, partly because of illusory ideas about how wealthy the UK and Ireland were that derived from inflated property values.

  • http://www.facebook.com/les.nearhood Les Kyle Nearhood

    Your premise is very flawed. Totally open immigration from poor to rich nations would inevitably flood the rich nations with more people than they could assimilate, This would not make those people better off living in little shanty towns on the outskirts of our border cities. You may counter that eventually jobs and opportunities would catch up with the new population, but there is no guarantee of that. Suppose Half a Billion people suddenly decided to immigrate into the US? How about a Billion? Do you think there are no boundaries to what we could handle?

  • Johan Tibbelin

    The problem is, I believe. the Welfare state. Immigrants in Sweden is often actually and practically forbidden to work ( I don`t have to explain this of course for you. ….). Here in Sweden Counterjihadists end the Left agree. We can not open the borders. Of course the nationalist conservatives are explicit and the solidarity-wellfarestate- left mumbles in shame….The few classical/liberals/libertarians we have is pro-open border….the most famous is of course cato-fellow Johan Norberg…and he lives in Malmö..
    …Sorry I did´not strictly argue för open bordes….What I like to say Is more like….check the stats, read some more and think again…I think the fear of Islamisation of Europe BECAUSE of Immigration is greatly exaggerated even in the welfare state….and , if that is true and “open borders ends world poverty .., libertarians should be very very happy, because it actually opens up for the possibility to convince the sincere -solidarity -left ( here in Sweden they set the Moral agenda…..It´s like an religion….) And if open borders also will benefit more than 50 percent of the population in say Sweden it……( very large jump to conclusion here )…… seems to me that a Libertarian state is actually possible.(..not just a dream or a moral thought experiment ). Anyone see the logic (or lack of of course )

    • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

      Please comment on this articlde from “The Telegraph” newspaper (in the U.K.) in February 2010: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/7278532/Jews-leave-Swedish-city-after-sharp-rise-in-anti-Semitic-hate-crimes.html.
      Among the many things it reports is this:
      “In 2009, a chapel serving the city’s 700-strong Jewish community was set ablaze. Jewish cemeteries were repeatedly desecrated, worshippers were abused on their way home from prayer, and “Hitler” was mockingly chanted in the streets by masked men.”

      • good_in_theory

        Maybe you should first comment on this. Motes and beams and all that…

        http://www.salon.com/2012/08/14/eight_attacks_11_days/

      • Johan Tibbelin

        Thanks for pointing to that article. And sorry for the delay in commenting. Your concern is REAL. I am aware of the terrible situation for the Jewish community in Malmö. Mr Reepalu have been a disaster and a shame for Malmö and for his party…and the Jewish community was left without defense from society. What I meant by writing “greatly exxagerated” in my previous post was not really antisemitism….but the risk for Islamisation of Europe. Most muslim immigrants are not fundamentalists. The want political freedom and democracy. Ther children-the second generation- even more so…they don´t accept to be told what to do…But Antisemitism seems to survive this secularisation process. It has survived in the swedish culture despite welfare, public education, publicservice broadcasting,….etc it has obviously survived the liberal climate in Sweden. It survives like I virus….Now one strain of antisemitism Is whithout doubt strong in the Muslim world. So opening borders means that antisemitism increases outside the arab world. But in what sense…in functional societies there few are locked in in unemployment the virus i just latent. Even in the suburbs in Malmö antisemitism is latent among the majority…. 40 000 hating is, I believe, misleading in one sense ….but a huge problem… remember The german Nazi partys successful effort to activate the virus…..What I believe Is that in short that the wellfare societey , by forcing immigrants to NOT work and Not succeed by their own effort, it actually makes antisemitism worse…( and by the way…its not only the muslim culture that brings strains of latent antisemitism….and then we have the Marxist/socialist variety….) Antisemitism is despite my optimism, a serious issue…a threat to any “open border” project….And ( and should be ) a real concern för Libertarians.

        • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

          Johan,
          Thanks for the information you provided. Of course, as a Jew I am concerned about anti-semitism. But I also believe that anyone who considers himself a “liberal” (in the broadest sense) should be outraged too because anti-semitism is a deep and abiding stain on the moral integrity of Weastern civilization and, from a more self-interested perspective, a threat to liberalism itself. Jews are the “canary in the coal mine,” and a society that tolerates anti-semitism will soon have other problems.

          But my concern about the potential consequences of open borders goes far beyond this. As a European, you are probably more attuned than we are to incidents like the murder of Theo van Gogh, the attempted violence against the publishers of the Danish cartoons, and the intimidation of anyone who might wish to “insult” Islam. A society in which ANY point of view is suppressed by the threat of physical violence, is one that does not protect freedom of expression, and is illiberal. I wonder what the experience is in Sweden on this.

          I do not disagree with your statement that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants do not participate in anti-semitism or attacks on those wishing to exercise their right to free speech. But it does not require a large population of fanatics to threaten the rule of law. As I said before, I do not know what an “open borders” Sweden or the U.S. would look like, but I think we should think about the consequences before we do it.

          • Johan Tibbelin

            Mark
            “But I also believe that anyone who considers himself a “liberal” (in the broadest sense) should be outraged too because anti-semitism is a deep and abiding stain on the moral integrity of Western civilization and, from a more self-interested perspective, a threat to liberalism itself. Jews are the “canary in the coal mine,” and a society that tolerates anti-semitism will soon have other problems.”

            Yes yes yes I absolutely agree….Your is expression nails it….

            I ´l be happy to send you more info and thoughts about Sweden and freedom of expression, immigration etc the ….later…
            We have our own “Muhammed cartoonist” Lars Wilks….
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Vilks_Muhammad_drawings_controversy
            …his project is more than cartoons….its a still on going conceptual study of freedom of expression (if I got it right….)…next part of his project is to make a speach at an international counterjihad meeting…( I´m pretty sure he would have spoken at an al-qaida meeting if possible ….for his prioject….) I haven´t studied his work…and well conceptual art is n´t always that easy to understand….but the reactions to his “work” can`t be misunderstood…the “cultural-left” and mainstream media has been mostly critical or condemning….the latest (good) news though is that two swedish avant garde artist defended his “rights” to participate in an exhibition financed by “the state”….but they labelled their protest against Lars Wilks being excluded (beacause of his upcoming speach) in the last minute …as freedom of expression….not strictly correct….but …alright for me…(.Swedes have despite generally good education problems to understand human rights concepts ! )The open border Idea demands even more thinking and reading I realise ( thanks for pointing at new aspect of a large problem,,.feks threats against minority groups in society, fast growing hate groups because of rapid demografic change reaching critical ratios in othervise moderate groups….analogous to the revolutionary situations the Leninists dream of ?).
            …still optimistic about open borders though…
            Johan

          • MARK_D_FRIEDMAN

            Johan,
            I am also in favor of open borders as a goal or ideal, just as I am in favor of “peace, love and understanding.” But I want to have some assurance that when we open the borders, we get the latter, rather than something much worse. All the best, and I hope its not too lonely as a classical liberal in Sweden.

  • Damien S.

    While I don’t totally agree with Mark’s anti-Muslim paranoia, I do think he has a point. The economists just scale up some labor migration effects; they don’t consider the possible effect of vast influxes of new voters on the systems that allow the higher productivity. And we can’t assume that the limited effect and general assimilation of limited immigration means megascale immigration would also have little effect and be assimilated. After all, you’re potentially talking about immigration larger than the original population of the host country. Who assimilates whom, at that point? Ask the American Indians, or Australian aborigines…