The right to move and the right to exclude: Ilya Somin and ‘foot voting’

There is much that attractive in Ilya Somin's book Free to Move (2020), summarised his article ‘Freedom through foot voting’ the February 2021 issue of Economic Affairs.1 The treatment international migration as part a more fundamental discussion association and case for greater institutional pluralism are important contributions. are, however, difficulties with argument, chief among which implicit denial right exclude – whether it be from nation state or sub-national associations. By not permitting exclusion, an aspect freedom lost: ability individuals combination bring about public good-type outcomes, examples include, other things, language protection, environmental preservation, protection common resources. central claim increased if people have opportunities move. In he elaborates on conceptualisation freedom, arguing encompasses both negative capabilities approach (p. 25). As first observation, interpersonal comparisons must possible we say voting increases freedom. Probably least controversial way define unimpeded satisfaction preferences. Of course, some preferences cannot permitted because they harm (without their consent), violate equal treatment. And at points Somin does rely principles than buttress argument. He maintains person's place birth morally irrelevant characteristic, restrictions incompatible domestic anti-discrimination (pp. 106, 119). Ever since John Rawls appealed moral arbitrariness native endowments reject desert-based arguments distribution, there has been keen, although largely fruitless, debate over what arbitrary. Anti-discrimination is, concrete consideration American debates association, battle lines drawn between one side, compelling preventing discrimination. needs clearer equality driving could carry weight, but then balancing principle. I will, focus consider proposals would maximise it. It seems plausible having exit option oppressive dysfunctional regimes enhance But those left behind may result even less loss immediate, long term constant depletion material human capital make possibility regime change likely. This accounting argument how gained lost by migration. am obligation fix countries; rejects this 111–12) agree him. To stick point, will likely affect global population levels. Population go down migrants lower fertility new countries had country origin, up acts safety valve high countries. If aim should calculate total, somewhat like classical utilitarianism, per capita spirit average utilitarianism? These small compared think major objection proposal, rejection exclude. Most liberals start premise preferences, while you can mistaken correct means satisfy them, beyond criticism. obnoxious and, argued above, grounds restricting all counted such. Associations facilitate restrict freedom: so far members satisfied only excluding non-members, members' cost non-members. Restricting forced association. Restrictive associations often realise certain goods. A minority group within defined geographical space house sales who speak language. People locality seek preserve its rural character imposing zoning (in British parlance: green belt) policy rejects. try achieve maintain herd immunity face virus demanding proof vaccination status. Perhaps obscurely still significance, wish level altruism, most especially altruism selected against altruistic groups outcompete ones (see multilevel selection Wilson, 2015, pp. 31–45). All these good characteristics vulnerable free riders: vendors want price property, landowners belt sell housebuilders, anti-vaxxers get vaccinated, non-altruists benefitting high-altruism groups. tragedy commons illustrates problem movement. suggests private property rights solution exploitation commons, also acknowledging might always work 141). fact, Elinor Ostrom argues, community governance necessary. Such structure distinct coercion depends upon understanding resource used, low discount rate, trust reciprocity, experienced leadership (Ostrom, 2002, p. 5). Although she it, things depend stable capacity socialised into practices. reasonable assume local consents arrangements authoritarian imposed them. planned communities endorses example justifiably impose create particular kind community. Dealing riders compatible behaviour tacitly consent benefits enjoyed Here rightly identifies state: no meaningful 20–3). where leave distinguish end maintenance, environment, do such preference. effective goods, reason set out Thomas Hobbes (as reinterpreted twentieth–century game theorists): solve prisoner's dilemma. strength weakness: monopolising violence territory immigration undermines consent. argues article, democracy neither guarantees nor signalling device production goods 18–19). Foot effective: movement across borders meaningful. inconsistency allowing under normal circumstances state's territory, strictly controlling (permanent) entry outside. conclusion draws increase levels sector, domestically (through federalism), states. draw different conclusion. globally power states weakened, real thus now alternatives. Whereas advocating universal move, suggest better strategy institutionally pluralistic world. extend non-territorial associations, online communities; control resources transfer value circumvents state. So far, viable mechanism distributed ledger technology (blockchain). Charter cities (discussed pages 74–5) mix. exclude: experiment open borders, others take approach. another movement: sure effects cites range evidence, summarises suggesting balance positive example, relation welfare 127–30). impossible here assess few comments indeed counts evidence. We need establish timescales. short-term beneficial, disproportionately working age tend be), very contribution expected lifetimes. What children? Should count contribution, given children inherit genes cultural traits parents? rather short temporal horizons. Numbers matter. varying degrees ‘groupish’. How structures size distribution. Given chain family reunification, well size, behave when (say) 0.1 cent quite were constitute 10 cent. Finally, benefit migration? labour market certainly good, count, economic gain proxy preference satisfaction. fair, discuss culture, defensive sceptical terms: defending undermine culture 134–5) concept homogeneity 94). (On second choose desire ‘homogeneity’ require proving any ontological status.) timescales broaden cost–benefit analysis migration, wins out. historical anxiety misplaced. confidence margins wide. Academic history selective marked confirmation bias; appear comparable exact. disagreement For reason, experimental preferable asserting hedge. Let us see jurisdictions fare before following