Exit, Voice, and Borders

Who inhabits a territory affects individual sovereignty too. If the majority of people are not interested in a market solution then there won't be one.

The biggest conundrum "border are bad" libertarians face is that increasing the proportion of non-classical liberals decreases the probability of a classical liberal society.

Believe it or not, there are some of us who do not belong to facebook and who do not wish to sign up. Does this mean that we will not be able to participate in the discussions?

It is surprising to me that Arnold Kling does not question the terminology "individual sovereignty" as a basis for these assertions about the the degree of authority to be recognized for a "state," and how individuals should deal with that authority.

Hi, English Professor.

You can comment here or on Facebook. Different venues appeal to different folks.

Let's ignore many other countries at this point and utilize Mexico as an example.

Mexico has terrible infrastructure making it difficult for transportation of people and goods. Electricity is not available everywhere making life difficult from drinking water to irrigation. As a result many people are poor and they have decided to head north where there is better opportunity for them.

There people have exited and voted with their feet. They are not utilizing Mexican. sovereignity nor are they participating in the Mexican market. As a result the checks on power have been torn as these people insert themselves in both the market and the sovereign affairs of State.

It appears that if a society wants to have rules by which they desire to live then it is incumbent to eliminate challenges to those rules. Criminals are sent to prison and illegal participants in that society are to be removed.

They are not participating, in part, in the American economy and utilizing sovereignity of the US. However, while they are not utilizing thier voice in soverign American decision making they are utilizing the services of the governments.
In addition, they are participating in a market system in which the sovereign people have decided on certain parameters. Without utilizing a legal voice they have, in fact, lowered the standards that the sovereign people have set.

We can argue that a true market sets its own standards. However, a sovereign people have decided, collectively, to set artificial boundaries on those standards be it wages, time worked, benefits, working conditions, etc. By exercising a voice through the participation in the market those who chose not to play by those rules change the rules.

Thanks for the A.O. Hirschman pointer. How little I know - when it comes to philosophy, it pretty much has all been done.

A priori I don't think one can say voice or exit is the more powerful. I think they clearly complement one another as well as function as substitutes.

Exit is much more powerful than voice. It's easy to move to another city and only a bit more difficult to move to another state. It's harder to move to another country, but easier than it was 50 years ago, given the decreasing cost of airline flights.

The USA is unlikely to change political policies. The government will continue to incur debt, even though it cannot be repaid, and no amount of voting or letters to your congressman or the President is likely to change policies. However, when people emigrate, government revenues will decrease and that will attract the attention of legislators.

Imagine living with a responsible government like Hong Kong, in a Mediterranean climate like California.Chile offers a combination of pleasant climate and fewer government burdens than many others. If you’re ready to shed the debt your government has imposed upon you, it is a good destination to consider:
http://brophyworld.com/move-to-santiago-chile/