*Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom*

That is the new, forthcoming book by my colleague Ilya Somin, due out in May.  It is the best book on geographic mobility and exit that has been written to date, and thus I am happy to recommend it heartily.

Here Ilya provides basic information about the book.  Here you can pre-order it on Amazon.


If she doesn't mention TIEBOUT at least once, then it's like not mentioning PATENTS in a publication about encouraging technology (which, incredibly, often happens actually).

I do in fact mention Tiebout several times, though many of them explain why my theory differs from his, and addresses a lot of issues he either did not cover or only discussed briefly. FWIW, my very first article on international freedom of movement is in fact entitled "Tiebout Goes Global." So I don't think I can easily be accused of ignoring his contributions: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3535767

You beat me to being first poster, by a millisecond. But, using my "Thanos" like powers, I predict, I will, I demand, that you be deleted. And you will be!

Bonus trivia: Thanos means "death" in Greek.

I will be because Tyler is a whiny beta-cuck.

I'd be delighted if he'd emigrate and take a mess of Mercatus types with him.

From abroad they could still run this blog for you to show up to complain about.

Talk about derangement syndrome. Yikes.

Interesting to find out whether he also includes any recent cases of citizens losing their right concerning mobility and exit.

So, basically, another Paen to Open Borders.

I did buy and read Caplan's Open Borders book. It suffered for not taking the criticism's of Open Borders seriously. For the most part, it just blew off criticisms with short answers and maybe citing a single study. But to be fair, it was a comic book. ;)

I think I read that the original title was "All Roads Lead to Open Borders," which, if you think about it, could easily be interpreted as an announcement that the author is not persuadable on the subject he chose to write about and is therefore unlikely to seriously consider counter-arguments.

I read it as a paean to white flight.

Isn't Ilya "excellent"? How insulting.

Mr. certainly uses search marketing, for context, Mr. Cowan uses first and last search blasting, but leaves the content in the middle. And, Mr. Tabborak provides timely content marketing, often with whole page takeovers. Its evidence of advertising but for what? Definitely not spaceships to Mars. I suspect it's something more token, a timely register that synchs location and place data for the characters that fictionalize their account.

Exit rights are important. The right to exclude is important as well.

Honestly, it's high time other countries grew up and made their own places great again.

political ads that target and regulatory capture are like beating a dead horse, or attempting to feed a dead horse, why do it? Exclusion is far more powerful. It's once again those that are out of political race that are most important, and yet the political system finds immense dead weight loss in that category. It is more powerful to negate the ad, and find something blue.

really, don't lose a fight to me, I wont lose, don't poke me don't bait me and I don't bluff. all you assholes who died during Obama and all of you feeling better this last year will miss me not fighting back

all of you got it coming

“ all of you feeling better this last year will miss me not fighting back

all of you got it coming”

Is that you, Mitt Romney?

The regular ballot box voting system isn’t sufficiently empowering, according to Ilya Somin, and “voting with your feet” is a better metric.

So here’s a proposal: let recent and new immigrants’ votes count for double. After all, they have shown their commitment!

Why don’t we try it with a piddling number of immigrants first, say 10-15 million a year? Then once it is proven to work, we can expand it to Somin’s ideal number.

"People can vote with their feet through international migration, by choosing where to live within a federal system, and by making decisions in the private sector."

So, voter fraud is a good thing?

He must now be at the top of Trump and Miller's enemies of the state.

It seems hard to understand how people from outside a country can have a right to come and live in that country and yet the citizen-owners of that country have no right to say "No" to them.

It is a self-evident fact that if we allowed anybody in the world who wants to come here that we'd quickly be overwhelmed by tens of millions of people trying to do exactly that.

Open borders for the US is not a good idea. It may be "fair" to outsiders but it is not good for us.

Yes, the enthusiasm of the applicants for a national Darwin Award is ... remarkable.

'citizen-owners'... but that's not who runs the show.

'It seems hard to understand how people from outside a country can have a right to come and live in that country and yet the citizen-owners of that country have no right to say "No" to them.'

Welcome to being an EU citizen. And the English agree with your perspective, as they have decided that all UK citizens are no longer EU citizens, thus losing the right to work and live anywhere in the EU.

Citizen-owner indeed. We need to develop the concept of societal property rights. The institutions, mores, and behavior of a society aren't some free good that falls out of the sky. We shouldn't allow free-riders to grift off of it (and destroy it). What kind of monster would demand Japan allow 20,000,000 third-worlders in against the will of the citizens?

Borders are already open. If you are wealthy. A person with $50,000,000 can live in just about any nation they choose. Borders and taxes are for poor people. And if your sustenance depends on your job, no matter how high your income, you are poor.

A lot of people in First World countries who think immigration is always a good for First World countries. Note that these people feel sure that their own lives will not be negatively affected by immigration. Why they feel limitless immigration will never impose limits on them is an open question.

Is this about declining US internal mobility? Americans move much less often than they used to. There seems to be a fixed gradient of opportunity with movement limited by the high cost of living in areas with more opportunities. Moving within the US no longer pays off the way it used to.

Moving to the US is another matter. Of course, there is an equilibrium here too, though we haven't reached it yet.

The people I know who are 35 or younger move or have moved frequently. They have little tying them down, and not much stuff to move. (People like me, who have lived in the same residence for 20+ years, wouldn't even think of moving.) And there are cultural factors: what Upper West Sider would think of moving to the Upper East Side, even when the UES is now, quite scandalously, cheaper?

There really hasn't been any point to the UES since Jackie O. died.

"It is the best book on geographic mobility and exit that has been written to date."

But is it as well-illustrated as Caplan/Weinersmith's Open Borders?

I take it the book spends a lot of time on the issue of the right to exclude? If you want people to accept that everyone else has a right to move to their country, you have to embrace them having the right to exclude those new immigrants from their businesses, homes, schools, communities...

Which is to say, open external borders require a commitment to closed internal borders.

No, I don't think the book talks about exclusion at all. According to one of the writeups about the book at the link above, "Ilya Somin brilliantly and accessibly points to the central, additional role of voting with your feet—moving to a place with better policy—in protecting liberty." The focus is on the right of people to move anywhere they want and why they should be able to do that. The author intends to donate 50% of the book's proceeds to refugee organizations.

As a receiver of immigrants voting with their feet the US obviously is to have no say at all on any of this.

Comments for this post are closed