What we didn’t do in Gstaad:
What we did do:
Nestled among Alpine foothills, the village of Gstaad has gorgeous, classically Swiss views. From our (southern) side of the village, the Eggli rises in the right foreground and the Wispile in the left, and our view extends along the valley toward Gsteig. On a slightly clearer day, the Oldenhorn would be visible beyond, perhaps along with Les Diablerets. Sturdy old wooden chalets, with meticulous ornamentation and red tile roofs, dot the verdant hills, with bright shutters and overflowing flowerboxes glossing their upper stories.
The Promenade of the village, just the other side of the River Saane, is far too posh to be kitschy. To the life-size, bronze and steel animal sculptures that are ubiquitous here, I far prefer the real things, which played me a cowbell symphony on my run this morning. Tasty fresh vegetables are hard to come by– presumably because everyone here is wise enough to save their stomachs for local bread and cheese. (Every town justly takes pride in its own smelly mountains.)
On an equally happy side note, our entry point to the region yesterday was Spiez, from where we saw dozens of sailboats rightly gliding in the unseasonably warm, Indian summer afternoon, outward into the blue.
“I’ll tell you now, quiet. In a bitter night, a mustard night that was last night, a good thought came and the dark was sweetened when the day sat down. And this thought went from evening star to the late dipper on the edge of the first light–that our betters spoke of. So I invite myself.” –Samuel Hamilton
I support the fundamental principle of “one person, one vote,” and I interpret the common voting age of 18 in most democracies as contravention of this principle. To sustain the principle, the voting age must be zero: newborn babies (assuming they have citizenship) ought to emerge into the cares and wonders of the world with the right to a vote.
This proposal is far more radical than some recent discussion about incrementally reducing the voting age. It deliberately ignores questions of “competence” and “maturity” that are sometimes bandied when mulling criteria for franchisement.
Of course, we can’t have two-year olds bounding into voting booths alone and scribbling all over their ballots, just saying “no” to all the candidates. Rather, to make this work, the trick would be to assume that kids’ guardians will share in the exercise of this right to a vote initially; and to devise rules governing when and how kids could exercise it with additional levels of autonomy.
To my mind, having parents exercise the right on their kids’ behalf would be just fine: who better to look after the kids’ interests? Why shouldn’t those interests be looked after at the ballot box?
The rules would explain what assistance could be offered, how, and when, with the intent of preventing uncertainty or open conflict between child and guardian about whether to vote and who to vote for.
Note that many practical rules already exist regarding voting assistance for the elderly and disabled. I would favor modifying those rules, too, to ensure that their right to a vote is never rescinded, but see them as a possible source.
I’ve obviously set aside, for the purposes of this discussion, the question of whether people should bother to vote at all.
People are people, and I love them all. But today and historically, some collections of people have been described as “civilizations,” and some time ago (okay, okay, while hiking through beautiful scenery from friendly but rough village to friendly but rough town, craving a hot, clean shower and a net connection) I began to ponder what this word meant.
I concluded that, for me, the defining features of a civilization are persistent traditions and bodies of knowledge, of exactly the sort that are maintained, preserved, and shared in recognizable libraries.
Aligned with this earlier post, and in much more detail, Lant Pritchett’s new book, Let Their People Come: Breaking the Gridlock on Global Labor Mobility, advocates huge expansion in the freedom for people to move across national borders to opportunities.
From the Inundation Department. Sitting in a coffee shop one afternoon, I saw a young woman feeding her infant inattentively while she chatted away with a gaggle of friends. Meanwhile, the six-month-old was waving her hands and feet in what I took to be furious indications of satiation. Lying on her back in her stroller, bottle propelled into her mouth, I could only imagine her sense of desperation.
Missing from the recent immigration debate, and crucial to its wise resolution, is a coherent view of any long-term objective of reform of immigration rules. To wit, I propose one such objective:
In one century all nations should have open borders.
Freedom, Justice, and Economics provide three independent rationales for this position.
Limitations on movement directly compromise freedom. If someone wants to move to a new country, immigration rules generally should not prevent the implementation of that free choice. And people do want to move, for reasons including rejoining family members, fleeing persecution and war, and pursuing economic opportunities. Quotas turn away applicants arbitrarily, limiting the freedom of potential pioneers and pilgrims.
Justice could be enhanced by opening borders because the location in the world of someone’s birth should not determine his or her fortune in life. More specifically, cross-country inequality and inequality of opportunity are enormous, and it would be just to allow people to migrate through the golden door.
Economic arguments tend to support free movement of the factors of production. Immigration restrictions prevent labor from moving freely to the places where it can efficiently be employed. Immigration generally raises average income among the original population of countries that receive immigrants; and presumably the migrants would themselves be “better off,” evidenced by their free choices to venture abroad. Economists have been irresponsible in strongly advocating free movement of capital while keeping quiet about the economic benefits of allowing free movement of people.
So, principles of freedom, justice, and economics all suggest that, at least in the long run, people should be able to move wherever they want in the world. In the short run, I see no inherent problem with temporary holds for security checks; strategies for anticipating and mitigating possible cultural clashes; techniques for ensuring that existing populations can protect community standards; and other ways to promote smooth integration of migrants and the countries that welcome them. However, the aspiration should be that we all have much to gain from immigration: much to learn about the world, and much to trade with each other. Looking toward to a century of policymaking with the objective of open borders in mind, we can chart a smooth path to that world of greater freedom, justice, and prosperity.
