User:APG2000/sandbox

** A note to reviewer: everything below is new content to be added to the article I am working on, Libertarian perspectives on immigration.

Libertarian proponents of restricted immigration
Libertarian theorist and economist Murray Rothbard approached the question of immigration through the lens of private property. In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard argued that private ownership of streets could provide a solution to the question of immigration: "The libertarian society would resolve the entire 'immigration question' within the matrix of absolute property rights. For people only have the right to move to those properties and lands where the owners desire to rent or sell to them. In the free society, they would, in first instance, have the right to travel only on those streets whose owners agree to have them there, and then to rent or buy housing from willing owners. Again, just as in the case of daily movement on streets, a diverse and varying pattern of access of migration would undoubtedly arise."Rothbard's views on immigration evolved later in his career, as he came to believe that viewing the question of immigration on the basis of an anarcho-capitalist model would not lend itself to unrestricted immigration:"If every piece of land in a country were owned by some person, group, or corporation, this would mean that no immigrant could enter there unless invited to enter and allowed to rent, or purchase, property. A totally privatized country would be as 'closed' as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors."

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a student of Rothbard and another influential libertarian thinker and economist, is well known for his criticism of unrestricted immigration. He argues that one is not intellectually inconsistent in opposing open borders while at the same time supporting free trade: [I]t must be emphasized that not even the most restrictive immigration policy or the most exclusive form of segregationism has anything to do with a rejection of free trade and the adoption of protectionism. From the fact that one does not want to associate with or live in the neighborhood composed of Mexicans, Haitians, Chinese, Koreans, Germans, Catholics, Moslems, Hindus, etc., it does not follow that one does not want to trade with them from a distance [...] It is precisely the absolute voluntariness of human association and separation — the absence of any form of forced integration — which makes peaceful relationships — free trade—between racially, ethnically, linguistically, religiously, or culturally distinct people possible. In Hoppe's view, free trade always implies a willing buyer and a willing seller. This is not the case with immigration, where immigrants can move on public roads of their own volition and on public roads to places where they are not necessarily welcome, amounting to forced integration. Moreover, Hoppe stresses that the current situation in the Western democracies has made the situation even more dire, as the large welfare states in these countries implies that mass immigration would lead to economic devastation.

Hoppe agrees with Rothbard that the ultimate solution to the problem of immigration must be the abolition of government and privatization of all property, including the roads by which immigrants enter a nation and move about within it. This implies that every immigrant will be received by a willing property owner, thus making forced integration impossible. With regards to the anarcho-capitalist model, Hoppe says "Clearly, under this scenario there exists no such thing as freedom of immigration. Rather, there exists the freedom of many independent private property owners to admit or exclude others from their own property in accordance with their own unrestricted or restricted property titles [...] There will be as much immigration or non-immigration, inclusivity or exclusivity, desegregation or segregation, non-discrimination or discrimination based on racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural or whatever other grounds as individual owners or associations of individual owners allow."However, given that the current situation of democratic welfare states does not approximate the anarcho-capitalist ideal, Hoppe thinks there are policies democratic governments should adopt in order to protect the lives and properties of their citizens.

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Randy Barnett
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Barnett is a legal scholar and author who has been covered in some of the classes I've taken at UAlbany. I've also read some of his works on my own and have found him to be quite influential on my thinking.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The article has a somewhat concise introductory sentence - it is very brief, stating only that "Randy Evan Barnett (born February 5, 1952) is an American legal scholar and lawyer." I could envision it saying in addition to this "...who has appeared multiple times before the Supreme Court and has written several books on constitutional theory and history. All descriptions of major sections are included, and nothing appears that is not present in the article. I think, overall, it's sufficiently concise: it describes Barnett's biography and his major academic contributions.

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content appears directly relevant to the topic - it focuses exclusively on Barnett's life and work. It seems a little unbalanced in certain spots, however. It devotes a ton of space to one of Barnett's projects, the "Bill of Federalism", of which I was not even aware before engaging with this article. It does not engage to nearly the same extent some of Barnett's other work outside of constitutional theory, which strikes me as just as important. This might just be subjective and nit-picky on my part, however. In terms of it being up to date, it's not perfect. One thing that sticks out to me is that it does not include in the bibliography Barnett's latest book, "An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know", which came out in 2019. This would be something that I'd say the article is missing, along with some other articles Barnett has written which do not appear in the bibliography section. Especially given that "Contract theory" is one of the article's headings, I think it should include some of Barnett's work on this.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is basically neutral; the criticism section, however, is pretty sparse, mentioning criticism from only one other fellow libertarian theorist. I would be surprised if there was not some criticism from the Left out there which could be included in this section, which might make it a little more balanced overall. Nothing that is written appears heavily biased towards one particular section, but I think some of what is omitted could reasonably give an impression of bias. Including criticism from elsewhere might give the article a more rounded appearance.

Even given this, I don't think the article appears to persuade the reader in favor of any particular position. It presents Barnett's ideas in as neutral a fashion as can be expected.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Not all facts are backed up. The section on "Contract theory" does not cite any of Barnett's articles when referencing his views. Neither does the article cite any sources when it comes to Barnett's family info - though I'm not sure as though there would really be anything out there about this, or that a citation is even really that essential here.

The sources that the article does provide, though, seem to address a sufficiently wide range of literature. Again, given that this is an article about an individual, we might expect that the truth of a good deal of the information isn't contested. The sources aren't very current; I don't see much from the past 10 years. However, I'm not sure as though this is really a problem, as this is a page about an individual, not a topic on which new literature is being produced with frequency - say, a cutting edge scientific topic.

All the links appear functional - I clicked on ten or so.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

I think the article is well-written - there isn't any language that particularly confused me, and I like how the author(s) wove in block quotes at several strategic points. No grammatical or spelling errors. In terms of organization, it makes quite a long discursion into a topic that I wouldn't have expected, but I don't know as though this really detracts from the article as a whole. At worst, it draws some attention away from the other topics, but the relative importance of these topics is open for debate.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are no images included in the article, besides a picture of Barnett himself. I can think of a few that might be inserted and would enhance the article: a picture of the cover of one of Barnett's books, or a picture of Barnett outside the Supreme Court (I recall my professor showing us this image two semesters ago.) The one image that is included is not captioned with the year it is from, and to be honest, it looks a little outdated. This image seems to adhere to copyright rules, as clicking on it reveals that it comes from the Wikimedia Commons.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

Three things stuck out from the talk pages. First, one person was quite frank: "This guy is not *that* important to warrant an article of this length and depth. This reeks of self-promotion." I don't know as though I entirely agree with this; it doesn't appear to be that much longer than other articles talking about people of similar academic stature.

Second, someone wrote concerning the balance of the article that it is "also VERY one sided....there is ONLY a discussion of libertarian vs federalist/conservative....inside baseball stuff." I would have to agree with this; there is no mention of libertarian versus left. Whatever the authors of the articles think of the merits of that side, I think it would be useful to contextualize some of Barnett's ideas within a wider landscape.

Third, someone argued that the section on the Bill of Federalism deserved its own article. I would probably agree with this as well - I mentioned earlier in this post that its length seemed kind of out of place.

The article seems to indicate that it is part of a series on "Libertarianism in the United States." I found it through a WikiProject search of libertarian legal theorists.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

I think the article overall is sufficient for what it needs to do - namely, give background on an academic who works mainly on libertarian legal theory and constitutional jurisprudence. I think it could be improved by beefing up Barnett's bibliography a little bit, along with rounding out the criticism section, and perhaps also by trimming down one of the lengthy sections in the middle that appears to go too in depth on one particular project of Barnett.

Optional activity[edit]

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Randy Barnett

I added the heading titled "Bibliography?"

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title: Libertarian perspectives on immigration
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is of "Low" importance and of "Start" quality in the Libertarianism WikiProject. I select it as a possibility since it is a relatively niche topic about which I have some knowledge from reading various different authors. My major is philosophy, which covers a wide range of topics, and the libertarian debates around immigration draw heavily on philosophical arguments from different sides. As it stands, the article is pretty sparsely filled in and I think I could supplement it with the viewpoints of at least a few different authors. It also covers only one side of the debate, namely, the pro-immigration, which leaves the article quite unbalanced. I think I could fill it in more with views from the other side, and possibly supplement the first side as well.
 * This article is of "Low" importance and of "Start" quality in the Libertarianism WikiProject. I select it as a possibility since it is a relatively niche topic about which I have some knowledge from reading various different authors. My major is philosophy, which covers a wide range of topics, and the libertarian debates around immigration draw heavily on philosophical arguments from different sides. As it stands, the article is pretty sparsely filled in and I think I could supplement it with the viewpoints of at least a few different authors. It also covers only one side of the debate, namely, the pro-immigration, which leaves the article quite unbalanced. I think I could fill it in more with views from the other side, and possibly supplement the first side as well.


 * Sources
 * Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. “The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 1998, pp. 221–233. https://cdn.mises.org/13_2_8_0.pdf
 * Block, Walter. “A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, 1998, pp. 167–186.
 * https://cdn.mises.org/13_2_4_0.pdf

Option 2

 * Article title: Libertarian theories of law
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is again of "Mid" importance and "Start" quality in the same WikiProject. And again, I select it as a possibility since it is an area with which I am familiar through a lot of my own reading and draws heavily on philosophical argumentation. The article really only gives a barebones outline of some of the main ideas surrounding libertarian law, and references some important thinkers in the field. It doesn't really give any substantive attention to any particular theory of libertarian law, which is quite a diverse and rich topic. I think I could fill this article in by at least providing some actual details about different theories. (Though I do wonder as to whether this would seem narrow or biased, given that there are so many out there, and attention given to any particular theorist's views would have to neglect many others.
 * This article is again of "Mid" importance and "Start" quality in the same WikiProject. And again, I select it as a possibility since it is an area with which I am familiar through a lot of my own reading and draws heavily on philosophical argumentation. The article really only gives a barebones outline of some of the main ideas surrounding libertarian law, and references some important thinkers in the field. It doesn't really give any substantive attention to any particular theory of libertarian law, which is quite a diverse and rich topic. I think I could fill this article in by at least providing some actual details about different theories. (Though I do wonder as to whether this would seem narrow or biased, given that there are so many out there, and attention given to any particular theorist's views would have to neglect many others.

Sources

Barnett, Randy E. The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule Of Law. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Rothbard, Murray N. The Ethics of Liberty. New York University Press, 2014. https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Ethics%20of%20Liberty%2020191108.pdf

Option 3

 * Article title: Interventionism (book)
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article does not exist yet. It is a book by economist Ludwig von Mises that I have read and I think might be worthy of its own article. Books of similar status by Mises already have their own article (Liberalism (book), Omnipotent Government), which makes me think that Interventionism might deserve its own article as well. I'm not quite sure what the criteria are for creating an article about a book. Is there a certain metric to determine sufficient notability, or is it totally subjective? My intuition says that Interventionism is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant its own article.
 * This article does not exist yet. It is a book by economist Ludwig von Mises that I have read and I think might be worthy of its own article. Books of similar status by Mises already have their own article (Liberalism (book), Omnipotent Government), which makes me think that Interventionism might deserve its own article as well. I'm not quite sure what the criteria are for creating an article about a book. Is there a certain metric to determine sufficient notability, or is it totally subjective? My intuition says that Interventionism is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant its own article.


 * Sources
 * Von Mises, Ludwig. Interventionism: An Economic Analysis. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2011. https://cdn.mises.org/Critique%20of%20Interventionism,%20A_3.pdf

(Is it necessary to find other sources mentioning the book? The only reviews I can find of it don't seem to be of a scholarly character. See: https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/book-review-critique-interventionism/ )

Libertarian proponents of restricted immigration
Libertarian theorist and economist Murray Rothbard approached the question of immigration through the lens of private property. In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard argued that the question of immigration could be adequately resolved within a libertarian society, were all streets and land would be privately owned. Immigration would be permitted and encouraged to the extent that there were property owners willing to receive immigrants and allow them to travel on their private roads. Rothbard believed this would lead to a varied arrangement of migration, reflecting the attitudes and desires of property owners in a given area.

Rothbard's views on immigration evolved later in his career, as he argued more pointedly that the anarcho-capitalist model would not lend itself to unrestricted immigration. He argued that policies of open immigration enforced by the state are antithetical to liberty:"'A totally privatized country would be as 'closed' as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.'" Hans-Hermann Hoppe, a student of Rothbard and another influential libertarian thinker and economist, is well known for his criticism of unrestricted immigration. He argues that there is no inconsistency in advocating for free trade of good while at the same time arguing for policies of restricted immigration. In his view, free trade always implies a willing buyer and a willing seller. This is not the case with immigration, where immigrants can move on public roads of their own volition and on public roads to places where they are not necessarily welcome, amounting to forced integration. As Hoppe states, "It is precisely the absolute voluntariness of human association and separation—the absence of any form of forced integration—which makes peaceful relationships —free trade—between racially, ethnically, linguistically, religiously, or culturally distinct people possible."

Moreover, Hoppe stresses that the political climate in the Western democracies has made the situation even more dire, as the welfare policies of these countries imply that immigration will lead to economic devastation. Hoppe agrees with Rothbard that the ultimate solution to the problem of immigration must be the abolition of government and privatization of all property, including the roads by which immigrants enter a nation and move about within it. This implies that every immigrant will be received by a willing property owner, thus making forced integration impossible. With regards to the anarcho-capitalist model, Hoppe says"Clearly, under this scenario there exists no such thing as freedom of immigration. Rather, there exists the freedom of many independent private property owners to admit or exclude others from their own property in accordance with their own unrestricted or restricted property titles [...] There will be as much immigration or non-immigration, inclusivity or exclusivity, desegregation or segregation, non-discrimination or discrimination based on racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural or whatever other grounds as individual owners or associations of individual owners allow."Even if the current situation of democratic central states does not approximate the anarcho-capitalist ideal, Hoppe still thinks that one can still advocate for policies that align more closely with libertarianism. He holds that democratic rulers should set policies as though they owned personally the territory over which they preside. This entails strong discrimination along the lines of "skill, character, and cultural compatibility" as the rulers try to maximize the value of their territory. Further, as Hoppe says, this model entails "requiring as necessary, for resident alien status as well as for citizenship, the personal sponsorship by a resident citizen and his assumption of liability for all property damage caused by the immigrant."

Additions to the section "Libertarian proponents of free immigration"
Economist and libertarian theorist Walter Block argues that restrictions on immigration are incompatible with libertarianism. In his view, state-enforced national boundaries are entirely arbitrary and can therefore provide no justification in restricting the movement of immigrants or emigrants. In accordance with libertarian principles, Block holds that immigration must be permitted insofar as it does not imply aggression. Where there is a property owner willing to take in an immigrant, third parties have no grounds for complaint.

Block further argues that the imperfect present conditions of state-imposed boundaries does not give license to libertarians to oppose open immigration. He holds that libertarians should not try to approximate what would be the case in a libertarian society, but should rather advocate those policies that accord directly with the non-aggression principle. This implies opposing state enforced immigration barriers and returning to property owners the right to decide who may or may not enter their territory. Block also holds that arguments to the effect that immigration would erode national institutions or culture are indefensible on libertarian grounds. If neither of these effects involve the physical invasion of property, then in Block's view, libertarians are unjustified in meeting peaceful immigrants with force.

Updated Lead
Original: "The libertarian perspective on immigration is often regarded as one of the core concepts of libertarian theory and philosophy. Some libertarians assert that "[e]fforts by the government to manage the labor market are as apt to fail as similar efforts to protect domestic industries or orchestrate industrial policy. [...] If an immigrant seeks to engage in peaceful, voluntary transactions that do not threaten the freedom or security of the native-born, the government should not interfere".

Updated: The libertarian perspective on immigration is often regarded as one of the core concepts of libertarian theory and philosophy. There is considerable disagreement among libertarians as to what stance towards immigration best accords with libertarian principles. Some hold that restrictions on immigration are constitute an infringement of the rights of immigrants and other property owners and constitute a threat to individual liberty. Others maintain that open borders amount to a policy of forced integration on the part of the state, and that protecting the rights of property holders requires that present governments adopt much more discriminatory policies on who is allowed to enter a country.

Review
I think that this article is a very concise and composed summary of the very specific topic of libertarianism on immigration This wiki article seems to have a very basic structure of going back and forth between quotes and a brief explanation of them and how they relate to the topic. The reasons that this is a good review are because it cites reliable sources to improve credibility, and the summary of the topic is mostly unbiased, which is important. Hans Hermann Hoppe is a reliable source because he’s an experienced economist and paleolibertarian anarcho-capitalists philosopher. Walter Block is another economist and anti-capitalist theorist. The sources are reliable and back up the claims made. More neutral evidence and background knowledge of the topic can be more distributed within your writing.

Peer Review Response
Below is a list of suggestions from my peer reviewers and my responses to them.


 * 17lpratt suggested that the lead of the page I am working on, Libertarian perspectives on immigration, be updated to reflect the broader range of content that I will be including in the article. I think this is an important suggestion and one that I might not have remembered. I will now be sure to update the lead to reflect the content that I will adding to the article.
 * 17lpratt also suggests that I use less quotations in the content that I will be adding to the article. I think that this suggestion is very apt as well. Looking back on what I had originally, written, it was very quotation heavy. From what I gather, quotations are not necessarily bad in Wikipedia, but the object seems to be more one of describing the views of others in their own words. I think I will trim down some of the quotations in my draft and put the views of those I am covering into my own words, while still being sure to cite to the relevant sources.
 * 17lpratt suggests that I include some perspectives from from critics of libertarian perspectives on immigration so as to make the article more balanced overall. Partially, I think this will be covered by the very structure of the article as it will stand after my additions. The two main sides of the issue - those supporting immigration on libertarian grounds and those rejecting it - criticize each other. But I think the suggestion here might be to include the perspectives of non-libertarians. While this does make sense, I'm not sure that it is germane to the topic of the article, since it is explicitly about libertarian perspectives on immigration. The place for criticisms of these views might be in a broader article on theories/perspectives on immigration, but insofar as this article is concerned, I think the focus should be more narrowly on libertarian views and how they compare/contrast.
 * A WCI student suggested that more neutral evidence and background knowledge can be distributed within my writing. This suggestion is pretty vague and I'm not sure what to do with it. My evidence can't be entirely neutral given that I am covering perspectives on immigration that are partial by nature. Perhaps I could include background info on the libertarian theories that inform the perspectives on immigration that I cover. But I think this comes through already in my coverage of the views themselves, and going any deeper might take the reader too far afield from the topic of the article itself.