A question about utilitarian libertarianism and about left libertarianism too, I guess: if progressive redistribution is okay at the national level, why not international? Isn’t the argument for redistribution much stronger internationally? And then there are so many people internationally who are so much worse off that if we did compel redistribution to help them first, we’d likely destitute ourselves before getting to our nearby locally-poor, who are of course globally-wealthy.
Yes, I agree it's stronger, at least in principle. In practice, though, I'd say that immigration liberalization is the best policy for helping the worst off in the world.
A question about utilitarian libertarianism and about left libertarianism too, I guess: if progressive redistribution is okay at the national level, why not international? Isn’t the argument for redistribution much stronger internationally? And then there are so many people internationally who are so much worse off that if we did compel redistribution to help them first, we’d likely destitute ourselves before getting to our nearby locally-poor, who are of course globally-wealthy.
Yes, I agree it's stronger, at least in principle. In practice, though, I'd say that immigration liberalization is the best policy for helping the worst off in the world.