Chris Berg tries to shame the Unions, commenting:

[edit]But the White Australia policy was led by a union movement trying to eliminate competition in the labour market. This is an awkward truth.[/edit]

True enough. And the result was the highest wages in the world, very progressive welfare policies and unprecedented period of social peace, lasting from 1900 through to the seventies. So much so that pre-Vietnam War Australia was called "working man's paradise". But apparently that is all a shameful dark history because there was no free trade or open borders.

Berg asks:


Quote:

On what moral basis is limiting immigration to protect workers from competition a good thing, as was proposed by unions at the start of the financial crisis.

Perhaps because these men have families here whereas foreigners don't. Someone has to look after them. The fact that baggage handlers can sometimes earn $80,000 pa (on overtime, night shift) is a cause of particular outrage. Imagine unskilled workers earning a good middle class income!

Berg also notes:


Quote:

Surely Australians are no more deserving of jobs than people from China, Japan or Singapore. Economic nationalism implies natives are worth more than foreigners.

Yes, it does. Just as economic "corporation-ism" implies own company stock is worth more to their shareholders than it is to non-shareholders, with company policies crafted accordingly. And likewise economic familyism is justified, with family members getting a preferred share of the household assets, as opposed to some random guy in the street.

isteve.blogspot.com/2011/11/libertarians-and-first-person-plural.html