I have much respect for Don Boudreaux and also regard Cafe Hayek as one of the best reads on my blogroll. His last two posts bothered me a little, though.
Firstly, although he rightly criticizes one Mr. Peter Ebnet for his illiberal notions of how Ireland should be, there are indeed some concerns of Ebnet's to which Boudreaux unfairly gives short shrift. Namely, the human concern of cultural identity, and its ties to language. There *is* something to lament about a culture losing its distinctive qualities, and a language that is dying. Of course, this is more of a concern to some, and less to others, while still others may be saying "good riddance" to Gaelic -- but I think that most reflective people would consider these things losses.
Secondly, discussing the positive externalities of childbearing and rearing, he agrees with Landsburg that "more people in a free society mean more resources and higher living standards". Noting that US immigrants have higher fertility rates than natives, he raises his glass to immigrants for granting him the positive externalities of their children. But this is surely too easy. Even just looking at a relatively simple issue, the prevalence of the Spanish language in the US and how its rise could result in negative externalities on some, it is clear that the issues are a bit more complex.
Culture matters to people. Rituals, songs, prayers, rhymes, poems, stories. And all of these things are done through and with language. Language matters to people. These are important subjective values that no one -- especially an economist aware of the doctrine of subjective value -- should ignore.
So, I reject Landsburg's (and Boudreaux's) claim that more people = better in any sort of unequivocal way. Who are they? How will they connect to my life, and to those I love? How will they affect the institutions about which I am concerned -- my language, the movies offered on the market, the policies of my force protection specialist/monopolists, the culture and world in which my children mature?
