There is no right to privacy; none at all. It is not a negative right, all of which are supported by libertarian theory; e.g., the right not to be molested, murdered, raped, etc. Rather, the so called right to privacy is a so called “positive right,” as in the “right” to food, clothing, shelter, welfare, etc. That is, it is no right at all; rather the “right” to privacy is an aspect of wealth. As Murray N. Rothbard (The Ethics of Liberty, chapter 16) made clear, there is only a right to private property, not privacy:

 It might, however, be charged that Smith does not have the right to print such a statement, because Jones has a “right to privacy” (his “human” right) which Smith does not have the right to violate. But is there really such a right to privacy? How can there be? How can there be a right to prevent Smith by force from disseminating knowledge which he possesses? Surely there can be no such right. Smith owns his own body and therefore has the property right to own the knowledge he has inside his head, including his knowledge about Jones. And therefore he has the corollary right to print and disseminate that knowledge. In short, as in the case of the “human right” to free speech, there is no such thing as a right to privacy except the right to protect one’s property from invasion. The only right “to privacy” is the right to protect one’s property from being invaded by someone else. In brief, no one has the right to burgle someone else’s home, or to wiretap someone’s phone lines. Wiretapping is properly a crime not because of some vague and woolly “invasion of a ‘right to privacy’,” but because it is an invasion of the property right of the person being wiretapped.

The government, of course, has no right to invade our privacy, since it has no rights at all. It should not exist. Period.  It is an illegitimate institution, since it initiates violence against innocent people. Therefore, it can have no right to do anything. Anything.  A forteriori, the state has no right to privacy, either. And this for two reasons. First, is has no rights of any kind, since it is an illicit institution. Therefore, it cannot have any privacy “rights.” Second, even if it did have some rights, it could not possibly have a right to privacy, since there is and can be no such thing. As a corollary, we need pay no attention to its “secret” classifications, apart of course from pragmatic or utilitarian considerations: Edward Snowden’s personal life has been threatened by these criminals; this evil institution still has a lot of power. But as a matter of deontology, we are free to ignore statist “secret” classifications.

But suppose a private individual were to invade our privacy without violating our private property rights. Would he have a right to do that? Yes, at least insofar as I understand the libertarian perspective. The paparazzi have a right to take pictures of movie stars, professional athletes, without permission, provided only they do not violate private property rights. If the streets and sidewalks were privately owned (I make a case for that in this book, The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors; Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute; available for free here), their owners would presumably supply an environment desired by customers. If they wanted to attract famous camera-shy people to their property, it is to be expected that they would protect them from the shutterbugs.  If not, not. The market would determine these sorts of things. In a forthcoming book in my Defending the Undefendable series, the first of which is available for free here, I shall be devoting a chapter to the Peeping Tom who looks at people who would prefer not to be seen. For a more scholarly treatment of this issue, I recommend the following article: Block, Walter, Stephan Kinsella and Roy Whitehead. 2006. “The duty to defend advertising injuries caused by junk faxes: an analysis of privacy, spam, detection and blackmail.” Whittier Law Review, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 925-949.

All men of good will owe a great debt of gratitude to those who told truth to power, preeminently Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg. When and if the present rash of statist murder ever ceases they are the people who will have done more than pretty much anyone else to stop it. We must all take our hats off to them. However, to claim that there is a right to privacy is to misunderstand the libertarian philosophy, the last best hope for our prosperity, and even the very survival of mankind. It does us our movement no good to mischaracterize libertarianism in this very proper libertarian outpouring of appreciation for these whistle-blowers who very properly denigrated and exposed governmental attacks on our privacy. The state should not reduce our privacy. The state should not be doing much of anything at all.  But private incursions into privacy, as long as achieved without private property rights violations, are licit under libertarian law.

Privacy is a benefit, not a right. It is a benefit that the market, when and if it is freed, will confer on those of us who wish it.

According to the official White House website, the end goal of schooling is to “help restore middle-class security.” Such a stance is a surprisingly honest one in a political environment built on deceit. The Obama administration makes no attempt to hide the fact that mandatory public schooling is a state tool for manipulating class structure. This is both a historical and economic fact.

Modern American schooling stems from two sources. First the Prussian school system which was used by the Nazis to limit and control legal access to information while psychologically training students in order to promote fascist ideology. The second is the free state-run schools which were an important part of the caste-structure that has existed in India for thousands of years. Here, the menial and “untouchable” classes, approximately 95 percent of the population, were subject to the rule of the Hindu Brahmin priest (Gatto 39). Each class had its own forms of education, all of them placing an emphasis on “truth,” which referred to the superiority of the Brahmin priest and the proper subservient role of the student in society.

The core principle of education for the two lowest classes in India, was ignorance. By filling up the free time of children with repetitive tasks of little educational value, students were transformed into thoughtless followers of the Brahmin. One would believe such a process would drive away any man of God who sought to help children, but such was not the case with Anglican missionary Andrew Bell who was able to see the “good” in what he referred to as the Madras system of education. In 1790 he wrote, “In every instance under my observation in this kingdom, and in every report with which my brethren have honored me of the effects produced by the Madras System in their parishes, the improvement in the subordination, orderly conduct, and general behavior of the children, has been particularly noticed, and must be regarded as infinitely the most valuable feature of its character” (Bell 10).

Bell enthusiastically took over the Hindu schools and adapted them to raise impoverished children into loyal subjects of the Anglican Church. In 1797 he opened up the Aldgate Charity School in England. In his own words, “Its ultimate object, the ultimate object or end of all education, is to make … good subjects …” (Bell 7). He was heavily influenced by the zeitgeist that it was God’s will that the impoverished remain in their present state of existence.

Joseph Lancaster, a Quaker in London, took what was once a systematic approach to subjugating peasants and turned it into a method of affordably teaching thousands of students, from his own home no less, so as to empower them to rise to a greater glory. Lancaster’s school did not last long before it attracted the attention of Bell, who saw his philosophy of pedagogy being defiled by the Quaker. Quickly, King George III began funding Lancaster’s school, and with it began regulating curriculum by requiring that students learn the Bible (Gatto 41-42). In 1807 Bell contested the perversion of his system and, with the support of the Anglican Church, replaced Lancaster’s school with his own. However, with Lancaster’s school being more popular than the Aldgate Charity School, it was his name and not Bell’s that came to define the Anglican version of the Indian Madras system.

Amid fears of non-Anglican values destroying the newly formed republic of the United States, English-Americans adopted Lancaster and Prussian schooling (Liggio and Peden). Today the English traditions that go back over a century in America continue to promote inequality. The main purpose of school in an industrialized economy is to signal productivity to employers. Government funding of education whether by public, charter, or private voucher schools incentivizes students seeking a competitive edge to spend more time in school. For the middle and lower classes the results are greater economic inefficiency. Middle class students who may have otherwise obtained only a high school degree, now must deplete more savings or go into debt to get a college degree that signals the same amount of productivity. For the poor the results are even worse. They must spend more time in school to signal that they are capable of higher productivity. The high opportunity cost of going through school keeps low-income students from being able to afford to display their productivity, limiting them to lower paying jobs.

Government schools serve to both mentally and economically restrict students and history makes it clear that is what they were designed for.

This op ed is a shortened version of the following refereed journal article: Jordan Reel and Walter E. Block, 2012. “Public Education: Who is it for?” The Scientific Journal of Humanistic Studies, Vol. 7, No. 4, October, pp. 66-72; this article may be found here, or here. All cites to the present article may be found there.

The Best of Walter Block

Pretty much any law school worthy of its bias toward left-liberalism and socialism has a clinic dedicated to fighting poverty, to promoting welfare rights, opposing gender and racial discrimination, advocating socialized medicine, tenants’ rights, countering the death penalty, etc. But now there is something new under the sun in this realm of legal education: a conservative legal clinic at the Stanford University Law School of all places, bastion of “progressive” thinking (apart from its Hoover Institute).

What, pray tell, will be the mission of this Religious Liberty Clinic? It is funded by a $1.6 million grant from the John Templeton Foundation, via the good offices of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. As such, it will be teaching its law students how to represent “Seventh-day Adventists who were fired by FedEx for refusing to work on Saturdays, a Jewish convert in prison whose request to be circumcised was rejected and a Muslim group that was told its plan to build a mosque violated land-use laws” (Bronner, 2013).

But do Seventh-day Adventists really have a right not to work on Saturdays as their religion requires, if their employers want to hire people to labor on that day? Of course not, at least not according to libertarian law. Forcing firms to make special arrangements to fulfill the religious sensibilities of some employees violate their rights of free association. Under this rubric, bosses cannot be prevented from engaging in voluntary labor contracts with whoever agrees to accept their offer, and that certainly includes working on the Sabbath whether for Seventh-day Adventists or Jews. Of course, if an employer makes special accommodations for religious minorities such as this, he is likely to be able to hire them at a lower wage than they would otherwise command. But then, presumably, this new conservative legal clinic would sue the company in question for pay discrimination.

Do converts to Judaism really have a right to circumcisions – paid for by other people? Certainly not, again, at least not on the basis of libertarian law. That would be a positive obligation, and libertarianism only recognizes negative rights. From the latter perspective the very purpose of prison is to ensure that the convict works at hard labor, the proceedings of which go to compensate the victim. Instead, it currently costs more than university tuition at prestigious institutions to house criminals. This is because instead of being compelled to work, they are coddled with air conditioning, psychological services, gymnasiums, color television, and forsooth, if Stanford’s Religious Liberty Clinic gets it way, free circumcisions at taxpayer expense. Thus, the target of the crime is victimized not once but twice. First by the criminal, and a second time by being forced to pay for his cozy existence, including these religious “rights.”

The institution of slavery has demonstrated that forced labor can be organized at a profit. While victimless “criminals,” those guilty of violating the law regarding pornography, prostitution, gambling, drugs, etc., should all be set free, forthwith, rapists and murderers and others of their vicious ilk should be in effect enslaved until they pay off their debts to their victims or heirs.

Yes, Muslim groups have a right to build mosques wherever they wish, provided only that this is on their own land. The Stanford clinic may well do some good in this one area. Posit, however, that this were a libertarian, not a conservative, undertaking. It would then attempt to repeal all land use laws such as zoning, rent control (landlords are prohibited from converting their property to condominiums), eminent domain, environmental, etc.

Curiously, the Stanford law group refuses to defend a Christian photographer who declines to take pictures for a homosexual wedding, and a religious employer who is unwilling to undertake health plans that make contraceptives available to employees. The reason appears to be that this Stanford group wants to focus on believers rather than governments. But the photographer and the contraceptive-refusing employer seem to fit that precise bill.

Perhaps on reflection there is not all that much new under the sun. Yes, conservatives at a law school or anywhere else in academia for that matter is certainly to be remarked upon, there are so few. But insofar as protecting liberties, true liberties as libertarians see them, there is nothing new here. So keep on moving citizen, there is nothing to be seen here.

A libertarian law clinic in sharp contrast to those of both the left and the right, would defend the “undefendable” (Block, 2008): those who wish to engage in discrimination on the basis of race, or sex, or age, or, indeed, anything else. Free association is the key here. It would sue in behalf of those guilty of economic “crimes,” such as practicing numerous professions without a license: hair braiders, teeth whiteners, gypsy cab drivers, and, yes, doctors, lawyers, dentists, veterinarians, etc., too. It would devote great efforts to freeing people guilty of victimless crimes, particularly regarding drug prohibition. A libertarian clinic at a law school would be a very different kind of creature. Where is campus diversity when we really need it?

This article originally appeared at Backbencher.

The Best of Walter Block

Why do I write, publish, engage in public speaking, teach at university, try to mentor young people? Why am I a hard working member of the Austro-libertarian movement? There are several reasons. Let me discuss them in the order of increasing importance to me.

a. To improve things

This is truly embarrassing, but my least important motivation is to improve things. Yes, I do want to improve the human condition. I am convinced that the way to do this is to promote free enterprise, Austrian economics and libertarianism. I want to leave the world a better place for those who come after me. Accordingly, I have tried to eliminate such monstrosities as the minimum wage, rent control, price ceilings and floors. I have attempted to promote the gold standard, laissez faire capitalism, and the thought of such mentors and idols of mine as Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises and Ron Paul. I fear that sometimes I have been in a rut in this regard. For example, I have attacked the minimum wage law on countless occasions, well, maybe, in over two dozen separate publications. Repetitive? Yes. There are only so many ways I can level my disgust at this pernicious legislation. But my thought is that as long as this disgrace is on the law books, it is fair game for attack. I look forward in future to pulverizing it again and again.

I have also tried to shed light on the issue of abortion, on blackmail law, and general libertarian theory, with my series of books entitled Defending the Undefendable (volume II is scheduled to appear soon, and I’m now working on III and IV). One of our greatest losses of life emanates from governmental ownership of roads and streets. Some 40,000 people have perished on U.S. highways on average in the last decade. My book on this subject is an attempt to save lives. And the same goes for markets in used body parts. These are illegal, so numerous people are forced to use kidney dialysis machines, and die while awaiting transplants, while perfectly good organs go into graves unused.

b. Twist noses

Another true confession, one that again does not place me exactly in a good light. I enjoy tweaking noses, the more pompous the better. Those most deserving of the back of my intellectual hand are scholars who really should know better. Paul Krugman comes to mind immediately. However, most of my ire has not been directed at lefties, liberals, socialists or “progressives” as they now like to call themselves, such as the Nobel Prize winning New York Times yellow journalist. All too often attacking these people has seemed to me like shooting fish in a barrel. Not really much of a challenge. Instead, my targets have mainly consisted of those who have a reputation for supporting free enterprise, but who do so only half heartedly, or weakly, or inconsistently. My opponents in this regard have been intellectuals such as Milton Friedman, Ronald Coase, James Buchanan, Gary Becker, George Stigler, Friedrich Hayek and others who are widely seen as exponents of libertarianism and free enterprise. All of these people have indeed done exactly that. However, not fully, not consistently; they “leak” all over the place. They have compromised, they have prevaricated. It has seemed to me important to set the record straight in this regard; to show that these emperors are sometimes really unclothed.

I suppose I have a bit of a negative personality. Criticism comes easy to me. It is enjoyable. In this regard I have even tangled with people who I greatly admire. But here the criticism has been muted and limited, and has always to the best of my ability acknowledged that debates with people of this sort are “within the family.” I would list in this regard people such as Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Hans Hoppe, Philipp Bagus, David Howden, Robert Murphy, Matt Machaj, Laura Davidson, Stefan Molyneux, Wendy McElroy.

c. Give something back; pay off Rothbard

I am greatly motivated by the desire to give something back to my mentors, mainly Murray N Rothbard. He is the one who has affected me the most in my professional career, and in pretty much every other aspect of my life as well. Often, when I am unsure of pretty much anything, I ask, “What would Murray have done?” It is my fondest wish that one day I will be judged to have been worthy of his friendship for me. I have not officially dedicated all of my books to him, but I have implicitly done so, by trying to be true to the path he set out for me, many years ago. When he was alive, I would often call him to ask his opinion of issues that puzzled me. After his far too early passing, I have been on my own. But, I have tried to “channel” him in the sense of trying to get into his head, think like he did, have the courage he showed, be like my role model as much as I could be. Although I am an atheist, I cannot shake the feeling that he is up there somewhere, looking down on me, hopefully rooting for me. I would like nothing more than to make him proud of me, and that thought is never too far away from me in my career as an Austro libertarian.

d. Immortality

Here is yet another unseemly characteristic to which I confess. My contributions to economics and the libertarian philosophy are my best shot at immortality. I would like to be thought of in the years, decades, alright, centuries to come. As I approach the end of my career, I realize that this is unlikely in the extreme. Yet, it is still one of my most important motivations.

e. Beauty

At last I come to a motivation about which I need not squirm. I am proud of this one, my most important motivation. Austrian economics and libertarian theory are the most beautiful things in the universe as far as I am concerned. They beat out the rainbow, the sunset, flowers, gorgeous women (ok, ok, I know I’m a pervert for adding this latter category, but I can’t help myself). I go so far as to say that Austrian economics and libertarian theory are even more beautiful than the music of Mozart, Bach, Handel, Vivaldi and Beethoven, my favorite composers, in that order. This type of economics and philosophy is more attractive than the best chess games ever played, and the most skillful sporting events, other things in which I see great beauty.

I am blessed because in my quest to make a contribution to Austrian economics and libertarian theory I too live a life of beauty. The loveliness of these perspectives pervades my life. It makes my life a joy. I am honored, I am privileged, to enjoy a life of contemplating the most beautiful things in the universe: understanding a little bit of economics, and a small amount of liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

Baby Veronica is three and a half years old. She is the focus of a contentious Supreme Court decision concerning her custody status. One contending party are her adoptive parents, Matt and Melanie Capobianco who have raised her since birth, when her natural mother gave her up for adoption. On the other side of this legal quandary is Dusten Brown, the natural father, who showed no interest in her nor offered financial or any other type of support for her since she was born.

The case is complicated by the fact that Veronica is 3/256^th Cherokee (don’t ask), and according to the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act, the nod should go to the biological dad. The purpose of this law was to prevent the involuntary breakup of first nation families (Brewer, 2013; ICTMN, 2013; Wolf, 2013).

What is the libertarian take on this issue? We need not concern ourselves with this bit of racist legislation. For the principled voluntaryist, people are people are people. There are no just laws that make invidious or any other distinction between us based on ethnicity, tribe, race, etc.

In order to ferret out the libertarian perspective, we must get back to basics. Children occupy an intermediate ground between that of animals and other adult human beings. (I know, I know, this sounds a bit weird, but hear me out.) The former can be owned and disposed of at will. The latter, apart from voluntary slavery, cannot be the private property of anyone else. Children, in sharp contrast to both, may be controlled by parents, under a very different type of legal provision, not ownership, of course, but, rather, attainment and retention of guardianship rights. This means that as long as the parent is properly guarding, safe-guarding, caring for, bringing up, the child, he maintains his right to continue to do so. No one else may take his child away from him, even if the latter can give the youngster a better life, even if that would be in the child’s best interest. Bill and Melinda Gates could, presumably, give any children they adopt more advantages than practically any other parents on the planet. But they may not seize anyone else’s children from their parents despite this stipulated fact. For it is the biological parents who own these guardianship rights; the right to bring up their children as they wish, provided only that they continue to nurture and care for them, and do not engage in child abuse. These rights of theirs then protect them against a Gates’ or anyone else’s takeover of their progeny.

How are these rights first established? In the good old fashioned way: through pregnancy and child birth of course. The parents in effect “homestead” not of course any ownership over their children which do not and cannot exist, but rather guardianship rights over them.

May they give up these rights? Yes. To the extent a person may not give up, or sell, or relinquish rights, it is to that extent he does not really fully own them. If the parents do not continue to feed, clothe and otherwise care for their children, or abandon them, they lose these guardianship rights. Or, the parents may give them up for adoption to others who will properly exercise these rights, and lose them in this manner. May the parents do this in return for financial compensation? Of course, at least in the libertarian universe. Here, if an act is licit, it changes matters not by one iota when money changes hands over this transfer of rights. Similarly if sexual relations are legal, then so is prostitution. If donating blood or organs is not against the law, then neither should be selling them.

However, guardianship over children is not a sometime thing. Once the parent fails to fulfill this ownership obligation, he loses it. Entirely. There should be no question about Brown’s parental rights over Baby Veronica. They no longer exist. He gave them up when he failed to provide guardianship services to her at birth. The rightful ownership, of course, belongs not to Baby Veronica but to the parent/guardian, or the adoptive parents the Capobiancos.

For background on the Baby Veronica case: here, here and here.

For more on the libertarian theory of children’s rights and parental obligations, go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

The Best of Walter Block

From time to time I get letters like this. I thought that it and my very slightly edited response to it (see these markings <<) would be of interest to a more general audience. Hence, this contribution to LewRockwell.com.

Subject: libertarianism question

Mr. Block,

Before I get to my question, I would like to thank you for all that you have done for the Libertarian/liberty movement.

<< Thanks; you are very kind.

I have watched countless youtube videos of your lectures and interviews and your explanations of libertarianism and Austrian economics are wonderfully concise, informative, and most importantly, easy to understand. Your influence, as well as that of Ron Paul and the numerous contributors to LRC have helped transform me from a flag waving, southern Republican warmonger into a Murray Rothbard, Tom Woods, Walter Block reading, war-hating, peace advocating, State despising, liberty loving, Libertarian with an ever growing itch to spread the word about the timeless message of liberty.

<< I am honored to be placed in the same sentence with Murray Rothbard and Tom Woods, and the other contributors to LRC.

Although I am not quite an anarcho-capitalist yet, I am quickly moving in that direction.

<< Great

Now that I have sufficiently convinced you that I am just a suck up (I assure you I am not), I will get to my question(s). In a true Libertarian society (as you or Ron Paul would envision one), what would governance look like or would there be governance as we tend to think of it?

<< It depends. Ron is a minimal government libertarian. So, for him, there would indeed be “governance.” Much, much less of it than at present. Read any of his books to see just how little; better yet, read all of them. The government would be a small fraction of what it is now. Much lower taxes, virtually no regulation; the function of this limited government would be to protect persons and property, bring home all the troops, legalize all consenting behavior between adults, obey the Constitution (in its original not bastardized by the Supreme Court present understanding), etc. But I’m a free market anarchist, so there’d be no governance at all in my vision.

To clarify, I understand there would be no central government as there is today, so would everyone be autonomous or would there be smaller regional, local or even neighborhood “governments” that would serve some function? Would it ideally be a country made up of smaller tribe like units that interacted with other groups through trade and other free market principles? Most people view to State and other forms of government as necessary for daily living. I disagree but I am not sure what my response would be were someone to ask what would take the States place were it to be done away with. That is where this question comes from.

<< There would be no governance at even the state or local level, for the free market anarchist such as me. Rather, each individual would be sovereign. Or, if you wish, instead of there being some 250 countries on the planet, there would be some 7 billion of them. Right now, there is no real world government. So the 250 countries are sovereign (in saying this, I ignore the imperialism of the US government). I realize this sounds a bit astounding. Billions of countries with one individual in each of them? Preposterous, most people would say. However, for some very good readings on libertarian anarcho-capitalism, see the following:

Anderson&Hill, Benson1, Benson2,Bibliography, Block1, Block2, Casey, DiLorenzo, Fleischer&Block, Gregory, Guillory&Tinsley, Hasnas, Heinrich, Higgs1, Higgs2, Higgs3, Hoppe1, Hoppe2, Huebert, King, Kinsella, Long, McConkey,Molyneux, MolyneuxBadnarik, Murphy, Rothbard3, Rothbard, Rothbard2, Rothbard4, Ron Paul (paradoxically), Spooner,Stringham, Tannehill, Tinsley, Wenzel

I apologize if I have not made the question very clear. I would do much better asking if it were a face to face question, but alas, I am not close to New Orleans so email has to suffice. I realize I am not the only person asking you questions or making demands on your time so I thank you in advance for any time you take to respond to my inquiry. Have a fantastic weekend and keep up the good work spreading the message of liberty.

<< Thanks for your kind thoughts. Please do contribute financially to the Mises Institute. They made this very correspondence possible.

<< Note to all: I have tried to make my reading list on libertarian anarchism as inclusive as possible. If I have left anything out, as important as what I have included, please e mail me so that I can improve this bibliography.

The Best of Walter Block

A reader of LewRockwell.com asked me some questions about Karl Hess. After I answered him, I realized that his questions, and my answers (<<) might be of interest to many other readers of LRC. But first, a caveat. All of my answers are from memory, only. I kept no records. My memory is not that good regarding some of these episodes. I’m no historian. There are people far better able than me to answer these questions (see below for my listing of Murray’s living room crowd), I think, but I’m not even sure of that. So, take my responses to these questions with a bit of a grain of salt, gentle reader.

Here is what this reader of LewRockwell.com asked me:

Please answer none/any/or all of these questions at your leisure. Let me know if any of the questions are based on false pretenses.

1.) What do you remember about the first time you met Hess? Did you know about his past with Goldwater at that moment?

<< Murray Rothbard introduced him to me. Yes, I knew about his Goldwater speech writing background. Karl joined Murray’s living room crowd in the late 1960s. I was also a member.

2.) What was he like to be around? Demeanor, casual communication, socializing, etc.

<< Karl was lovely. Personable. When I first met him, he was a bit conservative. Then a few months later came his libertarian period. After a few years he became a leftie. He was a lovely person all throughout this strange odyssey of his. Karl wrote his very good Playboy article in 1969. So that must have been the apex of his libertarianism. I probably met Karl in 1968; maybe, 1967.

3.) Did he participate in the Peace and Freedom party activities?

<< Not to my recollection. I’m pretty sure not. Perhaps he was in Wash DC then and P&F was in NYC. The P&F movement was composed of three factions. The largest was the Trotskyites; they had about 300 members. Then came the Maoists; perhaps 100 people in their group. Then, there was Murray and his merry band. There might have been about 10 of us. I distinctly remember Jerry Tuccille being in our group.

I would say that the core of Murray’s living room crowd consisted of these people:

Murray and Joey, Joe Peden, Leonard Liggio, Walter Grinder, Ralph Raico, Ron Hamowy, Jerry Woloz, Bob Smith, Mario Rizzo, Jerry O’Driscoll, Walter Block, Larry Moss, Joe Salerno.

There were some others on the periphery:

Joan Kennedy Taylor, Jerry Tuccille, Mark Powelson, Dale Grinder, John Hagel, Randy Barnett, Gary Greenberg, Howie Rich, Andrea Rich, Wilson Clark,  Roy Childs, Bill Baumgarth, Fr. Jim Sadowsky, S.J., Karl Hess, Stan Lehr, Lew Rosetto, Lew Spadaro.

The libertarian caucus of the Peace and Freedom Party was drawn from this group. One of the highlights of this experience was our association with the Maoists, vis a vis the Trots. I remember on one occasion under Murray’s direction I voted in favor of rent control (I was then writing my PhD dissertation on that topic), since the Maoists voted for the gold standard. Those were heady days.

4.) Did you witness his speech under the St. Louis arch at the YAF convention? What did you think of it?

<< Yes, I was there. Karl gave a VERY good talk. This was in the midst of his libertarian period. I remember this since I brought hundreds of copies of the Libertarian Forum, with Murray’s magnificent piece in it, “Listen, YAF!” I just read it again, and the words still leap off the page at me.

5.) What do you remember about the role he played at the YAF convention?

<< Karl helped start the modern libertarian movement. A decisive point was when the libertarians split off from the YAF Buckleyites. I asked William F. Buckley if he’d be willing to debate Karl. Buckley politely declined. I think that Karl’s activities at this convention, plus Murray’s magnificent essay, were the key points.

6.) What do you remember about the Columbus Day conference?

<< This was the beginning of Karl’s move toward the left. Murray had worked hard on getting that conference going; this might have been the very first such conference of the modern libertarian era. Karl led about half of the participants away to a protest at Fort Dix. Murray’s view was that the intellectual battle was crucial to our movement. Karl was then into what Murray derisively dismissed as “seizing a street”: engaging in violent confrontations with cops without much care or concern for the intellectual battle. I think this was the beginning of the split between Murray and Karl.

7.) Did you ever communicate with him after the late 60′s early 70′s?

<<I was once at an ISIL conference with Karl, I think in the 70s in Sweden I think it was. Maybe Norway. Karl was deeply into his leftie phase then. Anyway, a bunch of local hippie leftie socialists wanted to be let into the conference to debate us. Karl supported that. I bitterly opposed it, inspired by Murray’s reaction to Karl’s behavior at the Columbus Day conference. I said that we libertarians had travelled thousands of miles to be with each other; hippie leftie socialists were a dime a dozen. Why lower ourselves to talk to them, when we had important things to discuss with each other? This, especially when the event had been carefully planned with that in mind; shades of the Columbus Day conference in NYC. Karl was disappointed in me. He complained to me afterward that I was always attacking him. I felt badly. I liked Karl. But he was so wrong on so many things when he was in his leftie period. And not just strategy.

8.) Feel free to share anything else you remember about him. You’re Walter Block, so I find just about everything you say interesting. (way to gladhand right?)

<< Karl was a magnificent public speaker. He was a good friend. I hated to disagree with him as sharply as I did. I remember once I was at a conference with him, and he dragged me and Jerry Tuccille to some all night massage parlor (not a sexual one; actual massages, whirlpools, swimming pools) where you could sleep over. It was a pleasure to be in his company. He was very witty. It was a joy to be with him. I treasure my memories of Karl.

9.) I’ve never been totally clear about his leftward drift. Was he full on Murray Bookchin style at any point, or syndicalist, or was it an idiosyncratic mix of anarcho-communist/propertarian ideas?

<< I tell you, I can’t help you much here. I don’t make such fine distinctions between syndicalism, Marxism, Bookchinism, anarcho-communism, etc. It all sounds like balderdash to me. But yes, Karl came under the influence of the evil Murray Bookchin. They were great buddies. Ok, ok, Bookchin, like most lefties, was good on some things. U.S. imperialism, foreign wars, etc. But on economics he, and Karl along with him at that time, Bookchin was a total waste. Sort of like Noam Chomsky.

10. Is there any proof (pdf image file, something in a book, a public record) of his 100% IRS lien?

<< I left NYC for a job at the Fraser Institute in 1979, and thus left the Rothbard living room crowd then, so my memory of this time period is even hazier. I only remember that Karl’s life was very troubled by his refusal to pay taxes. Some people said that Murray Rothbard advised Karl to do this. I give the back of my hand to that theory. Murray himself denied giving any such advice. Murray paid his own taxes. Refusing to pay taxes is more like picketing at Fort Dix than engaging in intellectual dialogue. It is more “Karl” than “Murray.”

Murray Rothbard’s attitude on income taxes was the same as Burt Blumert’s (another member of Murray’s living room crowd who lived in California): There was no libertarian reason to pay them, of course, but if you chose not to do so, it became the focus of your whole life, which seemed imprudent. They both paid.

11. Speaking of Bookchin, what did he do that made Rothbard kick him out of his apartment? Was it his views?

<< Yes, it was Bookchin’s views. In my opinion, Murray had the patience of a saint. Certainly, he always exhibited that in relation to me. Murray was always very gentle with me, and, I was very much more a pain in the rear end in those days than even am I now. However, the patience of saints is not infinite. I forget what the exact issue between the two Murrays was. Maybe Ralph Raico remembers? My guess it was something like Bookchin defending labor unions or tariffs, or some such. I remember huddling afterward with Wilson Clark and Jerry Woloz. None of had expected that breakup. You have to remember that in those days, we libertarians were so few. Murray was continually looking for allies, sometimes on the left, sometimes on the right. Sometimes to convert them, sometimes to do some good (e.g., oppose the war in Viet Nam), typically to do both. Murray was doing all he could to promote liberty, as he did his entire adult life. Sometimes, these coalitions just don’t work out; as in the case with Murray Bookchin.

The Best of Walter Block

The Bangladeshi people have suffered from a spate of fires and building collapses in textile factories. In the first few months of 2013, these tragedies have killed some 1100 garment workers. The victims were in Dhaka, Bangladesh, in the Rana Plaza building in Savar, an industrial suburb. Five garment factories in the building were involved.

It is one thing, and par for the course, that our left wing friends would blame these horrid events on their usual suspects: greed, capitalism, free enterprise, entrepreneurship, economic freedom. Nor is it too surprising that these charges come coupled with demands for socialism, regulation, government oversight.

But it is indeed shocking, shocking, that the Wall (War) Street Journal, noted for at least some slight devotion to free markets (at least on its editorial pages) would echo these charges. This periodical even goes the “progressives” one better, by dragging into the indictment a totally new economic actor, the consumer.

Yes, according to a War Street Journal headline, the Bangladeshi tragedy is indeed the American consumers’ fault: “Rushing to Satisfy Hunger for Cheap Clothes: Americans’ Taste for ‘Fast Fashion’ Spurred Bangladesh, Site of Factory Tragedies, to Add Capacity” (Zimmerman and Shah. 2013).

The consumer is king, according to Keynes and the Keynesians. But it would appear there are clay feet all over the place with regard to these majesties. The WSJ goes so far as to single out a shopper at a Zaro store in Dallas who purchases more “$16 bejeweled T-shirts and $10 ruffled tops” than she should have (Zimmerman and Shah. 2013). Nor are low prices a good thing in this case as they usually are: “Americans’ appetite for cheap clothes is one of the strongest of the economic forces that led to a boom in Bangladesh, with the resulting race to add manufacturing capacity setting the stage for the series of horrific accidents. U.S. consumers have become accustomed to spending relatively little on clothing compared with other items – and getting a lot for their money” (Zimmerman and Shah. 2013).

The greedy consumer? It would appear that this is indeed the case, at least to the economic savants who write for this yellow journalistic rag. According to Wikipedia, “Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.” This sick excuse for an article would appear to fit that description to a “T.”

In actual point of fact the proper analysis of this awful event is far different. It is not at all the fault of the any of the economic actors’ in the capitalist system; certainly not consumers and not even factory owners. Rather, the blame should be cast in an entirely different direction. Yes, you guessed it, the government in general, and its building codes in particular, are the villain in this case.

What are building codes? These are mandates from our masters in the “public sector” that homes, offices, factories, mills, must comply with minimum safety and other standards. If not, it is illicit to construct them at all.

These pronunciamentos have two deleterious effects. First, if they are pitched too high as they often are in underdeveloped countries, edifices will not be built at all if the law is obeyed. But which is better, no housing at all, or very little of it, and vast numbers of people suffering from homelessness, or inferior construction? Obviously the latter, as demonstrated by the fact that people choose to take advantage of these shelters; they always had the choice of remaining outside. They “vote with their feet” preferring to occupy buildings known to be not quite the right thing, rather than avoid them. Those who died in these tragic fires, building collapses, were not drafted to occupy them; they were not compelled to live in those premises. (Of course, if there was fraud involved, then all bets are off in this regard.) The implication here is that more people would have died of exposure, or starvation, had these inferior buildings not come into being.

If people do not obey the law, housing is then constructed illegally, in defiance of the rules. But then we enter the black market, which is always inferior to the legal market if for no other reason than that the criminal element becomes involved.

When the government gives its imprimatur to construction, as it did in the Bangladesh case, it and it alone must bear the responsibility for any subsequent disaster. It and it alone certified these structures with its warrant of occupancy. (When the FDA approves of a drug which later turns out to be harmful, does it ever man up and take responsibility? Of course not. But it bears it in any case. The same is true here.)

Instead, that state, along with a media pile-on, is holding responsible the building’s owner, Sohel Rana. So much so that he tried to flee for his very life from an angry mob.

Why is it that fires, building collapses, are far more rare in the developed world than in the underdeveloped one? Is it because the former have better, stricter, more intrusive building codes? Not a bit of it. Those written in the third world can be as obnoxious as any enacted in the first. No, it is because the former are far wealthier than the latter and can afford to construct more safely. “Wealthier is healthier.” And why are some countries richer than others? This is due to more investment in both human and physical capital. What accounts for this divergence, pray tell? Some nations are safer for investments than others; they have less regulation, bribery, fewer nationalizations. And what accounts for that in turn? Economic freedom; it varies from place to place. So, gentle reader, if you really want to safeguard workers from fires, cave-ins, embrace laissez faire capitalism, and ignore the Wall Street Journal for the socialist rag that it is (at least in this one case).

Zimmerman, Ann and Neil Shah. 2013. “Rushing to Satisfy Hunger for Cheap Clothes: Americans’ Taste for ‘Fast Fashion’ Spurred Bangladesh, Site of Factory Tragedies, to Add Capacity.” Wall Street Journal, May 13.

The Best of Walter Block

Editor’s note: Loyola University professor of economics Walter Block and Doug Casey have been friends for many years. Perhaps that’s because Walter wrote a book called Defending the Undefendable, debunking most so-called victimless crimes, and Doug takes great delight in debunking nonsense wherever he sees it. But Walter says that Doug — dire predictions regarding the Greater Depression notwithstanding — is a “wuss,” so we had to ask Walter to tell us what the score really is, if even Doug is being too optimistic. We spoke to Walter via video conference on Skype, so he was able to show us the photos and books referenced below.

L: Hello Walter, it’s been years — thanks for agreeing to speak with us.

Walter: My pleasure. Where do we begin?

L: Well, you’re an academic — let’s start with that. What’s your academic claim to fame?

Walter: My main claim to fame is that I shook hands with Ludwig von Mises — and have never washed that hand since. So if you shake my hand — it’s purely voluntary — you can channel Mises.

L: [Laughs] Well, it’s been said that libertarianism is best spread through person-to-person contact.

Walter: I was also a friend of Murray Rothbard’s — oh wait, I have a picture here of me playing chess with Hayek. Can you see it?

L: Yes… These are excellent credentials for free-market economics junkies.

Walter: Yes, well, ordinarily when you ask an academic for credentials, he’ll tell you where he got his PhD, or what research he’s working on now. But my PhD in economics, from Columbia University, had nothing to do with the Austrian school of thought I’m now a member of. It was mainly mainstream neoclassical… crap.

L: That’s a technical economics term?

Walter: [Chuckles] While I was studying at Columbia, I read Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, and in the introduction Hayek says that he hates to take time away from his important academic work to write such a political book, but that it’s necessary. I asked my professors if I should read Hayek’s important work, and they all said, “No, no, no. It’s nonsense.” So I never read Hayek until years later when I met Murray Rothbard and really got into Austrian economics. That means that the honest answer to your question is that my official academic credentials are worthless, at least in terms of knowing anything about the dismal science. Of course, insofar as getting an academic job, a PhD from Columbia must count as a plus, a very large one.

L: But you’ve written about ocean-steading and other theoretical matters; surely you’ve pushed the boundaries of human knowledge somewhere?

Walter: Well, I think I’ve pushed the envelope on libertarianism more than on economics, but I have made a few small contributions on the theory of interest rates, the business cycle, and the gold standard. More recently, I’ve coauthored a whole series of articles with my colleague Bill Barnett, mainly on Austrian economics and methodology. We’ve come out with a book on this, called Essays in Austrian Economics. [Waves book in front of camera]

L: Wow, that looks quite weighty!

Walter: [Chuckles] Yes, it’s 600 pages long, so you can bash people with it if they don’t see reason.

L: That’s what leftists do with their copies of Das Kapital, so fair is fair.

Walter: The cover depicts our criticism of the Austrian structural production triangle analysis, which was used for a long time, even before Hayek — but getting into that may be more technical than we want for this conversation. Let me just say that we are criticizing some of the ideas of our predecessors, Hayek and Mises and so forth, but from an Austrian perspective — what we hope is a truer Austrian perspective.

L: I once heard Peter Boettke say, “We stand on the shoulders of giants, but we have to kick their heads sometimes.”

Walter: [Laughs long and hard] That’s magnificent! That openness to inquiry is important and welcome. Austrian economics has sometimes been called a cult — I’ve been called a cultist to my face by my former thesis advisor at Columbia, Gary Becker, and also by James Buchanan. Both of them have won Nobel Prizes in economics, which indicates what I think about that award — apart from Hayek’s.

L: Well then, let’s take a step back from the academic world and talk about your work in an area of great interest to our readers: the gold standard. Can you defend the premise that gold is not just a “barbaric relic?”

Walter: That’s a good topic. It was Keynes who called it a “barbaric relic.” It has become a relic, in the sense that it has not been used as official money for many decades. Our man FDR took our gold away in the 1930s, then Nixon severed the last link between it and the dollar in 1971. But the real problem with gold, from the point of view of our friends on the left, is that it functions as a set of fiscal handcuffs on the government.

L: Because gold can’t be printed at whim. To spend it you have to have it, physically.

Walter: Right. Now, there are three — and only three — ways the government can get money. The first is to tax the people. The problem with that from the point of view of our masters is that everyone knows who’s doing it. The politicians can’t blame greedy capitalists or any others for what the tax-man does, and that’s a problem for them. The second source of revenue for the government is borrowing. But again, there’s a limit on how much you can borrow, because everyone knows who’s doing it — and has a good idea of how indebted the government is. The third way is much, much better from their point of view, and that is to create money out of thin air. That may be done via fractional reserve banking, or printing fiat currency, or whatever. This is good from their perspective because not one in 1,000 people, or maybe not one in 10,000, knows who’s doing it and that it is causing inflation. It’s theft on a grand scale, understood by so few, so they can get away with it.

I think it was Lenin who said that the best way to destroy an enemy is to debauch that country’s currency. That’s what these guys are: currency debauchers. Ben “the paper hanger” Bernanke is going berserk with his quantitative easing. There’s no more quantitative easing one, two, or three, its quantitative easing forever. Every month, billions of new dollars are pumped into the economy.

So the last thing the government wants is this barbaric relic to limit their spending to what they can actually tax and borrow. And that, of course, is why people like you, me, Doug, and like-minded others, favor the gold standard; we want the government handcuffed, so it can’t go around spending money it doesn’t have on unnecessary wars and other destructive and counterproductive things governments like to do.

L: I agree, but they’ll never admit it.

Walter: Of course. What they say is that gold is bad because it used to cause volatility and instability in the economy. But it’s not true. If you look at the business cycle in the 100-year period before the Fed was established in 1913, and compare it to the 100-year period after that (to the present day), the volatility has been vastly greater in the more recent period of greater government involvement in the economy and the abandonment of the gold standard.

There was volatility before, and some of it was due to imperfections in the gold standard we had then, but the volatility of the business cycle was much lower in the earlier period than in the latter one than what we have now. So I’m a big fan of the gold standard. So is Ron Paul, who’s done yeoman’s work getting the word out. The Keynesian idea is just totally wrong.

L: Okay, but still, most people believe that our modern economy would just not work if we used gold and silver for money. Is there an economic argument to justify this view?

Walter: None that I am aware of. The burden of proof is on them, to show why gold-backed money wouldn’t work.

L: I suppose, if anything, it’s more practical now than ever. It’s already rare for people to shuffle actual little pieces of paper back and forth. It would be no different to transfer ownership of gold back and forth, except that the gold would actually exist and have intrinsic value, whereas most of the so-called money in the world today does not physically exist, and has no intrinsic value even when it does exist.

Walter: I agree. Look, a banker is really just like a tailor. A tailor takes big pieces of cloth and cuts them into smaller pieces to make shirts and pants and things. A tailor also takes smaller pieces of cloth (thread, yarn) and sews them together to make larger items. Bankers do the same thing: they take billions of dollars from large depositors and break it into smaller pieces — a few million here, a few million there — to put to productive use. Bankers also take small deposits — $10 here, $100 there — and aggregate them into larger amounts, also to be put to productive use. This is the essence of the banking system, and what finance is for. For this to work, all you need is a form of money — any form of money — that people trust. You do not need fractional reserve banking or a fiat currency system; all that does is increase the stock of money, which makes each unit worth less.

L: That’s a great metaphor.

Walter: By the way, I don’t say that we have to use gold as money. We could use dollar bills as money — as long as those dollar bills were 100% backed by something of value such as gold or silver. It’s neither necessary nor practical for people to go around with great bulging sacks of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck — you know who Scrooge McDuck is, don’t you?

L: Of course; Scrooge McDuck is Doug Casey’s great hero.

Walter: [Chuckles] So, I would say that it’s not entirely accurate to say that I back the gold standard. I would say that I’m a proponent of free-market money. As it happens, whenever the market has been free to choose, gold has emerged as the most convenient and universally accepted form of money. That does not mean that money can only be backed with gold; it could be silver, platinum, copper, anything people accept as having value for other purposes. The important thing, as regards your question, is that anything you can do with unbacked fiat money, you can also do with money fully backed by something of actual value. The only thing you can’t do with it is create more of it out of thin air.

L: Which is only of concern to spendaholic governments.

Walter: Yes. It’s the same as with the minimum wage, which Obama is trying to raise right now. He wants to raise it to nine or ten dollars, on the grounds that $7.25 is not a livable wage. The idea here is that with the stroke of a pen we can make people richer. Cure poverty. Well, if that’s so, why be so niggardly and stop at $10? Why not make it $100, or $1,000 per hour?

And if that’s a problem, why can’t they see that it’s the same problem trying to make a whole society or economy richer at the stroke of a pen — or a few keystrokes at the Fed? Why isn’t Zimbabwe the richest country in the world? Why weren’t Germans who had to carry wheelbarrows full of deutsche marks to the store to buy a loaf of bread in 1923 rich?

L: How important in your analysis is the backing, or convertibility into something of value? I ask because today we have the phenomenon of bitcoin, which has been created in such a way as to resist inflation. It’s not backed by anything, and yet seems to be gaining wide acceptance as money.

Walter: My answer to questions about bitcoin starts with an economics joke. An economist is asked: “How is your wife?” And he answers: “Compared to what?” [Pauses] That was a joke.

L: I get it… I get it.

Walter: So if you ask me if I like bitcoin, I ask: “Compared to what?” If the comparison is with a gold coin system, I’d rather have the gold coin. If the comparison is with the US dollar, which is going the Zimbabwe route, I’d rather have the bitcoin. Now, other monetary authorities around the world seem to be debauching their currencies faster than the US is destroying the value of the US dollar, so the dollar appears strong in foreign exchange. But that doesn’t change the fact that each dollar in existence is made worth a little less with each new dollar created. So compared to that, I’d still prefer the bitcoin.

L: You touch on so many interesting things. This phenomenon of currencies all around the world being debased, and people focusing on the exchange rate between them — rather than what they can buy in the real world — is what we call “the race to the bottom.” As an economist, can you see a way out of that death spiral, or is Doug’s Greater Depression inevitable?

Walter: Well, if Americans had elected Ron Paul, and Ron had put Doug in charge of the Fed and told him to get rid of it within a week, Doug would’ve gotten rid of it within two days. That would’ve stopped it. Unfortunately, that’s not what happened.

Did you know that when Alan Greenspan was a younger man, he was influenced by Ayn Rand, and wrote articles in defense of the gold standard? I remember reading about it in the newspaper when he was appointed Fed chairman, and I thought he’d get rid of it in a few weeks. That shows how nave I was! But I would trust Doug.

I have to say that I think Doug is absolutely right. It’s basic Austrian business-cycle theory. When you create money, you artificially lower rates of interest. There are certain goods that are very interest-rate sensitive, particularly long-term investments, like houses, cars, mines, and things like that. So lowering interest rates increases investment in these kinds of heavy, long-term things in a way that is incompatible with the saving-consumption decisions of the populace, which haven’t changed. This results in a bubble that must burst — Doug is absolutely right about that. I can’t predict when that will happen, but it will.

Trying to cure an economy that has seen massive amounts of malinvestment by stimulating more of the same is like trying to cure a drunk by giving him more alcohol. It’s not going to work. The cases of Zimbabwe and Germany in the 1920s show that it doesn’t work.

L: And the real cure — cutting spending and living within our means — is not politically viable. So Doug is right and there’s no way to avoid going through the wringer?

Walter: The economy would crash even if we put Ron and Doug in charge now; there are too many investments that never should have been made in the first place. Those mistakes must be liquidated. The movement of capital out of areas where it should not have been invested in the first place and into areas where it should have gone will help some people, but it will also hurt huge numbers of others. But really, the correction doesn’t create the pain; it uncovers pain caused by incorrect investment caused by previous government intervention.

Instead of this, the government is trying to paper the problem over. But even all the money the government has created is not working as they’d hoped. Unemployment remains high, at seven or eight percent officially, but more than twice as high if you look at the shadow stats. It would be even higher if you counted the so-called discouraged workers who are no longer looking for jobs. And it’s even higher if you break it down and look at segments of the population like young, black males. Their unemployment rate is over 40%.

So the government is trying to paper the problem over, but it’s not working. We don’t see soup-kitchen lines like back in the 1930s because the government gives poor people food stamps that look like ordinary credit cards — they’ve tripled the amount of handouts in recent years.

People say this is a strange recovery. Well, the obvious answer is that this is no recovery at all. It’s going to get worse, just as Doug says.

L: Okay then. You’re a professor, not an investor like Doug, but from your point of view, is there any investment class that’s safe, or even some investments that might do well during this sort of crisis?

Walter: Well, I’m tempted to say gold — but what did FDR do during the last Great Depression? He stole everyone’s gold. So, I can’t even tell people gold and silver are safe, because Obama could wake up one day channeling Roosevelt, and issue a similar executive order, seizing everyone’s bullion.

L: This is why Doug advises people to store their gold in multiple jurisdictions, especially outside the US. But it’s a threat everywhere.

Walter: We could also talk about land; no one is making any more of it, so it resists inflation pretty well. However, governments can double, triple, or raise taxes on it even higher, making it a pretty risky investment as well.

L: They could basically confiscate the value while leaving you the title; and you can’t hide your land, nor pick it up and take it somewhere else. But Doug likes to point out that there are jurisdictions around the world that are famous for not doing such things — and real estate abroad can never be forcefully repatriated to your home jurisdiction. Anything else?

Walter: I’m very reluctant to tell anyone to invest in anything at all — even bitcoins. Even if the bitcoin system itself were to prove unhackable, governments could still arrest people who use them and put them in jail, call them terrorists or something. They are capable of anything.

L: They’ve already done that, jailing Bernard von Nothaus, calling him a terrorist for circulating warehouse receipts for gold and silver bullion.

Walter: That’s right — the Liberty Dollar. That’s a truly disturbing and disgusting bit of recent history.

So, I admire Doug — and all of you — because you step into this morass, where professors like me fear to tread, because we can’t be sure of any investments. You guys are more entrepreneurial, and I’m more theoretical. So I’m never wrong! [Chuckles]

L: And never long. Okay, I won’t push you on what’s not your field. But putting investments aside, theoretically, what is a person to do in such an environment? Nothing is safe, but one can’t see the crisis coming and do… nothing?

Walter: Well, what would Scrooge McDuck do? He didn’t keep his money in other people’s banks; he kept it in his own vaults, some right at hand — stuffed in the mattress, as it were — and more scattered around other places. It’s not perfect, but then they can’t pull a Cyprus on you: close the banks, take your savings, and only let you withdraw $100 a week or so of your own money.

We do need to use banks for some things, and the FDIC guarantees deposits up to $250,000 — even with fractional reserve banking, deposits up to that limit are likely to be honored, because the government can just print up more money — but I wouldn’t want to leave any more than that in any bank. And I’d always know that after all the money-printing the government would do to avert a major bank run would mean that while I might get the same number of dollars back, they would not buy as much as when I put them in.

L: It’s quite striking to hear an academic agree with so much of Doug’s more dire views and predictions. Much food for thought. Anything else you’d like to tell our readers?

Walter: Well, we spoke of being free to choose earlier; that’s of course the title of a famous book by Milton Friedman, an economist highly regarded by most free-market type people. I must say a word or two about Milton Friedman.

L: Okay, shoot. Metaphorically; no sectarian violence allowed.

Walter: Murray Rothbard used to say that mainstream economists specialize in what they are bad in. If you look at Milton Friedman’s work, you can see that he’s very good on free trade, minimum wage, rent control, occupational licensure, and other topics…

L: But he was a monetary interventionist.

Walter: Yes, he was a monetary interventionist — and that was his main thing, apart from educational vouchers, which are also a horrible idea. If someone says “monetarist,” who will most people come up with by association? Milton Friedman. He was just horrible on this; he favored fractional reserve banking, he favored the Fed, all sorts of government monetary and tax intervention, and he had the audacity to name his book Free to Choose. But when people were free to choose, what did they choose? Gold. He’s a disgrace!

L: Don’t hold back, Walter — tell us what you really think.

Walter: [Chuckles] Well, I don’t mind disagreement. We have to have Krugmans and Keyneses — but the problem is that everyone thinks Friedman was a champion of free enterprise, and people will come to you, and me, and Doug, and tell us were wrong because “even Milton Friedman concedes…”

L: It’s like the problem arising from Ronald Regan using libertarian rhetoric to get elected, and then overseeing the biggest acceleration of growth in government ever seen until that time. That had typical results of too much regulation and government spending, and people think that the Reagan years showed that free enterprise doesn’t work. Just as people are taught that the Great Depression proves that “unbridled laissez-faire capitalism” doesn’t work — when, in fact, the Depression was the result of government intervention into the economy.

Walter: Precisely.

L: Well, this has been fun, in a horror novel sort of way. I fear our conversation will have people thinking that the “dismal science” deserves its name. Your message seems to be: be afraid — be very afraid. Is that right?

Walter: Be afraid, be very afraid — of government. It’s a criminal gang. They steal from us — just try not paying what the IRS calls a “voluntary” tax this April 15. They kill people all around the world — despite its highly public outrage regarding weapons of mass destruction, the US has the only government that has used nuclear weapons, and on civilian populations. They intervene in the economy with all sorts of chicanery that causes great harm — and then use that as an excuse for more intervention. Doug is right in all his criticisms of the government — he just doesn’t go far enough. [Big smile]

L: Well… we could start five new conversations on each of those topics, so let’s call it a wrap for this time. Thanks for your time and insights.

Walter: You’re very welcome. It is an honor to do this interview with you.

Wouldn’t it be great to spend an afternoon talking about the world’s woes with Doug Casey himself? While you may never get that opportunity, we’d like to offer you the next best thing: Totally Incorrect, a new book from Doug that features his takes on a wide variety of fascinating topics, including Castro and Cuba… taxes… the hated TSA… global warming… and much, much more.

Copies are only $14.95, and make great gifts (especially for those who could use a different perspective on the world.) Get more information and order your copy today.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: Iran

I have experienced not one but two cases where eminent mainstream economists characterized Austrian economics as a cult. I told a friend and colleague of mine who is also an Austrian economist that I would be writing about this. He was worried that to mention the fact that two leading economists held the opinion that Austrian economics is cultish would place the praxeological school in a bad light. Well, maybe it will. However, I strongly believe that "sunlight is the best disinfectant." If these two dismal scientists strongly believe this, they can hardly be the only ones. My goal in writing this present essay is to attack this view as the pernicious and false doctrine that it is. I want to confront it, not run and hide from it.

On one occasion, I hosted Economics Nobel Prize Winner James Buchanan for a series of lectures at Loyola University. I did so in behalf of our economics department. To the best of my recollection, this occurred sometime before Katrina; my best guess is something like 2003. Before this eminent economist arrived on our campus, I resolved one thing to myself: I would not ambush him. I would not publicly attack him. I was his host, and I would be generous to him in that regard. I knew full well there were large areas of economics and political philosophy on which we disagreed, and I promised myself I would keep my thought in this regard to myself.

This shows how little I really know about myself, or, my lack of will power. The statement of his that set me off, and occasioned a passionate outburst from me was when he said in passing that "Austrian economics is a cult." And the way he said it infuriated me even the more. It was not as if he gave reasons for this. It was not as if he spent some time elaborating on why he thought so. Rather, he said it much as an aside (in much the same way as did Gary Becker, another eminent Economics Nobel Prize Winner — see on this below). Buchanan claimed that Austrianism was cultish in much the same manner as he might have noted that it is raining, or is a hot day; as if no one could possibly have any other opinion on the matter.

At this point, contrary to my best resolutions, I went into a ten minute or so tirade on the matter. My only regret is that this wasn't tape-recorded, so that I can share that with you. At the end of my peroration I turned to Prof. Buchanan, awaiting his response. I was "loaded for bar" as we southerners say, and ready to do battle with him. He said not a word, and went on to something else. Grrr!

Happily, I have a record with regard to the second episode in this little tale: a series of letters between me and my former teacher Gary Becker on this very subject. I very slightly edited both of our contribution to this discussion to eliminate a few typos. Gary wrote me in capital letters, and I have not changed that style of writing.

One more thought on this before I introduce our correspondence: I have been searching for this material for years. (If they give out an award for absent minded professors, I'm sure I'd qualify). It wasn't until this very day that I found it. Had I had it in my possession earlier, I would have shared it then.

4/2/02

Dear Gary:

David Laband attributes to you the view that “Austrian economics is a cult.” Is this true? If so, I would be very interested in hearing of your reasons for this claim. Could you please send me anything you may have written on this subject, or a copy of the speech you gave at Auburn in which, according to him, you made this statement. I would very much appreciate it.

On another matter: could you please tell me what is your speaking fee? I am trying to get my dean to invite you down here to give a talk. Needless to say, the honorarium would be in addition to flying you (and your wife if you wanted) down here first class, putting you up in our best hotel, etc.

Best regards, Walter

4/15/02

DEAR WALTER,

I DO NOT REMEMBER WHAT I SAID ABOUT AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS AT AUBURN SINCE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ASIDE. BUT I COULD HAVE CALLED IT A CULT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I BELIEVE. BY A CULT I MEAN A SMALL NUMBER OF DEDICATED FOLLOWERS WHO SPEAK MAINLY TO EACH OTHER, AND INTERACT LITTLE WITH LET US CALL THEM MAINSTREAM ECONOMISTS.

I BELIEVE MAINSTREAM ECONOMICS HAS ABSORBED MUCH OF WHAT HAS BEEN VALUABLE IN AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS, SUCH AS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF KNOWLEDGE, THE GRAVE PROBLEMS OF SOCIALISM, THE IMPORTANCE OF ENTREPRENEURS – ALTHOUGH NO ONE IN EITHER GROUP HAS DONE MUCH WITH THIS – AND PERHAPS A FEW OTHER POINTS.

I BELIEVE AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS COULD BENEFIT GREATLY FROM DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPIRICAL ECONOMICS, HUMAN CAPITAL THEORY, AND MANY OTHER ASPECTS OF MAINSTREAM ECONOMICS.

I AM EXPENSIVE.IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BEST IF I COMBINED IT WITH SOMETHING ELSE, IF I WAS DOING SOMETHING ELSE IN THE NEW ORLEANS AREA.

I HOPE YOU ARE WELL AND GLAD YOU ARE SETTLED IN WHAT SEEMS LIKE A VERY GOOD POSITION.

ALL THE BEST, GARY

4/29/02

Dear Gary:

Thanks for your reply. I am indeed very happy here at Loyola, no small part of the reason for that being my graduate school education, of which you were by far the most significant element. I shall never forget the joy of being your student, and the inspiration you provided me.

Please don't forget to tell me what is your honorarium; without this specific info, I can't carry things further forward in terms of an invitation, which I would very much like to do. You may be "expensive," but we've got a budget that allows us to showcase world-class intellectuals such as yourself. I'm not suggesting you jack up your price or anything, but please feel free to state whatever honorarium makes you comfortable.

I would like to spend a bit of time discussing this Austrian "cult" business, as I consider myself to be a member of this school of thought and, naturally, see things quite a bit differently than you. Please bear with me, given the length of this reply, but this is very important to me.

Let me break down your criticisms of Austrianism in the following manner:

1. "a small number of …

Yes, it cannot be denied, the number of Austrian economists out of the total is very small. When I first began to be interested in this school of thought, way back in the mid 1960s, I would estimate that our numbers were in the tens, perhaps, at most, in the scores. Certainly, there were not anywhere near 100 economists working in the tradition of Mises, Hayek, Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Rothbard, Kirzner, etc. at that time. If I had to pick a single number, it would be 25. Now, my best off the cuff estimate of the number of economists working in this tradition would be in the several hundreds. If I had to pick a single number, it would be 500. My thought is that we Austrians have almost switched places with the Marxists; while we have gone from a handful to several hundreds, they have (happily) been moving in the opposite direction.

2. …dedicated followers"

Again, yes, "guilty" as charged. As a person who moves in both worlds, the Austrian and the mainstream, I sense that the former are far more passionate, concerned, involved, and indeed "dedicated" to their professional lives than the latter. Why is this? My speculation is that it emanates from two sources. First, the mainstream is, shall we say, "non receptive" to Austrian concerns. It is a bit galling to be ignored. This naturally motivates the "outsiders" more than the insiders. Second, in my view neoclassical economics (with many exceptions, certainly including your own work) degenerated into involvement in math for math's sake; it is no exaggeration to say that an awful lot of what passes for mainstream economics is not economics at all, but rather a bastardized form of mathematics. It should be no surprise that people involved in this stuff should be less "dedicated" to it than are Austrians to economics, as economics is, for most people, simply more interesting and related to the real world.

3. "Cult"

Here, I must sharply part company with you. Cults, in my understanding, are groups where the members follow the path of the leader not out of rational considerations, but rather because of awe, or love, or reverence, or some such. Certainly, there would be no toleration, within a cult, of a follower criticizing a leader. Were such to occur, the violator would be summarily dismissed from the cult. Instances of cults which fit this bill include the Randians, the Jonestown suicide group, the Hare Krishnas, etc.

To even mention Austrians in the same breath as these others in this regard is surely to misunderstand what is going on. Austrian journals are replete with criticisms of any and all leading lights. Look at virtually any issue of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics or of the Review of Austrian Economics and you will see all of the people mentioned above being raked over the coals.

4. "…who speak mainly to each other"

You are undoubtedly correct. Austrians do "speak mainly to each other." The reason, however, is that with but some few exceptions noted below, the mainstream refuses not only to speak to Austrians, but, even to allow the latter to speak to them.

Exhibit "B" in this regard is the University of Chicago's refusal to accept Hayek in its department of economics. (This occurred long before you joined that faculty, so this only indirectly concerns yourself.) Milton Friedman once explained this to me on the ground that he and his colleagues did not consider Hayek to be an economist; rather, a sort of political theorist, who would fit in better with Chicago's Committee on Social Thought. True, this rejection occurred long before Hayek won his Nobel Prize (it was in economics if memory serves), but still…. My thought is that the mainstream, at least at the University of Chicago (which is typical of the genre in my opinion) has a rather narrow conception of what economics is; whatever that is, it excludes what Hayek did. Exhibit "A" is the mainstream's shameful refusal to offer Mises a faculty position when he first came to the U.S. on any campus whatsoever, although he was later made a Fellow of the American Economic Association in 1969. Exhibit "C" consists of all those other Austrians who were long un- or underemployed in academia.

5. "… and interact little"

Another way in which Austrians could, conceivably, speak to neoclassicals is by publishing in the journals of the latter. But this is easier said than done. And not because the Austrians do not try to publish in mainstream journals; believe me, they do (self interest alone would explain these attempts, as publication in this venue is the surest path to professional success). The reason Austrians do not speak to mainstreamers in this way is that editors and referees of these periodicals are not exactly receptive to their offerings. Let me quote in this regard from the editorial (written by myself and Murray Rothbard) that introduced the first issue of the Review of Austrian Economics in 1987 (Vol. 1, p. xi):

"The existence of the Review of Austrian Economics will resolve some dilemmas now faced by Austrian-oriented researchers who attempt to publish in the mainline journals. Articles that simply assume a familiarity on the part of the profession with methodological norms and theoretical developments within the Austrian tradition are unlikely to be published; the profession, by and large, has no such familiarity. Articles that devote substantial space to stating and defending the methodological norms and retracing the theoretical development are also unlikely to be published; they are seen and correctly so, as unoriginal. Articles whose backgrounds are extensive in absolute terms but brief in relation to the remainder of the article do not constitute a workable compromise; they are rejected on the basis of length."

To this I would add an almost visceral hatred on the part of mainstream economists for Austrian (praxeological) treatments of issues; they are dismissed, out of hand, as the natterings of … "cultists."

Of course "Austrians speak mainly to each other and interact little" with their colleagues in the profession. But this is the fault of the latter, not the former. To complain of this is to "blame the victim."

There is, however, one exception to this general rule; interaction takes place in Austrian journals, not the reverse. To wit, the following neoclassicals have engaged in dialogue with Austrians, but only in Austrian journals: Gordon Tullock, Richard Timberlake, Harold Demsetz, Leland Yeager, Richard Wagner, David Laband and Robert Tollison. Dozens of other neoclassicals have come under sharp criticism from Austrians, but have so far not condescended to reply. (If I may be permitted to say something more than just a bit naughty, when these mainstreamers venture into such debates with Austrians, they invariably get creamed.)

That is, Austrians offer the palm leaf of dialogue and discussion; on rare occasions it is accepted, but always in the venue of the latter. Mainstreamers never (to my knowledge) make such overtures in their journals, and when Austrians offer to publish in neoclassical journals, they are for the most part rebuffed. There are of course some exceptions; most prominently in recent times there has been some Austrian material published in AEA journals: JEL — "From Mises to Shackle," by Ludwig Lachmann; JEL — "Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach," by Israel Kirzner. But this is very little.

Let me close this section by giving you one further example of this, which is really just the tip of the iceberg. Recently, a young mainstream economist published a ringing critique of Austrianism: Caplan, Bryan, “The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations,” Southern Economic Journal, April 1999, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 823-838, a neoclassical journal if ever there was one. Hulsmann and I submitted replies to Caplan to the Southern Economic Journal, and both were rejected. Subsequently both appeared, respectively, as the following: Block, Walter, "Austrian Theorizing: Recalling the Foundations," Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 2, No. 4, winter 1999, pp. 21-39; and Hulsmann, Jorg Guido, "Economic Science and Neoclassicism," Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 2, No. 4, Winter 1999, pp. 3-20. Did this end the debate? It did not. Instead, the editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics approached Caplan, and asked him if he would like to reply to Hulsmann and myself, and Caplan agreed. Thus, the debate is being carried even further, not in the SEJ, which is willing to publish mainstream potshots at Austrians, but rejects Austrian defenses, but rather in the QJ, which thereby demonstrates that it is open to both sides of an issue. Now, who is acting like a "cult?"

6. "… mainstream economics has absorbed much of what has been valuable in Austrian economics" I tend to disagree with you here. Let's consider a few examples:

a. "… the importance of the distribution of knowledge." I'll believe this when the mainstream gives up on its distinction between perfect and imperfect competition. The former features full knowledge and the latter, lack of full knowledge. Neoclassical economics still favors the former vis-à-vis the latter; namely, it is still operating on the basis of an unrealistic model (I know, I know, I've read Friedman on methodology) that has vast pernicious effects. As only one case in point, witness the ongoing prosecution of Microsoft, based entirely on this mainstream edifice.

b. "…the grave problems of socialism." Open up any copy of the American Economic Review, and I guarantee you will find one third of the articles proposing newly discovered "market failures," or waxing eloquent about old ones. (Ok, ok, I'm exaggerating, but not by much.) But what are these other than calls for increased government, e.g., a move toward socialism. Surely, you wouldn't deny that the AER is a mainstream journal, indeed, a veritable paradigm case.

c. "…the importance of entrepreneurs." Is there not, still, within mainstream economics, a veneration for all things smacking of equilibrium? But is not equilibrium the one thing incompatible with entrepreneurship? I know that the University of Chicago Press published Israel Kirzner's book on this subject a long time ago (1973), but this is the exception that proves the rule. I once saw Ben Klein's pre-publication exceedingly critical referee's report on this book, and I am amazed that the UC Press went ahead with this project anyway.

7. "Austrian economics could benefit greatly from developments in empirical economics…" I agree with you partially on this.

When it comes to purely empirical matters such as, what was the elasticity of demand for bananas in 1995 in Chicago, or what is the correlation between this and that, I have no doubt that econometrics in general, and recent developments in it, can be helpful.

But when the so-called "testing" of axiomatic economic laws is concerned, we must part company. Please hear me out; I know that for you as a logical positivist there is no such thing as an axiomatic economic law, but I would like to try to convince you, one, that you are mistaken in this, and two, that, deep down, you are really an Austrian, e.g., a fellow "cultist" of mine.

Let me run by you two episodes in this vein.

a. rent control.

I don't know whether you remember this or not, but when you were my dissertation advisor at Columbia University, my topic was rent control. I was, presumably, trying to test the usual implications of this law: that it causes rental housing deterioration, reduced investment in residential rental units, shortages, etc. These were the dependent variables in my regression equations. The independent variable was presence of rent control. My observations were cities. I tried to control for a few other things, such as wealth, income, race, etc. Most of the time the sign of my rent control variable was the correct one, indicating consistency between my model and the usual economic analysis of rent control (in which both Austrians and mainstreamers fully concur).

But every once in a while I got the wrong sign for this variable, indicating, if you believed my results, that rent control actually improved the housing situation. On these occasions did you brag to your colleagues that you had this young genius, Block, on your hands, who was in the process of overturning everything we all knew about rent control? Did you urge me to send my earth shaking results to the AER for publication? To ask these questions is to answer them: you did no such thing. Very much to the contrary you said, "Block, go out and do this again until you get it right!" That is what you explicitly said to me. In contrast, what I heard was: "Block, you dummy, go out and do this again until you get it right!" Of course, you were far too polite and supportive to actually say this to me, but I could tell that this was what you were thinking; at least, this is the way I felt, at the time.

So, what was "testing" what? Were my equations really testing the usual supply and demand analysis of rent control, or was the usual supply and demand analysis of rent control testing my econometrics? Obviously, the latter was the case.

Another episode was your reaction to the Card Krueger "finding" that the minimum wage has no deleterious effects, but rather if anything positive ones, on the employment prospects of unskilled workers in New Jersey. When you first got wind of this idiocy, did you say something like this to yourself: "Oh, well, we've got lots of evidence in the past to the contrary, but we've always got to be open to new evidence that maybe minimum wages really help unskilled workers get jobs;" or: "Oh, well, maybe economic law works differently, or not at all, in New Jersey." Knowing you, and reading what you subsequently wrote about this in Business Week, I infer that you thought, instead, along the lines undertaken by me and every other good "cultish" economist: economic law is economic law, and these guys are flat out wrong: I'm not going to rest until I show the errors they made in coming up with this idiocy. C'mon, Gary, admit it! Wasn't that your gut reaction?

But in doing so, you were actually, whether you appreciate it or not, acting and thinking like an Austrian ("cult") economist. You had, at least for the moment, jettisoned all this business about the much-vaunted in mainstream circles "empirical economics." You had gotten down to basics: that there is such a thing as economic law, that it is impervious to the wishes of the do-gooders, that it takes precedence over any empirical finding supposedly incompatible with it.

Milton Friedman once posed the challenge to me, "But if two Austrians disagree on a matter of economic law, and cannot resort to empirical testing, how can they settle their differences? Only by fighting (this is my paraphrase of his words)." My reply to him and implicitly to you is "But if two logicians or geometricians, or mathematicians, etc., disagree on a matter of logic, or geometry, or math, and cannot resort to empirical testing, how can they settle their differences? Of course not by fighting; rather, by looking for the lapse in logic, of which one (or both) of them are guilty. That is to say, I see economics not as an empirical science, along the lines of physics and chemistry, but, rather, similar to logic, geometry and math. And for this I am to be called a "cultist?" Now, I may be wrong in my contentions (I wait to be corrected by you on them), but can you honestly say I am acting like a cultist, e.g., arguing from authority, threatening to damn you to hell for not agreeing with me, etc?

Best regards, Walter

Undated

DEAR WALTER,

LET ME MAKE ONLY TWO SHORT POINTS.

1) I GIVE A PRECISE DEFINITON OF CULT:”BY A CULT I MEAN A SMALL NUMBER OF DEDICATED FOLLOWERS WHO SPEAK MAINLY TO EACH OTHER, AND INTERACT LITTLE WITH LET US CALL THEM MAINSTREAM ECONOMISTS.” I AM SURPRISED YOU WERE NOT CAREFUL ABOUT NOTING THIS, AND READ INTO THE WORD NOTIONS OF IRRATIONALITY, ETC.IT IS NOT IMPLIED BY MY DEFINITION OR BY OTHERS, AS WHEN THERE ARE CLAIMS ABOUT CULT MOVIES, ETC.

2) I DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO BLAME ABOUT WHO SPEAKS TO WHOM. SINCE AUSTRIANS ARE MUCH SMALLER, THEY SHOULD TRY TO INFLUENCE MAINSTREAM. BUT MY MAIN POINT IS THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT IDEAS OF AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL ECONOMISTS UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT THAT THE THEORY IN THE HANDS OF THE LEADERS DO INCORPORATE THIS.APROPOS OF THE MICROSOFT CASE, IT IS RELEVANT THAT THE LEAD ECONOMIST USED BY MICROSOFT IN THE CURRENT TRIAL IS KEVIN MURPHY, AN OUTSTANDING CHICAGO ECONOMIST. HE WELL UNDERSTANDS THE INFORMATION ISSUE AND USED IT, ALONG WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER INSIGHTS OF MODERN GOOD CHICAGO-STYLE MICRO.

MY FEE TO TRAVEL TO A UNIVERSITY IS TYPICALLY $XXX + EXPENSES. I SOMETIMES MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT DOWNWARD OR UPWARD, BUT THIS IS MY

INDIFFERENCE STARTING POINT.

ALL THE BEST, GARY

4/10/13

Dear Gary:

On your point 1. Yes, I agree with you, Austrian economics is a cult. But this follows from what I consider to be your rather unique definition of "cult" as a "a small number of dedicated followers who speak mainly to each other, and interact little with … (the) … mainstream…." By this definition those few who first thought the earth was round, or that our planet revolved around the sun and not vice versa, were also cultists. Initially, there were only a small number of people who went against the "mainstream" of the day, and they were indeed dedicated. Some of them paid a big penalty for espousing these "cultish" thoughts. I defined "cult" in terms of rationality, etc., because I believe this is a more accurate definition of that word.

Re point 2. Believe me, Austrian cultists do indeed try to "influence the mainstream." As said above, they are not exactly welcoming. In terms of who wins debates between the two on the rare occasions they take place, I refer you to this article:

Block, Walter, Christopher Westley and Alex Padilla. 2008. “Internal vs. external explanations: a new perspective on the history of economic thought,” Procesos De Mercado: Revista Europea De Economia Politica; issue 2, pp. 35-132; see here, here, here, or here.

Regarding the Microsoft case, Chicago-style micro (shared by pretty much the entire profession) sees monopoly in terms of four firm concentration ratios and Herfindahl indexes. Austrian economists see this as problematic for the definition of an industry is very subjective, and this entire enterprise artificially penalizes innovation. If I suddenly find the cure for cancer, my firm will have 100% of this "industry," and I'll be penalized as a monopolist. In contrast, we cultists see monopoly, I think much more sensibly, in terms of legal entry restrictions.

You didn't really address one of the issues I raised. I would be greatly interested in your response. I ask, how many negative empirical findings about the minimum wage would lead you to "lose confidence" in the usual economic assumptions about downward sloping demand curves and upward sloping supply curves. Suppose the next 5, 50, 500, 5,000, 50,000… you see where I'm going with this … econometric regression equations published in the "top" (that is, neoclassical) journals suggested that a higher minimum wage was associated with not fewer, but additional jobs for unskilled workers. At what point would you admit Card and Krueger were right.

Speaking as an Austrian cultist, I would say that no number of such "findings" would shake my confidence in the apodictic claim that ceteris paribus, a minimum wage will unemploy unskilled workers with DMVPs of less than that amount stipulated by law, compared to what unemployment level for them would have ensued in the absence of such legislation (the clearest explanation of this way of putting the matter is offered here: Hulsmann, 2003). And, further, given these qualifications, the higher the minimum wage is set at, the more unemployment there will be.

If there were really next 5, 50, 500, 5,000, 50,000… cases to the contrary, I would assume something weird was going on. Some rich pinko like Bill Gates was sticking his thumb on the scales. Paying off employers to hire the unskilled with DMVPs below the minimum wage, so that they would not lose thereby. But my "confidence" in the usual economic analysis of minimum wages would be precisely as unshakeable as it is now in the fact that triangles all have 180 degrees, and that the Pythagorean theorem is correct, even if next 5, 50, 500, 5,000, 50,000 "experiments" on these latter two issues appeared to overturn them.

So, again, I ask, how many "negative" findings would shake you on the minimum wage? The next 5, 50, 500, 5,000, 50,000 ….? What? My bet is that you will agree with me on this. That the dog is the theory, and the empirical work merely the tail; and that the dog shakes the tail, and not the other way around.

Gary, I still fondly remember my days at Columbia in the late 1960s as your student. You were my bright shining light then, and will be again when and if you stop seeing the economics of Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek and Rothbard as cultish.

Best regards, Walter

Hulsmann, Jorg Guido. 2003. "Facts and Counterfactuals in Economic Law." The Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 17, Num. 1, pp. 57-102

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: Chris Selley Is a Pussy Libertarian; I'mNot

How should the libertarian relate to the Iranian question? What is the Iranian question?

I oppose all governments since they violate the libertarian non aggression principle (NAP). But how does the Iranian government compare with other such illicit entities, when viewed through the eyeglasses of the NAP. Not too badly. No. I take that back. Pretty darned good, I should say, instead. At least in the modern era (I am no ancient historian), this country has followed a foreign policy very congruent with libertarianism. They have not been invading other nations that have not attacked them first, unlike the U.S. (The Iraq-Iran war was a defensive one of the part of the latter; the former attacked them first, and they merely fought back; rather successfully, as it happens.) Iran does not have military bases on foreign soil, again in sharp contrast to the U.S. which has some 1000 of them located in about 160 different countries. Iran has never incinerated massive numbers of civilians with atomic weaponry, as has, again, a certain country located south of Canada.

At the time of the present writing, the U.S. and numerous other gangster countries (I speak comparatively here; all governments consist of criminal gangs, but some are more, much more, egregious than others) has imposed sanctions on Iran. Evidently, these nations think that Iranian barriers to trade (tariff and quotas) are not sufficiently high. Ron Paul has quite properly called these sanctions an act of war against Iran. Can they be justified? Certainly, and even more, if Iran had attacked us first. Have they done so? Of course not. Not even the warmonger in chief of the U.S., that winner of the Nobel Peace prize of all things, makes that claim. (In the view of the imperialist western neo-conservative press, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a crazed lunatic who has made all sorts of threats in this regard, but it is my understanding that mistranslations have an explanatory role in this). Therefore these sanctions are unjustified, and should be removed forthwith.

The claim is that while Iran has not yet engaged in any foreign military adventurism, it is planning to create nuclear weaponry which would enable them to do so, and that once armed, they would indeed use these diabolical devices against innocent people. However, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a deeply religious man and leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution which overthrew the hated (and US imposed) Shah of Iran., is on record as opposing such bombs, on religious grounds. Further, the present Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, is of the same opinion.

But let us suppose, arguendo, that Iran does indeed develop the nuclear bomb. Is this compatible with libertarianism? Not at all. According to the view of Murray N. Rothbard, Mr. Libertarian, it is not, if only because its power cannot be confined to the guilty. However, let us now ask an entirely different question: will Iran's contrary to fact conditional attainment of this weapon save lives? This is purely an empirical question, an entirely speculative one.

At first glance, the answer is a clear No. The thought of this bomb being detonated in the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, is horrific. Hundreds of thousands of people, probably millions, would perish. That is the case against this thesis that the bomb would save lives.

There is another side of the argument, however. Is North Korea safer from attack now that it has nuclear capabilities, than before? It is difficult to answer this question in the negative. Almost certainly, it is safer. But is it likely to use this weapon on South Korea, or Japan or the U.S. This is unlikely in the extreme. Its leaders full well know that were this to occur, their entire nation, including themselves and their families, would vanish in a puff of dust. Would a non-nuclear invasion of North Korea cost lives? Yes, indeed. Tens of thousands or more. So, in attaining the bomb, North Korea has likely made its own citizens safer, and those also of any invading army.

This precise analysis applies, too, to Iran. That country is far less likely to suffer the fate of Iraq having a nuclear device in its possession than without one. Its leaders know full well that were they to use such a weapon against Israel, that would spell their doom. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. fought a cold war of several decades. Not a shot was fired between them. Quite possibly, the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is what saved Russian and American lives. A similar analysis applies to Iran and Israel.

But what of the argument that if Iran gets the bomb, so too, then, will others? Next might be Japan, then Egypt, then a country in South America, then one in Africa. If so many nations wield this weapon, will we not then be less safe? And, therefore, should we not move heaven and earth to ensure that this does not occur in this Persian nation?

Let us consider which nuclear nations are most likely to actually use this weapon. I base this prediction on how warlike they have been recently, in terms of foreign wars or invasions. Russia has had internal fracases (Chechnya), but has not invaded any foreign country since Afghanistan. France and England are stable countries but the latter gets bad marks for entering Afghanistan, and failing to negotiate with the Argentineans and the former for Mali and Algeria. India, Pakistan and China have all thrown bullets at each other, and the latter is now "making waves" against the Philippines, Japan and South Korea over a few rocky islands. North Korea has not invaded anyone. The least stable of all the nuclear powers, in terms of foreign aggrandizement, is surely the U.S. So if the leaders of this country are so worried about the spread of nuclear weapons, they should lead by example.

Even though the U.S. has once engaged in this barbaric practice in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is still a stable country, and is unlikely to do so again (all such prognostications must necessarily be highly speculative).

The Iranians have offered, in a civilized manner, to sit down with their American enemies and discuss matters. This has not occurred. Just who is it that is the barbarian in this particular episode?

I write not only from a libertarian perspective but from a personal one, too. I am Jewish. I am a member in good standing of the group, Jews for Ron Paul. I have numerous friends and relatives who live in Israel. I am not sure of this, but it is quite possible that they will be safer, not more at risk, with a nuclear armed Iran. Unhappily, I know very few Iranians on a personal basis. But I do know one. His name is Houshang Memarzadeh. We both lived in Canada for a time. During that era, this third degree black belt in Shotokan karate was my sensei or teacher in this sport. My son Matthew and I both became brown belts under his tutelage. My Matthew, and his two sons Aptin and Omed, practiced team karate kata together; they sparred with each other. The three of them were friends. Our two families met for meals. I have rarely known a nicer or gentler man than Houshang Memarzadeh. After Canada, we went our separate ways. Me to Loyola University in New Orleans, him and his family back to Iran. The thought of him and his two sons fighting my friends and relatives in Israel fills me with dread. I am horrified and appalled at the prospect. I only wish that Ron Paul were now president of the U.S. If he were, instead of that drone throwing Nobel Peace Prize winning war-monger, we would all be much safer. A president Paul would have by now withdrawn all U.S. troops from foreign lands. There would be no stranglehold sanctions against Iranians.

The people in Europe in 1913 did not know that soon the world as they knew it would blow up in their faces. I hope and trust that we in 2013, one hundred years later, are not soon to meet the same fate.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: My ‘Debate’ With George Jonas Continues

I seem to be in a rut. This essay is yet another one critical of a semi demi quasi libertarian journalist who writes regularly for Canada's National Post, a newspaper roughly equivalent ideologically to "our" War Street Journal. Today's missive is aimed at one Chris Selley, who wrote an op ed entitled Religious education under fire on February 5, 2013.

First, a bit of background. Canada, believe it or not, is even more politically correct than is the good old US of A. There, the Christian religion is widely and heavily deprecated as being inconsistent with the ethos of the day which supports sex before marriage, gay rights, etc. Trinity Western University (TWU), one such institution, has the temerity to insist that all students and employees must sign a covenant prohibiting "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman."

A few years ago a fuss was made by the politically correct left over allowing teacher certifications for graduates of TWU, who might infect their young charges with this unacceptable philosophy. More recently this university has now begun the process of attempting to open up a law school, and the usual howls of outrage are heard. Selley reports that the president of the Canadian Council Association of Law Deans objected to this covenant on the ground that "Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unlawful in Canada and fundamentally at odds with the core values of all Canadian law schools." He did so in order to convince the Federation of Canadian Law Societies, the accrediting agency, to oppose this initiative of TWU's, as if they needed any help in this direction.

To his great credit, Selley quite properly gives this opposition to TWU's plan the back of his hand (he does have some libertarian sensibilities after all.) He notes that Muslim students are treated quite a bit more respectfully than Christians. He rejects the claim from this "human rights" quarter that this covenant would lead to a shoddy law school, noting that several law schools at religious universities in the U.S. are very prestigious. This journalist duly notes the several years success of TWU's teacher's college.

But then he gets into a bit of trouble, at least with principled libertarians. He attempts to refute this argument put forth by yet another member of Canada's very strong "progressive" movement: "Would the governing bodies of the legal profession in Canada approve a law school that prohibited mixed-race sexual intimacy?"

How does Selley attempt to refute this charge? He states:

"Being a private university, libertarians would argue TWU should be allowed to admit whomever it wants. That's more or less where I'm at: A private university you wouldn't want to go to anyway is not the equivalent of a Woolworth's lunch counter, or of government marriage benefits. But the mainstream reaction, if we discovered some hitherto unknown whites-only university in the B.C. interior, would be to shut the place down u2014 not its law school, not its engineering faculty, the whole place. If people think TWU is doing the moral equivalent, why are we only talking about its law school? There's no moral difference between anti-gay discrimination and anti-black discrimination. And the only legal difference is that a religious freedom defence (sic) is far more likely in the first case than in the second u2014 and, perhaps, that we're only just getting rolling down this road. The full spectrum of gay rights is a newer development."

What sticks in my craw here is that crack about Woolworth's lunch counter. I cannot be 100% sure, I wish this man would write more clearly, but in my interpretation Selley is saying that this firm was not justified in refusing to serve black people; the implication is that the so called Civil Rights Act of 1964 was entirely justified. Of course, one of the basic tenets of libertarianism is the law of free association. No one should be compelled, at the point of a government gun, to associate with anyone else, against his will. Compelling Woolworths to seat blacks is thus incompatible with libertarianism. It was a violation of their private property rights over their establishment.

Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to "associate" with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn't so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves' private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.

Most men of good will are inclined to reject this argument. They see racial discrimination as economically harmful to the targeted group. They are economically illiterate. They do not realize that these sorts of boycotts have very little power. When employers discriminate against a given group, they drive their wages down. But this makes hiring them, by other employers, much more profitable, ceteris paribus. If some firms will not sell lunch to blacks, others will arise to do so, and be able to earn greater profits than would otherwise be the case. If some companies force blacks to ride in the back of the bus, others with no such rules will compete for their custom, and earn extraordinary profits from doing so. In all such cases, in the free marketplace, the latter (non discriminators) will tend to drive the former (discriminators) out of business.

Why didn't this work in the south in the early part of the 20th century? Did economic law function differently, or not at all, in that time and place? Not a bit of it. These salutary effects were not allowed to come into being due to the government and its Jim Crow laws that prohibited the competition of the non discriminators. If, is as usually assumed by our friends on the left (“progressives” as they now call themselves after having besmirched the name “liberal” which they stole from us), ordinary white people so hated and reviled black people, why were Jim Crow laws even necessary in the first place? Couldn't racism, all on its own, have accomplished this goal? No, and this was due to the economics of the case, as mentioned above. Without Jim Crow laws enforcing such behavior, the "magic of the market" would have rendered this type of racism impotent. The two people who have done more than perhaps anyone else to shed some basic economic light on the economics of discrimination are Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. Google them. Read them. (I note that initially Rand Paul took a splendid libertarian position on this matter, but then in an interview with Rachel Maddow, unfortunately backed down. In sharp contrast Ron Paul continues to uphold this free association banner of libertarianism.)

Another difficulty with the intellectual position of the anti discrimination, anti free association folk is that they always apply their totalitarian notions to the business world, not the personal one. If discrimination against black people ought to be against the law, why not apply this to both realms of human interaction. After all, murder is illegal both in the bed room and in the board room.

How would this work if implemented? Human "rights" commissions would insist that if blacks are, say, 10% of the population, and whites 90%, then the correct proportion of intermarriages ought to take place. If there are too few, then no more marriages should be allowed until this statistical representation once again reoccurred. After all, sans discrimination, this is exactly what we would expect. Similarly, even for dating. If there were an all white couple, or an all black couple, then each of the four of them should be queried as to whether or not ugly discrimination were responsible for their choices. They ought to be made to prove their purity. Statistical disparity, as it is now in the realms of business and education, would be evidence of racially motivated discrimination. The burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise would be upon them.

Now let us apply this to sexual relations, and we will see that anti free association laws logically imply compulsory bisexuality. Take heterosexual men, for example. They are disgusting creatures. They arbitrarily and unconscionably eliminate half the human race as potential love-bed partners. If that is not prejudice, then nothing is (it is politically correct for me to castigate heterosexual women; everyone knows they are evil; as a staunch believer in political correctitude, I am happy to abide by its mandates.) Now consider heterosexual women, for example. They, too, are disgusting creatures. They arbitrarily and unconscionably eliminate half the human race as potential love-bed partners. If that is not prejudice, then nothing is (it is not politically correct for me to castigate heterosexual men; but I am going to go out on a limb and do this anyway.) It is now the turn of homosexual men. They, too, are disgusting creatures. (I'm going to be run out of town on a rail for saying that, but the truth is the truth; I cannot tell a lie). They arbitrarily and unconscionably eliminate half the human race as potential love-bed partners. (Do you think I'm being too repetitive here?) If that is not prejudice, then nothing is. And the same goes for homosexual women. They, too, are disgusting creatures. (I can't anymore be run out of town on a rail for saying that, since this departure of mine has already been imposed on me). They, too, arbitrarily and unconscionably eliminate half the human race as potential love-bed partners. If that is not prejudice, then nothing is.

So where are we? I lost my train of thought. Oh, yes. It is only bisexuals who do NOT arbitrarily and unconscionably eliminate half the human race as potential love-bed partners. They do not prejudicially ignore anyone; they will consider all people. Long live bisexuality. All "progressives" ought to embrace this life style choice, if they want to stick to their principles. But wait! Bisexuals, too, as it turns out, are disgusting creatures. They, as does everyone else mentioned above, I think I've been exhaustive but I'm really not sure, are also discriminators. They don't eliminate half the human race as potential love-bed partners, but hear this: Bisexuals (remember, they are disgusting creatures) favor beauty ("lookism"), intelligence ("IQism"), compatibility ("compatibilityism"), age ("ageism"), and a whole host of other qualities. Bisexuals, like everyone else, disgust me, progressive that I am.

Where does "pussy libertarianism" come into play? Ann Coulter accused libertarians of this character flaw, because, she said, among other things, we refuse to apply our philosophy to racial and sexual discrimination. We limit our views to pussy issues such as imperialism and drug legalization. This, of course, is an outright lie; but it sure got press coverage. But, it does seem to apply to those such as Chris Selley who refuse to apply libertarianism to these hot button issues.

Am I being unfair to Chris Selley? I honestly don't know for sure, but I expect I am not. That nasty remark about "Woolworth's lunch counter" seems to indicate he does not fully accept the libertarian view on free association and racial discrimination. But the point is, he is not at all very clear on this, as in the case of his colleague George Jonas. Perhaps in a future column Mr. Selley will clarify this matter.

Mr. Selley, do not be such a pussy. Embrace your inner libertarianism. Let it come out of the closet.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: The Curious Case of the Non-Libertarian, George Jonas

This "debate" of mine with George Jonas all started with a column of his in Canada's National Post of January 19, 2013 entitled "Don't call me a libertarian." But, this editorialist didn't mention in it any reason at all why he rejected this philosophy of free enterprise. So on January 20, 2013 I wrote a blog on LewRockwell.com, called "More than passing curious: George Jonas and libertarianism" in which I called upon him to tell enquiring minds just why he wished to disassociate himself from this view of political economy. Next up in the batter's box was Mr. Jonas again, who wrote on January 28, 2013, “George Jonas on libertarianism: Drawing out the true believers.” Again, slipperyness must be his middle name, this author declined to mention any specific flaws he saw in the freedom philosophy (despite the fact that, in my own view, his past columns, when relevant, virtually always supported free markets and private property rights, basic elements of libertarianism.) I replied to that second piece of his on February 8, 2013 with my "If You’re Going To Attack Libertarianism, try having a clue; The Curious Case of the Non-Libertarian, George Jonas."

His initial response to this was "George Jonas: An old-school liberal lost in the present," which appeared in the National Post of February 13, 2013. I did not reply to this, for two reasons. First, again, for a change, he said nothing substantive (I tells you, if I had a regular column in the prestigious National Post I would not waste it with hand waving like that; heck, I am fortunate enough to be a regular contributor to the far less prestigious LewRockwell.com, and I assure you, gentle reader, that I try my utmost to fill its pages with matters of substance). And second he did end on this note: "I've run out of space, but in my next column I will list the reasons I think libertarianism is too much of a good thing." So, I figured, I'd wait until Mr. Jonas fulfilled this promise of his to reply further. He did indeed make good on this with his column of February 16, 2013, entitled "George Jonas on libertarianism: The state has its place." Well, at least he did write a follow up column to the one that appeared on February 13, 2013. I place quote marks around the word "debate" in the title of this present essay because, in spite of his promise, although he did do a bit better than his previous writings on this subject, he still didn't really list any serious objections to libertarianism, nor any reasons for them.

I am now about to reply to this last contribution of Jonas' to our "debate." But before I do, let me mention the libertarian classifications as I see them, in an attempt to clear out the underbrush, clarify matters, should this journalist wish to, finally, get his views, if he really has any, out on the table.

The way I see matters, libertarianism is based upon the Non Aggression Principle (NAP). This states, simply, that it is illicit for anyone, at any time, ever, to initiate (or even threaten) violence or invasion, against anyone else or his legitimately held property. (The latter is based for virgin territory on homesteading, and for everything else on licit title transfers, voluntary ones such as barter, purchase, rental, hiring, gifts, gambling, etc.) So who are the ballplayers in this field?

First come the libertarian anarchists, or anarcho-capitalists, as they are the only ones to adhere to a philosophy strictly respecting the NAP. The name in my mind most associated with this perspective is Murray N. Rothbard. He was the most rigorous exponent of this view, in addition to being my friend and mentor. I certainly count myself in this category. In this view, all "legitimate" (see below) government functions, without exception, should be privatized. Since there is no unanimous support for the state (its taxes are not equivalent to club dues), it is an illicit organization. Its leaders are no better than gangsters. But with far better public relations.

Next comes limited government libertarianism, or support for very minimal government, or minarchism. I list this next since they are second in their respect for, and adherence to, the NAP. The most famous people associated with this view are Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, Ludwig von Mises and Robert Nozick. Most if not all of them pay lip service to the NAP, but none of them carry through on this fully, and without exceptions, in my view. Here, the typical position is that government should have one and only one function: to protect the persons and legitimately held property against all incursions (note the similarity to the previous perspective). To this single end, there are only three legitimate institutions that the state may inaugurate: police to keep local bad guys off of us, armies to ensure that foreigners do not invade us (not to be the policemen-imperialists of the world), and courts to distinguish the criminals from the victims, to force the former to compensate the latter, and to ensure that valid (NAP compatible) contracts are enforced.

Third in this hierarchy are what I call the classical liberals (does Jonas count himself in this category?). To the police, courts and armies adherents of this view would add a few more functions: taking care of so-called public goods such as contagious diseases, asteroid strikes, maybe highways (eminent domain laws, "expropriation" in Canada, would be justified to deal with the hold out problem) and a few others. Many in this group at least in the U.S. are constitutionalists, and would thus support government Post Offices, mints, etc. The people in my mind most associated with this view are Richard Epstein and Thomas Sowell. The latter's economic and social views clearly place him as a classical liberal. But he is such a war-monger that I cannot count him as a libertarian, and since I am including classical liberals under this rubric, I must exclude him from that category.

Fourth is what I characterize as weak market supporters (does Jonas count himself in this category?). The names in my mind most representative of this perspective are Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek (the Canadian version of this would be the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, my employer from 1979-1991). When they are good (in their adherence to the NAP) these two Economics Nobel Prize winners are very, very good. Some of the best defenses of the free market system come from the pens of Hayek and Friedman. When they are bad, they are horrid; they support numerous additions to the state functions over and above those accepted by the classical liberals. I characterize the first three of these groups as libertarians, but not the fourth. These scholars accept so many additional functions for government that at their worst they merge into, ugh, centrists.

With this introduction, I am now ready to try to pigeon-hole Jonas, to react to his most recent contribution to this "debate" of ours. (Why do I pick on him, when there are so many others? He started this, by criticizing libertarianism. And hey, the others are on my list too; they will just have to wait their turn).

After a brief recapitulation of our "debate," Jonas starts off with this claim: "… I prefer my own backwater. It's even farther out of the mainstream than Professor Block's, but the fauna skating along the brackish surface seems more congenial." I haven't a clue as to what the latter phrase means, nor does he inform us (if any of my students wrote like this, they would feel my editorial wrath). As to the former, I peg Jonas as a classical liberal, or a weak market supporter. How either of those qualifies as "farther out of the mainstream" than my anarcho-capitalist Rothbardian viewpoint is completely beyond me.

He next states: "Both libertarians and old-fashioned u2018classical' liberals cast a cold eye at the state, except the liberal's glance doesn't result in outright rejection. The libertarian's might." This is true for the free market capitalist, but not for the minarchist, also a libertarian in good standing, in my view.

Jonas then invokes my previous statement that "economic freedom and private property rights (are) basic tenets of libertarianism." He criticizes it on the ground that "economic freedom and private property rights seem to be basic tenets even of Chinese Communism by now." I do not deny that China has made great strides since the days of Mao in the direction of civilization. Stupendous ones. And, yes, in some ways, the amount of "economic freedom and private property rights" in the Middle Kingdom rivals that enjoyed in North America and Western Europe. Thus to call their system "Chinese Communism," just because they do so, is to engage in flagrant mislabeling. However, China is surely not a free enterprise society yet. To pick out just one flaw among many, their horrendous levels of pollution bespeak lawless allowance of trespassing smoke particles, surely a violation of "private property rights." See on that the best essay ever written on environmentalism, right here.

According to Jonas, "The usual ruse is to play lip service to something and not practice it. Capitalism has reversed this trend in our times: Everybody knocks private enterprise, then goes ahead and does it. Why? It bloody works. Enterprise grows prosperity like Marx grew his beard. Canada, where private property rights enjoy no constitutional protection, has its own way of playing the same game."

I think he speaks too quickly here. Am I to believe that Jonas seriously believes that "capitalism" is alive and well in Canada? Perhaps this claim is not too far off the mark when compared to other countries. But this country to the north of us has compulsory marketing boards, zoning, minimum wage laws, drug prohibitions, a central bank, fiat currency, coercive unions, anti-trust legislation, tariffs, unemployment insurance, socialized medicine, helmet laws even for bicyclists and skaters, taxes (far over and above the 10% of GDP that would be acceptable for most classical liberals, to say nothing of even minarchists). It is a welfare warfare state. It has "human rights" tribunals prohibiting discrimination on a whole host of bases (in some ways, they are even more politically correct and nanny statist than Americans). What in bloody blue blazes is the Canadian army doing in Afghanistan? Did that nation's army invade it?

But when are we going to get to reasons why Jonas rejects libertarianism? I was too impatient. Here is one: "In my last column (February 13, 2013, mentioned above by the present author) I indulged myself in the quip that libertarianism is too much of a good thing. How can that be? Perhaps in a linear world there would be no such creature, but in a circular, or more accurately, spiral world like ours, too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing again, albeit one level closer to Nirvana. Can this happen to liberty? I guess so; it can happen to anything. Unbridled liberty can become chaotic. Chaos doesn't enhance freedom. On the contrary, it ties freedom into knots."

This is highly problematic. What on earth are "circular" and "spiral worlds?" I googled the latter, and got this; nothing that I recognize as helpful at all or even germane. Similarly for "circular worlds." I googled that, too, and the results were even less helpful, if that is possible. Here I am, trying to have a serious debate with this man, and he is giving me "circular" and "spiral worlds?" Maybe that is a special Canadian code, unknown to outsiders? And what's with this "Unbridled liberty?" On the one hand, this is all to the good. Our freedom to do exactly what we want provided only that we respect the NAP should be unbridled, or unlimited. That is what freedom is all about. The denial of this is to that extent slavery. On the other hand, this sounds all too much like a violation of the NAP (unbridled license to rape, burn, loot, pillage?), which for sure no libertarian would favor. And where, pray tell, does "chaos" come into all this. Again, if my students wrote like this, giving no specifics, they would get my red pen all over their work. It seems that the National Post has far lower standards.

But wait, perhaps I spoke too quickly. Mr. Jonas now supplies us with a specific example. Perhaps this is what he meant by "chaos." He avers:

"Poorly designed and unregulated intersections in Asia kill bicyclists and pedestrians by the hundreds but, as if that weren't bad enough, they also bring traffic to a standstill. Anyone can witness the consequences of vehicular anarchy on YouTube. It's scary and enlightening. Up-to-date libertarians don't conduct mindless campaigns against traffic lights. It's possible to be addicted to liberty without being masochistic. Today's libertarians seek to enhance their program along with their electability. The best offer ingenious substitutes for the command economy's current model of government-dominated commerce and transportation. Such books as Dr. Block's own The Privatization of Roads and Highways argue persuasively that communities can maintain standards of safety and good order by voluntary, non-coercive and non-governmental approaches in services and infrastructure replacing the insolent, petty and all too often corrupt machinery of the state."

I thank our author for mentioning my book. But I really do not understand what he is getting at here. He seems to be saying at the outset that unbridled ("chaotic?") capitalism in Asia kills people. But then, if I follow him, and I am not at all sure that I do, he follows this up by positively citing my book which blames the government for all these road deaths which plague modern society. So how can free enterprise both be the cause (chaos?) of these deaths, and also the cure (privatized roads and highways) for them?

Jonas states: "Although many agree with the libertarian view that u2018Leviathan' — the state — is evil, the feeling is widespread that it's a necessary evil." Yes, for sure, it is widespread. Most people have been taken in by the siren song of the state. But is it true? Is government really necessary? Our editorialist again leaves us guessing his view. For classical liberal libertarians, as I have defined them, the government is indeed a necessary evil. The same is true for limited government libertarians. As far as anarcho-capitalists are concerned, the government is indeed evil, but not at all necessary.

Jonas states: "Convincing evidence of successful privatization of functions that have been hitherto viewed as exclusively governmental would go a long way toward demonstrating that Leviathan isn't just evil but unnecessary." True. That is exactly what I tried to do with my book on streets and highways. But how does this relate to this author telling us why he rejects libertarianism? It does not do so in the slightest.

Here is more of his stream of consciousness style: "I've more tolerance for what I call janitorial government than my libertarian friends, but agree that most of their functions could safely be privatized. Would the savings be worth it? I don't know. It's a different question."

"Janitorial government?" What's that? Garbage dumps? Refuse removal? Washing floors? Urinals? Picking up litter? Why can't he be specific? Does he think he loses points for clarity? And, if he believes that these functions, whatever they are, "could safely be privatized" that puts him in the camp of the free market anarchists. Does he really want to go there? Who knows?

But wait. Again I speak too soon. Here, at last, is a specific criticism of libertarianism: "Like all movements on the fringes, libertarianism can seem shrill, smug, doctrinaire and millennial at times, with rhetoric and behaviour resembling a cult's more than a political party's. Dr. Block, for instance, described his credo of libertarianism, speaking at least half-seriously, as "the last best hope for … the very survival of mankind."

I am not at all "half serious." I am deadly serious about this. At a time when China and Japan might possibly go to war with each other over a few islands and the oil there; at a time when the U.S. and its allies (Canada, for shame, included) are bombing innocents in of all out of the way places Afghanistan; at a time when Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama is utilizing drones here, there and everywhere; at a time when many different countries have nuclear weapons; at a time when in the last century governments, Jonas's "necessary evil" state, murdered some 170 million people; at a time when Israel and its Arab enemies are at each other's throats; at a time when people are killing each other in Africa; does it really sound "shrill, smug, doctrinaire and millennial" to say that if everyone adhered to the NAP mankind would be much more likely to survive than if it does not? It might sound this way to Jonas' ears, but not at all to mine.

I take note that Jonas calls libertarianism (I should say, at least my version of it) a "cult." In my understanding of this phrase, a cult requires a cult leader, and slavish devotion to him. I do indeed agree with Jonas that Randianism, Objectivism, is indeed a cult, because these characteristics do fit that movement, and that they are often considered libertarian, with good reason. Why do I believe this? Because there is evidence for this claim. What evidence is there for libertarianism fitting this bill? Jonas, for his part, offers none whatsoever. This is thus mere name-calling on his part. The last refuge of the intellectual coward is to descend into name calling on the basis of no evidence at all. Well, I've got some for you, Jonas: you are a dodo, a poo-poo head, a silly-willy. There. Take that. Isn't this an elevated "debate?"

And what is so great about a "political party?" Apart from the Libertarian Party of Canada, the Libertarian Party of the U.S., and Ron Paul's part of the Republican Party, none of them are in any way, shape or form libertarian. That means they all advocate to a greater or lesser degree coercion against innocent people and statism. I see no reason for changing my "rhetoric and behaviour" to fit that of any of the statist political parties. Jonas offers none, as is his wont. As to my "behaviour," I cannot believe he is accusing me of any NAP violation, such as murder, rape, theft. Although with him, one can never be sure.

At long last, Jonas concludes: "When I remarked that I wouldn't feel comfortable discussing policy issues — drugs, abortion, central banking — with people who thought they embodied the last best hope for mankind's survival, because they might feel justified, indeed duty-bound, to coerce me until I adjusted my view to fit theirs, Dr. Block expressed relief that I misunderstood libertarianism to u2018this gargantuan degree.' u2018Perhaps there is hope for enlisting [Jonas] in the one true faith (no, I don't speak tongue in cheek, here),' Dr. Block wrote, u2018when once he learns what libertarianism really is all about…. The essence of this freedom philosophy is the non aggression principle (NAP). This means it is impermissible to ever u2018coerce' anyone, for any reason. The NAP further maintains that no one should ever compel, force, coerce anyone into doing or not doing anything either, except of course to respect this very rule of non aggression.' Except to respect the holy NAP. In other words, to disagree. Thanks, Dr. Block. I rest my case."

I take note of the fact that in four tries, Jonas has not yet given a list of the errors of libertarianism, as he sees them. He has forthrightly and adamantly refused to discuss such issues as "drugs, abortion, central banking." Lookit, "respecting the NAP" does not at all mean "agreeing." It only implies that you keep your mitts to yourself; off of other people and their property, unless you have their permission. Jonas has not yet threatened to punch me in the nose, or to in any other way disrespect my bodily integrity. So, as far as I am concerned, he is a respecter of the NAP in good standing. Now, he may as a matter of ideology reject the NAP as a central premise in political philosophy. That means he favors the threat or the actual use of violence against innocent people. Ok, fine; he is not an anarcho capitalist, who rigidly eschews such barbaric behavior. There is still plenty of room for him in the libertarian universe, possibly as a minarchist, or a classical liberal.

He calls himself by the latter label. Fine, again. In his view then, if it is to be congruent with my categorizations, he is neither a minarchist nor a free market anarchist. Again fine. But, if he is to carry this "debate" any further, then it is incumbent upon him to give reasons why he rejects libertarianism (apart from my "shrill, smug, doctrinaire and millennial" rhetoric and my "cultism.") If he is to carry this "debate" any further, he must say why he disagrees with libertarians on "drugs, abortion, central banking." He has to be specific, something it would appear is very difficult for him. He does not owe this to me; rather, he owes it to his readers. He started off this entire train of events on January 19, 2013 by writing under the heading of "Don't call me a libertarian." The only substantive reason he has ever given for not explaining why is my shrillness, smugness, etc., and cultism. (Yes, he said it would be "chaotic" but then contradicted himself on that claim). That will hardly suffice. Mr. Jonas, please don't "rest (your) case" without explaining yourself at least once.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: Forced Vaccinations

George Jonas is an editorial writer for the National Post, a Canadian newspaper (somewhat similar to the Wall Street Journal in overall outlook). On January 19, 2013, he wrote an essay entitled "Don't call me a libertarian." In that essay of his, he did not give even one reason why he rejected my favorite political economic philosophy, libertarianism.

Why is it important that Jonas be severely rebuked for this outrageous behavior of his? It is because he is one of the leading libertarian voices in the entire country to the north of us. If he explicitly rejects libertarianism, as he has recently done, then there is just that much less hope for the fledgling libertarian movement in Canada. On the other hand, if he can but be moved to at least discuss this perspective on the pages of the National Post which he so far adamantly refuses to do (it is one of my motives for writing the present essay to shake him out of that cowardly stance), this will give a boost to free markets and laissez faire capitalism in that country.

Mr. Jonas has published 16 books, including one coauthored by Barbara Amiel, his former wife, who is also another important Canadian libertarian. He has contributed to such U.S., British and European publications as the National Review, Saturday Review, The Chicago Sun-Times, The Daily Telegraph, Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy Magazine, the Hungarian Review (Budapest) and The National Interest. Jonas’ media awards in Canada and abroad include the Edgar Allan Poe Award for the Best Crime Non-Fiction Book (New York, 1978), two Nelly Awards for the Best Radio Program (Toronto, 1983 and 1986), three National Magazine Awards (Toronto, 1991; 2006 and 2007), and two Gemini Awards for the Best TV Movie and for the Best Short Dramatic Program (Toronto, 1993). For more on this author, see here, here and here.

The very next day, January 20, 20123, I published a blog on LewRockwell.com called "More than passing curious: George Jonas and libertarianism." In this response of mine I said, among other things: "Naturally, as a long time libertarian myself, I was interested in why a columnist for a major newspaper did not ascribe to the one and only correct view on political economy. He obviously knew how to spell the word u2018libertarian.' He even thought this philosophy important enough to write about it. I started reading with bated breath…. In the event, I was rather disappointed with this column of his… Jonas did not mention a single solitary policy proposal of libertarianism…. Instead, he meandered all over the lot, discussing numerous issues that simply had nothing to do with support for, or detraction of, libertarianism…. Maybe, one of these days (hint, hint, Jonas) he will explain why it is that he opposes the freedom philosophy, the only just system, the last best hope for peace, prosperity and the very survival of mankind."

Then the fun began. On January 28, 2013, Mr. Jonas replied to my missive with an op-ed entitled: "George Jonas on libertarianism: Drawing out the true believers."

One error he made was to attribute my article to my long time friend and libertarian colleague Lew Rockwell. Said Jonas: "Some bloggers on their own sites made no bones about their disappointment. u2018Jonas did not mention a single solitary policy proposal of libertarianism,' complained the noted anarcho-capitalist commentator Lew Rockwell." No, no, u2018twasn't Lew Rockwell who said that. u2018Twas me,Walter Block. Sloppy, sloppy.

Another problem I had with Jonas' response was that he still never mentioned any substantive principle or policy of the libertarian philosophy, and told a gigantic anxiously waiting world (ok, ok, the very small world of libertarianism) why he rejected it. He offered the following as an excuse: "… many readers were disappointed. They expected a critique of libertarian philosophy or Libertarian party politics, perhaps even an analysis of U.S, presidential candidate and (undeclared) libertarian legend Ron Paul, which my piece wasn't. All I wanted to answer was the question, u2018what are you,' not to explain why I wasn't something else."

Yes, I was a bit disappointed. Whenever anyone explicitly rejects libertarianism, I, along with numerous other inquiring minds, want to know why. This is especially true of a man like George Jonas, most of whose past columns may be fairly summarized as supporting economic freedom and private property rights, basic tenets of libertarianism. When someone writes a column entitled "Don't call me a libertarian," this would appear not to be an altogether outrageous expectation.

His second excuse for not manning up and articulating which libertarian principles he rejects is that "the editors christened" his initial essay of January 19, 2013. This gets him off the hook for not substantively responding and satisfying the curiosity of libertarians in his first go around, but hardly in his follow up.

But he is not out of excuses quite yet. His third one had to do with dentists and Papuans, which I confess was a bit beyond my limited intellectual ken. Jonas must be a very brilliant man to come up with something like that. Or, maybe it's a Canadian thing? Like living in igloos and riding around on a dog sled? Who knows? (On a more serious note, this Papuan dentist stuff fully suffices to excuse his article of January 19, but not at all his of January 28.)

Another minor error on Jonas's part: Ron Paul is an "undeclared" libertarian? This man ran for president of the United States on the Libertarian Party Platform in 1988 and has been for many years the acknowledged leader of the world-wide libertarian movement. On this see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Don't they have any fact checkers at the National Post? Sloppiness, thy name is Jonas.

But then comes the big howler, perhaps the biggest non sequitur ever written. Let me quote this in full, lest I be accused of making this up out of the whole cloth. According to Jonas:

"He (Jonas was attacking Lew Rockwell, here, but I am really the u2018guilty party') pointed out that I meandered all over the map, discussing issues that had nothing to do with what he called, u2018the freedom philosophy, the only just system, the last best hope for peace, prosperity and the very survival of mankind.'… Why, thanks, Mr. Rockwell (my name is Block; Block!). I knew I wasn't a libertarian, but I wasn't aware I actually opposed libertarianism until I read it on your site. But now, in just a few lines – unless Rockwell (Block; Block!) was writing tongue in cheek – he persuaded me that I would probably oppose libertarianism, and he also told me why. It was that bit in his blog where he described libertarianism in such utopian terms.

"Unless Rockwell (Block; Block, I tells you!) was pulling his readers' legs, which of course is possible, any political philosophy that prominent followers describe as u2018the only just system' and indeed u2018the last best hope for … the very survival of mankind' would be too millennial for my taste. I don't think I would feel comfortable reasoning with people about policy issues, whether they involved central banking, drugs or abortion, who felt that they embodied the last best hope for mankind's survival. If that's what they genuinely believed, why, they might feel justified, indeed duty-bound, to coerce me until I adjusted my views to theirs.

"True believers scare me. They don't scare me less if they believe in the same things that I do. In a curious way, they scare me more."

Wow. This is really magnificent, in a weird sort of a way. It gives me hope. If Jonas misunderstands libertarianism to this gargantuan degree, perhaps there is hope for enlisting him in the one true faith (no, I don't speak tongue in cheek, here) when once he learns what libertarianism really is all about.

Let's start the instruction right now. The essence of this freedom philosophy is the non aggression principle (NAP). This means it is impermissible to ever "coerce" anyone, for any reason. This means that even "true believers" such as me, could never, ever, not in a million years, as long as I wanted to remain consistent with the notion of liberty, "feel justified, indeed duty-bound, to coerce (you) until (you) adjusted (your) views to mine." It is a non sequitur of the most outrageous kind to think this. Now I admit Mr. Jonas' view does have a certain empirical appeal to it. People who fervently believe in something are probably more likely to impose their beliefs on others by force, than those who don't fervently believe in anything. But all bets are off in this regard, surely, when the fervent belief is that no one should ever compel, force, coerce anyone into believing anything. The NAP further maintains that no one should ever compel, force, coerce anyone into doing or not doing anything either, except of course to respect this very rule of non aggression. If agreeing to this is not the "last best hope for mankind," I should be very interested in finding out why not.

I note that Mr. Jonas, a slippery fellow, he, has still managed to completely ignore the question of why he rejects this philosophy. He still refuses to discuss whether, or where, or on what specifics his views diverge from the libertarian ones on "policy issues (such as) central banking, drugs or abortion," or indeed, on anything else. He ventures no opinion on, much less a refutation of, the claim that the NAP is the "the only just system, the last best hope for peace, prosperity and the very survival of mankind." He hides behind the ad hominem argument that anyone such as me (Lew Rockwell too, if I can speak for him, and also Ron Paul, ditto) who strongly maintains this perspective must be some kind of nut. Sloppy, sloppy. Don't they teach logic up in the frozen northland?

So, I invite Mr. Jonas (hint, hint), if he has any courage at all, to enter the lists. Read up a bit on libertarianism (read some Murray N. Rothbard, not quasi, semi, demi "libertarians" like F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman). Specify where he agrees, where he disagrees with this viewpoint. Come on in, Mr. Jonas, the water is just fine in libertarian-land.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: Libertarian Pessimism Confronted

I. Introduction

A while ago (11/30/12), Bob Brenton in a letter asked me about compulsory vaccinations, and what I thought the libertarian position on them should be. My thought immediately went to Typhoid Mary an asymptomatic carrier of this dread disease. She was not a criminal, even though she spread typhoid to others. She lacked mens rea or a guilty conscience. She didn't even realize she was doing so; she didn't think she even had the disease since she was asymptomatic. But, she had to be stopped, by compulsion if necessary, because she was infecting innocent people. So when asked for my view on compulsory vaccinations against diseases of this sort, my answer was in the positive: they were justified.

I thought no more about this until a few weeks when Mr. Brenton asked me if he could publicly quote me on our conversation. I acquiesced, and this was the result, seen below as section II of this essay.

After this was blogged, I received numerous responses, most of them critical of the position I had staked out. In section III, I reproduce these criticisms, interspersed with my responses to them. (Some of them have been very slightly edited, to reduce repetition; as is my practice, all of these authors are anonymous.) It is my hope that thesis and antithesis, we may together approach a position on this challenging issue that is consonant with the libertarian theory as espoused by my friend, mentor, tutor, Murray N. Rothbard, whose example is my guide for vexing questions such as these. I conclude in section IV.

II. Reiteration

To Walter Block:

Recently, a grateful (non-paying) student of mine asked me about the libertarian position on vaccinations:

I have been devouring many of your lectures on youtube lately, and I came across one you gave at the Mises institute back in 2011 on the fallacies of public finance. At the 23 minute mark, you quoted Murray Rothbard with the idea being that it is absurd for 3 neighbors to force the 4th to play the cello (or do any other action). Do you apply the same line of reasoning to the vaccination debate, and how does it hold up to the ‘herd immunity’ argument – or does herd immunity fall into the un-measurable space between actual economy and optimal economy when looking at this external economy?

It seems that more and more seemingly educated people are willing to mandate (force) vaccinations on others because of this idea of herd immunity. Is this an exception to the rule (does herd immunity exist), and if so, why can’t we apply the same concepts to things like education?

Your grateful (non-paying) student,

Bob Brenton

To which I responded:

Dear Bob:

Thanks for your kind words. I'm not enough of a biologist to know the specifics about these sorts of things, so I'll just make assumptions.

Assume that if you don't get a vaccination, you'll contract a dreadful disease and then become contagious. You'll infect me and I'll die. Then, I think, the libertarian law would force you to become inoculated, otherwise you would be violating the non aggression axiom, or non aggression principle (NAP). Your refusal to get vaccinated makes you, in effect, a murderer.

On the other hand, if you don't get vaccinated, and if only you will be harmed, then it would be inappropriate for the law to force you to do this.

Now what this has got to do with taxes for education is way beyond me.

Anti thesis, and, hopefully, reconciliation

III. Letters

Letter 1.

You recently wrote: “Assume that if you don't get a vaccination, you'll contract a dreadful disease and then become contagious. You'll infect me and I'll die. Then, I think, the libertarian law would force you to become inoculated, otherwise you would be violating the non aggression axiom. Your refusal to get vaccinated makes you, in effect, a murderer.” How does un-action (on the part of the person refusing to avail himself of immunization) constitute a violation of the non-aggression principle? Suppose someone owns the only well in town and refuses to allow access. Is he a murderer if townspeople die of thirst? Thanks for posting a reply to the LRC blog if you believe it is worthwhile. Response to Letter 1.

There are no positive obligations in libertarian theory, at least the Rothbardian version thereof, to which I subscribe. Therefore, the person with the only well in town is not a murderer if he

refuses to sell any to the townspeople. This sounds horrid, since I adhere not only to libertarianism as a matter of deontology, or rights, but I also maintain that this freedom philosophy will also bring about good things, such as people not dying of thirst, when water is privatized. My point is that we are much more likely to perish from lack of water if the all-loving government is in charge of its supply, than if private enterprise is in control. I have published on this a bit, and I refer you to these publications of mine: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

You mention "un-action." And, spreading disease may be an "un-action" in the Austrian sense, since it is not purposeful, in the case of a contagious person. But in the libertarian world, this most certainly does constitute an action: killing innocent people.

Letter 2.

Firstly, thank you for your work and scholarship. I appreciate your thought and would like to inquire about something you recently posted.

Assume that if you don't get a vaccination, you'll contract a dreadful disease and then become contagious. You'll infect me and I'll die. Then, I think, the libertarian law would force you to become inoculated, otherwise you would be violating the non aggression axiom. Your refusal to get vaccinated makes you, in effect, a murderer.

In this hypothetical situation, who would be the arbiter of what disease is contagious? This could easily lead to a government-style monopoly if any vaccinations are to be forced upon people.

Is this still not in the realm of intent-policing; i.e., because you may infect me, I can force you to get vaccinated. Is not the responsibility of avoiding infection entirely in the hands of the individual? To me, it falls under choice of neighbours and such lifestyle decisions. Naturally, if the infected person were actually pursuing people with the intent to harm them, that falls under self-defense, but if the infected person is not doing any such thing – surely there can be no reason to apply force "for the greater good". Thank you again, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Response to Letter 2.

These are important complications you mention, worthy of further study. But, in my very limited remarks, I was assuming away, arguendo, all such difficulties. That is, I was assuming the simple case of a Typhoid Mary type situation, where the only way to stop the spreader of a fatal disease was through inoculations. I certainly agree with you that this conclusion is far less secure under the conditions you posit.

However, I must take issue with your contention that "if the infected person … is not actually pursuing people with the intent to harm them," then "surely there can be no reason to apply force u2018for the greater good.'" Well, then, yes, force is not justified for the "greater good," but it is, I contend, justified out of self defense. Typhoid Mary was not trying to hurt anyone else. She wasn't even aware she was doing to. But it was, I think, justified to compel her through violence if need be, to cease and desist.

Letter 3.

Love your work on Lew Rockwell but in this case I think you got it partially wrong as vaccinations, herd immunity and the like are complicated situations.

As a physician with strong libertarian leanings, I have been engaging the local health care system that employs me over its mandatory flu shot policy….. I believe that in all cases, mandatory vaccination policies violate the non aggression principle.

Our local media has been supportive of the policy…. I would argue that from a libertarian perspective one can NEVER make a case for mandatory vaccination of any sort.

In brief, you said, “Assume that if you don't get a vaccination, you'll contract a dreadful disease and then become contagious. You'll infect me and I'll die. Then, I think, the libertarian law would force you to become inoculated, otherwise you would be violating the non aggression axiom. Your refusal to get vaccinated makes you, in effect, a murderer.”

The scenario you give is true only in a hypothetical world, not the one in which we live. No vaccine is always 100% effective although some are close (but NOT flu vaccine) and not all patients are 100% contagious. Some get very mild cases.

Some questions that will illustrate how the burden of proof is always on the mandatory vaccine advocates: How can you know for certain who gave you the disease? What about proportionality? If you get a cold from someone and miss work, you have been very minimally harmed (technically a violation of the non aggression principle) as you may not get paid, but is that enough to jab a person against their will with a biological treatment that carries risk (very, very rarely fatal) to them and assuming a common cold vaccine existed? Even for severe, potentially fatal contagious diseases, was his giving it to you done on purpose? or simply the way things go? As, I said, how can you absolutely prove that HE DID IT.

If a vaccine was 100% effective, who cares if he was vaccinated or not – you could choose to take it and be 100% protected. But what if it is 100% effective but kills 10% of the patients who take it? Would you take it? If not, why is the other guy to blame for your decision should you catch the disease, presumably from him? He may have not taken it for the same reason you decided not to. What if the disease in question killed 95% of victims? You may then say 10% death rate from vaccine does not sound so bad. But, are there alternatives? How about self-isolation or quarantine as the case may be? or forced isolation by the authorities for the obstinate who is walking around thereby exposing others to a deadly disease? If the disease in question were that bad, only an insane person would not take the vaccine and maybe he is insane. In any case, simply isolating him would take care of the problem. If the hypothetical disease were so bad that no one would attend to him in isolation, he might starve to death. He may consider this possibility and change his mind. May be not.

I think the point has been made. There are endless variables to be considered but none of them absolutely require “libertarian law” to force a vaccine on anyone. Thanks so much for the opportunity to correspond with you.

Response to Letter 3.

There are continuums all over the place, and no political philosophy, not even libertarianism, can fully answer them. Take statutory rape. We know that a five year old girl, no matter how agreeable, cannot give consent to sex; if you go to bed with such a child, you are guilty of statutory rape, in my view. On the other hand, a 25 year old woman can give consent; you commit no crime if you have voluntary intercourse with her. But what about a girl of 15? 14? 16? There is no right answer to this question. It depends upon context, culture, the hypothetical "reasonable" man.

Similarly, how far does A's fist have to be from B's nose before the latter is justified in taking violent defensive action against the former? One inch? One foot? One yard? One hundred yards? It depends, again, on context, culture, the view of the "reasonable" man. If the context is a classroom demonstration, then very close; if in a dark alley, not at all so close. All of your counter examples (common cold, only 10% effective, etc.) to my thesis are of this type. None of them, therefore, undermine my view, I think. But you make a very good point when you say "The scenario you give is true only in a hypothetical world, not the one in which we live." Correct. My analysis sweeps away all real world (continuum) scenarios, in an attempt to make a controversial point: it is justified to stop the Typhoid Marys of the world, even though they lack mens rea. For further reading on continuums, you might look at this or this.

Letter 4.

In your analysis of mandatory vaccinations you state:

“Assume that if you don't get a vaccination, you'll contract a dreadful disease and then become contagious. You'll infect me and I'll die. Then, I think, the libertarian law would force you to become inoculated, otherwise you would be violating the non aggression axiom. Your refusal to get vaccinated makes you, in effect, a murderer.”

I believe this is incorrect because the danger to you is not clear and present which is the requirement for defensive violence. Even if I contract a contagious deadly disease if I don’t come in contact with you or anyone I still haven’t hurt anyone but myself. I agree that if I purposely or even accidentally came into contact with you or anyone then they got sick and died I would be a murderer. If the disease didn’t kill me then I should be tried as a murderer under libertarian justice or if I did die from the disease then my estate would be liable for damages against the family of the victim given that they could prove my culpability. However that fact shouldn’t allow anyone to forcibly immunize me from the disease which is a clear and present danger to my right of self ownership.

The distinction is small but I think important because without it we leave the door open to all kinds of “preventative” violence which I’m sure you agree is not compatible with libertarian justice. Thank you for taking the time to read my idea. I would be happy to discuss your thoughts on the matter further at your convenience.

Response to Letter 4.

The non aggression principle of libertarianism prohibits not only the initiation of aggression against non aggressors, but also the threat thereof. It seems to me that if A is contagious with a deadly disease he constitutes a threat to B, C, D, etc. Given that, it would be justified for the latter, the community, to compel him by force if need be, to cease and desist.

Letter 5.

It’s always good to read what you have to say, and your comments on vaccinations were appropriate.

But even more appropriate, I think, is that if someone believes that a vaccine will help them avoid some dreaded disease, then let them go at it.

The point here is if that person has been vaccinated, and if the vaccine actually works as stated, then how can my being infected harm them?

After all, they are vaccinated, and the vaccine works as stated, so why do they need me to be vaccinated too, i.e., how will that help them?

Response to Letter 5.

Ah but suppose the Typhoid Mary refuses to be vaccinated; I argue she must be compelled to do so. Also, it is possible that the vaccination will not work for all possible victims. Suppose they are too sick to be vaccinated. I think it is the responsibility of the disease carrier to stop infecting other people, not the responsibility of possible victims to protect themselves. This point you make reminds me of Ronald Coase's famous article.

In this article, Coase was asking, is it the responsibility of the cattleman to build a fence to keep his cows from trespassing, or is this the responsibility of the farmer, to protect his hay crop from marauding cows. Coase's answer was, Whichever way maximizes overall wealth. This is exactly the point you are making: who's responsibility is it to get inoculated: the carrier of the disease, or the possible uninoculated victim. You place the responsibility on the latter. Coase's answer depends upon an empirical examination of costs.

I think that the best refutation of Coase on this point was penned by Murray N. Rothbard. Rothbard, Mr. Libertarian, would hold the rancher responsible. I see the Typhoid Mary in the role of the rancher.

Letter 6. I don’t find your answer satisfactory. Property rights, property rights. Always property rights. As you yourself have stated many times (usually with the example of the watch thief), the NAP requires clearly defined property rights in order to determine who is the aggressor. You have no right to force me to get inoculated if I restrain myself to my own property and the property of others who grant access to the non-inoculated. If inoculation is something people value, they can make it a condition to access to their property. Gaining access by lying about one’s un-inoculated state would be fraud and trespassing. Those who value inoculation do not have the right to force property owners to require inoculation. If I own a store, and I’m not convinced by the science regarding inoculation, I don’t have to require inoculation of my customers for them to gain access to my store. Nor am I obligated to disclose this. I’m only prevented from fraud. The burden lies on those who value inoculation to seek information. “Store owner, do you require inoculation?” If the answer given is a lie, then that’s fraud. If they say “Nope”, then the pro-inoculation person can boycott but has no recourse to force the store owner. Any attempt to do so WOULD be a violation of the NAP. I’m skimming here, but I don’t see any place for forced inoculation in a libertarian society. There are simply property rights, which trespassing is a violation of. Of course, there will be severe social pressure towards inoculation, if that truly has benefit, and as pointed out, the un-inoculated may quickly find themselves with very limited options to where they can go without trespassing. But force inoculations per se are anathema to the NAP. Would welcome counter arguments if I’m wrong.

Response to Letter 6.

I agree with you. If the disease carrier quarantines herself to her own property, we may not force her to become inoculated. But this would have to be a very serious quarantine. Typhoid Mary would not only have to stay on her own property; she would have to insure that the disease cannot be carried by air to others. Practically speaking, she could make no such guarantee. So, I think that strict adherence to the NAP would justify compelling her to stop what is in effect her aggression.

Letter 7.

But it’s all probabilistic: Unvaccinated, you may get the disease and, if you get the disease, you may infect me. Must you be vaccinated?

What if you simply infect me with a common cold? Is that actionable?

What about infections spread where the host has no idea he is ill?

Isn’t it the case that, based on the human condition, no one can homestead infection-free space in the public realm? And even on private property, a property owner can only conditionally homestead infection-free zones (such as an excluded area where air is filtered and a “no admittance” sign is displayed)?

Now, a property owner could allow admittance only if the newcomer has a document of health and/or vaccination. But that would not homestead the property as an airborne-virus-free zone. Nor would it protect the property owner from casual spreading of disease (assuming the carrier is not proactively spreading a virus, etc.).

Response to Letter 7.

I won't here answer your very good point about the common cold, because I did so, above, under the rubric of continuums. In any case, there is now no inoculation for the common cold. You also make an excellent point about everything being probabilistic. But this, too, falls under that category: some things are more probable, other things are less so, where do you draw the line? But in my answer I was attempting to obviate this point. I was assuming, arguendo, that there was no doubt that the Typhoid Mary would indeed spread this dread disease. There is a small chance that any airplane may crash and kill and innocent person. Should we ban all air travel? No, of course not, planes do not constitute a threat. There is also a small probability that anyone with a fist may punch an innocent person. Again, we do not ban hands, which can be made into fists; they are not per se threats. But a disease carrying person does pose a threat to all others.

Letter 8.

Maybe your non-paying student, Bob Brenton, has a point. Perhaps a person’s lack of education results in socialism causing irreparable harm to their fellow citizens. Nah. There are lots educated socialists. Never mind .

Response to Letter 8.

I like this idea! I love it. We'll put all socialists in jail, since they pose a threat to the rest of us. Great. Well, fun. But on a more serious note, mere thinking of evil (socialistic) thoughts really can't constitute a crime, no matter how tempting it is to think so. (I am now discussing coercive socialism, not voluntary varieties, such as the commune or kibbutz, monastery, etc.) If thoughts were actionable, most of us would be in jail.

Letter 9.

I am very much a fan of yours, so this correspondence comes from a friend. I disagree with your recent vaccine reply. Here is why:

Let us propose that vaccines are effective If vaccines are effective, then it matters not to the vaccinated if others are also vaccinated. If I have German Measles, and you have been vaccinated against German Measles, then you have nothing to fear from me. Right? Perhaps I have misinterpreted your reply?

I happen to believe vaccines are one of the great inventions of the 20th century. I prefer to live in a world without polio. Some will prefer to not be vaccinated. Those people pose no threat to me.

Response to Letter 9.

In my view, it is incumbent on the person who violates the NAP, whether intentionally or not in the case of disease spreaders, to cease and desist. It is not a requirement of possible victims to defend themselves, with inoculations. Yes, the rape victims in India should get a pistol and defend themselves. That would radically reduce the incidence of rape. But, under libertarian law, at least as I understand it, this is not a requirement for these women. Rather, the requirement is that men do not engage in the despicable act of rape. I think there is a strong albeit imperfect analogy between rape and disease spreading. Of course, no one commits rape by accident. But the law should require the aggressor, not the victim, to change behavior. Similarly, the law should require the Typhoid Mary to stop spreading this disease, even inadvertently; it should not require the rest of us to take defensive action. People who do not get a polio vaccination do not pose a threat to most of us; but what about those who are too sick to take this vaccination. Do not those who are healthy enough to get this vaccination pose a threat to those who cannot. (I am writing here, arguendo, on the assumption that the Salk vaccine always prevents polio.)

Letter 10.

The story of Typhoid Mary, who was isolated in jail after she had infected and killed several people, yet still refused to have her infected gallbladder removed, or stop working in public, is a real life example of how to apply this principle.

Response to Letter 10.

Yes, yes, I agree. Thanks for your support. So far, you are the only respondent on this who actually agrees with me. I suppose this supports the oft made claim that if you ask 10 libertarians a hard question, you'll get 11 different answers.

Letter 11.

Seeing as there are risks to being vaccinated, it seems like one of your positions citing the non-aggression axiom is instead more like a utilitarian argument. The greater good of the herd for the minimal sacrifice of the individual. I also think that immersing yourself in a sea of risk by exposing yourself to the population and knowing that viruses are out there and expecting others to protect you is really the bad behavior, either stupid or dishonest.

Aside from those objections, I read a great transcript on LRC from an interview that Dr. Mercola conducted about immunizations and the difference in herd immunities developed naturally (strong) and those by vaccinations (weak). And lastly, the education system supported by taxes is the primary means by which children are forced to get inoculated.

Response to Letter 11.

I don't think I am talking about individuals versus groups. Rather, individuals versus individuals. Or, for that matter, groups versus groups. People, whether singular or plural, who violate the NAP, whether purposefully, or by accident, or without even knowing they are doing so, should be stopped. All of them. Individuals or groups of individuals. Is not Typhoid Mary a rights violator? I am sure she is. I don't reject all utilitarian arguments. I believe that the NAP is, broadly speaking, in conformity with human wealth and happiness. Certainly, I support your opposition to public schools.

Letter 12.

“Assume that if you don't get a vaccination, you'll contract a dreadful disease and then become contagious. You'll infect me and I'll die. Then, I think, the libertarian law would force you to become inoculated, otherwise you would be violating the non aggression axiom. Your refusal to get vaccinated makes you, in effect, a murderer.”

Really? That’s quite an assumption. Looks like competing violations of the non-aggression axiom, and, a slippery slope.

I just looked up “Typhoid Mary” on Wikipedia. A more extreme series of events since she was without symptoms and refused to believe she was spreading disease.

Response to Letter 12.

I don't believe in "competing violations" or "competing rights." If there are two rights that appear to be in conflict, one of them is necessarily not a right. Rights do not, cannot, conflict. There would appear to be a rights conflict here. One of them is the "right" of Typhoid Mary to conduct her life as she wishes, going here and there, etc. The other of them is the right of the rest of us, or other individuals, to not die of this horrid disease. But Typhoid Mary is killing innocent people as surely as if she were shooting them. She has no right at all to spread her disease. The germs that she lets loose onto other people are akin to firing bullets at other people. I cannot acquiesce in the notion that her rights are being violated by forcibly (if need be) stopping her from engaging in this sort of (unintentional, non purposeful) murder.

Letter 13. It seems to me that if I don’t get vaccinated and therefore acquire a contagious disease with which I infect you, then you have acquired the disease because you did not get vaccinated either. If you don’t want to acquire the disease, then get vaccinated, but don’t blame me for infecting you if you have been as “negligent” (according to our masters in government) as I. You can protect yourself with the vaccination regardless if I am vaccinated or not. I can’t be blamed for spreading disease if another person acquires that disease from me if he was capable of protecting himself in the same way that I was (if you believe our government masters), but “negligently” refused to be.

Response to Letter 13.

I maintain that it is not the responsibility of victims to ward off invasions, although certainly I support it. Rather, in my view of libertarianism, it is a rights violation for perpetrators to unleash physical damage on victims, even if the latter could have countered the attack. A shoots bullets at all sorts of people, B, C, D. Assume that armor was effective in stopping such shootings. According to me, A should cease and desist. According to your view, A should continue his pillage, and B, C, D, etc., should don this armor. I can't see my way clear to thinking that your view comports with libertarian theory, as does mine.

IV. Conclusion

Well, that's it. I picked what I thought were the dozen best letters (well, a baker's dozen) on this issue. I thank all correspondents, and hope and trust the ones I could not answer will forgive me. I have only so much time at my disposal. I can't believe that we have together "nailed" this challenging issue. But I hope and trust that this discussion will shed some light on it. I want to end by saying that this LewRockwell.com venue is really a magnificent one, and what makes it so special are the quantity and especially quality of the responses we contributors to it get from readers, such as in this case. I doubt if there is a single blog in the entire world that attracts such thoughtful Austro libertarians as this one.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: Right To Work Laws: ALibertarianAnalysis

I. Optimism

There is a bit of pessimism that has infected some parts of our libertarian community. The present essay is an attempt to refute this doctrine, or at least any pernicious elements of it that threaten what progress we have already made, and, hopefully, the more that is to come in the future.

Why the sudden onset of pessimism about the prospects for liberty. I am not sure. Perhaps it is due to the fact that Ron Paul is no longer in the Congress of the U.S. At one fell swoop it is thought we have lost our most effective beacon for liberty, one to whom attention is paid by the mainstream media, in spite of the slights and slurs they visited upon him. But do not count Ron out, not quite yet. His new efforts, Young Americans for Liberty, The Liberty Crier have barely gotten off the ground yet. He is soon to launch his speaker's tour, in association with the prestigious Greater Talent Network, the leading celebrity speakers bureau in the country.

Nor is Congressman Paul the only thing that libertarianism has going for it. The Mises Institute just celebrated its 30 year anniversary, every year of which, no, every month of which, no, every week of which (work with me on this; soon, I'll get to the end of the sentence), no, every day of which, no, every hour of which, no, every second of which (I told you) has been spent in the avid pursuit of liberty, and sound (Austrian) economics. Why, just the other day the Simpsons cartoon television series mentioned the school of economics made famous by Mises and Rothbard. If that is not making progress into the very bowels of the culture, then nothing is.

And this is the tip of the iceberg. There are free market think tanks in virtually all 50 of the states in the U.S. There are even think tanks that do good work inside the beltway (ok, ok, just a few of them; everyone's a critic, nowadays). There is the Free State Project in New Hampshire. Yes, it is now being attacked by a Democratic State Senator, but all such publicity is good publicity; and, this imbroglio has drawn a ringing defense by Tom Woods. There are numerous universities which feature several Austro-libertarian professors. Each of them has acquainted numerous students with the freedom philosophy, and many of them subsequently take courses at Mises University, which has been an astounding success.

It cannot be denied that Obama is now president. However, things could have been worse: Romney could have won, and then, probably, the U.S. would be involved in several more unnecessary imperialistic wars. After the Republicans unceremoniously and unfairly rejected Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party nominated Gary Johnson, who in my opinion did a workmanlike job of keeping the concept of liberty in the public eye.

And then there are the books. They keep rolling off the presses at a furious clip. They promote, expand on and expound libertarianism and Austrian economics. These are the foot soldiers of our intellectual movement. I won't mention any, lest I leave out some worthy candidates. But, go to the Mises Store, and see quite an array of them there. Nor can we afford to ignore in this assessment the scholarly periodicals. Here I will name a few names; these are among my favorites: Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, The Independent Review, The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Libertarian Papers, the Mises Review, the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Procesos De Mercado, Reason Papers, and The Romanian Economic and Business Review. I cannot end this listing of beneficial organizations and institutions without mentioning Hans Hoppe's Property and Freedom Society and Justin Raimondo's AntiWar.com. Both do sterling work for the cause of liberty.

This is quite a listing. It gives me hope that our freedom and liberty movement will at least hold its own against the always encroaching forces of darkness, evil and statism.

II. Pessimism

Recently, I gave a series of lectures in Sydney, Australia (the fact that so many of the Senior Fellows of the Mises Institute including me are now called upon to give public speeches here, there and everywhere is another bit of evidence for optimism). I received a few days later a very pessimistic letter from one of the some 150 attendees (Australia is a country with a population of only some 23 million; that was an excellent turn out). I shall now quote it in full, and then in the third and last section of this essay, respond to it. Its author shall remain anonymous, apart from me saying that he is a young man.

I'd like to begin by thanking you for coming to Australia to speak at the 2012 Mises Seminar, where I had the immense pleasure of making your acquaintance and listening to you lecture on several fascinating topics. My encounter with your work, Defending the Undefendable, was a truly transformative experience and to have been able to meet you in person, as opposed to through your words on the page or through your YouTube lectures on the computer screen, was an honour and privilege. For what it is worth, I would like to thank you for what all that you have done, and continue to do, for the cause of liberty both in the United States and around the world.

Although I found the Mises Seminar highly informative, I left Sydney significantly more pessimistic about the prospects of libertarianism than when I had arrived. Walter, you mentioned that you enjoyed challenges and critiques — if you don't mind, I would like to visit some questions about libertarianism that have really challenged me and hear your thoughts on them.

I understand the logic and morality underpinning an anarcho-capitalist, libertarian society. I believe that people, acting self-interestedly in a free-market society, must necessarily help each other. I believe in freedom and in the incredible material benefits that free, voluntary interaction have and continue to generate for all humanity. I believe also that everyone should be free to choose, even if many end up making u2018bad' choices. Against this belief, against the powerful logic of your contention, against the arguments of your contemporaries Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul and Peter Schiff in favour of a libertarian society, against of all this there is the fact that there is no libertarian society in existence today. Nor has any society founded upon the principles of liberty lasted. Your own nation, the United States, is perhaps the best example of this. The United States, as envisaged by its founding fathers, was undoubtedly the most libertarian society in modern history. And yet, how far she has fallen! Thomas Jefferson would be turning in his grave if he could see how totalitarian and egregiously incompatible with individual liberty present day America has become.

If even the United States, a state conceived in liberty, buttressed by a strong written constitution that fiercely upholds personal liberty and property rights, can be led so far down the path of socialism, what hope is there for the rest of the world? What hope is there for libertarianism? Walter, you mentioned two of Rothbard's u2018lieutenants in liberty' (my apologies, I've forgotten their names), who turned neo-con and statist, and you asked why. I do not presume to speak for them, but perhaps they saw what America had already become and where it was tending, and simply lost faith?

This leads me to my second concern. Both yourself and Neville Kennard, in his video memorial, spoke of the importance of little rebellions against the State, wherever possible. Other libertarians, I cannot remember precisely whom, have written on the importance of tempering resistance to the State with recognition of the fact that you have but one life to live. I put it to you that this is the reason why libertarianism will not succeed: in my limited experience, radical change of the nature and scope that libertarians seek is not achieved by piecemeal resistance to State depredations and compromise. It is achieved only by complete and utter rejection of State oppression. It is achieved by an adherence to principle irrespective of the

Martin Luther King did not help secure rights for blacks by doing what was u2018legal'; Nelson Mandela did not overthrow apartheid through compromise; nor did the American colonists shake of the British yoke by sitting down for a cup of tea. (Incidentally, neither Hitler, Lenin, Mao, nor other infamous dictators achieve fruition of their ideas by going along with the status quo.)

Radical change of this nature is achieved by only radical action. As libertarians, we take pride in our dogmatic application of libertarian principles no matter the situation. How then, can we sit around and laugh while the State steals and misuses our hard-earned money? We argue that we have a right to defend ourselves from theft, from slavery – which is what taxation is – yet how many libertarians do you know have actually taken action to defend these rights? (The only person I have heard about who has acted to defend his rights to keep what he earns is Irwin Schiff.) How can we preach about the legitimate use of force in response to aggression, and yet remain a movement so obedient and compromising? Even if the majority care nothing for our beliefs, how are we libertarians not outraged? Why are we not driven to action, in the way the followers of King, Ghandi or Mandela were? Are we not entitled to use force to defend the theft of our property?

Although I certainly do not mean to impugn the great work that Dr Ron Paul and yourself have done for the liberty movement, I do question its efficacy. Yes, you, Dr Paul and others have spread the message of freedom far, far beyond what anyone four years ago could possibly have imagined. And yet, as you yourself said in Sydney, we are not an inch closer to our goals. Indeed, it appears to me that each day brings us further and further from them. Each day, the bastion of freedom that was the United States moves closer to dictatorship and tyranny. Each day, as the inevitable failure of the European Union draws closer, it is the socialists, fascists and nazis that grow in popular esteem. Each day brings new statist measures to restrict personal liberty, and empower and enrich the State at the expense of its citizens.

I recognise the importance of education and discourse, of convincing the world of the truth of our ideas. I recognise also the importance of action and as a movement, that action has been sorely missing. Perhaps we are still too small a movement, perhaps it is still too soon for action of that kind. But I do not believe that we can wait for economic collapse, or for the burden of the state to grow so large that the majority begin to question it. In my limited experience, the majority will always be apathetic. If 1984 is anything to go by, you will have to see so much more than TSA gropings, drones in the skies and paramilitary APCs on suburban roads before the majority even begin to think of the mere possibility of action.

Change, in my opinion, is never effected by the majority. It is required, demanded or even imposed by the minority, and only then accepted by the majority. As a minority, we should not shy away from action and yet, even the most strident libertarian rebels against authority only in his or her little, usually perfectly legal, way. What is it that separates us from the blacks under King and Mandela, the Indians under Ghandi or the Israelis under Moses? The citizens of Western nations today are no more oppressed, in principle, than they were. Indeed, we are separated only by a few percentage points, for if a slave is someone who has one hundred percent of the fruits of his labour taken from him, at what percentage is he not a slave? Why then, have we not seen the kind of protest effected by the perpetrators of those movements?

My personal theory is that we, as individuals, have too much to lose. I would hazard a guess that 90% of the attendees at the Mises Seminar were well educated, (most likely autodidacts in both Austrian economics and libertarianism), intelligent enough to question the status quo, middle to upper-middle class with good future prospects. We passionately reject the State from our armchairs but most of us, myself included I am ashamed to admit, are too comfortable in them to do more than that. Sure one or two of us may write an article here or even go so far as to relocate our families to a sovereign that is not so oppressive as the last. But can you envisage even a minority of libertarians taking what a libertarian would argue is a lawful and moral defense of their rights against the State?

I apologise for being so pessimistic in my assessment of the future. I wholeheartedly believe in what you and others like you, are doing, just as I believe in the truth of the message that we are spreading. I do as much as I can, without alienating family and losing friends. I am frustrated because I do not believe it is enough and yet, I do not know what I can do. It appears to me that we are involved in a great game of chess, but one where the State has at its disposal all the rooks, knights, bishops and queens, whereas the forces of liberty only pawns.

III. Optimism, once again

Thanks for your very thoughtful letter. You have put quite a bit of effort and intelligence into it, so I feel I must respond.

I think there is a disanalogy between libertarianism, particularly, anarcho-capitalism, and these other movements you discuss: Ghandi, Mandela, King, the American Revolutionaries. Our philosophy is MUCH more radical than theirs. I did mention my views on socio biology in my lectures: human nature, I think, is incompatible with libertarianism (our species is not hard wired to appreciate markets), but not with these other movements. These others were very traditional. None of the four you mention (Ghandi, Mandela, King, the American Revolutionaries — by the way, this latter group were not libertarian enough to end slavery) really wanted to change much of anything. They all just wanted a different group to be in charge; themselves. In very sharp contrast, we libertarians do not want anyone to be order people around against their will, and this is very unsettling to most voters; hence our failures to win much of anything through the ballot box.

I really don't want to go to jail (like the heroic Irwin Schiff) or die at the hands of the state. That is why I limit myself to legal acts: writing, publishing, public speaking, teaching etc. I suggest you confine yourself to staying within the law, too. The only other alternatives are to give up on liberty, or engage in illegal acts against statism. I see no fourth option. I can't conceive of giving up on liberty. It is just about my entire professional life. Illegal acts are foolish, I maintain. This is the cross we libertarians are called upon to bear. We know that liberty is the last best hope for mankind, yet we are powerless to implement it. All we can do, like Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, Ludwig von Mises, etc., is engage in legal acts in favor of liberty to the best of our ability. They don't seem to be working too well, you say. I respond: too well compared to what?

When I first got into the libertarian movement, in the mid 1960s (I met Ayn Rand in 1962, but she was not really a libertarian. I count my entry into the libertarian movement as of 1966, when I first met Murray Rothbard, my friend, teacher, mentor), I estimate there were, oh, 100 libertarians on the entire planet. That at least was Murray's best estimate, and he had his ear to the ground on such things. Now, including your own Australian Mises Institute, there are way more than 100 organizations that espouse our philosophy. As the gays say, "We are everywhere." This is progress. If in the next 50 years we can double this rate of increase, we might even reach, oh, 3-5% of humanity. It is up to young people such as you to carry this torch forward. To not be discouraged even though it is indeed frustrating to know we are right, yet are able to do so little to promote liberty. But, at least, the mainstream culture now recognizes us. Libertarianism, and Austrian economics, are recognized far more than they were in the mid 1960s. Ron Paul is now a household name, not only in the U.S., but throughout the world.

The two ex libertarians I mentioned are Williamson Evers and Randy Barnett. I have written about them here, here, here, here and here. Here is a third example of this phenomenon.

Please remain a libertarian, in spite of your pessimism. I know of nothing, apart from the promotion of liberty that is just so much FUN. In my most pessimistic moments, I think that if our species doesn't blow itself up first, it will take perhaps 100,000 years for sociobiological considerations to alter in the direction of liberty. In the "meantime" we've got to keep the light of liberty going. We have to preserve the "remnant": a small group of people who can do just that. However, despite the foregoing, I am not that much interested in the debate between libertarian optimists and pessimists. Why? Because if ever either side is declared the winner, it will not change my behavior by one iota. Whether we are moving toward or away from liberty, I will continue to do what I do every day: work to the best of my ability to promote freedom, and economic rationality. I ask that everyone reading this essay try to do the same, to the best of their ability.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: Response to Questions on Libertarianism

Various types of union security agreements exist. Among the more common are:

Closed shop. The employer agrees to hire only union members. Any employee who quits the union, or is expelled from it, must be fired

Union shop. The firm may first employ non union members, but the employee must eventually join the union

Agency shop. The employer may hire anyone he wishes regardless of their union membership, and the employee need not join the union. However, all non-union employees must pay a fee to the union to cover the costs of collective bargaining

Dues check off. A contract between the employer and union where the former agrees to pay to the latter the union dues from each worker’s paycheck

Right to work laws would forbid all such agreements. One justification for such legislation is that these union contracts are invalid, since they are made under duress. Organized labor compels businesses to sign them by threatening all sorts of violence against them, some legal, others illegal. But suppose, hypothetically, that an agreement of this sort were strictly voluntary. Posit that an extreme left wing, "progressive," firm such as Ben and Jerry's ice cream or Michael Moore Enterprises wanted, desired, was more than willing to, engage in such a commercial interaction with a union. Right to work laws, in forbidding such an arrangement, would then be a violation of the rights of two consenting parties to engage in a capitalist act. Thus, on that ground alone such legislative enactments are incompatible with libertarianism.

But, do not right to work laws prohibit coercion? Under a closed shop, for example, the worker has no right to be employed by a firm, nor the latter to hire him, unless he first joins the union. Is not a closed shop, then, an instance of coercion? And should not libertarians thus applaud right to work legislation, since it puts an end to this type of compulsion?

No, and no. Suppose woman A and man B agree to a monogamous relationship (marriage). This means that woman A may not go to bed with man C. But what of the claim that this arrangement is a violation of man C's "right" to have a sexual relationship with woman A? This is silly. There is no such thing as a "right" to have intercourse with woman A, or with any other woman.

There is an exact parallel between this scenario and the one depicted above. Let us follow the same situation, only applied, now, to labor relations, not personal relationships.

Suppose company woman A and worker man B agree to a monogamous relationship (the union shop marriage). This means that company woman A may not hire man C, who is not a union member. But what of the claim that this is a violation of man C's "right" to work for have a sexual relationship with company woman A. This is silly. There is no such thing as a "right" to have a job with company A, or any other employer.

To put this into other words, a "right to work" is a positive right. It implies an obligation of someone else to hire the person in question. Similarly, a "right" to food, clothing or shelter would oblige others to provide these things for the persons who have such "rights." But positive rights are a direct violation of the libertarian code, which is based upon the non aggression principle. These types of "rights" are a not so subtly hidden demand for wealth at other's expense, e.g., they amount to a call for, or support of, theft. No libertarian can support them.

In contrast, libertarians do indeed support negative rights, the right not to be murdered, raped, aggressed against. And, yes, this does impose an obligation upon others — to refrain from such nefarious deeds.

Of course, the firm, under the closed shop, is "compelled" not to hire a non union worker, that is, it is prohibited from so doing. But we are positing for the moment that this prohibition stems from a prior contractual agreement, the closed shop, so it is not a compulsion at all. In the same way, the monogamously married woman is "compelled" not to get it on with any other man; she is prohibited from engaging in adultery. But this prohibition stems from a prior contractual agreement, marriage, so it, too, does not amount to any compulsion.

Let us leave the realm of deontology for the moment, and enter that of utilitarianism. There is no doubt that, other things equal, right to work states would be more prosperous, have less unemployment, than those without this legislation. Why? This is because unions, as presently constituted, are an economic tape worm. They suck the substance out of companies with their strikes, slow-downs, work-to-rule campaigns, etc. It is no accident that the northeast part of the U.S., where unions are strongest, has become a "rust belt." Nor that the south, where they are weakest, has been booming, relatively speaking. To give just one instance, the northern auto workers "earned" something in the neighborhood of $70 per hour (when all fringe benefits are included) for semi-skilled work on the assembly line; as a result, Detroit is a husk of its former self. In contrast, auto workers in the southeast earn a small fraction of that hourly wage. As a result, "run away" shops are seeking to vote with their feet, moving from north to south, in their search for a more reasonably priced labor force.

Does this mean that the libertarian opposition to right to work laws, while just, is also economically inefficient? Not a bit of it. There is a right way and a wrong way to combat evil unionism, and right to work laws are in the latter category.

What is wrong with unions? Why are they such evil, monstrous organizations? All present labor unions engage in two activities, one of them justifiable, the other despicable. What is the proper role for a union, in the libertarian society? It is to try to raise total wages (money wages plus fringe benefits or working conditions or psychic income) to the highest level possible. And, to that end, these institutions have two means at their disposal, one licit, the other decidedly not.

The former is the mass quit. When one worker goes to the boss and demands a raise, he is not likely to be met with much success. The owner of the firm might well follow the "my way or the highway" philosophy. But if the employee can credibly threaten that if the raise is not forthcoming all 500 employees will down tools, success is more likely. The owner has contracts to fulfill, a work force that actually functions, etc. Any one worker has the right to quit his job, based on the libertarian notion of free association. (The main, and indeed the only real problem with slavery was that you couldn't quit. If the slave could quit at any time, all of the evils of this "curious" institution would evaporate in one fell swoop.) He does not lose this right even if he does this in concert with his fellow employees (although early on, anti-trust legislation was improperly applied to people who engaged in these "restraints of trade.") So much for proper unionism. If organized labor limited itself to this one tactic, it would be acting compatibly with the non aggression principle (NAP) of libertarianism, and would not cause any economic crisis.

But unions employ another strategy as well: restrictions on entry. In the bad old days, organized labor would engage in a sit-in, or a picket line (both amount to trespass). They would stop all shipments into our out of the plant. They would brand as "scabs" all those who wanted to take the job offers made by the firm, the ones they were refusing (why this never qualified as "hate speech" is beyond me; no, it isn't really, but it is entirely a different matter), and through violence not allow the employer to hire them.

To resort to our marriage analogy once again, it would be justified for a man to divorce his wife (or the other way around, of course). But it would be the height of barbarism for him to surround his ex wife's home with his friends, and them all threaten to beat up any man she wished to date after her marriage was over. Yet, this is precisely what was being done in the early days of unions, and still occurs even in recent times.

Nowadays, of course, this "blue collar" beating up of scabs has given way to labor legislation which compels the owner of the company to "bargain fairly" with the union. But just as husbands and wives should not be forced to "bargain fairly" with one another when either of them wants a divorce, neither should this compulsion be imposed on either side in labor management relations. The firm does not wish to "bargain fairly" with its unionized employees; it desires to hire replacement workers, or "scabs." It is prohibited from doing so, in direct violation of its freedom of association. It is forced to "associate" with people it wishes to avoid. There is a strong analogy between this situation and outright slavery: both cases are instance of the violation of freedom of association.

So what is to be done about the union menace? Simple, take away from them their illegitimate tool, trespass and restrictions on entry, and leave them with their one licit tactic, mass quits. It is contrary to libertarian principles to do anything else: to democratize them (ensure they use secret ballots), take away their right to support political candidates, or to forbid them by law to engage in freely made contractual agreements, such as union shops, closed shops, etc. We would be aghast if the chess club were prohibited from supporting political candidates, or were compelled to run according to democratic principles. The chess club is a legitimate organization, and thus, at least according to libertarianism, may do anything it wishes, provided, only, that it does not violate the NAP. Ditto for a properly defanged union movement; once it is fully legitimate, it may carry on in any way it wishes.

Forbidding political participation, compelling democracy, imposing right to work laws, etc., are all second best attempts to wrestle evil unionism to the ground. If it is politically possible to counter organized labor in any other way, these sorts of things may well be justified. But, if we are to properly apply libertarian principles to this arena, let us have no more of this "right to work" nonsense. We should leave off actually believing that voluntary agreements for union or closed shops for some strange reason are compulsory. Of course, they are not. They are merely an instance of monogamy in labor relations.

If we are to effectively promote libertarianism, we must start off by accurately understanding our own philosophy. Proponents of "right" to work legislation fail in this regard. At the very least, if they fully understood libertarianism, they would say something like: Of course, there is no "right" to work. However, rampant unionism is running amok, and the only way we can deal with this menace to civilization is via right to work legislation (or prohibiting them from engaging in the political process, or shoving democracy down their throats, etc.) We favor right to work laws not because they are just, per se, but due to the fact that they ward off a far greater evil.

I don't say that I favor engaging in this sort of second bestism. There are problems with it. It is all too similar for my tastes to Milton Friedman’s proposals for school vouchers, etc. But, at least people who argue in this way demonstrate a keen appreciation of what libertarianism is all about. There would be something to be said in behalf of these laws on that ground alone.

For more of my views on these matters, see Block, Walter E. 2008. Labor Economics from a Free Market Perspective: Employing the Unemployable. London, UK: World Scientific Publishing.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: Contra Randy Barnett on the LibertarianParty

From time to time I receive challenging questions, objections, having to do with speeches I have given, articles or books I have published, previous columns on LewRockwell.com. I ignore all impolite letters. I briefly answer all polite ones. Some are very challenging, and I try to respond more substantively to them. Here are a few of such recent ones. I publish them here on LewRockwell.com in the hope that these questions, and my responses to them, will get us that proverbial one millionth of an inch closer to the truth on these complex issues. I use first names in all cases, in order to maintain anonymity. I have very slightly edited these queries and further elaborated on my responses in some cases.

1. Voluntary slavery

From: David Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 6:48 PM To: wblock@loyno.edu Subject: Sydney Seminar

Dear Professor Block,

This note is to thank you for the intellectual stimulation your weekend in Sydney [December 3 and 4, 2012] supplied to the audience at the Australian Mises Seminar, at which you were the keynote speaker. As a member of your audience I shared its appreciation of your contribution. I was the party who queried your assertion that a person could, consistent with libertarian principles, sell oneself into slavery. I said at the time I would think about it and get back to you. Having done so I offer the following:

Self-ownership is an inalienable right. Leaving aside the question of whether one can properly describe one’s control of one’s own body as “ownership”, the fact of its inalienability , [with due deference to Grotius], precludes even the self-owner from alienating it in favour of someone else. Self-ownership is the basis of freedom. Consider the possibilities; if, after selling yourself into slavery, your new owner dies, do you pass as part of his estate? If you are a woman, is any child you might subsequently have also a slave? Self bondage must lead inexorably to the wider existence of slavery, a denial of the natural right to liberty. The fact that self-ownership is inalienable precludes even the owner from such denial.

Appreciatively, David

Dear David:

Thanks for your kind words. You raise important objections to my views on this matter.

You say: "Self-ownership is an inalienable right." I say, if it is inalienable, it is not a (complete) right; full ownership entails the right to sell that which you own. If you can't sell it, you don't really fully own it. You can sell your shoes, your car. Suppose you couldn't. Assume you had to keep them. You couldn't sell them, couldn't give them away. My claim is that your so called ownership rights over them would then be greatly attenuated.

You say: "Self-ownership is the basis of freedom." I agree. But, I maintain that this freedom requires the ability to sell that which you supposedly own.

Yes, if your new owner dies, you pass to his heirs, as part of his estate, just like his cattle, horses, houses, cars. No, children are free. You can only sell yourself, not other people, not your children. Only they (when they are adults) can sell themselves.

You say: "Self bondage must lead inexorably to the wider existence of slavery." By this I assume you mean "Self bondage must lead inexorably to the wider existence of (coercive, not voluntary) slavery." I don't care if it does. It is still justified. I'm not a utilitarian. However, we do have a bit of historical evidence suggesting this is not the case. We did, at least in the US, have a system of indentured servitude. This was a sort of (temporary) "self bondage." It did not lead to (coercive) slavery.

You say "The fact that self-ownership is inalienable precludes even the owner from such denial." I regard this as a self contradiction. You're asserting that a person owns something, himself, and yet cannot sell it. Well, then, I say, he doesn't really then (fully) own whatever it is he cannot sell.

According to Malcolm, Norman. 1958. “Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir” (Oxford U.P., 1958): "On one walk he (Wittgenstein) ‘gave’ to me (Malcolm) each tree that we passed, with the reservation that I was not to cut it down or do anything to it, or prevent the previous owners from doing anything to it: with those reservations it was henceforth u2018mine.'" Precisely. I don't see why ownership of trees should be any different, in this regard, than ownership of people.

See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here for my publications on this subject. I was delighted to have spoken in Australia, mainly because of the quality of the audience. We may disagree on this issue, but your questions/objections are challenging, and are an example I why I greatly enjoyed addressing the group of Austro libertarians in Sydney.

Block, Walter E. 2009. "Privatizing Rivers and Voluntary Slave Contracts" July 27

2. Private roads

From: Hal Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 4:58 AM To: wblock@loyno.edu Subject: Question about homesteading roads

Dear Mr. Block, I have question for you regarding public roads and the act of homesteading. Here is my scenario [note: in this world, there is no coercive government and (the law) is up to individuals, corporations, to uphold]. An old farmer uses his backhoe to dig a dirt road in the middle of nowhere. This road was built so he could clear an unused piece of land and build his own farm. He never bothers to maintain the road or charge other people to use it because he finds it would be unprofitable and waste of time, or he simply wants to give everyone free access to the road. Over time this road becomes regularly used by different logging companies, gold miners, other farmers, and people who want to live on that land. None of these people bother to maintain the road or try to claim ownership over it. One day a big bad evil oil corporation discovers oil on the land and starts pumping it out of the ground. The road is badly beaten up and its costing the oil company money due to damaged trucks and slower delivery time. They decide to fully repair the road and pave it over. 100% of the road was funded by the company itself. One day they are feeling more evil than usual and decide that they should install armed guards at the entrance charge for the road so they can make more money. They feel argue that they homesteaded the road by repairing and paving it over. And after charging people for the road, the managers decide to quit maintaining it so they make even more money to spend it on prostitutes, luxury cars, 23 bedroom castles, high grade liquor, gold watches, and all of their other vices. The other companies and individuals that were using the road before the oil company are extremely angry and are even considering sending in their own private defense agencies, or confronting the guards themselves, to take back the road and make it so it has unlimited public access again. Now assuming that the road ownership is the only conflict between the oil company and the other companies and individuals:

• Does the oil company have any legitimate moral or legal claim to the road?
• Does the farmer have any right to reclaim this road, so he can charge fees for it, even though he originally chose to make it public and not charge?
• If the other companies and individuals had a moral and legal right to reclaim it, would a crime have been committed if the one of the defense agencies or individuals had to kill the guards to regain access?

If the oil company simply chose to quit claiming ownership of the road and re-allowed public access. And all of the other companies hired competing firms to maintain and protect the same road. How would you determine who gets to do each different job and would they be able to homestead anything in the process such rights to cleaning graffiti or repaving?

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I would be honored if you had the time to answer my questions so I can see into the mind of great libertarian thinker. I’m an anarcho-capitalist who hopes to see a future where individuals, corporations, and collectives find non-coercive solutions to everything. You are one of my personal heroes and I hope to see one of your lectures very soon.

Dear Hal:

In my view, the farmer still owns the road (I assume that the "middle of nowhere" was on his own land). He was there first. The road exists on his own land. He built the road. Then, he in effect gave it away for free to all passersby. Or, rather, while he retains ownership of it by dint of homesteading, mixing his labor with the amenity, he allows others to use it for free. He never abandoned it, based on your example.

I assume that the oil company drills on its own land, contiguous to the farmer's land. (Otherwise, the "evil" oil company is trespassing, and that doesn't seem to be part of your example.)

The oil company has no ownership rights. Their upgrade was a free gift to the farmer, and thus in effect to the general public.

As you may know, I have written a book on this general topic, although, I confess, I never did directly respond to the scenario you put forth in that publication. This book: Block, Walter E. 2009. The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors; Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute is available at the Mises bookstore, and for free here.

3. Government auctions

—–Original Message—– From: Eduardo Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 8:48 AM To: Walter Block Subject: Ethics question

Hello Dr Block.

I’ve sent you some messages in the past about voluntary slavery, and you were very kind in answering them in a very enlightening way. I hope I am not stepping out of bounds in asking another question, but this is important in a personal way, and I deeply respect your work and opinion on this issue.

I live in Brazil, and sometimes the federal gang of government here promotes auctions of assets seized by our version of the IRS. My question is, would it be ethical to participate on these auctions? It seems that to me that the answer should be no, since it is stolen property. But again, it would at least take some property out of the hands of the state.

I ask you kindly if you could you point me to some relevant literature on this point.

Thanks in advance.

Eduardo

Ideas Have Consequences.

Dear Eduardo:

In my view, this depends upon the preponderence of benefits. If the gain to you is great, and to the state, small, then I claim that libertarian theory supports your purchase. If the opposite is true, then, not. My theory is that if you benefit the state, you are acting incompatibly with libertarianism, but that this can be over ridden by greater advantages to you, a libertarian. Non libertarians would be precluded from such auctions, on penalty from the future Nuremberg libertarian trials.

I have written a lot about this general topic, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here, but have never about this precise example, so I thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D. Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business Loyola University New Orleans 6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318 New Orleans, LA 70118 tel: (504) 864-7934 fax: (504) 864-7970 wblock@loyno.edu http://www.walterblock.com/

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a u2018dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."

~ Murray N. Rothbard

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: Friedman on Intolerance: ACritique

Randy Barnett recently wrote this article in the War Street Journal: "The Mistake That Is the Libertarian Party; Voting the LP line could swing the election to the Democrats. That’s not an outcome libertarians should hope for."

This is a frontal attack on the Libertarian Party. As a long term supporter of this organization (I ran for New York State Assembly in 1969, have addressed dozens of LP state conventions, and hope to do more of the same in future; I was an advisor to Gary Johnson in his 2012 campaign), I am happy with this opportunity to respond. Before I do, let me put matters in context.

This Georgetown Law School Professor says: "As a young libertarian, I was very enthusiastic about the formation of the Libertarian Party. I proudly cast my vote for Roger MacBride for president. I attended the 1975 national convention in New York that nominated him. But, while I am as libertarian today as I was then, I have come to believe that the Libertarian Party was a mistake. "

I don't regard Randy Barnett as a libertarian any more, although I readily acknowledge that in his earlier truly libertarian days he made important contributions to our philosophy, and was a confidant of no one less than "Mr. Libertarian," Murray Rothbard.

With that background out of the way, what is Barnett's case against the LP?

He states: "The reason is simple. Unlike a parliamentary system in which governments are formed by coalitions of large and small parties, our electoral system is a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all one in which a winning presidential candidate just needs to get more than 50% of the vote. This means each contending “major” party is itself a coalition that needs to assemble enough diverse voting groups within it to get to 51%. Hence the need to appeal to the so-called moderates and independents rather than the more “extreme” elements within.

"To the extent that a third party is successful, it will drain votes from the coalition party to which it is closest and help elect the coalition party that is further removed from its interests. The Libertarian Party’s effort will, if effective, attract more libertarian voters away from the candidate who is marginally less hostile to liberty, and help hand the election to the candidate who is more hostile to liberty."

Let me make my own position clear before responding to these specifics. Although I am a staunch supporter of the LP, and have been for 43 years, I do not look upon this organization as any sort of end, in and of itself. Rather, I see the LP merely as a means. To what end? To liberty, of course. If the LP is the best vehicle for liberty, I support it. If the GOP turns out to the best one, as it was when Ron Paul was running for its nomination in 2008 and 2012, then I support him, and it. But, when Romney won the Republican nomination, then for me, the LP, and Gary Johnson, came into its own. (If, slim to none chance, Ron Paul had won the Republican nomination, beating out Romney, then I would have hoped and expected that the LP would also have endorsed him. That is why it is absolutely crucial for the LP to hold its convention after those of the two major parties.)

Barnett continues: "The small-”l” libertarians in the tea party movement identified the Republican Party as the coalition closest to their concerns about fiscal responsibility and the growth of government power, and they have gone about making the GOP more libertarian from the grass-roots up. They have moved the party in a libertarian direction, as has the Republican Liberty Caucus.

"Despite all this, some libertarians continue to insist that, because the Republican and Democrats are equally bad for liberty, it makes no difference who gets elected. However true this once was, in recent years Republicans have been better for liberty and Democrats have been worse."

Again I disagree. I concede to Barnett that the Republicans are slightly better on economics, and, who knows, maybe even, for the sake of argument, they are an improvement over the Democrats on personal liberties. But with regard to foreign policy, curiously not mentioned by Barnett, in my judgment, Romney was more of a war-monger than the war-monger Obama, and this is a more important issue than both of those others put together. (The anti war left, it would appear, only opposes unjust Republican wars, not Democratic invasions; a disgrace.)

Post election commentary

Now that the election is over, perhaps a bit of stock taking is in order. My own strategy is that if a Ron Paul or even a Gary Johnson or a Rand Paul is running for the nomination as president on the GOP ticket, I would support that person in the nominating process, and certainly in the general election. But if, as per usual, the winner of that run-off is a person like Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Giuliani, Paul Ryan or Chris Christie, then I would favor whoever is the LP's candidate. That is why it is so important for the LP to hold its nominating convention after the conventions of the two major parties are held. In that way we can maximize the LP's effectiveness. If we had done that this time, we might have had Ron as the LP's candidate, again, and we would have had a far better chance of getting that very elusive 5% of the vote which would enable us to get matching funds (for more on this issue see here.)

My advice to Gary in this election was to take positions as close to Ron's as he possibly could, so as to get the votes of Ron's supporters.  He did do a bit of this in my estimation, but not enough. My hope is that if Gary, or Jim Gray, runs for the LP nomination in 2016, that they take the next four years, well, three years, to become more acquainted with libertarian theory. Here are the books, I think, to start with:

• Hazlitt, Henry. 2008 [1946]. Economics in One Lesson. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute;
• Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. For a New Liberty, Macmillan, New York;
• Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University
• Rand, Ayn. 1957. Atlas Shrugged, New York: Random House.

Note that the first three of these are available for free on the Mises web.  While I'm unburdening myself of post election thoughts, I think that the LP should spend the next three years on internal education for all its members. We could all do worse than start with these four books.

Our choice in 2008, Bob Barr, was an absolute disaster. This man didn't have a libertarian bone in his body. As but one indication of this, Barr supported Gingrich in this election cycle, when he could have done so for Ron Paul. If that doesn't indicate where his heart is at, then nothing does.

Last night, I was rooting, of course, for Gary Johnson to break that 5% barrier. But, as between Obama and Romney, I favored the former. I did so for precisely the same reasons as I supported Obama vis a vis McCain in 2008: foreign policy. My fear was that if elected, Romney would start a war with China, Iran, and who knows who else. In contrast, Obama had four years to do that, and refrained. Another reason: at least we can trust Obama to be the socialist, interventionist, moderate war-monger that he has proven himself to be. In contrast, with Romney, he has been on every side of every issue; you just can't trust that man to cleave to any principle. Also, I'll never forgive Romney for what he did to my man, Ron Paul. Yes, yes, Romney might have been better on economic policy than Obama. And I shudder at Obama's likely Supreme Court nominations (although I'm not much of a fan of those chosen by the Republicans, either). But foreign policy is more important than domestic. It murders far more innocents. And, also, it informs domestic policy. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the health of the state."

So, I look forward to four more years of Obama rule with some (small amount of) equanimity. Things could have been worse. We could have, horrors!, had Romney and his neo-con puppet masters. And this is the time for all of us, whether inside of the GOP or as supporters of the LP, to step up our efforts to promote liberty. We should do so, preeminently in my view, by supporting the Mises Institute, which just celebrated its 30 year anniversary, and has been an undeviating, uncompromising beacon for liberty in each and every second of those magnificent three decades.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: Contrary to Paul Krugman, the Broken Window Fallacy Is a Fallacy

This article originally appeared in Libertarian Papers 2, 41 (2010).

The essence of libertarianism is its nonaggression principle. In order to determine whether some act or concept or institution is compatible with this philosophy, one may use this as a sort of litmus test. If you initiate violence against someone, you must pay the penalty for so doing, and are presumptively acting outside of libertarian law.

However, in the view of some commentators who really should know better, intolerance, not creating an uninvited border crossing, is the be-all and end-all of libertarianism. In this view, tolerance, while it may not be sufficient, is certainly a necessary condition. If you are not tolerant, you cannot be a libertarian. States Milton Friedman (1991, p. 17, material in brackets inserted by present author. See also Friedman and Friedman, 1998, p. 161) in this regard,

I regard the basic human value that underlies my own [political] beliefs as tolerance, based on humility. I have no right to coerce someone else, because I cannot be sure that I am right and he is wrong…. Why do I regard tolerance as the foundation of my belief in freedom? How do we justify not initiating coercion? If I asked you what is the basic philosophy of a libertarian, I believe that most of you would say that a libertarian philosophy is based on the premise that you should not initiate force, that you may not initiate coercion. Why not? If we see someone doing something wrong, someone starting to sin [to use a theological term] let alone just make a simple mistake, how do we justify not initiating coercion? Are we not sinning if we don’t stop him?… How do I justify letting him sin? I believe that the … answer is, can I be sure he’s sinning? Can I be sure that I am right and he is wrong? That I know what sin is?

This relativistic, know-nothingism of Friedman’s has been subjected to a withering rebuke by Kinsella (2009):

He was in favor of liberty and tolerance of differing views and behavior because we cannot know that the behavior we want to outlaw is really bad. In other words, the reason we should not censor dissenting ideas is not the standard libertarian idea that holding or speaking is not aggression, but because we can’t be sure the ideas are wrong. This implies that if we could know for sure what is right and wrong, it might be okay to legislate morality, to outlaw immoral or “bad” actions.

And states Hoppe (1997, 23),

To maintain that no such thing as a rational ethic exists does not imply “tolerance” and “pluralism,” as champions of positivism such as Milton Friedman falsely claim, and moral absolutism does not imply “intolerance” and “dictatorship.” To the contrary, without absolute values “tolerance” and “pluralism” are just other arbitrary ideologies, and there is no reason to accept them rather than any others such as cannibalism and slavery. Only if absolute values, such as a human right of self-ownership exist, that is, only if “pluralism” or “tolerance” are not merely among a multitude of tolerable values, can pluralism and tolerance in fact be safeguarded.

Precisely. The strong implication, here, would appear to be that if we were vouchsafed such knowledge, then we would be justified in imposing our values on others. But this is hardly in keeping with the libertarian ethos.

Further, Friedman is guilty of tolerance, and humility with a vengeance. So much so it amounts to a stultifying skepticism. If it is reminiscent of anything, it is that of multiculturalism’s claim that no society can possibly be better than any other. If no one can really know anything about anything, and are as humble as Milton Friedman claims to be, how can we even engage in political philosophy? Yet if there is anyone associated at least in the public mind with taking strong stances on issues, a host of them as it happens, it is Professor Friedman.

But let us not tread too fast, lest we be accused of hubris. Friedman (1991, 17) tosses the following example across the bows of libertarians. Suppose A is on a bridge, and sees B poised to jump off it to his death. What does A do? If A has even a shred of humanity in him, he immediately seizes B, and saves his life – against B’s will. According to this supposed libertarian,

What this demonstrates, fundamentally, is that no simple principle is really adequate. We do not have all the answers, and there is no simple formula that will give us all the answers. That’s why humility, tolerance, is so basic, so fundamental.

But the libertarian nonaggression axiom is more than sufficient to answer this challenge. If A wants to be a hero, and enslave B against his will, and, clearly, “for B’s own good,” then A should be willing to pay the price for this set out by the libertarian philosophy. One part of the price for A is saving B at the possible risk to his own life. But another part of this, a crucial one, is that A should also be willing to pay the legal consequences of his initiatory violence. Friedman to the contrary notwithstanding, A was guilty of physically imposing his will on B. False imprisonment is, ordinarily, a very serious crime. In our present Good Samaritan case it is still a crime, but, presumably, any libertarian court worthy of the name would take the lack of mens rea into account, assuming the unlikely scenario that B wishes to press charges.

For what length of time would it be justified for A to hold B as prisoner (to safeguard the latter’s life against another suicide attempt)? A day or so, until the would-be suicide can collect his thoughts is one thing. But as time goes on, the attempt of A to preserve B’s life begins more and more to resemble the “de-programmers” who attempt to rescue people from the clutches of “cults,” whether they wish to be rescued or not. On the other hand, children are a special case in libertarianism, as they are in every other political philosophy. It would not be unjust to incarcerate a child who has attempted suicide against himself for as long as it took for him to reach majority. “Humility and tolerance” are not at all the essence of libertarianism; indeed, they are otherwise unobjectionable characteristics. But the law must deal with cases of this sort in some way, and Friedman’s refusal to see any possible principle involved is of little help in establishing just law.

Friedman’s (1991, 18) next attempt to peddle his “tolerance” nostrums shows him as rather intolerant of Ludwig von Mises:

I recall a personal episode, at the first meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society – the founding meeting in 1947 in Mont Pelerin, Switzerland. Ludwig von Mises was one of the people who was there. I was also. The group had a series of discussions on different topics. One afternoon, the discussion was on the distribution of income, taxes, progressive taxes, and so on. The people in that room included Friedrich von Hayek, Fritz Machlup, George Stigler, Frank Knight, Henry Hazlitt, John Jewkes, Lionel Robbins, Leonard Read – hardly a group whom you would regard as leftists. In the middle of that discussion von Mises got up and said “You’re all a bunch of socialists,” and stomped out of the room.

At the very least, Friedman reveals himself as a person who is intolerant of (supposedly) intolerant people. But this amounts to intolerance on Friedman’s part, in contradiction to his own avowed philosophy.

What, precisely, was the issue under discussion on the part of those supposed free-market economists? Contrary to our reporter, it was not “distribution of income, taxes, progressive taxes.” Rather, the talks at this Mont Pelerin meeting focused on Freidman’s “negative income tax,” which, long after 1947, he still has the effrontery to defend on libertarian grounds. In fact, he does so in the publication under discussion:

It may be that the ideal is – and I believe that it is – to have a society in which you do not have any kind of major or substantial governmental system of welfare. Again, nearly thirty years ago I suggested, as a way of promoting a transition from here to there, a negative income tax as a substitute for and an alternative to the present rag bag of welfare and redistributionist measures. Again, is that a statist solution? I believe not. We have participated in a society in which people have become dependent on government hand-outs. It is irresponsible; immoral I would say, simply to say, “Oh well, somehow or other we’ll overnight drop the whole thing.” You have to have some mechanism of going from here to there. I believe that we lose a lot of plausibility for our ideas by not facing up to that responsibility. It is of course desirable to have a vision of the ideal, of Utopia. Far be it from me to denigrate that. But we can’t stop there. If we do, we become a cult or a religion, and not a living, vital force.

There is more wrong here than you can shake a stick at. Of course, we must oppose the “rag bag” of present welfarist policies. They are unjust, and do more harm than good not only to those forced to pay for them, but, also, horrifically, since they can least afford it, to the recipients (Murray, 1984), not the least of which damage is the breakup of the black family (Tucker, 1984).

Then, on a practical level, where is the case for blithely assuming that the negative income tax would replace all the rag bags of welfare, rather than, simply, be added to them, and thus becoming just one more rag in a now bigger bag? Just because Friedman is proposing this very outcome does not render it likely to occur. One would have to be pretty politically naïve to believe any such thing. (Equally naïve was Friedman’s 3 percent rule proposal for the Fed, as even he later admitted; Friedman and Friedman, 1999. Why should those placed charge of the central bank quietly acquiesce to any such limitation on their powers?) It is thus irresponsible for any free-market supporter to advocate the negative income tax on this ground alone.

Further, there is simply no reason to assume that this plan constituted a “transition” from a welfare state to a non–welfare state. If Friedman really wanted to “transit” toward a fully free-enterprise policy of welfare, that is, of course, no welfare at all, his transition proposal would have more accurately been along the lines of a fixed percentage reduction in payments over a given period. For example, a 20 percent reduction over five years; after which welfare would end. Period. The negative income tax simply has no such implication. Rather, it is something that can easily be made permanent, and, indeed, was intended to be so by this supposed “libertarian.”

Even if this plan constituted a legitimate transition, which it certainly does not, there is an unquestioned premised in Friedman’s examination, namely, that gradualism is to be preferred to abrupt change. But this is hardly always the case. Consider the debate over slavery in the mid-19th century, in the decades before the War of Northern Aggression broke out. There were the abolitionists versus the gradualists. The former wanted an end to this vicious system then and now; the latter argued for measured change. If Friedman were to apply his “principles” to this epoch, he would have been a gradualist. But no libertarian worthy of his salt could have been anything but an abolitionist. To have the power to end slavery quickly, and to, instead, hold it in abeyance so that people could adjust to freedom, would surely be anathema to libertarians. There is no transition needed at all, in either the welfare or slavery cases. Both should be ended, and precipitously. The rallying cry of the abolitionists, “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice” (Pease and Pease, p. xxxv) is as true in the one case as in the other.

Here is another quote from William Lloyd Garrison: “Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend” (Liberator, August 13, 1831). And yet another:

I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm: tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; – but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – and I will be heard. (Liberator, January 1, 1831)

(For other critiques of gradualism from a libertarian point of view see McElroy, undated; Rothbard, 2005.)

It is not at all immoral to say, “we’ll overnight drop the whole thing.” What is unethical is to have the power to rid ourselves of this illicit program, and do nothing. Friedman, all on his own, had no such ability. However, the pages of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, NBC, ABC, CBS and other major media were open to him. He could have advocated a more libertarian plan, whether outright elimination or a percentage decrease each year until the demise of welfare was reached. He did no such thing, instead contenting himself with advocated his pernicious negative income tax.

Friedman “believes that we lose a lot of plausibility for our ideas by not” offering gradual transition plans for moving toward free enterprise. No. We lose a lot of plausibility by being dismissed by the likes of Friedman for being “a cult or a religion,” and not a living, vital force.

Yes, it cannot be denied that to first make it next to impossible for the poor to get the jobs necessary to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves (unions, minimum wages, licensing restrictions on entry into fields such as taxi cabs, hair braiding – I readily acknowledge that Friedman did magnificent work on these sorts of issues) and then to yank welfare payments out from under them at one fell swoop would be unethical. But the answer is not to support a continuation of welfare on a more efficient basis; rather, it is to sweep away, as soon as possible, both methods of impoverishing the poor: welfare and these other initiatives.

Yes, the negative income tax would be more efficient than the rag bag welfare system, if only because it would rid us of the “poverty pimps,” the middle-class nomenklatura of social workers, lawyers, aides, busybodies, do-gooders, and others who batten down on programs ostensibly aimed at alleviating poverty. But the last thing we need is for evil to be accomplished on a more efficient basis. Do we really want more effective gulags, concentration camps? For the libertarian, efficiency is the handmaiden of ethics, not the other way around.

But perhaps the most vile aspect of the negative income tax is the fact that it inculcates welfare as a quasi right. In doing so, this plays into the hands of the most fervid defenders of welfare on the political left. These are the people who promote so-called welfare rights. What is wrong with welfare “rights”? These payments come from taxpayers who are forced to fork over their own hard earned money in order to support those, welfare “queens” and others, who simply have no “right” to the wealth of other people. (But in a democracy, the majority either directly voted for the welfare system, or, indirectly for the politicians who implemented it. Does this not render this “right”? No. Of course not. There is, after all, such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. Merely because a majority of the electorate supports policy does not make it “right.” If it did, then, whatever Hitler did was also “right,” since he came to power as the result of a democratic election.) If the citizen has an obligation to pay taxes when he earns more than a certain amount, then, according to this law, he has a legal right to a subsidy from the government when his income falls below a given level. If this is not akin to a “right,” then nothing is. With friends of liberty those who foment such policies, this cause hardly needs enemies.

So, when Mises walked out of the Mont Pelerin meeting in a huff, in reaction against the support for the negative income tax among those so-called free enterprisers, he was entirely justified in doing so. If that is intolerance, we need much more of it! After all, if these were just a few mainstream academics discussing socialist nostrums, Mises would have been his usual cordial self. But it would take the patience of a saint to tolerate such a spectacle from the supposed world leaders of the free-enterprise system, and Mises was a mere mortal, at least in this regard.

Friedman’s next intolerant attack is aimed at Mises and praxeology. He states,

So far as von Mises is concerned, I refer to his methodological doctrine of praxeology. That’s a fancy word and it may seem highly irrelevant to my topic, but it isn’t at all. Because his fundamental idea was that we knew things about "human action" (the title of his famous book) because we are human beings. As a result, he argued, we have absolutely certain knowledge of motivations of human action and he maintained that we can derive substantive conclusions from that basic knowledge. Facts, statistical or other evidence cannot, he argued, be used to test those conclusions, but only to illustrate a theory. They cannot be used to contradict a theory, because we are not generalizing from observed evidence, but from innate knowledge of human motives and behavior. That philosophy converts an asserted body of substantive conclusions into a religion. They do not constitute a set of scientific propositions that you can argue about in terms of empirical evidence. Suppose two people who share von Mises’ praxeological view come to contradictory conclusions about anything. How can they reconcile their difference? The only way they can do so is by a purely logical argument. One has to say to the other, “You made a mistake in reasoning.” And the other has to say, “No you made a mistake in reasoning.” Suppose neither believes he has made a mistake in reasoning. There’s only one thing left to do: fight. Karl Popper – another Austrian like Mises and Hayek – takes a different approach. If we disagree, we can say to one another, “You tell me what fact, if they were observed, you would regard as sufficient to contradict your view. And vice versa. Then we can go out and see which, if either, conclusion the evidence contradicts. The virtue of this modern scientific approach, as proposed by Popper, is that it provides way in which, at least in principle, we can resolve disagreements without a conflict.

As an Austrian economist, I am outraged by this condescending attitude toward, this complete and utter misunderstanding of, the praxeological school. On the other hand, I dare not be too critical of Friedman; criticizing him is like taking candy from a baby: he is totally unaware of the Austrian responses to this sort of calumny, whereas members of the praxeological school are completely conversant with the logical positivism on the basis of which Friedman launches his attack. So, I will now be more “tolerant” than I would otherwise be in this regard.

Let me start out on a positive note. Friedman is absolutely correct when he says that his own critical views on praxeology are entirely relevant to the issue of toleration. (Prychitko, 2002, is another author who maintains that praxeology is intolerant per se. For a rejoinder, see Block, unpublished.) It certainly would appear, at least at the outset, that Mises’s views are “intolerant.”

But superficial appearances can sometimes be deceiving, and that is true in this case. Let us consider an example. When A trades an a to B for one of his b’s, each of them, A and B, gain in welfare in the ex ante sense. That is, A values the b he receives more than the a he must give up in this exchange. And, similarly, B, ranks the incoming a more highly than the outgoing b. Perhaps the best illustration of this is that famous front cover of the Saturday Evening Post where Norman Rockwell draws the milkman and the pie man, each sitting in front of their respective trucks, munching away on a pie and slurping at a bottle of milk. We are given to understand by Rockwell, an artist who would appear to know more about economics than Friedman, that right before the scenario he depicted, the milkman (A) traded a bottle of milk (a) with the pie man (B) for one of the latter’s products (b), and that each did so because he valued what he received more than what he had to give up for it.

The difficulty with Friedman’s treatment of praxeology is that he does not have a concrete example in front of him in order to facilitate his analysis. With this milk-pie case firmly embedded in our minds, it is easy to see where Friedman went astray. Suppose one economist, call him the Austrian, offers the pie-milk case as an example of voluntary trade making both parties better off, and that they rank the two goods traded in inverse order. A second economist, call him a Chicago School economist, denies this. Following Friedman’s “reasoning,” the Austrian says to the Chicagoan, “You made a mistake in reasoning.” Whereupon the Chicagoan returns this sally, and says to the Austrian, “You made a mistake in reasoning.” Do they then have no resort but to come to physical blows? Not a bit of it. The Austrian replies, “What reason could the milk man and the pie man have had, in entering their trade, other than to improve their economic welfare?” The Chicagoite, a Popperian, challenges the Austrian to specify a state of the world where he would regard his contention (voluntary trade implies mutual gain and reverse rankings of goods) “as sufficient to contradict (his) view.” And, of course, the answer is, there is no possible state of the world that could contradict this praxeological claim, since these claims are necessarily true.

The Chicagoan economist would throw up his hands in dismay, thinking that the Austrian had “convert(ed) an asserted body of substantive conclusions into a religion.” But if the praxeologist is guilty of this charge, then, so, too, would be all other scholars whose specialty is based on logic, not experience. For example, mathematicians, geometricians, logicians. Does Friedman think that mathematicians quarreling over whether or not 2+2=4 have no alternative but to fight? That the only way to settle the truth of the Pythagorean Theorem is to enter the boxing ring? That the truth of the syllogism, “Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, Socrates is mortal,” can only be settled through force of arms? That mathematics, geometry, logic, are mere cultish religions? That specifying possible falsifications is the be all and end all of argumentation? Let the logical positivists, then, specify a real world situation where 2+2=4, the Pythagorean Theorem and the Socrates syllogism are false. These claims, all of them, those stemming from mathematics, geometry, logic, and, yes, economics too, are not tautologies, mere announcements as to how words are to be used. Rather, they are synthetic apriori statements: they are necessarily true, and, also, give a profound understanding of how the real world operates.

There is more to the examination of scholarship in general, and to economics in particular, than exists in Friedman’s philosophy. Yes, empirical evidence is one way to “resolve disagreements without a conflict.” But, there are other ways, too. And, empirical evidence, in some cases, is insufficient, even in principle, because not all issues are empirical.

Friedman (1991, 18-20) now moves on to another critique of “intolerance.” He says:

How many times have you heard someone say that the answer to a problem is that you simply have to make it private property. But is private property such an obvious notion? Does it come out of the soul?

I have a house. It belongs to me. You fly an airplane over my house, 20,000 feet up. Are you violating my private property? You fly over at 50 feet. You might give a different answer. Your house is next door. You have a hi-fi system. You play your hi-fi at an enormously high decibel count. Are you violating my private property? Those are questions to which you can’t get answers by introspection or asking whether A is A or not. They are practical questions that require answers based on experience. Before there were airplanes, nobody thought of the problem of trespass through air. So simply saying “private property” is a mantra, not an answer. Simply saying "use the market" is not an answer.

Once more, unhappily, we catch Friedman in a statement far from his best. Again, he seems to be unaware that there is a libertarian literature directed precisely to these questions. But, before we get to it, we must note that the argument from “How many times have you heard someone say” has no place in scholarly discourse. It would have been far more appropriate to quote and cite a specific Austrian economist, or libertarian philosopher. Then, defenders such as myself, could have the entire context available. (Note that in this rejoinder to Friedman I do him the honor of quoting his actual words. I do not resort to putting words in his mouth, attributing to him very naïve and inarticulate versions of what he actually said, or wrote.) The way Friedman puts matters, libertarians content themselves with squawking, parrot-like, “private property, private property,” in response to all objections to philosophy, such as that now launched by Friedman. Not so, not so. Rather, there is a rather sophisticated analysis which may, indeed, be property summarized under the rubric of “private property rights.”

First, consider the airplane case. What possesses Friedman to even think that any libertarian would posit that the homeowner has property rights 20,000 feet up in the air? Certainly, none has ever published such arrant nonsense. It could only be based on the ad coelum doctrine, according to which ownership of a plot of land on the surface of the earth entitles legal control over an expanding cone of air over this property, and, also, downward, toward the center of the earth. But this is directly contrary to the homesteading theory of libertarianism (Hoppe, 1993; Locke, 1948; Rothbard, 1973, 32; also see Kinsella, 2003; Block vs Epstein, 2005), according to which one becomes owner of only those parts of the earth with which he is the first to “mix his labor.”

At the other end of this example, how low can you go? Would 50 feet above rooftops constitute a trespass? Of course. It would interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of their premises by the owners, who homesteaded them. Unless, possibly, they are located very close to an airport, which located there first; but here, presumably, the residents would be forbidden to build in the first place, lest they interfere with air flights.

An instance of this objection was discussed by Coase (1960), Friedman’s colleague at the University of Chicago, and fellow Nobel Prize winner in economics. It was the case of Sturgis v. Bridgeman, which revolved around the issue of whether the manufacturer may run his machinery, which interferes with the quiet needed by the doctor in order to operate his stethoscope and other medical needs. Coase, of course, answered this question in terms of which decision would maximize GDP, but the libertarian analysis is clear on this matter: it depends on who was there first, to homestead either the given level or noise, or the required level of quiet. So, to answer Friedman’s challenge, it all depends on who was the initial homesteader of the noise or quiet rights.

These are, to be sure, “practical questions”; but they do not at all “require answers based on experience.” Rather, the key to their solution is justice, based on libertarian homesteading theory. All the “experience” in the world will not get us one iota in the direction of a just solution, a concept alien to the Friedmanite philosophy. Yes, “before there were airplanes, nobody thought of the problem of trespass through air.” And of course “simply saying ‘private property’ is a mantra, not an answer. Simply saying ‘use the market’ is not an answer.” But these are only summaries of the libertarian position. They do not at all exhaust its analysis, as Friedman contends.

Let us now hear from Professor Friedman (1991) on his educational voucher proposal:

“What is the answer to socialism in public schools? Freedom.” Correct. But how do we get from here to there? Is that somebody else’s problem? Is that a purely practical problem that we can dismiss? The ultimate goal we would like to get to is a society in which people are responsible for themselves and for their children’s schooling. And in which you do not have a governmental system. But am I a statist, as I have been labelled (sic) by a number of libertarians, because some thirty years ago I suggested the use of educational vouchers as a way of easing the transition. Is that … “simply a futile attempt to make socialism work more efficiently”? I don’t believe it. I don’t believe that you call simply say what the ideal is. This is what I mean by the utopian strand in libertarianism. You cannot simply describe the utopian solution, and leave it to somebody else how we get from here to there. That’s not only a practical problem. It’s a problem of the responsibilities that we have.

To say that socialized public schools cannot be simply ended, and private schools allowed to summarily take their place, is false. When the USSR and eastern bloc countries (very ineptly) privatized, they felt no great need for any transition period. Let alone one that retained government control to the extent of school vouchers (complete responsibility for finance). It is not true that any transition plan or period is needed, and, certainly, allowing the state to remain in charge of school finance cannot properly count as a “transition.” It is not incumbent on the libertarian to offer fancy plans for “getting from here to there.” The public school buildings can simply be auctioned off (The proceeds going to the long suffering tax payers, not to further enhancing already swollen public coffers) to the highest bidders, and be used for whatever these new owners believe will best maximize their profits, schooling certainly included in the mix, at their discretion.

However, if, for some reason we accept the notion, arguendo, that a transition plan must be offered, how about this one: auction off 20 percent of all public school buildings for the next five years; at the end of this time, all such amenities will be in private hands, where they belong, at least in the view of those who oppose educational socialism.

One of the least salutary effects of educational vouchers is, paradoxically, that they render public schools more efficient. Under present institutional arrangements, parents have no choice; they are compelled to send their children to dysfunctional public schools based on geographical considerations. But under the Friedman voucher plan students can flock to the better public establishments. This will pressure the poor performers to improve their standards, or, possibly, although this is unclear, exit the industry entirely and/or be given over to better administrators. As a result, the overall performance of this pernicious sector of the economy will improve, in a manner akin to how the “weeding out” process functions in the private sector. But is this not all to the good? No. The last thing libertarians desire is an improvement in public schools. This is a socialist organization through and through, specializing in inculcating tender young minds to support government. The less well it functions, the better. Do we want slavery, concentration camps, to function more efficiently? Of course not. If an institution is evil (public schools are of course less evil than these others, but wicked nonetheless) it is best if it works inefficiently. Friedman, however, in aligning himself with a program that will improve the functioning of a vital part of the government apparatus, thus reveals himself not as a libertarian, but as an efficiency expert for the state.

I have claimed that Mises was justified in his reaction to the Mont Pelerin socialists. But, even if he were not, his action would still not be incompatible with libertarianism. This political philosophy has to do with respect for the non aggression axiom, not tolerance. Were toleration the key to this philosophy, then people such as Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Lubavitcher Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson and Nelson Mandela, who were noted for this characteristic, would have been libertarians. These were all admirable people in some ways, but to characterize them as libertarians, as implied by Friedman’s analysis, is nothing short of grotesque.

References

• Block, Walter v. Richard Epstein. 2005. “Debate on Eminent Domain.” NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1144–69
• Block, Walter E. Unpublished. “Rejoinder to Prychitko on Austrian dogmatism.”
• Friedman, Milton 1991. “Say ‘No’ to Intolerance,” Liberty Magazine 4 no. 6, pp. 17–20.
• Friedman, Milton, and Rose D. Friedman. 1998. Two Lucky People, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
• Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1988. Praxeology and Economic Science, Auburn, Al.: Mises Institute, Auburn University
• – – . 1992. “On Praxeology and the Praxeological Foundation of Epistemology and Ethics,” Herbener, J., ed., The Meaning of Ludwig von Mises, Boston: Dordrecht
• – – . 1993. The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy, Boston: Kluwer
• – – . 1997. “The Western State as a Paradigm: Learning from History.” in Paul Gottfried, ed., Politics and Regimes: Religion & Public Life, Vol. 30, Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
• Hulsmann, Jorg Guido. 2007. The Last Knight of Liberalism. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute.
• Kinsella, Stephan. 2003. “A libertarian theory of contract: title transfer, binding promises, and inalienability” Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2, Spring, pp. 11–37.
• – – . 2009. “Milton Friedman on Intolerance, Liberty, Mises, Etc.” November 9.
• Locke, John. 1948. An Essay Concerning the True Origin, Extent and End of Civil Government, in E. Barker, ed., Social Contract, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 17–18.
• McElroy, Wendy. Undated. “Contra gradualism.”
• Murray, Charles. 1984. Losing Ground: American Social Policy from 1950 to 1980, New York: Basic Books
• Pease, William H. and Jane H., eds. 1965. The Antislavey Argument. Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill
• Prychitko, David. 2002. “Thoughts on Austrian economics, ‘Austro-punkism’ and libertarianism,” in Markets, Planning, and Democracy: Essays After the Collapse of Communism; Elgar, pp, 186-190.
• Rockwell, Jr., Llewellyn H. 1998. “Mises and Liberty.” September 15.
• Rockwell, Norman. http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2009/09/05/art-literature/artists-illustrators/work-break.html;
• http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2009/08/29/art-literature/artists-illustrators/school-daze.html/attachment/cover_9581011; 10/11/1958.
• Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. For a New Liberty, Macmillan, New York.
• – – . 2005. “The Case for Radical Idealism.” January 3.
• Tucker, William. 1984. “Black Family Agonistes,” The American Spectator, July, pp. 14–17.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: Long Thin Things

I may have missed something in my c.v., but I don't think I have ever written a critique of any leftist economist. In searching through my own publication records, my targets have almost always been scholars perceiving themselves as, or widely being seen as, right wing supporters of free markets, but who either are really no such thing, or who fall short of this honorific mark. For example, my past targets have included Tom Bethell, James Buchanan, Ronald Coase, Harold Demsetz, William Easterly, Richard Epstein, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Deirdre McCloskey, Elinor Ostrom, Richard Pipes, Ayn Rand and Andre Shleifer. I am a strong advocate of product differentiation, and these people are improperly interpreted, I contend, as uncompromising advocates of free enterprise, private property rights and laissez faire capitalism. They are not.

But today I am embarking on a new mission: putting lefties in their place, starting with Paul Krugman. I had long eschewed this sort of thing, thinking it akin to taking candy from babies, intellectually speaking. I was glad that “child-molesters” like Robert Murphy and William Anderson have long been doing this sort of dirty work. I am of course speaking tongue in cheek here; I greatly admire all of Bob's and Bill's work, particularly their willingness to step down into the trenches with the likes of Paul Krugman. But today, thanks to Murphy's and Anderson's example, I am entering this bog. However, my sense of disgust must be more finely honed than Bob's (who has publicly challenged Krugman to a debate). The thought of actually debating with this creep, coming face to face with him, really gives me the willies. These people really have no brains, and it is really unfair to debate them. But, what the heck; Krugman has won the Nobel Prize in economics, and is a Princeton professor, so, maybe, it is not exactly like criticizing a mentally handicapped person to take him on.

My target is Krugman's "The iPhone Stimulus" which recently appeared in his regular New York Times column of September 14, 2012. In this essay he looks forward to the release of the Apple iPhone 5, as a way of stimulating the economy. He states: "What I'm interested in … are suggestions that the unveiling of the iPhone 5 might provide a significant boost to the U.S. economy, adding measurably to economic growth over the next quarter or two."

But wait. This doesn't sound so crazy at all. If the expectations of this new improvement are even partially met, this item will indeed give a boost to the economy along the lines of other breakthroughs such as increasing the quality of cars, oil drilling, air conditioners, marketing, retailing, etc. If communications can now be even somewhat improved with the release of this new initiative, it must enhance our economic well being. Have I entirely misjudged the acumen of this economist? Has my prejudice against socialist and Keynesian economists blinded me to the veracity of his argument?

No.

Krugman is not looking to Apple iPhone 5 to improve the economy through ease of communication. Rather, very much to the contrary, he sees its benefits as stemming from the obsolescence of already existing plant and equipment of the same type. He says: "Yet depressions do end, eventually, even without government policies to get the economy out of this trap. Why? Long ago, John Maynard Keynes suggested that the answer was u2018use, decay, and obsolescence': even in a depressed economy, at some point businesses will start replacing equipment, either because the stuff they have has worn out, or because much better stuff has come along; and, once they start doing that, the economy perks up. Sure enough, that's what Apple is doing. It's bringing on the obsolescence. Good."

I am glad you are sitting down as you see these words, gentle reader, otherwise you would topple right over as I did when first encountered them, while mistakenly standing up on my two feet. The economic benefits of the Apple iPhone 5 do not come from its merits, merely from the fact that the introduction of this item embodies obsolescence? My goodness gracious. If this were true, then wouldn't it be even better if the rate of capital destruction were even greater? And wouldn't it help the economy even more if this devastation were not confined to communication implements like the Apple iPhone 5 but ranged widely over the economy, poisoning everything in its path including housing, factories, pipelines, mines, etc. In the extreme, we might as well just bomb our capital, buildings, etc., so that we are left with no food, no clothing, no shelter, no anything. Think of all the aggregate demand we would have then!

It used to be, many moons ago, that critics of the market would attack the free enterprise system for purposefully imbedding obsolescence in their products. The charge was that more profit could be earned that way, as if Mercedes Benz, Volkswagon, Toyota and Honda owed their splendid reputations to the unreliability of their automobiles. But now Krugman actually calls for the undermining of quality in order to help the economy. This man never should have been given the Nobel Prize in economics. MIT, which awarded this economic illiterate a Ph.D., ought to engage in a recall. After all, if commercial firms commonly do so for defective products, the same ought to hold true for academia.

At least the old critics of the market were correct in citing needless obsolescence as a flaw (their mistake was thinking this could be profitable in the long run, given people's experiences, and private rating agencies such as Consumer's Reports, Good Housekeeping Seals of Approval, etc.) But Krugman does them one better: he actually calls for the faster breakdown of capital goods. For shame.

In Economics in One Lesson, an entirely uncredentialled Henry Hazlitt correctly labeled the economic fallacy now being peddled by Krugman as "the broken window fallacy." When the hoodlum throws the brick though the baker's window, he does no economic favor to anyone (well, the juvenile delinquent probably enjoys this destruction of other people's property). Yes, there will be new business for the glazier from the baker, but the latter would have spent the money on something else anyway. And, even if he did not, if he stuck this money into his mattress, everyone else's currency would have been worth a bit more. Spending would not have suffered with an intact window. But throwing the brick is economically indistinguishable from have a weak pane of glass in the first place, one that is likely to fall apart on its own due to obsolescence. And the latter is precisely what Krugman is calling for!

Maybe I had better get back to criticizing right wing critics of the market. They are far more of a challenge. I really feel somewhat ill in having to instruct an obviously very bright man like Paul Krugman on one of the most basic elements of microeconomics, the broken window.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: A Not So Funny Thing Happened to Me inTampa

Recently, I was sent this e-mail:

"I’ve never really seen a good answer to the question of how with utilities that have to run distribution lines (gas, electric or water) you can have unlimited competition.  The land and easements they have to run over are extremely limited.”

I am asked this sort of question by students of mine, attendees of lectures I give and, not for the first time, via e mail. Rather than send a very brief answer to each person who asks this of me, I thought I would more systematically address this issue, and publish this on LewRockwell.com, where it can reach a wider audience.

I have a book length treatment of this query with regard to roads, available for free on the web, and at the Mises bookstore and Amazon. In this present short essay, I intend to give this a somewhat more narrow treatment than the book length treatment I have already given to roads, streets, highways and other vehicular thoroughfares.

I consider this the problem of "long thin things." It is a very vexing one. To the list furnished by the questioner ("gas, electric or water") I would add the following: sewer lines, telephone wires (before the advent of cell phones: I include this even though this problem has now been overtaken by technology since I want to demonstrate that libertarian property rights theory can solve all such problems, at all time periods, and does not rely upon modern technology), and roads and streets. I would even include things like postal delivery and garbage collection; although they are not “long and thin,” they are indeed a significant part of this challenge to the efficacy of free enterprise.

When you look at the problem ex post, or given that the homes, stores, and other such facilities are already built, then, I readily admit it, the problem is just about unsolvable. To get hundreds, let alone thousands of people to agree to any one provider for each of these things, gas, electricity, water, sewage, telephone, roads, postal delivery, garbage collection, etc., would be well nigh impossible. This is commonly referred to by economists as high transactions costs. It is hard enough to get five friends to agree to which restaurant and movie to patronize; this difficulty is far worse.

On the other hand, a system that allows competition in these services, with let us say on average a half dozen providers of each of these services would be wastefully duplicative. Can't you just imagine six different gas delivery firms, each with its own pipes, a dozen garbage pickup services, each with one twelfth of all the clients, or 10 separate lines on the telephone poles, let alone a telephone pole for each separate provider? This scenario boggles the mind, and convinces people that the free enterprise system might be all well and good in many industries, but not for this sort of thing.

However, when you look at the problem ex ante, before the buildings to be served are first constructed, the problem evaporates virtually entirely. We can then see that laissez faire capitalism is efficacious in the face of this challenge, as it is in all other such cases.

Consider a real estate developer with a few hundred acres at his disposal. He can do one of two things. First, build all the homes, stores, recreation centers, office towers, etc., that he intends to construct, worrying not at all about how any of these long thin things will serve his clients. He will allow the new owners to make contracts with all of those providers on their own accounts. Second, he will first contract with the firms that provide gas, electricity, water, sewage, telephone, roads, postal delivery, garbage collection, etc., one of each, and have all of these long thin things arranged before he digs his first foundation for any of the buildings. Then, he will sell the homes, factories, stores to their new owners, with a side order condition: they have to accept the providers of the long thin things with whom he has contracted. Is this "package deal" a permanent arrangement? No, of course not. The overall real estate developer may have had to enter into a contract of some duration, for example, three years, but, after that time if the new owners are not happy, for example, with the sewage service, or the mail delivery, they can, by a majority vote of all the condominium owners, change them, while entering into new contracts with satisfactory firms, for example, those providing road or water services.

It should by now be clear that the Adam Smithian "invisible hand" will lead construction firms to engage in precisely these sorts of condominium or collective arrangements, the second option. Who, after all, would want to purchase a house or store, knowing full well he would face the ex post challenge of very high transactions costs, or wasteful duplication? If the buildings were sold without this package deal, they would fetch a very low price on the market, if people would be willing to pay any positive price for them at all. On the other hand, if the homes as stores were sold as part of this package deal, where all of the long thin things were put into place beforehand, then a much higher price could be earned by the developer.

So, while this problem looks insuperable from the ex post point of view, it is a challenge to the free enterprise system that can easily be overcome when looked at ex ante.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: Ralph Raico Is Mr. Classical Liberal

I had an interesting experience in Tampa in late August, 2012. For the first time in my long life as a public speaker, I was subjected to vigorous booing and hissing — at a libertarian gathering. This often happens to me with expectedly hostile audiences, but never on the part of an explicitly libertarian one. And not only was I booed. A minority of the audience — I estimate it at 5 -10% although I could be far wrong on this — actually attempted to silence me by shouting me down.

What is the background of this unsettling experience? I spoke to three different audiences in Tampa right before the GOP presidential nominating convention took place. The first and the third were fine, in the sense that this booing and hissing did not occur, but the second was a bit of a horror story.

First, on Saturday August 24, 2012, I spoke at the Ron Paul Festival. There was a large audience there, perhaps 3,000 people. I lectured on abortion, pro life, pro choice, and my own view, evictionism (on which I have a long paper trail). I said that I was personally pro life; that I regarded the fertilized egg as the beginning of human life; and that I was appalled and horrified by the fact that so many members of our species were currently being murdered. However, I proposed not the pro life position, and certainly not the pro choice perspective, but rather a third alternative, philosophically very different from either of those two: evictionism. I did so, one, because I think it is the only position logically consistent with libertarianism, and two, on pragmatic grounds: it would immediately save the lives of (very small) human beings, and more and more of them as time went on and medical technology improved.

What is evictionism? It is the theory that a pregnant woman has the right to evict from her body the unwanted fetus, but not to murder it. In contrast, the pro life position claim she may not do either, and the pro choice perspective allows her to do both. In the first six months of gestation, this does not matter much for the fate of the infant; if evicted; i.e., taken out of the womb, he will die even if he is not put to death. But it is very important in the last trimester; were eviction, only, the law of the land it would mean life for these young human beings while abortion (eviction plus killing) spells death. And, as medical technology improves, more and more such lives will be saved. For example, perhaps in 10 years from now, doctors will be able to preserve the lives of all fetuses removed from the womb in the last four months of pregnancy, and then, maybe, by 2030, they will be able to save all those in the last five months of gestation. Eventually, if evictionism is adopted, all lives can be saved. Whereas, if we pro lifers (I consider evictionism to be pro life in the most profound sense) stick to the losing strategy of pro life, even when medical technology improves to that degree, perhaps in 100 years, we will still be stuck with the mass murder of infant children.

This is neither the time nor the place to deal with the entire argument, including refutations to objections to this theory. As I say, I have a long paper trail on this subject, which can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. For some thoughtful critiques of my view, see here, here, here and here. My rejoinders to these critics appear here, here, here, here, here, and here. In this present essay, I give only the barest background, so as to better relate my experiences in Tampa.

I was politely applauded by the attendees at the Paul Festival. Many came over to me afterward to congratulate me on my talk, asked to have their picture taken with me, wanted to have me sign their copies of my books, etc. This was par for the course at a libertarian gathering. But, ominously, although I didn't appreciate this at the time, numerous people also remarked on my "courage" in giving this lecture. "Courage" I asked myself? What could this possibly mean? This was far from the first time I had given this presentation, and the reaction at all libertarian events was always the same: support, applause, some disagreement, polite criticism, etc.

I gave the same talk at the official Ron Paul rally, "We are the future" the next day, Sunday, August 26. This was to a much larger audience, approximately 11,000 people. My speech might not have been identical to the one I gave the day before, since I don't read my presentations, but rather speak extemporaneously from notes. But I used the same notes this time as well, so the talk couldn't have been too different from the one before. And here, much to my amazement, there were those, presumably libertarians (who else would attend a rally for Ron Paul?) who attempted to drown me out with booing, screaming, cat-calls, etc. These people may have comprised only 5-10% of the attendees, but they were very vocal.

Let me now say a few words to these people.

I am not sure that my theory of evictionism is correct. There may well be flaws in it. But if different libertarian viewpoints are prevented from even being heard or discussed at a libertarian convention, your seeming goal, our precious philosophy will never progress. It will forever remain exactly as it is, today. But are we that certain that what we now have is perfect? Can we be so sure that there is no room whatsoever for any progress and refinement, at all? In my own view, nothing, nothing at all that humans have ever created is perfect. There is room for improvement in everything we do, or attempt to do. Although I am a stalwart libertarian and have been for many years (since 1963, as it happens, almost 50 years ago), I am utterly convinced that we need to do better, not only in spreading the word, but in improving it too. No, the freedom philosophy is far too important and precious to be preserved, exactly as it is now, forevermore. If we are to truly bring justice to the world, we must be open to allowing our views to be improved. How else can this be done but to allow other libertarian voices to be heard? And, with regard to the issue of abortion, not only is the general populace greatly divided on this issue, but so is our libertarian community. For example, no less of a libertarian than Ron Paul is pro life, while Murray Rothbard ("Mr. Libertarian") was pro choice. This, too, is the position of Gary Johnson, presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. If we cannot so much as in a civil manner discuss this controversy, how can we ever possibly reconcile our community? How can we achieve greater understanding of it? You people acted disgracefully on that one occasion. But you are not a disgrace, period. Rather, as supporters of Ron Paul, as avid supporters of his, you are potentially among those who are our last best hope for a civilized order. So, please rethink your outrageous behavior, and resolve to help those of us who sincerely want to promote liberty, even if we are upon occasion mistaken, as is possible in this case. But the way to demonstrate this is not by attempting to silence fellow libertarians. Rather, it is to refute their arguments.

The way, the only way, to ensure that we have a living, breathing, progressing philosophical perspective is not to attempt to prohibit, by yelling and screaming, any attempt to derive a different libertarian position on this vexing issue. Rather, it is to allow all viewpoints to be heard, discussed, argued over, in a civil manner. What you people did was barbarous. It was an embarrassment to our libertarian community. The notion that an idea based on the libertarian premises of non aggression and private property rights is beyond discussion is abhorrent to our philosophy. If even we are not open to different ideas, what hope is there for humanity? The only way to get that proverbial one millionth of an inch closer to the Truth is through a vigorous competition of ideas. Only in that way can we possibly succeed in turning the world in our direction of individual liberty, justice, and peace. Although I am not a big fan of John Stuart Mill, I highly recommend you people read his On Liberty. And then read it again, if you are ever once more tempted to repeat your disgraceful outbursts.

The third talk I gave took place on Monday, August 27. It was an address to the Minnesota delegation to the GOP convention. (This was one of the very few delegations to the Republican presidential convention that was not unfairly stripped of its libertarian members.) You'll never guess who introduced me, along with enthusiastic encomiums to one Ludwig von Mises. Yes, u2018twas Michele Bachman. This was a weird experience for me.

I spoke there about Ron Paul running in 2016, when he will be a young man of 80. I claimed that our mottos, sayings, cheers, have a real important meaning behind them. For example, "Bring the troops home," "End the Fed," "Legalize liberty," "Down with the IRS" and a few more. They may be bumper stickers, but they convey a wealth of important information. I even introduced a new one: "Ron Paul, 16." I spent a lot of time on the negative aspects of the minimum wage law, unions, coercive egalitarianism and the welfare state, since I was asked to speak on economic issues. This largely libertarian audience was attentive, polite, supportive — back to normalcy after my "Twilight Zone" experience of the previous day. The first two days I was given only 15 minutes for my talks. Here, I spoke for over an hour, with about a half an hour for dialogue, questions, etc.

During the discussion period after my formal comments although there were some queries about the topics I had addressed, most of them concerned, you'll never guess, yes, evictionism. I offered a short summary of my position. This was followed by some half dozen objections to my thesis, some of them highly critical, but all of them considerate and polite; there was not the slightest attempt to censor my views.

In the aftermath of these three presentations of mine came two more highly critical comments on my lecture at the official Ron Paul gathering on Sunday. One came from a highly ranked spokeswoman in the Ron Paul camp. I will not mention her name, so as to save her from embarrassment. She accused me of, in effect, contract violation. She said that I was told, and agreed to, speak about monetary policy, the gold standard, etc. How dare I betray their trust by talking about something entirely different, a topic, moreover, that infuriated a lot of Ron Paul supporters? She claimed that another highly placed member of the Ron Paul community had made this obligation of mine very clear to me (these are paraphrases of what she said to me, based on my recollection of this very disturbing conversation). The worst thing she said to me was that Ron Paul was upset with me.

My reply to her was that neither was I told nor did I agree to any such thing. That had I been asked to speak about monetary issues, or any other topic within my competence, I would have enthusiastically agreed to do so, and would have stuck to my promise. I take pride in living up to my agreements. In the last 50 years, I must have given thousands of public speeches. There must be therefore thousands of hosts who will attest that I never, ever, not even once, agreed to speak on a given topic and then without permission lectured on something else entirely. I certainly would have complied with any promise as to topic with the Ron Paul people, or with anyone else. But the only discussion I had with anyone as to the subject of my presentation was with Ron Paul himself. And the only thing he asked me to do in our two telephone conversations was to "stick to ideas," "do something substantive" (again, this is a paraphrase of our conversation, to the best of my recollection). Ron told me that he wanted me not to speak about present day politics and political realities, which were ephemeral, but to emphasize ideas, since they would have a shelf life way into the future. Neither Dr. Paul, nor anyone else, had so much as mentioned "monetary policy" or any other specific topic. I tried to convey all this to that woman, but she walked off in a huff, very angry with me.

I am happy that I was somewhat of a gadfly at these three events. I think that libertarians need to apply our theory to difficult issues. Indeed, I have spent practically my entire professional life doing exactly that. But I am horrified, mortified, embarrassed, humiliated, at the possibility that I might have brought even the slighted disquiet to Ron Paul. I revere this man. I love him. He is one of my mentors. He is one of my guides. With the passing of Murray N. Rothbard, there is no one in the libertarian movement I look up to more than him. I would never in a million years purposefully do anything that would disappoint him. I honestly thought, I fervently believed, that Dr. Paul would be proud of me for attempting to apply libertarian property rights theory to this morally and intellectually challenging issue of abortion.

Let me conclude by responding to one last criticism of my behavior in Tampa.

In this view, it is entirely acceptable to articulate my theory on such a subject, but not at a gathering the purpose of which was to honor Ron Paul. I look upon an invitation to speak at such an event as a great honor. To me, it would be equivalent to being asked to contribute to a Festschrift to honor a great man. What would I want to publish in a Festschrift to celebrate the career of Ron Paul? Obviously, it would have to address an issue of common interest. Unless I was told otherwise, if I had my u2018druthers I would choose something that I consider the very best of my output. I am sometimes asked what I consider the most significant of my contributions. I would list my book Defending the Undefendable, my work on blackmail, my publications (virtually all of them co authored with Bill Barnett) on Austrian economics, and my efforts to promote the privatization of highways. But above them all I am very proud of my work on evictionism. I have been writing about this subject since 1977, all to no avail. Virtually, no one has heard about this. I think that in some small way these efforts of mine can contribute to the saving of the lives of helpless infants. That is what I would offer for a Festschrift, and that is what I chose to address in Tampa to honor Ron Paul, since I thought this choice was entirely up to me.

Well, I learned one lesson from my experiences in Tampa. Be clear, be very clear, be very, very, very clear with my hosts in all future public lectures, as to the topic(s) to be addressed.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

by Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: Religion and Libertarianism

Review of Raico, Ralph. 2012. Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute, 347 pages

Words are important in political economic philosophy. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that verbiage is all important in these fields, as they consist of nothing but utterances bandied about. He who controls them controls the dialogue, controls the debate.

Even the previous sentence, in most ways not controversial, is in one way an instance of this very contention, and very debatable. For it began with the word "he." In some quarters this is highly objectionable. The claim of the feminists is that I should have said, instead, "he or she," or "he/she," or better yet, "she or he," "she/he" and best of all, plain old "she." Perhaps, so as to have given no offense, I should have put this in the third person, "they."

To the extent they can make this stick, our friends on the left have gone a long way toward winning all the debates they have with their intellectual enemies. If the socialists can insist that we all use their language, they have won half the battle — if not more.

The trouble is, those of us who favor free enterprise, very limited government, private property rights, capitalism, etc., have been ceding all too many words to those on the other side of the aisle. It is all the more difficult to make our case if we must do so by using words demanded of us by our intellectual opponents. Capitalism no longer refers to laissez faire; it now invokes cronyism and imperialism. Leftists such as Noam Chomsky are even now trying to seize ownership of "libertarian" and John Dewey long ago made a run at "individualist."

But there is no word that has been stolen from us to a greater degree, or with more effect than "liberal." And then it has been trashed to such a degree that even the thieves have given up on it and now characterize themselves as "progressives." Surprising to many, this used to be one of our own possessions, and still is to some small degree as in "classical liberal."

We might as well call the author of the book now under review Ralph ("Mr. Liberal") Raico because he has done more than anyone else to rescue this verbiage back from its kidnappers, dust it off from the garbage they have piled up on it, and convince us that "liberal" has a long and very glorious pedigree, and, once again, thanks to him a very bright future.

Chapter 1 links (classical) liberalism to the Austrian School of economics, which makes the supposedly free enterprise Chicago School look like the pinkos they are. This essay comes to us with particularly good timing, given the yeoman work Ron Paul has recently done in promoting the work of the leading Austrians such as Mises, Hayek and Rothbard. In this breathless chapter Raico lays waste to T.W. Hutchison, Karl Popper, Milton Friedman, Karl Marx and Isaiah Berlin for either economic or philosophical errors or both. Our author is so thorough in his analysis that he even takes on Carl Menger the father of Austrian economics, for his failure to distinguish "between state and civil society, coercion and voluntarism," surely the most crucial distinction in all of political philosophy. Hayek, Austrian economics' only Nobel Prize winner, also comes in for Raico's uncompromising critical analysis, on the ground that he mistakenly rejects apriorism in economics and the role of Austrian intellectual imperialism in undermining not merely social reform but outright socialism.

In chapter 2, Liberalism True and False Raico clears away the underbrush so that we can clearly see who is a (classical) liberal and who is not. You will be sitting at the edge of your chair when you learn why it is that Richard Cobden, John Bright, Herbert Spencer, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Lord Acton, de Jouvenel, Ludwig von Mises and the Salamancans make the cut while Bismarck, Friedrich Naumann, Karl Popper, John Rawls, Lionel Trilling, John Dewey, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. ("New Deal hack"), and John Stuart Mill (sic!) do not. States Raico on this latter somewhat surprising case: "Mill's view tends to erase the rather critical distinction between incurring social disapproval and incurring imprisonment."

The third chapter is the best analysis I have ever seen of why intellectuals oppose true liberalism: free enterprise and the marketplace. There are no truer words said that Schumpeter's: "capitalism stands its trial before judges who have the sentence of death in their pockets," Raico tells us. What are the explanations? There is Hayek's view that this stems from honest errors, Schumpeter's emphasis on the intellectuals seeking after sinecure government employment, Mises' focus on resentment and a contempt for money making (don't ask), and Schoek's spotlight on envy. Raico takes us on an exhilarating tour of the views on this important issue, also of Murray N. Rothbard, George Stigler, Douglass C. North and Robert Higgs.

So important is Keynes in this analysis of liberalism that Raico devotes an entire chapter 4 to examining the case for considering him a member of this class. I'll give you the punchline: No. Keynes didn't try to "save capitalism," as we have been mislead to believe. If anything, this economist was closer to fascism, as the forward to the German edition of his most famous book, General Theory, amply demonstrates.

You thought that class analysis was a monopoly of the Marxists? Well, think again. In chapter 5 Raico uncovers a little known but vitally important aspect of intellectual history: liberal or libertarian class analysis. Hint: it is not based on the erroneous and misbegotten labor theory of value. There is no incompatibility let alone necessary battle between labor and capital. Rather, this type of class analysis pertains to, in a word (remember those entities? If not, check out the first paragraph of this book review, above) robbery, mainly via the tender mercies of the government. All too many people, Raico avers, even Albert O. Hirschman, misunderstand the liberal class analysis brilliantly developed by Vilfredo Pareto, Adolphe Blanqui, Francois Guizot, Augustin Thierry, Charles Comte, Charles Dunoyer, Antoine Destutt de Tracy, J.B. Say and John C. Calhoun, and radiantly brought to us by Raico.

In chapter 6 our author asks us to remove our eyes, for once in our lives, from the British liberals such as Adam Smith whose "reputation (unjustifiably ) almost blinds the sun" in the words of Murray N. Rothbard and also from his countrymen Malthus, Ricardo and Mill. Instead, Raico advices, let us cast them toward the continent, and particularly France, from whence a much more principled and rigorous liberalism emanated, in the hands of Cantillon, Turgot, Say, Bastiat, Constant, Tocqueville, along with the Spanish Salamancans. One of the main violators of this advice is the Anglophile Hayek, who is enamored of spontaneous order and rejects constructivism (the product of deliberate "contrivance and design.") But not every institution that "evolves" can be justified on libertarian/liberal grounds, for example, suttee and slavery.

I pass over a discussion of German liberalism (it is not a contradiction in terms — thanks to Eugen Richter and others) in order to more fully consider Raico's treatment of Mises' liberalism. The basic premise of this system was the private ownership of property. This might sound eminently reasonable to modern (classical) liberals, but certainly it was denied by the likes of J.S. Mill, Isaiah Berlin and John Rawls. Liberalism rejects Marxist Socialism communism; that much is clear. So is liberalism part of the right, namely fascism? Since this part of the political spectrum also defends private property (superficially, in any case), and Mises, liberalisms' greatest modern spokesman (not spokesperson) did indeed see fascism as preferable to Bolshevism, this conclusion would appear to follow as Herbert Marcuse and Claus-Dieter Krohn have charged. Not so, not so, maintains Raico: "Mises criticized and rejected Fascism on a number of crucial grounds: for its illiberal and interventionist economic program, its foreign policy based on force… and most fundamentally its u2018complete faith in the decisive power of violence' instead of rational argument."

Do I have any reservations about this superb book? Only minor ones. Raico accepts the terminology "rent seeking" as a description of one of the worst practices of statism. But why pick on innocent "rent" to depict what should be called instead, booty seeking or theft or plunder? Here is another. Raico's blanket condemnation of taking money from the state and welfare statism might be misinterpreted so as to oppose innocent people using government roads, libraries, schools, currency, etc. This of course was no part of his intention, but might have been better explained. These minor cavils aside, this is a gem of a book. I learned a lot from it, and, I expect, so will everyone else.

Let me add a personal note to this review. I have known Ralph Raico since I met him in Murray Rothbard's living room in the mid 1960s. I have learned from him, been inspired by him, and have been lucky enough to count him as a friend ever since then. I thought I well knew his views. But, still, this book of his really blew me away. Those of you who do not know Ralph as well as I do are lucky he has written this masterpiece. Here, you get Prof. Raico in a concentrated form, ranging widely and deeply over politics, economics and history. Enjoy. You are in store for a real treat.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

by Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: Won't You Come Back, Alan Greenspan? Won't You Come Back?

This column is a response to an over the transom letter I received (you young people, if you don't know what that is, look it up). First appears my response and then the letter that so outraged me.

My response:

I’m a devout atheist. A very devout one. You make some very good points against religion.

To many atheists, the claim for the existence of God is roughly on a par with the existence of the Easter Bunny, or witches, ghouls, werewolves, leprechauns, Santa Claus, whatever.

But, can theists be libertarians? Of course they can. All they need do is respect the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). What are religious people guilty of, precisely, that makes you think they can’t be libertarians? At worst, in the view of most atheists, mumble some silly words (prayers). They sing some silly songs. They read some silly fairy tale books (the Bible.) How any of this violates the NAP is totally beyond me. I don’t care if they are devil worshippers; stick pins in dolls, etc. That still would not violate the NAP. You say "when God does far, far worse." Come on, give me a break. As you and I believe, there is no such entity, so how can He be guilty of this, let alone of anything?

There are many other present day libertarians, besides Tom Woods and Ron Paul who you mention, who have also made magnificent contributions to our cause and are devout believers in religion: William Anderson, Professor of Economics, Frostburg State University, Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, William Barnett II, Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans; Gerard Casey of University College Dublin, Fr. Hank Hilton, S.J., Professor of Economics at Loyola University Maryland; Jeff Herbener, Professor of Economics at Grove City College, Norman Horn of LibertarianChristians.com, Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation, Guido Hulsmann, Professor of Economics at University of Angers, Jason Jewell of Faulkner University, Peter Klein, Professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Andrew Napolitano of Fox News, Gary North of the Institute for Christian Economics, Professor of Economics at Loyola University Shawn Ritenour, Professor of Economics at Grove City College, Fr. James Sadowsky, S.J., Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Fordham University, Joseph Salerno, Professor of Economics at Pace University, Fr. Robert Sirico, Director of the Acton Institute, Lew Rockwell, Director of the Mises Institute, Timothy Terrell, Professor of Economics, Wofford College, David Theroux of the Independent Institute, Jeff Tucker of Laissez Faire Books, Laurence Vance, Director of the Francis Wayland Institute.. These names come to me with very little research. I’m sure there are many, many more (if you qualify, please e mail me at wblock@loyno.edu, and I'll add you to this list when I next revise it). I’m not enough of a historian to give you an equally impressive list of figures from the past who would also qualify, but I have no doubt that there are many, many of them, too.

To say that a religious person can’t be a libertarian, I think, has about the same truth value as the claim that if you like chess, baroque music, handball, swimming, running, karate, movies, chocolate, Austrian economics (to mention just a few of my own favorite things) then you cannot be a libertarian. To repeat, all that is required of a libertarian is adherence to the NAP, and none of these things I mention, or religion, should disqualify anyone.

Second to Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, even though she didn’t call herself a libertarian, even though she explicitly rejected libertarianism and was venomous toward libertarians, probably created more of us than anyone else. However, many of them, you included?, come to our movement with some Randian baggage: very strong views on aesthetics, metaphysics, epistemology, and an unalterable and abiding hate for religion. I single out the latter for particular condemnation, not only because it is inaccurate to conflate this with libertarianism, but for strategic reasons given below. These perspectives may all be part of Objectivism — she imposed many of her personal tastes on this philosophy of hers — but have nothing to do with libertarianism, an entirely different kettle of fish.

We must as libertarians accept the best of Ayn Rand — her adherence for laissez faire capitalism, private property rights and economic freedom, most important the moral case she made in this regard — but jettison the rest of the package.

Yes, yes, religion has done great harm in the past, and even in the present. There were the Crusades, and the Inquisition. Nowadays, people are murdering each other quite enthusiastically over religious belief. Horrid. But, compared to that great evil, the state, the number of deaths from this quarter is relatively small. Did you know that the best estimate for the number of innocents killed during the Inquisition was only something like 3,000 — 10,000? In very sharp contrast, the number of people killed by the government (mainly atheist communists) is estimated at some 173 million, in the 20th century alone. And this is just the number of its own citizens murdered by statist leaders. It ignores all the wars promulgated by government. It also fails to take into account the number of people killed due to socialized medicine, and on our government roads. See here on the latter.

My strategic view on all this is that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend." So who is my main enemy, qua libertarian? The government in general, of course, and in particular, Stalin, one of the most brutal of all statists. And what pray tell was Stalin's outlook on religion? It was particularly vicious. He attempted to undermine religion (along with the family by getting children to tattle on their parents for great rewards). So, I am, somewhat paradoxically, an atheist who is friendly toward religion. Since virtually every human in virtually every time has been religious, and since libertarianism is a political philosophy that says nothing about God, for libertarians to be offensive about religion is just plain stupid. It is far worse than linking our philosophy with practically any other adventitious calling. Are we next going to come out against motherhood and apple pie?

Long live religion, say I, and on libertarian grounds! Yes, these people believe in unproven things, but we are in a battle for the hearts and minds of the people. Ranged on one side is the government; on the other, religion. The choice between them ought not be too difficult for those of us intent upon bringing about freedom. The one is diametrically opposed to liberty. The other is per se entirely orthogonal to our movement. By "per se" I am including only a belief in God. The desire to impose this belief on others is of course antagonistic to libertarianism; it is itself a version of statism.

For more writings on this subject, all of which I think are quite sensible on this question, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. Here is a previous publication of mine on this subject.

So, please reconsider your enmity toward religion. It is not per se incompatible with the freedom philosophy. Some of our very best libertarians were and are believers in religion. Let us instead focus on our real enemy, statism.

The letter:

For some time now, I’ve pondered how libertarians (especially anarchists) can be religious without contradicting their libertarian philosophy. I’ve sent a note to Tom Woods about it, too. The reason I ask is that it seems that quite a few libertarians are very religious, something that LRC.com makes very evident. And Ron Paul, I think, is religious to the point of doubting evolution. Considering how the Christian/Jewish god is described in their own scripture, every libertarian and certainly anarchist should be a raging anti-theist.

What I mean by that is that those who do believe in the Christian or Jewish version of God, and in the Bible, believe in an all powerful and all controlling deity. They view heaven as paradise, even though Christopher Hitchens was spot on when he described heaven as a celestial North Korea. Because that is exactly how it is described; a place ruled by one person and the purpose of everyone in their (sic) is to spend eternity praising this person. Isn’t that a rather good approximation of the lives of the North Koreans? Except for the starvation of course.

It should be undeniable that if God was a person and did even a fraction of all the things his followers believe he did and does, and even praise him for it, he’d be light years worse than all human dictators put together. Libertarians oppose the state and praise individual freedom, which is logical for people who oppose the use of violence. But at the same time religious libertarians believe in and praise a God, who condemns people to death and damnation for the thought crime of doubting his existence. If it is wrong for people to use violence against people, why is it praiseworthy when God does far, far worse?

Why, for instance, isn’t the story of Noah appalling to libertarians? God committed mass genocide just because people weren’t worshipping him enough. Or the story of Job? God killed his family, deprived him of everything, made him sick and endure unimaginable hardships. Why? To prove a point to Satan of all things. The whole Old Testament is a litany of genocide and fantastical violence and atrocities, mostly because God didn’t like what people, his own creations, were doing. How’s that for “free will”?

And again, it doesn’t matter if these stories are true or not. I of course don’t think they are, but I can’t understand for the life of me how person can be any sort of libertarian at the same time he not only believes, but praises, someone (God) like that. That God doesn’t exist actually makes it worse, because that means the believers at least hope these stories are true. I’m rather interested in understanding how the same person can abhor human violence and tyranny while praising godly violence and tyranny.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

by Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: A Few Questions, Concerning the Present RonPaul CampaignSituation

This is the second entry in my "Won't you come back" series. The first was devoted to Bill Evers, this one to Alan Greenspan. Each of these episodes is dedicated to a person who was once a leading libertarian and/or Austrian economist, but who later on went native. It is my attempt to invite them back into the fold. My thought is that we need all the help we can get if we are to attain liberty, and it might be easier to make such a "sale" to someone who not only once "bought" it, but at an earlier time in his life was a fervent devotee to our freedom philosophy.

Alan Greenspan certainly fits this bill. At an earlier time in his life, he was a strong free enterpriser. What's this, you say? Alan Greenspan, a supporter of laissez faire capitalism? Are you indulging in controlled substances? Why, the man was head of the Federal Reserve, and any idiot ought to know that this represents the Sovietization of a core element of our economy, the money supply. If this is not central planning run amok, then nothing is, you say to me indignantly. Have you not read Ron Paul's End the Fed, you moron?

Yes, yes, I know all this. Really, I do. But I am not speaking of the "mature" Alan Greenspan, the one who has "grown in office" to such a degree that he has lost all connection to economic freedom. I refer to a bygone era.

There really was, once upon a time, an earlier, younger, less "sophisticated" Greenspan who was not only an articulator of our philosophy, but a veritable leader of our movement. If you don't believe me, see here: "An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense-perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire — that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other."

Further states Greenspan: "But the opposition to the gold standard in any form — from a growing number of welfare-state advocates — was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation.

"But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.

"Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy’s tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset."

Pretty good, eh? I go so far as to say that it would be hard to improve upon these statements as a clarion call for economic freedom, the gold standard, liberty, and opposition to statism.

I have a personal reason, in addition to wanting to build up the freedom philosophy movement, for wanting to bring Greenspan back in touch with his earlier Austro-libertarian roots: he was one of the people instrumental in my own conversion. After meeting Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden at Brooklyn College in 1963 where I attended as an undergraduate and she gave a speech, I was invited to their homes in Manhattan to continue our conversation. Alan Greenspan was one of the people in attendance when I visited there. I remember giving him the argument to the effect that free market monopoly was a market failure, and that anti-trust was therefore justified. (Hey, none of us were born as pure Austro-libertarians!) He batted that one out of the park at me, and I was on my way, with a little help from him. And a lot from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, and Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. (I didn't meet Murray Rothbard until 1966, when I became fully radicalized.)

So, come back Mr. Greenspan, come on back. The water is fine here in libertarian land. Yes, you have a lot to make up for. You really screwed the country with your running of the Fed. You disappointed a lot of good people by turning your back on liberty. And, I'm not sure what a libertarian Nuremberg trial would make of you. But I know this much: if you repent, and try to do what you can, now, to promote liberty and make up for past misdeeds, things will be better for you than if you do not. And things will be better for the rest of us too.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable, The Case for Discrimination, Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective, Building Blocks for Liberty, Differing Worldviews in Higher Education, and The Privatization of Roads and Highways. His latest book is Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

The Best of Walter Block

by Walter Block

Recently by Walter Block: Won't You Come Home, Bill Evers? Won't You Come Home?

1. Rand Paul's recent endorsement of Mitt Romney

First, what is the proper libertarian response to Rand Paul’s recent endorsement of Mitt Romney?

For me, an important point was the realization, thanks to Jack Hunter, that Murray Rothbard supported George Bush over Bill Clinton. That strongly indicates to me that there is nothing anti libertarian, per se, about such an endorsement, whether of Bush by Rothbard, or of Mitt, by Rand.

Suppose we were slaves, and the master offered us a vote for either Overseer Baddy, who beat the crap out of us all the time, or Overseer Goody, who only beat us once in a while, and then more gently. And suppose we voted for the latter. Does this mean we support slavery? Of course not. Does this mean that we have thereby violated the libertarian principle of non aggression? Again, of course not. Does this mean we endorse Goody? No, a thousand times no. We can only infer from this action that we prefer Goody to Baddy.

Now posit that a mugger held us at gun point, and demanded either our watch or our wallet, and we gave him our time piece. Does this mean we have acquiesced in the robbery? Certainly not. Does this imply we agreed to having our watch stolen from us? Again, not at all. One problem I have with Rand Paul’s endorsement of Mitt Romney is its timing: it was done before his father, Ron Paul, had actually lost the election, which is to be based on delegates, not popular vote. Another difficulty I have with this episode is that while Rothbard endorsed George Bush over Bill Clinton with the back of his hand, so to speak, Rand Paul practically gushed over Mitt Romney. Not to put too fine a point on it, he told a few u201Cporkies,u201D as the British would say. (I am grateful to Robert Wenzel for convincing me to improve the wording of this paragraph.)

2. Should Ron Paul endorse Mitt Romney?

If in the future, Ron endorses Mitt, I will regard this act solely on pragmatic grounds. I am not sure whether this is a wise move or not. On the one hand, Ron will score points with the GOP establishment if he does; on the other, his legions of fans will be gnashing their teeth. But, as far as libertarian principle is concerned, I would have no problem with it, any more than I did with the prospect of Ron accepting matching funds from the government for his campaign expenditures. As I see things, this decision is not a matter of praxeology, of logic, of libertarian principle. It is solely an issue of history as Mises would put it, or practicality.

Ron will either endorse Mitt, or not. And whatever he does, we will never know if liberty could have been better promoted had he taken the other course. However, were this up to me, my instinct would be to advise Ron not to endorse the weathervane. That is my prudential judgment.

3. What is the best tactic for promoting liberty (assuming Ron Paul does not become the Republican nominee)?

Many people have concluded from this likely eventuality that politics is a fool's game in terms of bringing about a libertarian society. They cite the vicious manner in which our hero, Ron Paul, has been treated by the GOP hierarchy: they have attempted to ignore him, ridicule him, change the delegate rules at the last minute, they have physically abused his supporters, have engaged in outright cheating in terms of miscounting ballots, etc. They offer in contention for their conclusion how the media regarded him: denigrated him, laughed at him, covered everyone else but him, gave him short shrift in the debates; if they were able to, they probably would have engaged in physical abuse and ballot box stuffing too, such disinterested and fair judges were they.

These critics of politics claim that we should therefore return to education. Now, don't get me wrong. I favor trying to educate the general populace. I have devoted a goodly part of my career in this direction, and shall continue my efforts in this regard. However, I am not at all giving up on politics, not even our attempt to take over the Republican Party, and return it to its (Taft, Borah, constitutional) roots. But fairness forces me to acknowledge the fact that one of the best ways to educate the public regarding the merits of personal liberties, Austrian economics and a non imperialistic foreign policy is precisely in the manner blazed by Ron Paul. We can have our cake and eat it too. It is a false choice: either Ron Paul style Republicanism, or education. The former is perhaps the best way, or means, to accomplish the latter! Murray Rothbard used to say something to the effect that every four years, for a few months, the eyes of the public turn to politics, and that this would be a good opportunity for us to take advantage of this phenomenon. Murray was a political hound. He was involved in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party (for Adlai Stevenson, against Ike), the Peace and Freedom Party, the Libertarian Party; he saw this as a good way to get our message to the public. I think his insight was dead on and applies now as well as during his own lifetime.

4. Which strategy should libertarians embrace?

The Free State Project? The Libertarian Party? Free market think tanks? Sea-steading? Bookstores? Fabianism in reverse? Attempting to infiltrate the universities? Supporting Ron Paul's efforts in the GOP? Journalism? Music videos? Novels? Public lectures? I support them all. But in what proportion? With my time? Academia and the Mises Institute are for me first and foremost. I am forever trying to teach my students the benefits of economic freedom, and the importance of understanding the dismal science, from an Austrian perspective. In terms of my monetary donations? Ron Paul and the Mises Institute are head and shoulders above all the rest. But my advice to others? Engage in the course that is the most enjoyable for you. Even Bill Buckley, no friend of liberty he, acknowledged Murray Rothbard and his happy band. This libertarian movement is supposed to be FUN. So, do what feels best, is my advice.

5. Who will be better for the country? Mitt Romney or Barack Obama?

According to this video, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two of them. I disagree. One reason is, say what you will about Obama, at least he is not a weathervane, changing policy every time the political wind veers. He sticks to his horrendous socialist policies, come rain or shine. The same cannot be said for Romney. Choosing between them is difficult, in that we really don't know what one of them will do (ask the generals? Ask the lawyers? Ask John Bolton?) However, attempting to look beneath the fog put out by the weathervane, in my view Obama is likely to be slightly better on foreign policy than Romney. And, I think this arena more important than the other two, economic and personal liberty, however much all three of them are intertwined. I favored Obama over John McCain in 2008 on this foreign intervention ground, and I now support our sitting president vis a vis Romney for that reason too.

6. Who to vote for in the fall?

Fortunately, our choices are not limited to a "progressive" socialist or a weathervane fascist. There is indeed a third option: Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party. Again, on the assumption that our man Ron Paul is not in the running in November, this seems like a no brainer. Gary Johnson is no Murray Rothbard. He is no Ron Paul. But compared to Romney and Obama? It is no contest. The counter argument is, a vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama. So what? I favor Obama over Romney in any case.

7. What of the future?

Ron Paul in 2016 is my motto. Ron is WAY better than Rand on libertarian grounds, as Lew Rockwell brilliantly demonstrates. Why support Rand, when Ron will still be around? Yes, he will be 80 years old at that time. What, are you an ageist, you despicable discriminatory creature? What about elder rights? Wait, I'm getting off the point. Ron will have reached his nine decade in four years, but, extrapolating from the present, he will still be in far better physical shape than men 30 years younger than him. Anyone want to challenge Ron to a bicycle race in the heat of Texas? Not I, not I. Ron Paul in 2016, say I.

8. What is the libertarian position?

What is the libertarian position on Ron endorsing Mitt? The libertarian position on anything is based on the question of, Does it violate the non aggression principle (NAP) about initiating or threatening physical violence. If so, the libertarian position is that it should be illegal, and punished by the full force of the law. If not, the libertarian position is that it should be legal, and it would be unjustified to use physical violence against the person who engages in that act. Before answering the question posed, let us consider some other issues. What is the libertarian position on vanilla ice cream, basketball, rap music, Mozart, homosexual marriages, libel and blackmail (as opposed to extortion)? The question that must first be asked is, do any of these things constitute a per se rights violation, in that they are incompatible with that NAP? The answer is, Of course not. Thus, the libertarian position on each of these items is that they should all be legal. What is the libertarian position on murder, rape and theft? Since these all violate the NAP, the libertarian position is, they should all be illegal. Now for the question posed: What is the libertarian position on Ron endorsing Mitt? It should be legal. Ron should not be thrown in jail if he does this. Period.

Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable and Labor Economics From A Free Market Perspective. His latest book is The Privatization of Roads and Highways.

The Best of Walter Block