Silver
Lining Part III:
Reply to Critics
by
Walter
Block
by Walter Block
"It
is an ill wind that blows no good." "There is a silver
lining in every cloud." These are precious bits of "folk
wisdom" that have come down to us through the ages, based on
the experience of thousands of generations of people. Those who
reject such everyday lessons reckon without the amalgamation of
precious knowledge garnered by the human race. This information
can cheer us up: there is plenty of misery in the world; surely,
a look on the bright side should not be dismissed out of hand. More
important, it is true and undeniable that, even in many horrific
occurrences, there is something that can be salvaged. To deny this
is to commit error.
In
two previous columns I tried to point out positive aspects of otherwise
horrendous and unjustified occurrences. In "A
Silver Lining in Drug Prohibition," I noted a benefit that
emanates from our present illegitimate drug laws: some rapists,
murderers, and thieves, who are not caught for these crimes but
are instead punished for selling heroin. I focused on the fact that
while it was improper to incarcerate anyone for the victimless crime
of dealing drugs, still, it is nice that a few real criminals, who
would otherwise be floating around perpetrating their misdeeds,
are instead behind bars. In "A
Silver Lining in Unjust Executions," I defended the position
that while several inmates of death row were executed for crimes
they did not commit (a very serious violation of libertarian principle),
some of them were guilty of other murders for which they were not
caught, and thus a certain rough justice could be said to have taken
place even in these circumstances.
But
note: I did not advocate any such policies. I took on, merely,
the role of the commentator. I only recorded the fact that some
good could result from these practices.
Today,
I wish to deal with some of the many and serious objections that
have been sent to me via e-mail concerning these previous two columns,
lest misunderstanding and lack of communication continue to plague
this series.
A.
Reductio ad absurdum
-
"By
your reasoning, it seems to me, there would be a silver lining
if we randomly punished 1 out of every 1000 citizens."
– Dick from Gulfport
-
"I'd
heard the argument you raised quite a while ago, from a federal
prosecuting attorney. I was in a small conference on drug policy.
I was arguing for legalization, and this prosecuting attorney
was arguing very vehemently about the benefits of our drug laws.
The biggest benefit he kept coming back to was just the one
you cited as a silver lining.
"This
prosecuting attorney said the people they were putting away
for drug crimes were bad people, guilty of murder, robbery,
and other serious crimes. My response was, "If they are murderers
or robbers, try them for those crimes and put them in jail for
their most serious offenses." His response was that often it
is hard to get a conviction, evidence may not be as solid, etc.,
so it was easier to try them for drug crimes and put them in
jail for drugs, even though they were guilty of much worse.
In short, he used the same argument you did.
"I
understand your argument, even though I disagree with it, and
I can see that you can extend it well beyond the actions of
government. Why not make your next column "A Silver Lining in
Shark Attacks," or "A Silver Lining in Lightning Strikes," or
"A Silver Lining in Automobile Fatalities." After all, it is
almost certain that some murderers die in traffic accidents,
which eliminates the need to even try them. And because murderers
are likely to be bigger risk-takers than the average person,
they probably drive more recklessly, and die in traffic accidents
more than in proportion to their numbers. By preventing traffic
accidents we allow some of these murderers to go on killing."
– Randy Holcombe
- "…
one could argue that some certain percentage of those exterminated
by the Nazis were evil people – there are certain numbers
of evil people in any given population – murderers, rapists,
whatever. It seems to me that your argument goes that a
certain percentage of those wrongfully executed are actually guilty
of other capital crimes and this constitutes the "upside" to wrongful
execution. Likewise one could also argue that a certain
percentages of jaywalkers are likely guilty some capital offense
or other so there might be some merit in executing jaywalkers."
– Doug Carkuff
These
three attempts at a reductio ad absurdum are in some sense correct.
That is, I could have written about the silver linings of random
punishments, shark attacks and executing jaywalkers. I accept these
logical implications. There are silver linings in all these
cases. Take random punishments as an example. Here is a comment
from another reader, germane to that issue:
"There
was very little crime during the Japanese occupation of World
War II. The reason was that, when a crime was reported, the Japanese
would come into a village and ask the headman to turn over the
person who committed it. If the headman said he didn't know, the
Japanese would take someone at random and chop his head off. As
a result, you could leave money on your table, with the front
door wide open, and know it would be safe." – Henry
Heffner
Is
it unfair to punish randomly? Yes. Is it contrary to libertarianism?
Again, yes, and a very vociferous yes. But, is it likely that crime
would decrease under such horrific and unlibertarian conditions?
That is, does this story of the Japanese occupation ring true? It
is difficult to see how this can be denied. Is it a good thing that
people can leave money unprotected in their homes? No one could
doubt this. Thus, Q.E.D.: there is a silver lining in this very
unjustified policy. Do I favor this policy? No, a thousand times
no. But I am not thereby precluded from noticing, not applauding,
just noticing, some good effects.
Why,
then, did I write about drugs and executions of the innocent, when
the same principle applies equally to random punishments, executing
jaywalkers, shark attacks, lightning strikes, or automobile fatalities?
For one thing, none of the latter was in the news, while my chosen
topics were. For another, our friends on the left side of the aisle
had been using executions of the innocent as a stick with which
to beat up on those of us who favor the death penalty, and I wanted
to counter them. They had not reckoned with the fact that many of
those death row inmates executed for a crime they did not commit
were hardly Boy Scouts. To wit, some were likely guilty of other
murders for which they were not found guilty. As yet another reader
put matters, "I have long (been of the opinion) that just because
some one is exonerated of a vile crime he is not thus necessarily
a prospect for citizen of the year..." – Steven Smith.
Similarly,
with drugs. Lots of do-gooders on the distaff side wring their hands
at the unfairness of incarcerating so many minorities for drug crimes.
It seemed to me important to note, that is, note, not defend, that
many of those captured by the drug laws were guilty of real crimes,
and thus our streets were safer as a result.
I
care not one whit that Professor Holcombe’s prosecuting attorney
"used the same argument (I) did." First of all, he used
this argument to justify this practice; I did not. To the
extent I "used this argument," it was merely descriptive.
Indeed, I took pains to distance myself from the stance of this
prosecuting attorney. For me, the very opposite was the case. I
condemned the drug laws. I merely noted a benefit of them. He supported
them. Am I supposed to be blind to the positive effects of drug
laws, just because I oppose them? Secondly, if Hitler maintained
that A>B, B>C, therefore A>C, I would not renounce this
argument for that reason.
B.
Misunderstanding
"Many
people say that ‘it is better to let 10 killers go free, than to
execute one innocent’. You say it is better to kill the innocent
because he probably deserves to die anyway. Look at it another way,
it is always bad because in every case the REAL murderer remains
‘at large’ to kill again."
This
is a misinterpretation of what I said. I never compared allowing
10 murderers to go free, vs. executing one innocent. I never said
it was good to kill an innocent person. I never said that it was
proper, even, to execute a murderer for a crime he did not commit.
I only said that some denizens of death row, executed for a crime
they did not commit, were guilty of other murders; they were not
entirely innocent.
 September
2, 2003
Dr.
Block [send him mail]
is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans. See
his Autobiography
Archive.
Copyright
© 2003 LewRockwell.com
Walter
Block Archives
|
