Applied Libertarian Theory

Letter 1

From: Sergey Fedorov

Subject: question on applied Libertarian theory

Dear Professor Block,

I have read your old article (1993) on drug legalization and wanted to ask your opinion on a somewhat related matter from a libertarian perspective and also a value-free economics.

Please forgive me for a relatively long exposition, but if cut short to a couple of sentences, it will sound trivial.

There are three parts below. Intro and two separate questions. I will really appreciate your opinion. I will also appreciate you being direct. I am Russian, I can understand and accept “Come on, that’s crap”.

As much as drugs are criminalized by the state, so – in most countries – explicitly commercial sex between consenting adults is. By ‘explicitly commercial’ I mean the one premised upon direct monetary exchange between involved parties. This criminalization, surprisingly, is not confined to religious or secular totalitarian societies that from the outset deny human freedom as a core value, but is common in ‘civilized’ world.

Unlike with the drugs (opinions on which widely vary), most people – perhaps with exception of religious fanatics – consider consensual sex between adults to have a positive utility. Unlike drugs that are criminalized per se, consensual sex between adults is as such perfectly legal in the most of ‘civilized’ world. While it can be debated whether most people consider ‘free sex’ as something rather commendable or rather a weakness, society is generally accepting such behavior.

Yet, the very introduction of media of exchange into this exchange magically makes it both illegal and largely condemned, at least publicly.

My question is twofold. It is evident that libertarian theory has no possible objections to any voluntary act of trade that does not violate property rights of third parties (which means that only voluntary slaves who transferred the title over their bodies may not be allowed to take part). But,

1. I wonder why libertarians seem to avoid the topic altogether. Okay, it might be challenging for those who are, for example, practicing Christians, and that is fine. But no one speaks or writes on it, despite that laws criminalizing sex trade are both praxeologically wrong and practically silly and inhumane (they also increase crime and foster violence against women in sex trade). They also constitute on the major assaults of state against people, denying one’s property rights over own body.

2. From a purely economic perspective, since sex is an economic good, that is naturally scarce and has demand for it, monetizing its market increases social welfare, as happens with any other market. What we have now is a largely barter economy of sex, when parties, being unable – at least legally – to make transaction directly to mutual benefit, are forced to look for a ‘package deal’ with related double coincident of wants problem. In the extreme case there is the institute of marriage that is promoted in society and essentially amounts to a fraudulent and internally inconsistent slavery contract that aims to secure long term stream of payments in exchange for a promise of accommodating sexual needs (not only and not necessarily, of course, but at its core that’s about it). Otherwise there are various socially acceptable substitutes, which separate an equivalent (i.e. normally not in cash) payment and service in time. This process inevitably has terrible transaction costs and results in permanent mismatch of supply and demand. The best possible – given constraints – solution is simply to do the same thing what we do elsewhere. Introduce common medium of exchange.

Religious beliefs set aside, the best thing that could be done with sexual relationships is commercialization. A large chunk of problems (social like women left struggling to support children or men who have no time for mating games, demographic imbalance of genders, psychological like frustration inherent in most long-term relationships and economic – inability of men and women to access desired partner due to inflated demands brought about by barter nature of exchange) can be solved by this move.

Yet, apparently no one suggest this.

Best regards,

Sergey

Letter 2

On Nov 23, 2019 14:43 +0800, Walter Block <[email protected]>, wrote:

Dear Sergey:

I’ll be speaking in Moscow and St. Pete in April 2020. I’ll give you the specifics when I have them. Do you live in either place?

I’m not sure of exactly what you’re asking.

All libertarians favor the legalization of prostitution. I’ve written about this in my book Defending I.

But, I think, you’re saying that libertarians should not only favor the legalization of this practice, but also favor prostitution itself. But this would make us thick libertarians, and I oppose that:

Block, Walter E. 2019. “Response to J.C. Lester on David Friedman on Libertarian Theory.” Management Education Science Technology Journal. Vol. 7      Issue 1, pp. 127-155; http://mest.meste.org/MEST_1_2019/13_17.pdf

Block, Walter E. and Nelson David Chavez Salazar. 2018. “Some unsuspected applications of the basic principles of libertarianism.” Management Education Science Technology Journal (MEST) 6 (1), pp.1-6, January. doi:10.12709/mest.06.06.01.01; http://www.mest.meste.org/MEST_Najava_clanaka.html;

http://mest.meste.org/MEST_1_2018/K1_eng.htmlhttp://www.meste.org/mest/Archive/MEST_VI_6_1.pdf;

Loo, Andy and Walter E. Block. 2017-2018. “Threats against third parties: a libertarian analysis.” Baku State University Law Review; Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 52-64; http://lr.bsulawss.org/archive/volume4/issue1/http://lr.bsulawss.org/archive/volume4/issue1/block/http://lr.bsulawss.org/files/archive/volume4/issue1/4BSULawRev13.pdf?

Block, Walter E. 2019. “Crony Capitalism versus Pure Capitalism.” Independent Review. Vol. 23. No. 3, Winter, pp.

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=1347; (Munger)

file:///C:/Users/WBlock/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/MP32C5LH/Crony%20Capitalism%20versus%20Pure%20Capitalism.pdf

Dominiak, Lukasz and Walter E. Block. 2017. “Libertarian Theory of Bribery and Incitement: A Reformulation.” MEST Journal; pp. 95-101

http://www.mest.meste.org/MEST_Najava_clanaka.html#C13;

http://mest.meste.org/MEST_Najava/X_Lukasz.pdf; DOI 10.12709/mest.05.05.02.10

Williamson, Kenn and Walter E. Block. 2017. “Is libertarianism thick or thin? Thin!” The Italian Law Journal. Volume 3, Issue 1, July; http://www.theitalianlawjournal.it/current2/www.theitalianlawjournal.it

Block, Walter E. 2017. “Rejoinder to Guenzl on Theft and the Return of Private Property.” Ekonomia Wroclaw Economic Review; Vol. 23, Issue, 2, pp. 35-44; http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-30958002-d902-4aca-918c-3a5579effa93?q=bwmeta1.element.desklight-aae0b775-be8c-43c7-9b8c-bfdb2172fddb;1&qt=CHILDREN-STATELESShttp://ekon.wuwr.pl/product/-8296

Block, Walter E. 2015. “Thin and thick libertarianism” Political Dialogues: Journal of Political Theory. Issue 19, pp. 11-20; http://apcz.pl/czasopisma/index.php/DP/article/view/DP.2015.013/10202

Block, Walter E. 2014A. “Pure libertarianism.” May 17; http://libertycrier.com/?s=pure+libertarianism;

http://libertycrier.com/pure-libertarianism/?utm_source=The+Liberty+Crier&utm_campaign=3efef33935-The_Liberty_Crier_5_17_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_600843dec4-3efef33935-284768769http://archive.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/walter-e-block/pure-libertarianism/http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/on-pure-libertarianism.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29http://libertycrier.com/pure-libertarianism/?utm_source=The+Liberty+Crier&utm_campaign=8cd483dafc-The_Liberty_Crier_5_19_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_600843dec4-8cd483dafc-284768769.

Block, Walter E. 2014B. “Was Murray Rothbard a Thick Libertarian?” May 23;

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/was-murray-rothbard-thick-libertarian.html;

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/was-murray-rothbard-thick-libertarian.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29http://lionsofliberty.com/2014/05/26/mondays-with-murray-walter-block-on-rothbards-thick-libertarianism/http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/06/walter-block-on-ayn-rand-murray.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29.

Block, Walter E. 2014C. “Was Murray Rothbard a Thick Libertarian? Part II” May 23; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/was-murray-rothbard-thick-libertarian_23.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29.

Montgomery, Stephen and Walter E. Block. 2016. “Animal torture and thick libertarianism.” Review of Social and Economic Issues (RSEI), Vol 1, No. 3, Spring, pp. 105-116. http://rsei.rau.ro/images/V1N3/Articol_5.pdfhttp://www.rebe.rau.ro/RePEc/rau/rseijr/SP16/RSEI-SP16-A5.pdf

Best regards,

Walter

Letter 3

From: Sergey Fedorov

Subject: RE: question on applied Libertarian theory

Dear Professor Block,

Thank you for reply. I still live in Taiwan as before when we initially communicated.

But I will definitely inform some of my friends in Moscow that you will be coming. I’m sure some will want to come.

As for the question, the second part of it referred to value-free economic analysis and not to libertarian position. You are right, libertarianism does not favor some sort of economic activity or particular market set-up. I get that.

But I do think that you and other economists who are at the same time libertarians are better value-free economists.

If I sounded as if I confuse the two, my bad, please excuse me. But I do draw the distinction.

What I was wondering is that for some reason economic reasoning is not applied to that particular market.

I intentionally avoided the term “prostitution” as it has a connotation of a professional occupation. I do not mean that at all (though I do include it as an option). Market of commercial sex is by definition a one where trade is done with money.

Market of “normal” dating and mating, on the other hand, is a barter one where parties avoid explicit money payments.

Regards,

Sergey

Letter 4

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 at 05:19, Walter Block <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Sergey:

Thanks

You’re asking why economists qua economists don’t model sex along the lines of commercial endeavors (prostitution) and compare it to ordinary dating, marriage (barter)?

Best regards,

Walter

Letter 5

From: Sergey Fedorov

Subject: Re: question on applied Libertarian theory

Dear Professor Block,

If, as Rothbard writes, free market exchanges always improve social utility, and if we agree with Mengerian view that such exchanges are better coordinated when there is a common medium of exchange, it appears to me that a suggestion (not in a normative sense, but of matching means with ends) to move from barter exchange in dating & mating market to money-mediated exchange is a logical and necessary outcome of value-free economic theory.

Sex is a good that has according to people’s revealed preference a positive utility and is scarce, i.e. it is an economic good.

Money improves market coordination, so that in Pareto sense ‘welfare’ is improved.

My question is why economists seem not to apply economic reasoning to a market of dating (and even do not usually speak against criminalizing of sex-for-money exchanges as they speak against other trade barriers that leave everyone worse off).

To make myself clear, I do not primarily speak about prostitution as a professional occupation, nor do I mean that money-mediation can/will replace any other tangible or intangible incentives that people subjectively value.

What I mean is that from a purely economic perspective the most efficient way to deal with dating in general is via money. (Of course, this does not imply someone should follow this way, it just says that given ex-ante ends, this is the best means.)

P. S. While I think this reasoning should generally apply to mainstream economics as well, let me restrict my question to Austrian economists.

Best regards,

Sergey Fedorov

Letter 6

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 07:23, Walter Block <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Sergey:

I now better understand where you’re coming from. You make an interesting and important point.

But, there are some things that can’t be bought and sold. If you try to do so, you obviate the good in question. For example, true love, true friendship. If it is paid for, it ceases to be true love, true friendship.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

2:21 am on July 8, 2020