On the Benefits of Proper Intellectual Debate

Recently, I had a bit of an altercation, a disagreement, a misunderstanding, with a many decades long friend of mine, a fellow Austro libertarian, a gifted and creative contributor to our mutual philosophy, a person with whom I aggree agree on perhaps 99% of all issues in political economy. It concerns an article I published criticizing one of his publications. He took great offense at my attempt to refute his views. He was so unhappy with me that our friendship of many years was almost at risk. I tried to set him straight about the virtues and the benefits of polite but no-holds barred debates in terms of improving our understanding. I think I mentioned John Stuart Mill’s magnificent “On Liberty” in this regard, but I am not sure. I am sharing this story on this blog so as to promote healthy debate amongst friends and members of our Austro libertarian community. We should all take it as a matter of pride that we sometimes, rarely, disagree with one another. After all, we are not a cult. Disagreement is not only allowed, but, I would argue, should actually be cherished.

He just told me he wrote a rejoinder to that article of mine criticizing him and this was my response to him:

Wonderful. Do send me a copy of your paper, and I’ll either be converted by it to your view, or, I’ll write a reply, and perhaps we’ll continue this debate until one of us comes to agree with the other. Or, maybe, we’ll meet in a middle ground, if there is such a thing in this matter. In either case, via this process we’ll get that proverbial one millionth of an inch closer to the Truth on this matter.

This is the way proper intellectuals operate with each other. They never take umbrage at authors of objections to their views who do so in a polite manner, who do not attack straw men, etc!

I have been involved in dozens of episodes of this sort. Let me give you an example of but one of these. In my book Defending I, I defended the counterfeiter of counterfeit money.

Here are the exchanges that emanated as a result. Note, politeness, appreciation, on all sides.

Murphy, Robert P. 2006. “A Note on Walter E. Block’s Defending the Undefendable: The Case of the ‘Heroic’ Counterfeiter,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, April, Vol. 65 Issue 2, pp. 463-467 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_2_65/ai_n26906651/?tag=content;col1

Machaj, Mateusz. 2007. “Against both private and public counterfeiting.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, November, Vol. 66 Issue 5, pp. 977–984; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_5_66/ai_n27485641/?tag=content;col1

Block, Walter E. 2010. “In Defense of Counterfeiting Illegitimate Money: Rejoinder to Murphy and Machaj,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 2, 867-880, April; http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123327372/abstract

Davidson, Laura. 2010. “The ethics of countering the private counterfeiter: rejoinder to Block.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 4, October, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_4_69/ai_n56257929/

Block, Walter E. 2010. “Rejoinder to Davidson on Counterfeiting,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 4, October, pp. 1328-1331; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_4_69/ai_n56257930/; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_4_69/ai_n56257930/

Block, Walter E. 2013. “Rejoinder to Davidson on Counterfeiting, Round Two” Journal of Political Philosophy Las Torres de Lucca; Number 3 (July-December) : 35-72 http://www.lastorresdelucca.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=116:contra-davidson-en-torno-a-la-falsificaci%C3%B3n-segundo-asalto&Itemid=24&lang=en&Itemid=23

These three authors, critics of mine on this issue, are also people with whom I agree with on, oh, 99% of all issues in political economy. I am still friends with them, and, also, several time co-authors of theirs.

Share

6:02 pm on June 4, 2017