A recent debate on “thick” libertarianism pitted Walter Block against Sheldon Richman, The Bionic Mosquito offers a very useful analysis of this debate. In agreement with Block, he maintains that whether you are a libertarian depends solely on whether you accept the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). You are not required to accept leftist bromides as well. Richman relied in his defense of thick libertarianism on a much-discussed article by Charles Johnson. Suppose, Johnson asked, that the best moral theory supporting the NAP had as a consequence that social hierarchies were morally wrong. Shouldn’t this be of interest to libertarians? The Mosquito seizes upon what to me is the chief weakness of Johnson’s claim. The weakness is that what Johnson and Richman allege is a no more than a supposition. They haven’t shown that there is a uniquely best defense in moral theory of the NAP. They also haven’t shown that if there were such a defense, it would have anti-hierarchical consequences. Suppose that the best defense of the NAP had as a consequence that everyone should send as much money as possible to me. If this were true, it would certainly be of interest; but unless there is reason to think it so, libertarians need pay it no mind. It is a mere velleity.

The Best of David Gordon