Thin Libertarianism, Once Again

Dear J: Thanks for your very important letter, below. I wish I were a bit thinner in my body size, but when it comes to libertarianism, I am as thin as thin can be. See my publications on this, below. I regard the paleolibertarianism of Murray Rothbard as an effort to make a alliance with the right, just as he joined the Peace and Freedom movement with me following him (and supported the Progressive Labor Maoist wing of that organization) in an attempt to ally with the left (so as to oppose the US war in Vietnam). So, I am, I was, a paleolibertarian, and also a member of P&F, in support of Murray’s efforts to promote liberty. But, only provisionally, in attempt to change real world events. In terms of pure philosophy, I reject both.

I think that libertarianism is a theory as to when violence is justified (only in self defense, or in retaliation against a prior use of the unjustified use of force), and is not an ethical system. I greatly regret my writing as a moralist. Qua libertarian, I can have no views on morality, period.

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. 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/pure-libertarianism/?utm_source=The+Liberty+Crier&utm_campaign=3efef33935-The_Liberty_Crier_5_17_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_600843dec4-3efef33935-284768769; http://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%29; http://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;
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%29; http://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.pdf

From: J
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 9:07 AM
To: walter block
Subject: Paleolibertarianism

Hi Walter,

Thanks for feedback on articles on laissez-faire website.

re the thick libertarians question, I was rereading your old article “libertarianism and libertinism” and wondering about “paleolibertarianism”: isn’t it a form of “thick libertarianism”, and if so do you (still) consider yourself part of it or is it another confusing label to be rejected ?

Second question, regarding your take on morality itself. I have to admit having seldom read anything convincing regarding morality and ethics — that is, a theory of morality that would not conflate it with either confusion with Law or with mere personal preferences.

My only exception so far would be Schopenhauer’s On the basis of morality, in which he proceeds to clearly separate Law from morality — adopting a strict, libertarian, negative-rights, Natural Law position in Grotius’s steps for the former, and a compassion-based morality view for the latter. (Not sure I fully agree with the latter, but at least it’s justified, consistent, and clearly exempt from the all too common category confusions).

I also find quite lacking the thinking of Ayn Rand on the matter, who, in her rabid, randy (hehe) anti-libertarianism, is quite the “thick libertarian” herself. Her view of morality, which she equated with ethics, is basically one focused on the individual (she wrote that morality was most needed for a Robinson Crusoe alone on his island !), but she offered not much in way of rational explanations about the contents of said morality, not to mention a big vacuum when it comes to relations with others (which, I think is the proper province of morality — proper behavior towards others, beyond not aggressing them).

Regarding your text, then:

“Why, then, as a cultural conservative, do I oppose libertinism? First and foremost, because it is immoral: Nothing could be more clear than that these perversions are inimicable to the interest and betterment of mankind. Since that is my criterion for morality, it follows that I would find these activities immoral.”

and libertines you define as “The libertine, then, will champion prostitution, drug addiction, sado-masochism, and the like, and maybe even indulge in these practices,”

Of course you are entitled to your opinion and preferences, but me on the other hand:

1) I would not define morality as such. In a strict methodological individualism perspective, I’m not quite convinced by “interest and betterment of mankind” as valid concepts (what about Kantian imperative instead ? Golden rule ?) ;
2) even admitting them in the vague meaning they can legitimately have, I’m not convinced either that the “practices” you mention go against it. For example, a person can choose not to get married, not have children, and enjoy prostitutes instead, or homosexuality (not part of the definition above, but you mention it as something you abhor as well in the article), and (still, or even thanks to the time gained by not raising a family), make great contributions to the furthering of e.g. human standard of living. Drug users can be great artists, again despite or even thanks to that drug use.

I think, in proper Hayekian modesty, we can’t really assume what these people would do if they would not engage in these practices. We are not in their heads, we don’t know what they want, need or enjoy.

Sure, in a narrow version of Kantian imperative, something like “would the world be a better/worse place if everyone did that”, we could see some issues. But then again, we don’t know what their preferences are. And if it is “would the world be a worse/better place if the people who feel homosexual desires/enjoy drugs/prostitutes acted on these impulses”, then the answer is much less clear.

Of course you can disagree, but my point is, if your view of morality cannot be defended rationally (with objective arguments that everyone could agree on, not just based on personal feelings or considerations), then how is it really different from mere personal preference or even extrapolation of one’s own preferences (homosexuality would be a horrible experience for me, so it must be for everybody, and if people do it despite it being so horrible, then surely there must be something wrong with them).

Thanks in advance for any insights you might bring on these considerations, J

Share

6:10 pm on January 29, 2018