Some more tough challenges for libertarians

From time to time I am sent requests to solve “difficult libertarian questions.” For example, who is responsible if a gorilla throws Mr. A through Mr. B’s window, breaking the former’s arm, and the latter’s property. Short answer: the owner of the gorilla. Other such questions have to do with cannibalism, Martians, abortion, immigration, pornography, incest, the list goes on and on. I don’t share all of these challenges and my responses with this list, but I sometimes do. Today, I want to share two questions, and my answers to them. (Unless otherwise requested, I always keep the names of my correspondents anonymous, and do so today.)

Dear Professor Block

I hope all is well. On animal rights Rothbard talks about the ability to engage in the division of labor, we transform the environment, we engage in rational choice, we have sufficient intelligence for all these things etc……Hoppe writes about how animals cannot have dialogues about social norms, they can’t communicate non-violent resolution etc..(Being brief but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong of course). Basically, animals have no rights. Which brings me to space-aliens. Perhaps there exists space-aliens whose race has a 10 billion plus head start on us and their evolutionary development has brought their brains to a mean IQ level of say 1000 – or 10,000 or 10 to the power 5 or whatever is sufficient. Something like they are beings who self-levitate, move objects with their mind, bend space-time with their eye-balls and render human computers beyond obsolete. In any comparison between these space-aliens and humans it could just as well be that humans in relation are dumber than ants in relation to humans, or even tadpoles, or amoeba. Would then humans have no rights?

I’m going to attempt a twofer for one: I have heard this argument among some conservatives, libertarian party types that if the TSA would be allowed to unionize it would reduce their encroachment upon all of us. The argument points to TSA employees who claim that they do not like the orders that they follow but they have no choice because they have no means to resist government superiors when it comes to risking their job. If they could unionize they would be able, the argument goes, to have more discretion against carrying out new rules, regulations, procedures that the government sets for the TSA. What do you think of this? Have you heard this argument before?

Thanks as always.

BTW my dad is going on his own to a number of circles and also bought his plane ticket for the Houston Mises circle. He is a Mises member has been buying and reading a lot of the books on sale at the circles so I will make sure he buys one of yours. Maybe two if I can convince him to bring one back for me. But I definitely got you on at least one.

Dear P:

Here is my response to your first question. If those space aliens are so smart, they ought to realize that we puny humans would not hurt a hair of their tentacles, or whatever body parts they have. Thus, we would hardly have to articulate that we adhere to the non-aggression principle (NAP). But, we would certainly do so, otherwise possibly be annihilated. Then, if they were righteous creatures, they would be honor bound, also, to respect the NAP, and thus would not be able to violate our rights. Yes, we might be to them as ants are to us, but ants cannot express the NAP to us, but we can to them.

Here is my response to your second question. Yes, there is a case to be made in this regard. Unions are like a tape worm. They attack their hosts. And, if their host if the government, then the latter is weakened. However, it is not clear that organized labor would lead to a diminution in power against the TSA in directions that libertarians would welcome. Yes, unionized TSA workers would move in the direction of greater salaries, more vacation time, fringe benefits, etc., but it seems to me to be a stretch that they would place any great priority on improving the lives of the much-maligned travelling public.

Another issue is that public sector unions are almost a contradiction in nature. The entire justification for unions in the private sector, at least from the point of view of our friends on the left, is that organized labor is needed as a counter-point to the greedy capitalists who head business firms. Profit is their be-all and end-all, and the devil take the interests of the exploited worker. That is why it is important that the government, which is benevolent and efficient, promote unionism. However, if this is the case, how can it possibly be justified that labor should organize against the state? For is not the latter the repository of all that is good and decent? So, on their own grounds, the left liberal progressives cannot themselves support public sector unions.

The Best of Walter E. Block