03.16.08
Walter Block Replies
Guest Blog by Walter E. Block
Why do I think of Ron Paul as a libertarian and support his candidacy for president (for purposes of the present discussion I will not distinguish between these) but do not consider Randy Barnett in this way? As Roderick very, very truly says, each of these men hold views incompatible with libertarianism. Why, then, such a sharp distinction between them on my part?
To wit, Paul is mistaken in his views of abortion and immigration, while Barnett is in error on war (I leave to the side federalism.)
There are several reasons for my judgment.
1. I regard questions of war and peace, offense and defense, as far more important to libertarianism than abortion and immigration. The essence of libertarianism is the non-aggression axiom (coupled with homesteading and property rights). I see bombing innocent children and adults as a far more serious violation of liberty than aborting fetuses, or violating the rights of people to cross national borders. If this were my only reason, I regard it is sufficient to distinguish between Paul and Barnett, accepting the former as a libertarian but not the latter.
2. My second reason is that I regard abortion and immigration as far more complex issues than the question of whether a person or nation is committing an offensive act of war or a defensive one. Roderick rejects this as irrelevant. I demur. Suppose we were trying to determine who is a mathematician and who is not. Candidate A does not know that 2 + 2 = 4. Candidate B knows that, but stumbles over the Pythagorean theorem. I regard the latter as far more complex than the former. I consider B more of a mathematician than A. It seems to me that if a putative libertarian (Barnett) cannot distinguish offense from defense in such a simple case as war, while Paul certainly can, even though he stumbles on the far more complex issues of abortion and immigration, then Paul is certainly more of a libertarian, or a better one. But, the difference in complexity between these two issues is so gigantic, this difference of degree is so great that it amounts to a difference in kind, that I am entirely comfortable in evaluating Paul as a libertarian, but not Barnett.
Let me try again on this point. Here are two statements to which all Austrian economists subscribe.
a. Voluntary trade is mutually beneficial in the ex ante sense
b. The Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT) is correct
I regard (a) as exceedingly simple to grasp. The Austrian credentials of anyone who does not see this, that is, agree with it, are nil. I regard (b) as very complex. Austrianism consists of belief in scores of such claims. If someone agreed to all such claims except for (b), I would consider him an Austrian. Heck, even an Austrian in good standing. But, if he rejected (a) but accepted everything else, I’d think he was pulling my leg, so weird would this be.
In other words, complexity is not at all irrelevant to the issues which separate Roderick and me. Indeed, it is very important.
3. My supposed argument from authority: I regard my own views on abortion and immigration to be the correct libertarian positions (if I did not, I would change them). However, in my assessment, Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe and Stephan Kinsella are three of the most import libertarian theoreticians in all of history. They disagree with me on at least one and I think both of these issues. Thus, I am a bit more modest in my stance on abortion and immigration than I would otherwise be. However, I know of NO eminent libertarian who thinks that our war in Iraq is defensive.
At first blush, you are of course correct in asserting that this is circular reasoning on my part. For, I readily admit it, if there were some other eminent libertarian (hey, give me a break, I don’t count Randroids) who did take this view, he would be dismissed, forthwith, as a libertarian in my view. Come to think of it, I think that John Hospers takes this view. Well, scratch Hospers from the ranks not only of eminent libertarian theoreticians, but from being a libertarian at all.
And yet, and yet… How else are we to determine issues of this sort? Will you concede to me that Rothbard, Hoppe and Kinsella, completely apart from the present issues under discussion, are more deserving of the title of eminent libertarian theorist than are Barnett, Hospers and the Randroids? If so, does not your position give you pause for reconsideration?
Maybe one way to reconcile our differences is as follows. I am operating from a sort of agnostic point of view: even though I have strong opinions on abortion and immigration, I am assuming, not a God’s eye point of view, but rather the position of a newcomer to libertarianism, who doesn’t know which way to go on this question since libertarian leaders diverge. You, in contrast, adopt a more knowledgeable position.
Anon73 said,
March 17, 2008 at 12:03 am
I think Block’s most compelling point is the one about mathematician A and B. Other similar examples come to mind easily: You can’t be a Catholic priest but deny that divine beings exist. You can’t be a leader of the Chinese Communist Party but affirm the great virtues and efficiency of industrial Britain. If somebody claims to be a “libertarian” and yet also affirms the Iraq war as defensive, then that person must either be 1) lying, 2) confused about one or more of the terms, or 3) simply not a libertarian at all. In Barnett’s case, 1) and 2) are hard to believe, leaving only 3).
Aeon J. Skoble said,
March 17, 2008 at 8:33 am
Anon73, you’re utterly failing to distinguish between diasgreement and insanity. Denying that 2+2=4 is insanity. But reasonable people can, and frequently do, disagree about complex moral and political issues. Take abortion as a proxy here: Smith is a minimal-state libertarian, who claims that abortion is the taking of a human life. Since the role of the minimal state is do protect life, it’s legitimate to criminalize abortion. Jones, on the other hand, sees all state action as inherently suspect, and in any case isn’t convinced that abortion constitutes murder, so Jones sees laws criminalizing abortion as illegitimate statist attempts to “legislate private morality.” Which of Smith or Jones is correctly described as “simply not a libertarian at all”?
And by the way, you _can_ be a Communist Party official and affirm the virtues and efficiency of industrial Britain. Marxist theory holds each “stage” in history to be “just” inasmuch as it is fufilling its historical role. It’s not that industrial Britain wasn’t good at building up the means of production etc., it’s that once capitalism has fulfilled its historical role, it’s time for the next “stage” in history. But I digress: I recognize that you meant this to be an analogy to suggest a “disqualifying” belief, as your other example is. I agree that someone who denies the existence of divine beings can’t really be called a Catholic priest. But the analogy fails: the suggestion that Barnett is “simply not a libertarian at all” is actually like saying 2+2=5. Have you actually read “Pursuing Justice in a Free Society” or _The Structure of Liberty_?
Aeon J. Skoble said,
March 17, 2008 at 8:38 am
And Walter:
“My supposed argument from authority: I regard my own views on abortion and immigration to be the correct libertarian positions (if I did not, I would change them). However, in my assessment, Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe and Stephan Kinsella are three of the most import libertarian theoreticians in all of history. They disagree with me on at least one and I think both of these issues. Thus, I am a bit more modest in my stance on abortion and immigration than I would otherwise be. However, I know of NO eminent libertarian who thinks that our war in Iraq is defensive.”
This is a classic “no true scotsman” fallacy. Anyone who does think this way must not be an eminint libertarian! QED. That’s circular, of course, as you yourself note - so why make this move? Why not instead say “Rothbard is a great thinker and a great libertarian theorist, but as far as I can tell, he’s mistaken about X”? Being wrong about issue X is the relevant point, after all. If you think Hospers or Barnett is wrong just argue _that_, don’t get all “you’re excommunicated now!” about it.
Anon73 said,
March 17, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Just for clarity, note that Skoble is indirectly arguing, contra Block, that offensive war and abortion are both difficult, complex issues.
Luiz do Ó said,
March 17, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I agree with WB that questions like abortion and immigration have more complexity envolved when someone is trying to place then in the libertarian theory than war.
I just don’t know if supporting Ron Paul is a good strategy. I mean, sometimes you have to just pick the least horrible option (for purposes exclusively pragmatical), when there is realy a chance of one guy who would represent a somewhat less invasive government to win (and most of times the diferences between the options are infinitesimal - and yet, it’s good for you to choose).
But what’s the point in supporting a guy who realy doesn’t have a chance (That’s my impression as an outsider, I’m from Brasil) and that has his statists deviations?
Brutum Fulmen said,
March 17, 2008 at 8:18 pm
I agree that Barnett’s view on the war at least is wrong, and perhaps unlibertarian. (I’m less concerned whether that makes Barnett or his thought on the whole “libertarian” or not.) His view points to an important tension in the thought of libertarians who support the war yet also oppose restrictions on gun ownership. All libertarians believe in the harm principle; people should be able to do what they want so long as they harm no one. But there is a problem presented by *instrumentalities* of harm. Bombs and guns are both instrumentalities of harm. Possession of such weapons does no one harm, but they put someone in a position to do tremendous harm. Barnett believes that the Iraq war was justified as a matter of preemptive self-defense. On such logic, why is preventing private ownership of guns not permissible as a preemptive matter of self-defense?
Mike S. said,
March 17, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Brutum,
Could it be that the ownership of firearms (as an act of preventive self-defense) doesn’t lead to the violations of rights, whereas the very act of preemptive war (as an preventive act of self-defense) obviously does?
Brutum Fulmen said,
March 17, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Mike S.: Sorry–I don’t think I worded my question well. Why is it OK (as it seems to be in Barnett’s view) to prevent Hussein’s possession of a bomb but not individuals’ possession of guns? (By the way, I agree with you: ownership of firearms doesn’t necessarily itself violate anyone’s rights, but preemptive war obviously does.)
Aeon J. Skoble said,
March 18, 2008 at 7:47 am
Brutum Fulmen- I think the argument would go something like this: states don’t have rights, only people have rights. So individual people have a right to own firearms, but states don’t have a right to own bombs. States are justified in having national-defense weaponry, but lose their claim to that justification when they’re aggressors — e.g., post-WWII Japan. You don’t have to be a neocon to see that Iraq had a well-established pattern of aggression, w.r.t. Israel, Kuwait, Iran, and itself (esp w.r.t. Kurds), and arguably in terms of facilitating global terrorism. That’s why it’s not analogous to an individual RKBA.
Anon73- what about war and abortion is so simple, as you suggest, that no one could possibly disagree? And why are you posting anonymously?
Bob Kaercher said,
March 18, 2008 at 9:53 am
Well, I can certainly agree that Paul is to a degree more libertarian than Barnett based on their foreign policy views, and in a hypothetical election between the two for president (wherein they are the only candidates) with the US waging war overseas, I can certainly see the argument for voting for Paul over Barnett.
But that is not the case in reality, is it? For those of us who don’t see any of the candidates as sufficiently libertarian, there is another option: Not voting at all.
Interestingly, Paul has dropped out of the race, so apparently he doesn’t see himself as quite the Last Great Hope for Peace as did many of his most vocal libertarian supporters.
Brutum Fulmen said,
March 18, 2008 at 9:54 am
Aeon: Thanks. I still don’t see it though. I agree that it would be natural for a response to my question to point to some distinction bw states’ and individuals’ rights. But as soon as one concedes that a state is “justified” (I see you avoided the word “right”, but there’s little difference) in owning weapons in self-defense, the distinction crumbles. You said that when a state becomes aggressors their claim to justified possession of weapons is vitiated. Why is not the same true of an individual who becomes aggressive with the use of his weapon?
Aeon J. Skoble said,
March 18, 2008 at 10:19 am
I beg to differ - there’s a huge difference between “has a right to X” and “is justified in doing/pursuing X.” Simple example: Smith is justified in pursuing the affections of his beloved Jones, but Smith has no right to Jones’ affections. Slightly less obvious example: Bleeding-to-death-in-the-woods Smith is justified in breaking in to Jones’ cabin to obtain bandages and antibiotics, but does not have a “right to break into cabins.” So, a state might, hypothetically, be justified in doing X, but have no right to X. Another dimension of this distinction is that one’s justification for doing something might come and go, but if it’s true that one has a right to that thing, that seems like the sort of thing that would be more fixed. In any case, I still want to stick with the idea that individuals have rights and that states do not. So a state nevr has a “right to bombs.” But if a state is justified at all (this “if” requiring some argument, never a given), it might also be justified in having a defense mechanism — but it would never be justified in having an aggression mechanism. But with individuals, it’s more than a justification - it’s a right, and that’s why it’s inviolate. But then you ask whether an individual can forfeit his or her legitimate claim to a weapon by being a known aggressor. Probably, although I’m not sure what the best remedy is in a free society. In any case, I was simply trying to establish a disanalogy between these cases, on the grounds that “rights” only come up in the case of individuals.
John T. Kennedy said,
March 18, 2008 at 11:42 am
So is Stephan Kinsella the only Eminent Libertarian Theorist who wants to license breeding?
I guess breeding licenses are one of those highly complex libertarian issues.
Brutum Fulmen said,
March 18, 2008 at 11:44 am
Of course there’s a huge difference between “justified in *pursuing* X” and a “right *to* X”; your formulation and examples misrepresent the problem at hand. (Of course Smith has no right to the *affection itself*; but I think it’s no linguistic mistake to say that he is *justified in pursuing* Jones’ affection and has a *right to pursue* the same and that there’s “little difference” between the two. I also think there’s no linguistic mistake in saying that *if Smith is bleeding to death in the woods* he has a “right” (in those circumstances) to break into Jones’ cabin–something he ordinarily has no right to do.) I am willing to concede that there might be some difference between being “justified in doing X” and having a “right to do X” (which is, of course, crucially different from having a “right to X” as you worded it), which is why I said “little” rather than “no” difference between the two. Perhaps that difference is what you suggest: we have an obligation to respect others’ exercise of “rights” but we needn’t respect (as much) what others merely are “justified” in doing. I need to think about that. But even conceding such a difference, there remains the real problem, as you rightly emphasize, of whether collectives/groups/states can have “rights”. I don’t see why they can’t, and indeed most libertarians concede that they can. Consider a corporation. Presumably “it” has a right to own property as a result of its constituents having the same right. Why doesn’t a “state” have a right to possess weaponry as a result of its constituents having the same right?
Brutum Fulmen said,
March 18, 2008 at 11:51 am
P.S. With respect to the issue of known aggressor who is an individual, I think my thoughts are the same as yours, Aeon. I’m not sure what the best remedy is. I’m also not sure in the collective context.
Aeon J. Skoble said,
March 18, 2008 at 11:58 am
“Consider a corporation. Presumably “it” has a right to own property as a result of its constituents having the same right. Why doesn’t a “state” have a right to possess weaponry as a result of its constituents having the same right?”
Well, one difference is that corporations are voluntary associations and states are not. But that might not speak to the main point of your question. I need to think about that some more, BUT: that we’re having a thoughtful and sincere discussion about this demonstrates my more fundamental point, that reasonable people can disagree about certain complicated issues, and that this doesn’t mean that so-and-so “isn’t a libertarian.”
Micha Ghertner said,
March 18, 2008 at 12:53 pm
What is so complicated about immigration??? Hoppe’s argument is insane; it deserves absolutely no respect from non-bigoted libertarians like Block. Gene Callahan’s baby-analogy argument, referenced by JTK above, demonstrates just how simple the issue of immigration truly is.
And since when did Stephan Kinsella become an “eminent libertarian theorist”? The man is an even bigger fool than his bigoted idol. Who, outside of the Mises Institute, has ever heard of him (or, for that matter, Hoppe)?
Aeon J. Skoble said,
March 18, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Micha, I agree with you, immigration is simpler than war or abortion. I was just trying to put a stop to this silly “so-and-so isn’t really a libertarian, because he says this one thing I disagree with,” esp. in cases where so-and-so is well known primarily for libertarianism. Like Barnett: I’m not even sure he’s wrong on war issues, but assuming that arguendo, it still doesn’t mean he’s “not even a libertarian at all” — that’s just silly as regards the author of _The Structure of Liberty_, which I’d wager most of his haters haven’t even read.
Bob Kaercher said,
March 18, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I’ll admit I haven’t read Barnett’s “The Structure of Liberty”, but arguments by him justifying the Iraq War are thoroughly shoddy, like this one:
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010344
Aeon J. Skoble said,
March 18, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Regardless of your assessment of _that_ argument’s merits, is it your contention that Barnett is “simply not a libertarian at all”? My claim is that such a contention would be false and silly _even if it’s true_ that the argument you cite is shoddy.
Bob Kaercher said,
March 18, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I do think a case could be made that Barnett is in no way libertarian, yes. When you support a state action that inevitably destroys innocent human beings who have committed no wrong to anyone, and/or their justly held property, you have effectively surrendered your libertarian cred. That’s WHY Barnett’s pro-war argument is for sh*t: He barely even acknowledges that perfectly innocent people are killed in the statist war he supports, people who’s only “crime” is the fate of having been born into a country targeted by the US gov’t for “regime change”. And he barely acknowledges that millions of American who if free to do so would choose NOT to finance such death and destruction are coerced to do so.
I fail to see how the issue of war could be seen as “complex,” rather than for what it is: A clear cut case of unjust aggression.
So, yeah…Though he’s free to claim the libertarian label for himself all he wants, other libertarians should be skeptical.
Aeon J. Skoble said,
March 18, 2008 at 7:21 pm
“I fail to see how the issue of war could be seen as “complex,” rather than for what it is: A clear cut case of unjust aggression.”
You’re confusing an empirical matter with a conceptual matter. Barnett (or you) could wrong about what this war is about factually without it meaning he (or you) has renounced liberty. Example: Let’s say I think Smith is planning to kill me, and have good reason to think this. So I kill him first. Then it turns out I was mistaken. What you can say is: I am in the wrong, and liable for my grievous error. What you can’t say is: I no longer subscribe to the non-aggression principle and don’t value life.
Bob Kaercher said,
March 18, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Aeon, I think I very well could say that “you” don’t subscribe to the non-aggression principle in that hypothetical situation of yours. If it turns out you were mistaken in your reason to think that Smith was about to kill you, then I guess it wasn’t a very “good” one at all, was it? You must have jumped to totally baseless, unsupportable conclusions based on some kind of subjective whim rather than evidence clearly indicating an actually imminent threat, which according to the non-aggression principle is the only instance in which any kind of violence can be justified. Such a person is no friend of that principle, at least not when it counts the most.
Barnett continues to support the US gov’t’s aggression against innocent people in Iraq on an ongoing basis. So it would indeed appear that he does not support the non-aggression principle, at least not in reality. Oh, he may support it in theory, and he may be able to write some really nice essays and books about it, but when it comes to real living human beings his support for that principle is rather inconsistent, at least when it comes to Iraqis.
Joe said,
March 19, 2008 at 8:54 am
“Interestingly, Paul has dropped out of the race”
Bob, where have you heard Paul’s concession speech?
Bob Kaercher said,
March 19, 2008 at 9:44 am
Joe:
Well, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m confused as to the current status of his campaign. But this was the latest buzz I saw on it:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/ron-paul-to-dro.html
I don’t know. Is he in it, or is he not in it? I guess I was mistaken, but the best I can tell is that he’s kind of, sort of in it. From the above linked article:
“An earlier version of this report indicated that Paul would ‘drop out’ of the race. In the video, Paul did not use the words ‘drop out,’ opting instead to say the campaign is ‘winding down,’ and he encourages supporters to still cast votes for him. But he referred to his campaign in the past tense.”
“Vote for me while my campaign is ‘winding down’”? There’s a stirring battle cry.
Micha Ghertner said,
March 19, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Bob Kaercher,
I do think a case could be made that Hoppe and other anti-immigrant libertarians are in no way libertarian, yes. When you support a state action that inevitably destroys innocent human beings who have committed no wrong to anyone, and/or their justly held property, you have effectively surrendered your libertarian cred. That’s WHY Hoppe’s anti-immigrant argument is for sh*t: He barely even acknowledges that perfectly innocent people are killed in the statist apartheid he supports, people who’s only “crime” is the fate of having been born into a country targeted by the US gov’t for “exclusion”. And he barely acknowledges that millions of American who if free to do so would choose NOT to finance such death and destruction are coerced to do so.
I fail to see how the issue of immigration could be seen as “complex,” rather than for what it is: A clear cut case of unjust aggression (and racism, to boot).
So, yeah…Though he’s free to claim the libertarian label for himself all he wants, other libertarians should be skeptical.
Bob Kaercher said,
March 19, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Micha: Excellent point. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Wait a minute…DOH!
The point is the principle. An honest search for objective application of principle necessarily demands that it should be applied to everyone’s proposals equally. If someone promotes or condones a violation of the non-aggression principle and still insists on calling themselves “libertarian”, then it’s perfectly reasonable for others to call it out and discuss it, regardless of who it is–if it’s Randy Barnett, Ron Paul, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, or anyone else. If the person in question bristles at being called “unlibertarian” on the basis of a particular proposal of theirs, they can either effectively refute it by pointing to the lack of proof and the flaw in the reasoning of others, or they can admit they’re wrong, or everyone can just agree to disagree and move on. (Or one can simply ignore his detractors.)
As for me, I don’t have any bets on any libertarian horse races.
Aeon J. Skoble said,
March 19, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Micah FTW! Nice job.
Bob - perhaps we could distinguish between “Smith is simply not a libertarian at all” and “Smith advocates X, which I don’t see as consistent with libertarianism.” The latter sounds like an invitation for for further discussion, whereas the former sounds like a way to circumvent discussion, or load it in a circular way.
Bob Kaercher said,
March 19, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“perhaps we could distinguish between ‘Smith is simply not a libertarian at all’ and “Smith advocates X, which I don’t see as consistent with libertarianism’.”
Aeon: To advocate any statist invasion of individual rights and property is not “libertarian”. This is not a matter of what anyone subjectively “sees”, it’s a matter of measuring one’s proposal against an objective standard of justice.
Dropping bombs and firing missiles upon people that have committed no crime is a violation of the non-aggression principle. So is locking people away in a jail cell for moving across unowned land. Therefore, anyone who advocates either is advocating a violation of the non-aggression principle, therefore other libertarians would have perfectly valid grounds for questioning either person’s commitment to liberty.
Now perhaps both advocates of the various forms of aggression have published many, many articles and books that celebrate the non-aggression principle in THEORY–and others have praised them as great THEORISTS. But when they call for or condone aggression in PRACTICE–here in the Land of Real, Living, Breathing Human Beings–then it is certainly not unreasonable to question their credibility as libertarians.
I hardly see how this is “circular” or “loaded”. If the person in question is so offended to have their commitment doubted, then they could either a) rethink their position and either attempt to prove how their proposal is consistent with liberty, or admit they’re wrong and revise their position; b) stop calling themselves “libertarian”; or c) continue to call themselves “libertarian” while the rest of us evaluate their proposals against objective principles and pass judgment accordingly.
Bob Kaercher said,
March 19, 2008 at 2:36 pm
And by the way, what, really, is the qualitative difference between “‘Smith is simply not a libertarian at all’ and “Smith advocates X, which I don’t see as consistent with libertarianism’”, anyway? Isn’t that just two different ways of saying essentially the same thing?
Bob Kaercher said,
March 19, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Scratch my last question and let me ask you this, Aeon:
By what standard or criterion can you rightfully say that a person is not a libertarian contrary to their claim otherwise, and why?
Aeon J. Skoble said,
March 19, 2008 at 4:04 pm
“By what standard or criterion can you rightfully say that a person is not a libertarian contrary to their claim otherwise, and why? ”
I’m certainly not suggesting that there’s no way to say “Smith isn’t a libertarian, even though he claims to be.” I’m saying that when someone has made a career out of scholarly work advancing the case for liberty, and then takes a position which seems surprising, whether that’s Barnett on the war or Hoppe on immigration, it’s at least worth considering the possibility that the person has some argument on which the surprising position is actually consistent with libertarianism, even if it turns out that the argument fails. That’s a case of “Smith, who is a libertarian, has made an error about X” not “Because of X, Smith is not a libertarian.” I think the anti-immigration libertarians are mistaken, but I wouldn’t say they’re not libertarians at all. First of all, I find that tactically and rhetorically useless. But second of all, and perhaps more important, it follows from the principle of charity. I’m willing to recognize that they have reasons, and even the remote possibility that their reasons are sound. And even if I’m right and they aren’t sound, unless I have evidence that they’re ill-spirited and devious, I’ll assume they sincerly _think_ that the reasons are consistent with liberty (even if they’re not) — that it’s error in the application of a principle rather than a renunciation of the principle.
Here’s an example not from libetarianism: Is Trotsky a communist? A dogmatic Leninist would say no, but that’s silly. An more honest Leninist might say instead, “Comrade Trotsky is a Communist, but a mistaken one, having failed to see that ___”
So to answer your question: a self-proclaimed libertarian can rightfully be said to not be a libertarian at all if he or she doesn’t actually agree that individual liberty is the highest value in a political context. In other words, someone might pay lip service to liberty in some contexts, but blow it off in others (as, e.g., all the republicrats in our government do, with the possible exception of Paul).
Bob Kaercher said,
March 19, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Well, in my judgment someone who argues for any form of invasion of individual liberty and/or property rights can’t properly be called a libertarian, regardless of how libertarian they THINK their arguments are. If their argument clearly fails the test against the objective principle of non-aggression and they continue to advocate for it anyway, I can’t really in good conscience call them a “libertarian.” (And this is “tactically and rhetorically useless” to whom, exactly?)
Anyone who favors detaining immigrants or bombing innocent people clearly does not “agree that individual liberty is the highest value in a political context,” otherwise they wouldn’t advocate such invasion in the first place. You can call them libertarians if you wish, but I beg to differ.
Just to be clear: I’m not saying all such people should be unequivocally shunned or that all of their ideas and writing should be summarily tossed out or burned or something. They may very well make brilliant analysis and proposals in other areas, and libertarians make alliances with non-libertarians all the time where there is properly common cause to do so. But I still maintain what I assert in the above paragraph.
(BTW, I don’t know why it’s necessary for you to “have evidence that they’re ill-spirited and devious” in order to question their claim to the libertarian mantle. Such “evidence” would be damn near impossible to ascertain. I never claimed that they don’t sincerely believe their unlibertarian positions to be consistent with liberty—how can I tell what they privately believe or not believe, anyway? But what anyone believes and what IS can be two completely contradictory things. I can bomb a perfectly innocent person’s house and sincerely believe it to be “liberation” or “self-defense” all I want–but the reality is that it’s still cold-blooded murder.)
So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Micha Ghertner said,
March 20, 2008 at 12:26 am
Bob Kaercher,
Both Barnett and Hoppe share something in common; they both argue that their proposed “deviation” (Iraq war and border restrictions) are second best solutions, not ideal if we happened to already live in their favored fully free societies, but a necessary, least-bad evil in the present one. I disagree with both of their assessments, but I don’t doubt that both of them truly and honestly “agree that individual liberty is the highest value in a political context,” they simply think that their deviation is the least bad alternative with respect to liberty.
These two examples, the Iraq war and immigration restrictions are, unfortunately for the sake of this present argument, poor examples of what I take to be a more general observation: the “principle” of non-aggression is not as simple as you make it out to be. I say these examples are unfortunate because I find both of them fairly easy questions; on the other hand, I can conceive of much more difficult questions. Aeon indirectly mentioned one of these difficult questions above:
“Bleeding-to-death-in-the-woods Smith is justified in breaking in to Jones’ cabin to obtain bandages and antibiotics, but does not have a “right to break into cabins.”
Now, Aeon used this example to make a point about the distinction between justifications and rights, in turn to make a point about the distinction between states and individuals, but this example also just so happens to touch on a fundamental difficulty in libertarian ethical theory: the relationship (and potential conflict) between deontological justice (”don’t break into people’s houses and take their stuff without permission”) and good consequences (”don’t let yourself bleed to death if you can avoid it without causing even greater suffering elsewhere”).
Now, libertarians like David Friedman and the late R.W. Bradford can and have come up with all sorts of scenarios similar to the cabin one, in an effort to tease out the relationship between deontology and consequentialism, and to argue that (at least in Friedman’s case, I can’t recall offhand what Bradford’s motivation was) the principle of of non-aggression is problematic if taken alone as a sufficient justification of libertarianism, since most of us libertarians would at some point abandon the principle of non-aggression if we were sufficiently convinced that the heavens would fall as a result. If total commitment to the principle of of non-aggression, whatever the consequences may be, is the defining factor of being a libertarian, I suspect the number of actual, existing libertarians throughout the course of human history could be counted on one hand. Walter Block, of course, would be one of the five.
Rad Geek said,
March 20, 2008 at 12:30 am
Micha: I fail to see how the issue of immigration could be seen as “complex,” rather than for what it is ….
I think the short answer is this: calling border laws and internal immigration policing a “complex” issue for libertarians primarily serves a social function, not an intellectual one, in the Mises Institute / LewRockwell.com circle.
The issue is actually, obviously, extremely simple, and Hoppe’s and Ron Paul’s positions are actually, obviously, completely wrong. I suspect that most of those who criticize their positions but pass of the issue as a “complex” one realize this, but also reckon that it wouldn’t go over well in mixed company to say so in as many words.
Paul Coulam said,
March 20, 2008 at 6:54 am
Rad:
“I suspect that most of those who criticize their positions but pass of the issue as a “complex” one realize this, but also reckon that it wouldn’t go over well in mixed company to say so in as many words.”
Fascinating! Does Rod creep about the Mises institute mincing his words and being mealy-mouthed about the ‘complexities’ of immigration too?
Bob Kaercher said,
March 20, 2008 at 10:07 am
Micha:
How in the WORLD can the “Smith-bleeding-in-the-woods” scenario be even REMOTELY analogous to the U.S. government’s IRAQ WAR and TOSSING IMMIGRANTS INTO JAIL????
And Barnett’s and Hoppe’s “solutions” are “second best” to WHAT, exactly? Having a million more living, breathing Iraqis than there are now and not having innocent people rot away in “detention centers”?
Aeon J. Skoble said,
March 20, 2008 at 10:49 am
Bob, you’ve missed Micah’s point. He’s not saying he agrees with Barnett and Hoppe, he’s saying (confirming my argument) that they do in fact have some rationale on which (even if it turns out to be false) their position is compatible with the other thins they think about liberty. As to the specifics of your question, have a million Iraqis been killed? If that’s so, how many were killed by the US Army? How many by the Iranian army? How many by the Iraqi government? It’s not self-evidently false that overthrowing the tyrannical Baathist regime was a net plus for Iraqis. Let me reiterate, though, the point isn’t whether Barnett is right about Iraq; the point is whether it’s right to say he’s “simply not a libertarian at all” because of his stance on Iraq. So to with Hoppe: I think he’s wrong about immigration, but I wouldn’t say he’s “simply not a libertarian at all.”
Bob Kaercher said,
March 20, 2008 at 1:52 pm
“Uncle!” I’m done. Anything I would say now would be to simply repeat what I’ve already said.
PhysicistDave said,
March 21, 2008 at 3:58 am
I’m slightly bemused by this talk of who is a “real” libertarian. If Randy Barnett wishes to call himself a “libertarian,” no one can stop him: no one owns the word.
Surely, the real issue here, and what Prof. Block was really addressing, is who we should view as our allies and as members of the same political movement as ourselves. That is not an argument over the meaning of words: that is a real moral choice, which we can, and indeed unavoidably must, make.
This is not an issue simply of verbal logic but an issue of personal moral choice.
Even though Rod Long and I have slightly different perspectives on, say, the Ron Paul campaign, I have no trouble considering him and me as members of the same political movement. To the best of my knowledge, Rod is an honest person, his errors, such as they may be, do not involve condoning the murder of innocent people, etc. I am morally comfortable being a member of the same political movement as Rod Long, Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella, etc. even if I know we have disagreements among ourselves. Those disagreements are not central to the goals I would like to see a political movement attain, or to my own moral judgments of them as human beings.
Randy Barnett may be a very bright guy who is kind to his wife, kids, and dogs. But someone who supports the aggressive and murderous actions of the USG’s war in Iraq is not someone I feel morally comfortable associating with politically and is not someone working for the same political goals I am working for.
This is not just an abstract theoretical argument about the non-aggression principle. It is about making a personal moral choice. Anyone who honestly cannot see the murder of war as a more morally significant issue than the issue of abortion or immigration is a person who has demonstrated moral judgment that makes me wary of associating with him. And to not see the centrality of war to the growth of government and its intrusions on individual liberty betrays an ignorance of history and an insensitivity to human life that I do not want in members of a political movement with which I am willing to be associated.
Politics makes strange bedfellows, and the day may come when I am reluctantly willing to be associated with Prof. Barnett.
But, for now, Barnett does not meet my minimum standards of being a human being whom I can truly respect morally or comfortably associate with politically. It is not a matter of arcane debates about the non-aggression principle; it is a matter of Barnett’s lack of a sense of simple humanity.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
Michael J. Palmer said,
March 21, 2008 at 5:28 pm
This has nothing to do with this particular blog post, but what has happened to all-left.net? It’s been replaced by stock spam. Could someone do something about that?
Micha Ghertner said,
March 21, 2008 at 7:19 pm
To the best of my knowledge, Rod is an honest person, his errors, such as they may be, do not involve condoning the murder of innocent people, etc. I am morally comfortable being a member of the same political movement as Rod Long, Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella, etc. even if I know we have disagreements among ourselves. Those disagreements are not central to the goals I would like to see a political movement attain, or to my own moral judgments of them as human beings.
To the best of my knowledge, Randy Barnett is an honest person, his errors, such as they may be, do not involve condoning the murder of innocent people in his eyes, since Randy honestly believes that the death of innocents in Iraq is an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect, but not the primary intent or goal of the military action there, a military action which Randy (mistakenly, in my view) believes is necessary and justified. So too, anti-immigration libertarians like Kinsella and Hoppe do not believe they are condoning the murder of innocent people by advocating restrictions on immigration; the death and suffering of innocent non-native-born Americans (as well as the costs placed on native-born Americans who are prevented from associating with them) are necessary and justified, in their (mistaken) view.
I’m still unclear why you would treat your disagreements with Kinsella and Hoppe (assuming you do disagree with them on immigration) as not central to the libertarian movement, nor why you wouldn’t let this disagreement effect your own moral judgments of them as human beings, when you would let your disagreement with Barnett effect your moral judgment of him as a human being. Both policies - war in Iraq and immigration restrictions are horrific, leading to the death, suffering and poverty of countless people. I have no idea why you think the human costs of war in Iraq are so significantly more than the human costs of immigration restrictions (or the death of human fetuses, if you happen to be anti-abortion) that it should be considered as a separate category. If we are taking the interests of non-U.S. citizen’s lives into account, and treating them as equal in value to U.S. lives, a strong case could be made that immigration restrictions impose a much higher human toll than all of the suffering resulting from the war in Iraq.
Incidentally, I do have a very negative judgment of Hoppe as a human being, given his semi-public bigotry against gays, poor people, and dark-skinned foreigners, among others. That’s a much greater indication of a lack of a sense of simple humanity than anything Barnett ever said or wrote.
PhysicistDave said,
March 22, 2008 at 5:46 am
Micha,
Thank you for making my point for me: you and I probably do not belong in the same political movement.
I mean that as no disrespect to you: You may be a great guy.
But the larger point I am trying to make here (and I fear I did not make it clearly in my earlier comment – it was late at night) is that involving oneself in a political movement is not simply a matter of settling on some apodictic principle (e.g., the non-aggression principle) and then signing up with anyone else who happens to claim adherence to that same apodictic principle.
Rather, associating with others in a political movement is more like accepting a job, choosing a city in which to live, or getting married. It involves making a complicated judgment, a judgment that cannot be performed simply by mechanical use of some apodictic principle(s).
For those of us interested in individual liberty, this means making judgments as to what issues are in fact the most important in terms of their impact on human beings and what issues and principles are most important in terms of the long-term prospects for liberty and for bringing about the abolition of the state.
It also means, crucially, figuring out what liberty actually means in the real world, given the actual facts of the real world. Facts matter, and matter crucially. Someone whose grasp of reality is so tenuous that he consistently advocates the violation of rights, not intentionally, but because he is deluded about what is actually happening in the real world, is no asset to a movement fighting for liberty.
Put concretely, it does no good to assert in the abstract that all human beings have certain rights if you are so deluded as to believe that only you and your wife are human and therefore that you are entitled to kill all the rest of us!
You wrote:
>To the best of my knowledge, Randy Barnett is an honest person, his errors, such as they may be, do not involve condoning the murder of innocent people in his eyes, since Randy honestly believes that the death of innocents in Iraq is an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect, but not the primary intent or goal of the military action there, a military action which Randy (mistakenly, in my view) believes is necessary and justified.
Perhaps. But if so, then Randy is so out of touch with reality, that his grasp on reality is comparable to George W. Bush’s. Perhaps in some ultimate sense, we should judge him as morally innocent on account of his, to steal a term from theology, “invincible ignorance.”
But considering Randy’s grotesque empirical errors (as you hypothesize them) in dealing with the war in Iraq, and the near certainty that such issues will continue to arise in the future, it is, I think, poor judgment to view Randy as a valuable comrade in the struggle for liberty. Whatever his inner motives may be, objectively he is inimical to human life and liberty.
This judgment of course partially hinges on a broader judgment about the relevance of war to the struggle for liberty. First, it is empirically true that war causes enormous suffering to human being, far greater, say, than OSHA. Secondly, someone with a reasonable knowledge of history, or an astute observer of the events of the last six and a half year, should be able to recognize that war is a “hinge” issue used by the enemies of liberty to deny civil rights, economic freedom, etc., quite aside from its devastating results on those caught up directly in the war.
Recognizing these facts, again, requires judgment, judgment that Randy Barnett evidently lacks.
Perhaps, Randy is just stupid (although he clearly has a high IQ, high IQ people can indeed sometimes be remarkably stupid). I am inclined to suspect that he has “sold out” for self-interested reasons.
But whatever the explanation, again, Randy’s failure to grasp the pivotal point of the centrality of war and militarism means that he is not an asset in the struggle for liberty.
I realize that I have not proven this apodictically from first principles. I also did not prove from first principles that my wife was the right person for me to marry or that California was the right place for me to live.
It can’t be done. All such decisions, like the decision of whom to ally with politically, must be the result of fallible human judgment.
We may be able to improve our judgment through checking our factual information, seeking out new factual information, etc. E.g., I am skeptical of your claims about Hoppe: if by “semi-public bigotry against gays” you mean the big brouhaha about gays in his class at UNLV, Hoppe’s point was exactly the sort of point Posner, Becker et al. constantly make – it is simply standard economic analysis (it might turn out to be wrong, but that does not make it bigotry).
Similarly, I think you are factually mistaken in referring to Kinsella as an “anti-immigration libertarian.” What I have read of Stephan’s work on immigration indicates that he refuses to be either pro-immigration or anti-immigration: as an anarcho-capitalist, he rejects the idea of “immigration” as an anti-concept. The private property owner should have the right to declare that immigration is totally prohibited, completely open, or anything in between onto his own property. In a free country, it is a non-issue. And, I recall Stephan arguing, in the existing semi-socialist system under which we live, there is no right approach to “immigration”: any governmental solution will necessarily violate someone’s rights.
Perhaps, I am factually mistaken and Stephan deeply hates all immigrants and wants them all shot. Show me I’m wrong and I’ll change my opinion about him. But, facts matter. Whether or not I should associate with Stephan depends on which of these two alternatives accurately describes his views.
I hope this make a little bit clearer my central points: in the real world politics rests on judgments, and in the real political world, real empirical facts matter.
And that is why I do not think you and I belong in the same political movement. Your judgment, to which you are certainly entitled, seems to be that Randy Barnett is just as valuable an ally in rolling back the state as Stephan Kinsella.
In my judgment, you are mistaken. But all we can do is make the best judgment we can and then move forward with the allies that we have chosen.
I do not wish to be allied with Randy Barnett, based on my judgment of him as a person and of his evident lack of contact with empirical reality. If you do wish to be in the same political movement as Randy, I fear you and I will simply not be in the same political movement.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
anon said,
March 22, 2008 at 5:47 pm
what evidence do you have that Barnett has a high IQ? I’ve never felt that reading his work.
Micha Ghertner said,
March 22, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Dave,
Regarding Hoppe’s bigotry against gays, no, it is not only the incident at UNLV that indicates his moral failing, but yet one more among many pieces of evidence. Take this statement from one of Hoppe’s books:
They — the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism — will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.
Does that statement effect your own moral judgments of Hoppe as human beings?
What I have read of Stephan’s work on immigration indicates that he refuses to be either pro-immigration or anti-immigration: as an anarcho-capitalist, he rejects the idea of “immigration” as an anti-concept.
You are sadly mistaken. Kinsella is an anti-immigration statist. Taken directly from the LRC blog:
How about this compromise: we remove all barriers to immigration except one: we charge a fee. I propose we charge somewhere between $1 million and $10 million per family. That way you guarantee you get fairly decent (non-criminal, educated, successful, civil, etc.) quality immigrants.
If, say, 100,000 families (about 400,000 people, say) immigrate per year and pay $1 million each, that’s $100 billion per year.
This is horrible on three levels; besides being anti-immigrant, it is also anti-poor and pro-state-revenue generation. A fine anarchist indeed, that Kinsella.
You also mentioned in this thread, and elsewhere, that you are a supporter of Ron Paul and consider him a fellow traveler in your movement, despite his explicit endorsement of immigration restrictions (and anti-abortion restrictions).
Yet you have failed to answer the question I asked you in my previous post. Allow me to repeat myself:
Both policies - war in Iraq and immigration restrictions are horrific, leading to the death, suffering and poverty of countless people. I have no idea why you think the human costs of war in Iraq are so significantly more than the human costs of immigration restrictions (or the death of human fetuses, if you happen to be anti-abortion) that it should be considered as a separate category. If we are taking the interests of non-U.S. citizen’s lives into account, and treating them as equal in value to U.S. lives, a strong case could be made that immigration restrictions impose a much higher human toll than all of the suffering resulting from the war in Iraq.
So on what basis do you excommunicate Barnett as a fellow traveler but embrace Ron Paul, Hoppe, and Kinsella? On what basis are restrictions on immigration okay while war in Iraq is not?
PhysicistDave said,
March 23, 2008 at 1:39 am
anon,
Since I disagree strongly with Prof. Barnett, it is tempting to take you up on this.
But, look. Although I am not an expert on his work, I have read some of it. Randy can put words together according to grammatical rules to form sentences and paragraphs that, generally, are understandable to other people and that convey in an organized fashion fairly complex ideas. Those ideas may be right or wrong, but you can usually understand what he is saying.
I have a friend with an IQ of 70: she can’t do this. I’ve known lots of people with IQs around 100: they can’t do it either when dealing with highly abstract ideas.
I have no idea whether Randy Barnett’s IQ is 120 or 180. But it is above average. Whatever his problems may be, they really are not due to low IQ.
Incidentally, I’ve only alluded to his “problems” to point out that even if one gives some sort of psycho-babble “excuse” for his mistaken views, from a practical political viewpoint that does not matter. Whatever the reason for his views, they diverge sufficiently from mine that I do not view him as a political ally.
In fact, there is no need to figure out why he holds views that are wrong. We’re not God, judging Randy Barnett. All that’s needed is to understand that his views are wrong on a matter of critical importance so that he is not a useful ally in the struggle for liberty.
Dave
Administrator said,
March 23, 2008 at 2:22 am
Just got back in town. More replies later.
Michael Palmer asks:
what has happened to all-left.net? It’s been replaced by stock spam. Could someone do something about that?
I have no idea what’s gone wrong, but I’ll look into it. Thanks for telling me! In the meantime, the page is still accessible at its “real” address: praxeology.net/all-left.htm.
PhysicistDave said,
March 23, 2008 at 2:40 am
Micha,
You haven’t given the references for your two quotes so that we can check the sources for context. However, I have read enough of both Hoppe’s and Kinsella’s writings, and I think you have too, that I am pretty sure that these are taken out of context.
For example, I believe that the quote from Hoppe relates to his belief that proprietary communities commonly will (and in his judgment should) exclude the sort of people you listed. If you will provide us with the full cite, I think it will show that by “society” he means something like “all right-thinking people of the sort who live in the proprietary communities of the sort that Hoppe would like to live in.” “Society” is a slippery term: it does help to know how an author is using it.
If I’m correct, and I’ve seen a lot of stuff by Hoppe that confirms what I just said, then any libertarian would have to agree with Hoppe that proprietary communities would indeed be entitle to exclude the sort of people he wishes them to exclude. This really should not even be controversial among libertarians – it is the same right of a nudist colony to exclude the clothed or a restaurant to post “No shirt, no shoes, no service.”
Is Hoppe correct that most proprietary communities would follow his advice? I sincerely doubt it. At least, I’m not interested in living in such a proprietary community myself. But that is just a matter of my differing with him on the economics of proprietary communities and as to which community we would ourselves like to live in. It is not an issue of libertarian principle.
Of course, if I am wrong and Hoppe really wishes to coercively prevent any of us from interacting with gays, then he is indeed no libertarian, by my standards (or, I think, Prof. Block’s). But I’ve read enough of Hoppe’s stuff to be almost certain that this is not the case.
As to Stephan, he clearly labeled the proposal a “compromise.” In some ways, it would indeed actually be better than the present system – some people could get in who cannot get in now, and there are some respects in which it would clearly benefit current residents of this country. In some ways, his “compromise” would clearly be worse than the current system. But clearly it is not his ideal view, or he would not have called it a “compromise.”
I think my description of Stephan’s full position in my earlier post was accurate. But if you really care about this, rather than just trying to score points against Stephan, why not just cut-and-paste my description of his position from my earlier post and ask him via e-mail if I characterized his views correctly or not?
At any rate, let us suppose, contrary to fact, that Stephan really is a hard-core immigration restrictionist. I would still view him as an ally in a way I would not view Barnett as an ally and for some very simple reasons.
First, hard-core immigration restrictionism, while not a good thing, simply does not have the dramatic ramifications for the future of liberty in the US and the world that US imperialism and militarism do. If the US continues on the current imperialist path, we will eventually create a grand coalition against us, and we will precipitate a world war that will devastate America – American cities may be nuked, etc. History is rather clear on this: the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, the Thirty Years War, WW I and II, etc. Powers that are determined to create and maintain global hegemony eventually face very bad consequences.
Aside from such ultimate catastrophes, we all know how militarism and imperialism are incredibly destructive economically, in terms of civil liberties, etc.
On the other hand, there have been numerous countries that have very restrictive immigration policies and have not faced devastating results as a consequence in terms of their economies, their civil liberties, etc. (although I do agree that such policies are not optimal). Hard-core immigration restrictionism is not a good thing, but it simply does not have the level of “systemic” consequences that militarism and imperialism do.
I know that my last statement cannot be proved deductively from apodictically true premises. That has been my central point all along: empirical judgment based on an empirical knowledge of human history and human society is crucial here. And, I think that anyone with reasonable judgment, at least anyone with whom I am willing to be allied politically, will agree with the points I have just made about imperialism/war/militarism vs. immigration restrictions.
Secondly, as a factual, empirical matter, it is just silly to say that immigration restrictions directly destroy human lives and liberty in the way that war does. War kills people, often in astonishingly huge numbers – killing someone pretty much takes away *all* of his rights.
On the other hand, the USA contains 7-8 percent of the earth’s land area and less than 5 percent of its population. So, telling someone that he may under no conditions move from Mexico (or Costa Rica or whatever) to the USA is fencing him off from living in 7-8 percent of the earth’s land and from direct personal contact with less than 5 percent of the earth’s people.
It’s hard to see that as a life-destroying restriction. It is nothing like the complete destruction of someone’s rights that comes when you drop a bomb on him and kill him.
Now, I do understand that logically someone could say “No, not for me – I’d rather die than be prohibited from immigrating to the United States!” And it is a matter of judgment for me to reply that I am sure that very, very few human beings honestly feel that way.
Which is, again, my central point: you have to use judgment here.
(I may partially disagree with Prof. Block here. While he is correct that immigration is a more convoluted issue than war – there are issues of “welfare rights,” anti-discrimination laws, etc. – still, I would consider that of little consequence if immigration restrictionism really were enormously more destructive of human lives and liberty than war and militarism. But, in my judgment, that is empirically simply not the case, and this fact should be obvious to anyone who honestly thinks about the matter.)
If you honestly believe that restrictions on immigration to the USA are more destructive of human liberty and impose more suffering on human beings than war, imperialism, and militarism do, then you really should eschew political alliances with Ron Paul (and with me) and should seek to ally yourself with Randy Barnett.
I’ve already suggested that you do just that.
However, if that truly is your considered judgment, then I find your judgment ill-considered and eccentric.
But you know what? I can’t make your judgments. You have to decide for yourself who your political allies are, based on your own considered judgment. And that’s the point I’ve been hammering on all along.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
Micha Ghertner said,
March 23, 2008 at 11:33 am
Dave,
I provided a direct link to the Kinsella quote; it is a blog post quoted in full. I’m not sure what more “context” you are looking for.
The Hoppe quote, I believe, is from his book Democracy: The God That Failed. I don’t have a page cite handy and I don’t really feel like looking it up. It is the most notorious quote from the book.
Nor do I need to. Your interpretation of Hoppe’s quote is the same as mine. I am not disputing the libertarian principle that “proprietary communities would indeed be entitle[d] to exclude the sort of people [Hoppe] wishes them to exclude.” A proprietarian neo-Nazi community would be entitled, according to libertarian principle, to exclude Jews, gypsies, gays and blacks, if it so desired. That would still be a bigoted thing to do. The point of the quote is not to challenge Hoppe’s libertarian bonofides, but to give evidence of his bigotry. As you yourself acknowledge, “all right-thinking people of the sort who live in the proprietary communities of the sort that Hoppe would like to live in” would exclude gay people. In other words, Hoppe is an anti-gay bigot. Q.E.D.
As to Stephan, he clearly labeled the proposal a “compromise.”
Right. Which has been my point about Barnett all along. The war in Iraq is not Barnett’s ideal solution; it is the least bad alternative “compromise” given the unfree world we live in. Yet your allow Kinsella to make these sorts of “compromises” with statism, while still considering him part of your movement, but you don’t extend the same courtesy to Barnett. My question is why.
First, hard-core immigration restrictionism, while not a good thing, simply does not have the dramatic ramifications for the future of liberty in the US and the world that US imperialism and militarism do. If the US continues on the current imperialist path, we will eventually create a grand coalition against us, and we will precipitate a world war that will devastate America – American cities may be nuked, etc.
But Randy Barnett is not advocating (to my knowledge) that the “US continues on the current imperialist path.” Rather, he is merely advocating the present action. You cannot fault him for what you think other war supporters might one day in the future advocate; you can only fault him for what he himself advocates. Otherwise, using your same logic, I could say of anti-immigration libertarians like Hoppe, Paul and Kinsella that they not only wish to maintain the status quo, and perhaps even increase border controls, and perhaps even forcibly expel any undocumented immigrants currently in the country, but I could also fault them for the more extreme positions taken by other anti-immigration proponents, and other possible (nay, likely) consequences if their views were implemented: a system of national ID cards, destruction of personal privacy, government tracking of all US resident’s movements, a reduction in current levels of legal immigration, increased racism towards poor brown people, and, as mentioned earlier in this thread, if Hoppe’s argument is taken to its logical conclusion, a government mandated license to breed.
Now tell me again, with a straight face, that these policies do not have equal or greater dramatic ramifications for the future of liberty in the US and the world as the war in Iraq.
On the other hand, there have been numerous countries that have very restrictive immigration policies and have not faced devastating results as a consequence in terms of their economies, their civil liberties, etc.
And as many Iraq war supporters have argued, there have been numerous historical cases of foreign intervention similar to the war in Iraq that have not resulted in devastating consequences in terms of economics or civil liberties - they usually point to the Marshall Plan as what they consider the closest Iraq reconstruction analogy. Again, this is not my view, but this minimization for the Iraq war seems on par with your minimization for restrictive immigration policies.
Secondly, as a factual, empirical matter, it is just silly to say that immigration restrictions directly destroy human lives and liberty in the way that war does. War kills people, often in astonishingly huge numbers – killing someone pretty much takes away *all* of his rights.
Denying someone the freedom to trade their labor - their livelihood - often results in their death; killing someone pretty much takes away *all* of his rights. Not to mention the many that die trying to get into the U.S., deaths made all the more likely by border controls. Shall we attempt to compare the number of people who have died as a result of U.S. immigration restrictions since they have been enforced (which goes back many, many decades - are you familiar with the SS St. Louis incident?). Let us count all of the people that have died over the years due to U.S. immigration restrictions - from poverty that would have been alleviated had potential immigrants been free to trade their labor, to those who died as a result of their voyage here - a trip made significantly more dangerous as a result of immigration restrictions, to political refugees like the Jews on the SS St. Louis who were sent back to die at Hitler’s hands by anti-immigration libertarian’s favorite president, FDR.
Does anyone seriously doubt that this number is orders of magnitude greater than the number who have died (and will die) as a result of Iraq? Seriously?
On the other hand, the USA contains 7-8 percent of the earth’s land area and less than 5 percent of its population. So, telling someone that he may under no conditions move from Mexico (or Costa Rica or whatever) to the USA is fencing him off from living in 7-8 percent of the earth’s land and from direct personal contact with less than 5 percent of the earth’s people.
I can’t believe a so-called libertarian is making this sort of argument. It sounds just like the sort of arguments made by statist environmentalists and redistributionists who say things like, “The US contains just 5% of the world’s population but uses 40% of its energy reserves,” or, “The US contains just 5% of the world’s population but controls 40% of its wealth.”
Why should it matter, on libertarian grounds, how big or how small US territory, population, wealth, or energy consumption is relative to the rest of the world? If every human has a right to trade and travel freely (while respecting private property, of course), regardless of arbitrary and unjust political boundaries created by governments, then it completely irrelevent if there are lots of other land masses and people out there, and it is completely irrelevent if other countries besides the US also restrict immigration. Neither of these facts justifies US aggression towards immigrants, nor do these facts let the US off the hook in taking blame for immigrant’s misfortune. Suppose I see an infant drowning in a lake, but refuse to save it, on the grounds that there are lots of other people who also see the infant drowning but, like me, refuse to save it. Is that a valid excuse? Suppose I steal a piece of fruit from a fruit vendor - just one piece - but so do 50 other people. Together, all 50 of us small-time thieves have deprived this fruit vendor of her entire inventory, and, as a result, the fruit vendor is unable to provide for her family. Am I in the clear on the grounds that one piece of fruit really wouldn’t have made much of a difference?
It’s hard to see that as a life-destroying restriction.
Look harder.
Micha Ghertner said,
March 23, 2008 at 11:38 am
Oops. Sorry about the italics.
Micha Ghertner said,
March 23, 2008 at 11:39 am
Let’s try closing the italics one more time.
Better?
Otto Kerner said,
March 23, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The thing that is complicated about immigration from a libertarian perspective is that unrestricted immigration would be extremely harmful to the people living in developed countries. To make matter worse, it is also a serious public relations problem, since it would go against all the accepted standards of behaviour in the civilised world. And yet, libertarian theory inexorably demands unrestricted immigration. Personally, I feel comfortable saying that my position on this paricular issue is simply not the libertarian one; but, clearly, a lot of libertarian writers and philosophers would not be comfortable with that, so the situation is complex for them as they try to reconcile the apparently harmful consequences of their philosophical position.
Otto Kerner said,
March 23, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Hey! Can the administrator delete my last post? Sorry, wrong blog!
Administrator said,
March 23, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Micha — italics fixed.
Otto — post deleted.
Everybody else — obviously the post by Otto that you see just above his deletion request is not the one I deleted.
Administrator said,
March 23, 2008 at 11:09 pm
I’ve now replied to Walter here.
Administrator said,
March 24, 2008 at 11:48 am
Several comments above take the form, “If X advocates aggression, then X is not a libertarian,” or “If X can’t tell the difference between aggression and defense, then X is not a libertarian.” I agree with Walter in rejecting that position.
The problem with that position, as I see it, is that it would make every dispute about the application of libertarian rights theory into an excommunicating matter. For all such disputes are precisely about whether a given act of force is aggressive or defensive – and so in any such disagreement, one of the two sides is (unwittingly) advocating aggression.
I could take the stand that anyone who applies libertarian rights theory wrongly (which in practice would have to mean: anyone who applies it in a way I disagree with), and so licenses aggression in some instance(s), is ipso facto not a libertarian. But that would mean that I would have to think there is only one libertarian on earth – namely me – since I doubt there’s anyone who agrees with me on every possible minutia of rights theory. (In the immortal words of David Friedman: “There may be two libertarians somewhere who agree with each other about everything, but I am not one of them.”) And being the only libertarian on earth would be kind of lonely.
Hence not just any deviation can count as excluding the deviator from the ranks of libertarianism. So long as the deviator adheres to the non-aggression principle for the most part, and offers some halfway-plausible, not-blindingly-stupid libertarian argument for his or her deviations, I’m willing to grant them the status of libertarians (albeit inconsistent libertarians) – on the basis of a paradigm-case argument if nothing else. (Otherwise I’d have to favour booting Walter Block and Robert Nozick from the camp of libertarians, since they advocate what I take to be a pretty serious deviation, namely the enforceability of voluntary-slavery contracts.)
Now some of the commenters above seem to take Barnett’s defense of the war and/or (usually or, but sometimes and) Hoppe’s defense of immigration restrictions as so obviously, hopelessly confused as not even to meet the “halfway-plausible, not-blindingly-stupid” test. But I disagree. I’ll play devil’s advocate for either of those positions if someone wants me to.
PhysicistDave said,
March 24, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Micha,
Well, I think we may actually be clarifying some points. On one point I should have mentioned before, you earlier wrote:
> So on what basis do you excommunicate Barnett as a fellow traveler but embrace Ron Paul, Hoppe, and Kinsella?
I hope this was simply a rhetorical flourish (we’re all entitled to an occasional rhetorical flourish!) and that you know that I have neither the power nor the desire to “excommunicate” Randy for or from anything – except from the list of people that, in my own best judgment, are useful allies in the struggle to advance liberty.
I am not inclined to the Randian/Peikoffian habit of announcing my ex cathedra judgments as to what other people must do or think on pain of being banned from my august presence. For one thing, no one actually cares about being banned from my august presence. For another, that sort of behavior is stupid.
If you or Rod or Rad Geek or even Walter Block himself chooses to talk with, or be friendly with, Randy Barnett, that is not really any of my d*!@ business, now is it? In fact, should the opportunity present itself, I might choose to talk with Randy. If Randy is a pedophile or convicted murderer (I assume he is not!), I would indeed eschew association of any sort with him, or with anyone who tries to induce me to associate with him, for obvious reasons of personal and familial safety. But, otherwise, I am not advocating “excommunicating” Randy or anyone else.
However, if you or Rod or Rad Geek were to extol Randy as a very model of a modern libertarian thinker, I will speak out against that, not to “excommunicate” Randy but to oppose ideas and policies, that happen to be espoused by Randy and that I think are profoundly inimical to the cause of liberty and to oppose Randy’s attempts to advance those policies. Not excommunication, but simply speaking out for what I think is right.
I hope that clarifies any confusion that might have evoked your “excommunicate” remark.
Apparently, we now agree on the Hoppe quote that it does not show that he is anti-libertarian. It does seem to show that he holds some social views you and I do not hold.
Sometime in the last few months, I had an exchange on the Web with Rad Geek about his views on what might be called “industrial democracy.” He likes it; I don’t. It seemed to me that he was advocating that industrial democracy be coercively imposed: i.e., that workers and managers should not be free to enter contracts that involved hierarchical managerial arrangements.
So, I asked him. He replied, courteously and without rancor, and made clear that I had misunderstood him. So, his views on this are not anti-libertarian.
They still differ from mine: I don’t want to work for a firm that practices “industrial democracy.” (I do agree with Rad Geek that current managerial practice is often authoritarian in petty and silly respects. Indeed, my dad, who spent most of his adult life in management, agrees with that point. As “Fordist” managerial approaches have come to make less sense for reasons of technology, etc., some managers have become increasingly obsessed with maintaining silly distinctions of status. Stupid.)
But, even though my social views differ from Rad Geek’s, you know what? I like the guy. I’m not willing to reject a guy as a political ally or even a friend simply because he holds different social views from me.
Is Hoppe’s “bigotry,” as you say, towards gays any different than my friendly disagreement with Rad Geek?
The world is full of people who are “bigoted” against other people. All traditionally orthodox Christians think that I deserve to go to Hell since I am an atheist. I know a lot of atheists, and even liberal Christians, who are bigoted against evangelical Christians. My Irish grandmother was bigoted against non-Irish; my Baptist grandmother was bigoted against Catholics. My German great-grandmother… well, you get the idea.
If you honestly wish to refuse to associate with anyone at all who is bigoted, by all means do so.
But your circle of acquaintances is likely to become rather small!
I have several gays among close relatives and in-laws. If Hoppe is rigidly determined not to associate with anyone who dares to countenance gays, then he will refuse to associate with me. What I have heard of the man suggests that this is not the case. In that case, I am willing to write off Hoppe’s anti-gay views as just one more example of the phenomenon of the “bigotry” that so pervades the human race.
His view on this is not my view. But then I have yet to find another human being who shares all of my views. Since Hoppe’s views on gays, as you and I now seem to agree, do not involve killing gays or depriving gays of their rights, I’m willing to shrug it off, as I shrug off so much bigotry that makes no sense to me.
You won’t shrug it off? Then don’t. Don’t associate with Hoppe. I don’t think anyone will mind.
Again, the point here is *judgment*. It is my judgment that advocating the bombing of innocent human beings, whatever the supposed rhetorical excuses, as Randy does, is a far more horrible thing than being bigoted against gays.
You disagree with my judgment? Then by all means be part of a political movement that includes Randy Barnett and excludes Hoppe.
You quoted my earlier observation that:
>>On the other hand, the USA contains 7-8 percent of the earth’s land area and less than 5 percent of its population. So, telling someone that he may under no conditions move from Mexico (or Costa Rica or whatever) to the USA is fencing him off from living in 7-8 percent of the earth’s land and from direct personal contact with less than 5 percent of the earth’s people.
and you added:
>I can’t believe a so-called libertarian is making this sort of argument.
Really? Why?
The paragraph you quoted from me is not even an argument – it’s just a recital of certain well-known facts about geography.
I do think those facts are relevant to judging how severe an invasion of rights it is to deny someone entry to the US.
You know, we have to make such judgments all the time. Suppose you had a hundred bucks that you could donate either to a campaign to abolish OSHA or to oppose the War on Drugs. I’ve talked to business managers who have had to deal with OSHA. Occasionally, OSHA inspectors make helpful suggestions; often they make stupid demands or enforce mindless regulations. From the businessmen I have talked with, OSHA is annoying, officious, inefficient, and imposes a significant, though not huge, cost on businesses and consumers. The War on Drugs, on the other hand, puts innocent people in jail, sometimes for the rest of their lives, and has even resulted in the “mistaken” killing of people who had nothing to do with drugs at all.
It would seem obvious that those facts have some relevance in deciding how much effort to devote to fighting OSHA vs. to opposing the War on Drugs.
Similarly, the fact that, for most human beings, being killed by a bomb is a much greater deprivation of liberty than being denied the right to settle in the US is relevant to figuring out how seriously one should oppose US militarism/imperialism vs. immigration restrictionism.
You really can’t imagine any libertarian thinking in this way? I can’t imagine any human being who does not think in this way!
Again, I know I have not proven all this by deductive logic from first principles. That again is my central point – political action, indeed all action, requires making probable, fallible judgments based on experience and empirical evidence.
I think the judgments I have given are rather obvious, straightforward conclusions. But I realize that not everyone will share my judgments: for example, I find bigotry against atheists at least as offensive as bigotry against gays – the historical record of burning non-believers at the stake (and the fact that I am an atheist myself) makes such a view seem sensible to me. Not everyone will agree.
So, if you do not agree with my judgments, by all means do not be part of the same political movement as me.
Dave
P.S. I think we may have fairly fully explored each others’ perspectives on this and may be at the point of agreeing to disagree – as I hope I’ve made clear, I’m not trying to get you to take my view, and I do not think you will. I think we belong in different political movements. It also looks as if the discussion is moving to Rod’s newer post. But if you have further serious questions about my views, I will try to respond here. I think I at least understand my own position better after our exchanges!
Bob Kaercher said,
March 24, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Oh, okay, I’ll take you up on your offer.
I’d love to see you play devil’s advocate for arresting people for the act of crossing the border and invading Iraq and killing 600,000 - 1,000,000 people.
Bob Kaercher said,
March 24, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Oh, okay, I’ll take you up on your offer.
I’d love to see you play devil’s advocate for arresting people for the act of crossing the US-Mexican border and invading Iraq and killing 600,000 - 1,000,000 people.
Administrator said,
March 24, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Okay, going into devil’s advocate mode:
A1. Those who enter the U.S. acquire the ability to make use of various public (i.e., tax-funded, i.e., stolen) resources — schools, welfare, etc.– and will certainly make use of some of them (e.g., roads), without the permission of the taxpayers.
A2. Use of stolen resources without the permission of the rightful owners is a violation of the owners’ rights.
A3. So long as public services are tax-funded, those who enter the U.S. are violating the owners’ rights. (from A1 & A2)
A4. If X steals from Y, and Y cannot succeed in getting X to return Y’s property, Y is justified in at least getting X to use the property in Y’s interest rather than transferring it to a third party.
A5. If abolishing tax-funded public services cannot presently be achieved, taxpayers are justified in at least getting the government to control access to those services, reserving them to those who funded them rather than allowing newcomers to draw upon them. (from A3 & A4)
A6. Abolishing tax-funded public services is not currently politically feasible, while increased restriction on immigration is.
A7. Therefore, taxpayers are justified in supporting tighter immigration controls. (from A5 & A6)
B1. If a cost is imposed on X as a result of government aggression, and would not have occurred in the absence of such aggression, then this cost counts as a violation of X’s rights.
B2. If X does not wish to associate with Y, and X is nevertheless brought into association with Y, such association is a cost borne by X.
B3. If X does not wish to associate with Y, and X is nevertheless brought into association with Y as a result of government aggression and would not otherwise have been so, such association counts as a violation of X’s rights. (from B1 & B2)
B4. In the context of such examples of government aggression as public roads, anti-discrimination laws, etc., loose immigration laws bring immigrants into association with people who do not wish to associate with immigrants (call such people ‘spigots’ for short), in ways that would not have occurred without the aggression.
B5. Immigrant/spigot contact resulting from loose immigration laws in the context of such examples of government aggression as public roads, anti-discrimination laws, etc., counts as a violation of spigots’s rights. (from B3 & B4)
B6. If a rights violation results from a combination of two factors, one of which cannot effectively be addressed, the victim of the rights violation is entitled in self-defense to take action against the other factor.
B7. If restricting immigration is politically feasible while abolishing public roads, anti-discrimination laws, etc., is not, then spigots are justified in supporting tighter immigration controls. (from B5 & B6)
B8. Restricting immigration is politically feasible while abolishing public roads, anti-discrimination laws, etc., is not.
B9. Spigots are justified in supporting tighter immigration controls. (from B7 & B8)
C1. If X is aggressing and/or threatening to aggress against Y, intervening against X counts as a defensive use of force.
C2. Saddam Hussein was an aggressor and/or a threatener of aggression against his own citizens, against neighbouring countries, and against westerners interested in economic exchanges with which Hussein was wont to interfere.
C3. Intervening to depose Saddam Hussein counts as a defensive use of force. (from C1 & C2)
C4. If one can exercise a defensive of force without becoming responsible for deaths or endangerment caused therein, one is justified in doing so.
C5. Intervening to depose Saddam Hussein was justifiable so long as responsibility for deaths or endangerment caused therein could be avoided. (from C3 & C4)
C6. If X’s aggression creates a situation such that one cannot effectively defend the majority of X’s victims without endangering or killing a minority of X’s victims, responsibility for such endangerment or death lies with X and not with the defender.
C7. Saddam Hussein’s aggression created a situation such that one could not effectively defend the majority of his victims without endangering or killing a minority of his victims.
C8. Responsibility for any endangerment or death in the course of deposing Saddam Hussein lies with Saddam Hussein. (from C6 & C7)
C9. Intervention to depose Saddam Hussein was justified. (C5 & C8)
Do I agree with those arguments? Absolutely not. But are these arguments so clearly insane or so blatantly unlibertarian that no sane libertarian could endorse them? That doesn’t seem obvious to me. If you think otherwise, which steps are the clearly insane or blatantly unlibertarian steps?
Bob Kaercher said,
March 25, 2008 at 9:35 am
I’ll get back to you later on this. This may take a while. (LOL!)
Bob Kaercher said,
March 25, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Professor: For the purposes of the discussion, I’ve decided to call your hypothetical “devil’s advocate” ELT, for “Eminent Libertarian Theorist.”
Argument A: ELT is advocating for “illegals” to be locked up and treated as criminals without any proof of actual rights violations—assumption of guilt without proof of an actual violation of anyone’s rights or justly held property hardly seems “libertarian.” Many illegal immigrants actually do pay taxes, such as state and local sales taxes and property taxes, and even payroll taxes, so based on ELT’s own argument he should have no problem with “illegals” consuming “public resources” since they actually are helping to subsidize them, so therefore they should be allowed to grant themselves “permission” to use said public resources. Further, ELT’s implication that “uses” of state socialism can be legitimized by the taxpayer’s “permission” hardly seems “libertarian,” even if it did have any actual referent in reality.
ELT also assumes that government, a coercive monopoly, can act rationally on behalf of the interests of the very people it coerces and robs with the property it has stolen from them. He overlooks the massive costs associated with expanding government bureaucracy for “tighter immigration controls,” not to mention the costs forced upon employers of labor and consumers (in the form of higher labor costs and higher prices), who would perhaps choose a different policy for themselves if allowed the opportunity that ELT would like to deny them.
This country has had government-regulated immigration for some time. If ELT is unhappy with the results of his favored government program—if actual real world experience deviates from his theory—he has plenty of scholarly research under his belt to understand why.
But the most important point is that ELT has charged “illegals” as being guilty until proven innocent, to be locked up and treated inhumanely until being deported against their will, thus never given the opportunity to prove that they’re innocent, that is, net producers rather than net tax consumers. Hardly “libertarian.”
BTW, ELT: I thought libertarians are supposed to argue for the principles of individual rights and property, not for what’s “politically feasible” (whatever that may mean).
Argument B: I’m forced by government to associate with all kinds of people I may not otherwise choose to. I could be working to fund Social Security payments to the Grand Dragon of the KKK, which I would ordinarily choose not to do, while I may very well like associating with immigrants, be they “legal” or “illegal.” Why should ELT be able to get others to bear the costs of HIS chosen dissociations, and deprive me of my valued associations, while forcing me to bear the additional costs of enforcing my deprivation?
Argument C: Again, I would like to invite ELT to descend from atop Theory Mountain and come down to the real world of actually living, breathing, acting human beings: Attacking Saddam could only be considered “defensive” if he presented a clear and imminent threat to the US, and all evidence indicates that he did not. And even if he did, the US would be obligated to attack ONLY Saddam and his fellow aggressors, and only in a manner proportionate to each one’s crimes, and such has not turned out to be the case, which shouldn’t have surprised ELT any.
ELT should ask himself: Has the US gov’t—or ANY gov’t ANYWHERE ON EARTH—EVER exercised force without causing death to many innocents and endangering others? It may have been relatively more possible to avoid the deaths of innocents in the 19th century, but it’s absurd to insist that it’s remotely possible in the 21st. It is simply not possible for any government to wage war without causing deaths to many innocents, as experience has taught over and over, and on these grounds alone ELT should oppose government wars—all of them. Anyone who ever thought invading Iraq was possible without killing innocents is simply not attuned to reality. The technological advancement of taxpayer-subsidized weapons of war has only increased the likelihood of many more innocents being killed.
Further, the Iraqis themselves were never given a choice. Sure, it could be argued that some in Iraq were willing to the bear the risks and costs of the US deposing Saddam, but what about those who weren’t? Why should the wishes of the former be upheld, and not the latter? And what of the massive costs imposed on Americans who would have chosen to abstain from financing such a project? Should they continue to be forced to bear the costs of this war until they’re all broke and destitute, begging in the streets?
As to point C7: ELT would like to shift responsibility for the Iraq War from Uncle Sam—the clear and obvious invader in this case—to Saddam. However, Saddam’s prior aggressions do NOT provide justification for the US gov’t’s own aggression against many innocent Iraqis.
And “Saddam’s aggression made it impossible for the US gov’t’s aggression to avoid killing some of Saddam’s victims, whom the US was trying to defend from Saddam’s aggression”??? Quite frankly, this argument is so patently absurd on its face that ELT disappoints me on this one.
Now, are any of ELT’s arguments “clearly insane”? Well, I don’t know about that. (Though C7 above is an obvious front runner.) “Clearly” insane is frequently quite subjective. But are they “so blatantly unlibertarian that no sane libertarian could endorse them?” Maybe not to someone who just picked up their first libertarian literature the other day, but certainly one would expect an Eminent Libertarian Theorist to see the fallacies and the violations of individual rights in his arguments against free immigration and for war in Iraq, based on his many years of study, research and thought on the issues of liberty.
If ELT insists on supporting any gov’t policy that invades anyone’s rights—and all gov’t policies do to some extent or other—and even after those rights violations have been demonstrated time and time again, then it is not at all unreasonable for another libertarian to question the legitimacy of ELT’s claim to the label “libertarian.”
This whole discussion in the comments thread started when someone said Walter Block simply could not or should not question Randy Barnett’s being any kind of libertarian at all based simply on Barnett’s position on the Iraq War, though Block was doing so based on an objective principle that is the ethical foundation of libertarianism—that of non-aggression. Block therefore has very good reason to express doubt of Barnett. Perhaps Block is being inconsistent in regards to his evaluation of other libertarians, but nonetheless he has very valid grounds on which to doubt specifically Barnett’s libertarian bona fides. It is not a matter of someone claiming to “own” the libertarian label (as some commenters have stated), or claiming ability to “excommunicate” anyone from libertarianism (impossible to do regardless, even if anyone wanted to), it is a matter of measuring someone’s policy proposals against an objective standard of justice and speaking one’s mind accordingly.
I would agree with others commenting here that it is not productive to quibble about who may or may not properly be called a “libertarian,” EXCEPT insofar as such a discussion is derived from a search for a correct application of objective principle. IF such a discussion does involve flushing out objective principles and correct application thereof, then I really don’t see why anyone would get so upset if “X” questions the validity of “Y”’s claim to being a libertarian.
If I’m a communist, and I suddenly come up with a proposal for privately owned roads and highways one day, would not my fellow communists question the legitimacy of my claim to being a commie? Even if I pointed to all the great theoretical works I had written on worker-owned factories and collectivized farms, wouldn’t my fellow commies still question my commitment to communism nonetheless? And wouldn’t they have perfectly valid grounds?
Administrator said,
March 25, 2008 at 10:19 pm
In what follows, ELT’s arguments continue to represent a devil’s advocate position, not my actual position.
Argument A: ELT is advocating for “illegals” to be locked up and treated as criminals without any proof of actual rights violations — assumption of guilt without proof of an actual violation of anyone’s rights
ELT: Actually I didn’t advocate that. I said nothing about the details of enforcement. In fact it would be fine by me if all illegal immigrants received a trial before being deported.
However, suppose a policy of trying all illegal immigrants isn’t politically feasible — so that the taxpayers’ only choice is between no-trials deportations and open borders. In that case the taxpayers are still justified in pushing the government toward the no-trials policy. That doesn’t mean that the government is justified in using such a policy. But if an oppressor is going to impose one of two unjust policies, its potential victims have the right to try to influence that oppressor in the direction of the less unjust one.
Many illegal immigrants actually do pay taxes
ELT: True, they may start paying once they arrive; but U.S. natives have been paying in for decades, and so have a proportionally greater claim on the public resources.
Further, ELT’s implication that “uses” of state socialism can be legitimized by the taxpayer’s “permission” hardly seems “libertarian,”
ELT: Indeed it would, if I’d many such implication, but I didn’t. Trying to influence the oppressor toward the lesser of two evils doesn’t count as giving permission; and the legitimacy of taxpayers’ doing this does not make the oppressor’s own action legitimate.
ELT also assumes that government, a coercive monopoly, can act rationally on behalf of the interests of the very people it coerces and robs with the property it has stolen from them.
ELT: I can’t see how I’ve assumed that. All I’ve assumed is that government can do better and worse things with it (or, if you prefer, less bad vs. more bad things with it), and that it’s legitimate for taxpayers to try to shove the leviathan in the less bad directions.
He overlooks the massive costs associated with expanding government bureaucracy for “tighter immigration controls,” not to mention the costs forced upon employers of labor and consumers
ELT: I don’t deny that such costs exist. But they have to be balanced against the costs imposed on taxpayers by immigrants’ claims on resources.
This country has had government-regulated immigration for some time. If ELT is unhappy with the results of his favored government program — if actual real world experience deviates from his theory — he has plenty of scholarly research under his belt to understand why.
ELT: Sure, it’s no surprise that the government doesn’t manage my preferred policy very well. But under prevailing political conditions, the alternative to my preferred policy is also a government-managed policy — namely a redistribution of resources to immigrants. (Just as “deregulating” an industry counts as de facto intervention to the extent that the industry is the beneficiary of government privilege [e.g.the 1980s savings & loans debacle], so an open-borders policy counts as a form of government intervention when the immigrants are being offered access to stolen resources.) So your question can be directed as much to open-borders advocates as to me.
But the most important point is that ELT has charged “illegals” as being guilty until proven innocent, to be locked up and treated inhumanely until being deported against their will, thus never given the opportunity to prove that they’re innocent
ELT: I’ve already addressed this; see above.
BTW, ELT: I thought libertarians are supposed to argue for the principles of individual rights and property, not for what’s “politically feasible” (whatever that may mean).
ELT: Suppose I’m being attacked and I have a choice of two guns to defend myself — one loaded and one not. Perhaps the unloaded gun would for one reason or another be a better gun to use IF it were loaded; but it isn’t. Under those circumstances, when there’s no time to load it while being attacked, it surely makes sense to use the loaded one. In the same way, if taxpayers have a realistic chance of getting government to do X and no realistic chance of getting government to do Y, then it can be appropriate for them, as a legitimate choice in self-defense, to push government toward X even if Y would be a better thing for the government to do.
Argument B: I’m forced by government to associate with all kinds of people I may not otherwise choose to. I could be working to fund Social Security payments to the Grand Dragon of the KKK, which I would ordinarily choose not to do
ELT: Well, you have the right to defend yourself against that unwanted association too; I never said you shouldn’t.
while I may very well like associating with immigrants, be they “legal” or “illegal.” Why should ELT be able to get others to bear the costs of HIS chosen dissociations, and deprive me of my valued associations,
ELT: You have no right to defend the continued presence of your preferred associates if their continued presence constitutes a sustained rights-violation against others. By analogy: suppose while you’re on vacation some squatters move into your house, and your neighbours really like the squatters ….
while forcing me to bear the additional costs of enforcing my deprivation?
ELT: But I’m not forcing anybody to pay taxes (I assume those are the costs you mean) to enforce immigration laws. If you can find a way to avoid paying taxes, more power to you. The government is already unjustly collecting taxes; I’m just trying to get it to direct them in less rights-violating ways.
Attacking Saddam could only be considered “defensive” if he presented a clear and imminent threat to the US
ELT: You seem to be confusing defense with self-defense. If I see a mugger attacking somebody, I have a right to intervene; my use of force is defensive, although not self-defensive.
And even if he did, the US would be obligated to attack ONLY Saddam and his fellow aggressors
ELT: So you assert, but I’ve given an argument to the contrary.
It is simply not possible for any government to wage war without causing deaths to many innocents
ELT: Exactly — that’s precisely what justifies causing such deaths. If war could be waged without causing such deaths, it would be wrong to cause them.
Look, suppose I strap a baby to my chest and then start shooting at you. Do you have the right to shoot back, or not? I say that in such a case the danger to the baby is my responsibility, not yours, so you have the right to shoot back; my bad action shouldn’t deprive you of the right to exercise defensive force.
Sure, it could be argued that some in Iraq were willing to the bear the risks and costs of the US deposing Saddam, but what about those who weren’t? Why should the wishes of the former be upheld, and not the latter?
ELT: Suppose you see me attacking two people. One screams to you “help! help!” But as you start to wade in, the other one says, “no, don’t help us!” Why should the latter get to veto the former?
And what of the massive costs imposed on Americans who would have chosen to abstain from financing such a project?
ELT: Once again, I don’t advocate taxation. Anyone who can manage to get out of paying taxes in support of this war or any other government project has my blessing. But that’s different from the question of what we should push this already-tax-gobbling leviathan to do. By analogy, I’m against tax funding for the police, but I can’t see that that obligates me not to call 911 if I’m attacked or if I see someone else attacked.
And “Saddam’s aggression made it impossible for the US gov’t’s aggression to avoid killing some of Saddam’s victims, whom the US was trying to defend from Saddam’s aggression”??? Quite frankly, this argument is so patently absurd on its face that ELT disappoints me on this one.
ELT: Patently absurd? Really? Please explain, then, your alternative proposal for overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime without endangering any civilians.
If ELT insists on supporting any gov’t policy that invades anyone’s rights — and all gov’t policies do to some extent or other — and even after those rights violations have been demonstrated time and time again, then it is not at all unreasonable for another libertarian to question the legitimacy of ELT’s claim to the label “libertarian.” ELT: Well, what counts as “support”? Once again, suppose the government is set on doing either A or B, both of which violate rights, but A violates rights to a greater extent than B does. If you try to influence the government toward B, is that “supporting” B? Or analogously, suppose I tell you “I’m going to kill 100 people unless you tell me to kill just 50 people instead.” Are you R