Walter Block, Libertarian Extraordinaire

[AthenaAwakened]

I just listened to the Majority Report with Sam Seder episode from yesterday. Sam Seder debated Walter Block.

Walter Block is a hoot and a half.

Pray tell me, is he a libertarian? Are his theories representative of libertarian thought?

Click here to listen

http://majority.fm/2014/05/01/51-professor-walter-block-defends-libertarianism/

Professor Walter Block proposed that laissez faire free market exchanges are the best way to organize society, how Block thinks the United States limits freedom, debating the minimum wage, full time workers who live in poverty, debating minimum wages and job losses, what is the value of wages if they don’t provide a living? Professor Block explains his far, far, right views on slavery, Block’s stunning opposition to the Civil Rights movement, Block’s sort “amazing” point about bisexuality and the right to discriminate and debating car safety.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

He doesn't know how economics works.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

He doesn't know how economics works.

I think there are quite a few things that he doesn't know how they work.

Answering questions directly and succinctly being just the beginning.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

He doesn't know how economics works.

Redundant post. It was already stated that he's a libertarian.

 

[funinspace]

From what little I've read of him, yeah he's a libertarian. He isn't for the military-complex, and is for maximizing personal liberties including gay marriage, and probably thinks the war on drugs is really stupid. FWIW, not all libertarians worship the Austrian school of economic thought, but many certainly do...don't think its a pre-req either way.

 

[boneyard bill]

I haven't listened to the show. It's over an hour long. I might listen later.

Block is an anarcho-capitalist. It could be considered an extreme wing of the libertarian movement. They don't simply believe that government intervention in the economy is bad, they believe that all government is bad. They claim that government is a criminal enterprise, and that without it people would arrange their affairs just fine.

They are largely followers of Murray Rothbard. Rothbard was an economist of the Austrian school, but where Austrians like Von Mises and Hayek argued that Austrian economics was simply utilitarian and told you how to achieve economic ends but not what ends you ought to seek; Rothbard elevated the principle of non-intervention into a principle of social organization in which individual liberty was the ultimate, and only ethical goal.

Unfortunately, although Rothbard was a good economist, he was totally out of this depth when it came to philosophical issues like ethics or political theory.

 

[travc]

Block is an anarcho-capitalist. It could be considered an extreme wing of the libertarian movement. They don't simply believe that government intervention in the economy is bad, they believe that all government is bad.

Just how would a government which didn't 'intervene' in the economy do anything at all?
Sounds to me like your definition of anachro-capitalist is just a "government intervention in the economy is bad" libertarian who realizes that everything the government does interacts with the economy (aka distorts markets) in some way.

To my understanding of what "libertarian" means... Block is an ad absurdum extremist sort. Maybe "ideological libertarian" would be a good term. The ultimate concern seems to be personal freedom from collective interference/limitations.

In contrast, there is a whole spectrum of "practical libertarians" who think that decentralized systems (democracy and markets) are more-often-than-not the best approach to getting effective collective action... however, there are exceptions. Also, personal freedom from collective interference/limitations is still very desirable, but it is acceptable to limit some personal freedoms so that individuals gain a freedom from other entities doing bad stuff to them (I can't murder you, so you can't murder me sorts of trades).

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So, Block is taking libertarianism to its logical conclusions? If not, what is he getting wrong?

 

[boneyard bill]

Block is an anarcho-capitalist. It could be considered an extreme wing of the libertarian movement. They don't simply believe that government intervention in the economy is bad, they believe that all government is bad.

Just how would a government which didn't 'intervene' in the economy do anything at all?
Sounds to me like your definition of anachro-capitalist is just a "government intervention in the economy is bad" libertarian who realizes that everything the government does interacts with the economy (aka distorts markets) in some way.

To my understanding of what "libertarian" means... Block is an ad absurdum extremist sort. Maybe "ideological libertarian" would be a good term. The ultimate concern seems to be personal freedom from collective interference/limitations.

In contrast, there is a whole spectrum of "practical libertarians" who think that decentralized systems (democracy and markets) are more-often-than-not the best approach to getting effective collective action... however, there are exceptions. Also, personal freedom from collective interference/limitations is still very desirable, but it is acceptable to limit some personal freedoms so that individuals gain a freedom from other entities doing bad stuff to them (I can't murder you, so you can't murder me sorts of trades).

I would suggest that there is a whole spectrum of variants on libertarianism, and Block's views would be on the extreme end. But I also think there are people who fall short of Block's position who could reasonably be called "ideological" libertarians. Libertarianism is a political theory, not an economic one so I don't think that "practical libertarians" in the way that you have described them would necessarily be libertarian at all. After all, General Pinochet of Chile could probably fit your definition of a practical libertarian, but he was not at all libertarian. He just had a lot of free market economists advising him.

 

[boneyard bill]

So, Block is taking libertarianism to its logical conclusions? If not, what is he getting wrong?

There is a difference between saying, "Government's proper role is to do X and nothing more." and saying, "Government has no proper role at all and everything that it does is illegitimate."

I don't think the second statement is necessarily a logical extension of the first.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So, Block is taking libertarianism to its logical conclusions? If not, what is he getting wrong?

There is a difference between saying, "Government's proper role is to do X and nothing more." and saying, "Government has no proper role at all and everything that it does is illegitimate."

I don't think the second statement is necessarily a logical extension of the first.

I have always wanted to ask this

How much is enough?

How much privatization is enough?

When will govt be small enough to drown in a bath tub?

 

[travc]

So, Block is taking libertarianism to its logical conclusions? If not, what is he getting wrong?

There is a difference between saying, "Government's proper role is to do X and nothing more." and saying, "Government has no proper role at all and everything that it does is illegitimate."

I don't think the second statement is necessarily a logical extension of the first.

That is fair enough... Though it renders "libertarian" a pretty much meaningless term unless one also says what "X" is (at least a core set of things).

I think we're on the same page about Block though. He's a libertarian, but a cartoonishly extreme one.

 

[boneyard bill]

So, Block is taking libertarianism to its logical conclusions? If not, what is he getting wrong?

There is a difference between saying, "Government's proper role is to do X and nothing more." and saying, "Government has no proper role at all and everything that it does is illegitimate."

I don't think the second statement is necessarily a logical extension of the first.

I have always wanted to ask this

How much is enough?

How much privatization is enough?

When will govt be small enough to drown in a bath tub?

Why does government exist? There was a time when it was felt that a primary role of government was to protect the established religious institutions of the society. Do you think that is a proper role of government?

So if you accept that there are some things government shouldn't do, you are in favor of limited government. If not, you are a totalitarian.

Then there's a question of what the government is capable of doing. For example, should it outlaw drugs when, in fact, it cannot even keep them out of the prisons where it locks up the drug offenders?

So now you have two issues. What can the government legitimately do? and What is the government competent to do? And when you strip it down to these basics, you find out that government can't do very much whether you want it to or not.

Should the government guarantee a certain wage? It can't unless you want lots of unemployment. So now we'll pass a law guaranteeing employment? Good luck with that. The government would have to tax the people to death to pay for it all.

A society, including, but not limited to, an economy, cannot be run by decree.

We need government to protect us from foreign domination. We need government to protect us from neighbors who might be too aggressive, and we need government to resolve domestic disputes.

Do we need government for any other purposes? What kind of benefit is it for government to tell me that I have to purchase health care? How have I benefitted from the government telling me that I must pay into a retirement plan? I can do those things without government. So the only point of these programs is to protect me from myself.

What if I don't do them, and I die or end up as a homeless beggar? I become a victim of my own behavior. So would it be appropriate for the government to assume the role of a charitable organization and take care of me? Perhaps. But that is a far cry from cradle to grave welfare and, historically, was a role for state and local governments in America not for Uncle Sam.

Likewise, in a complex economy such as we have today, people can become victims of circumstance. Depressions, recessions, inflation, stagflation, etc. So what should be do about it? Aside from a few social programs that have historically been the responsibility of state and local governments, the government has proven time again that it is incompetent to run the economy. All of our interventions make matters worse.

So why does the federal government need to do anything beyond its original mandate? What is the advantage of the federal government getting involved in all kinds of problems that it is incompetent to handle? And why on earth do we think the federal government is competent to handle these problems and more in Afghanistan or Syria or Ukraine?

When you insist that the federal government is legitimately empowered and also competent to handle any and all problems of society, you are asking for totalitarian government. You are denying your own capacity for self-government and the capacity of any other human for self-government and therefore we all need to be governed by OTHER HUMANS who are also incapable of self-government but are somehow capable of governing us.

 

[boneyard bill]

So, Block is taking libertarianism to its logical conclusions? If not, what is he getting wrong?

There is a difference between saying, "Government's proper role is to do X and nothing more." and saying, "Government has no proper role at all and everything that it does is illegitimate."

I don't think the second statement is necessarily a logical extension of the first.

That is fair enough... Though it renders "libertarian" a pretty much meaningless term unless one also says what "X" is (at least a core set of things).

I think we're on the same page about Block though. He's a libertarian, but a cartoonishly extreme one.

At the risk of repeating points from my previous post, I think it is clear that you either favor limited government, or you are a totalitarian or an anarchist. So the question comes down to what can be regarded as legitimate government behavior. That's why I have insisted here that libertarianism is a political, not an economic, doctrine.

So if you favor limited government (what was once know as "liberalism"), the only question is just how much government should be limited and in what ways. And you have the problem of preventing government power from being co-opted by special interests which may then use them to promote their own agendas in national security (the military-industrial complex) and in domestic matters (regulatory capture and corporate welfare).

The old liberalism has re-surfaced as libertarianism and addresses primarily the first issue of government legitimacy. However, philosophical conservatism (as distinguished from modern political conservatism) addresses primarily the second problem of how government is to be restrained institutionally rather than just constitutionally. That is why libertarians and conservatives in this country sometimes speak the same language and are sometimes miles apart but still clearly distinguishable from progressivism which, if it recognizes any restraints on government at all, sees it only as a problem for the unimaginably distant future.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So, Block is taking libertarianism to its logical conclusions? If not, what is he getting wrong?

There is a difference between saying, "Government's proper role is to do X and nothing more." and saying, "Government has no proper role at all and everything that it does is illegitimate."

I don't think the second statement is necessarily a logical extension of the first.

I have always wanted to ask this

How much is enough?

How much privatization is enough?

When will govt be small enough to drown in a bath tub?

Why does government exist? There was a time when it was felt that a primary role of government was to protect the established religious institutions of the society. Do you think that is a proper role of government?

I'm not sure that was a primary role of government, although it was important during the reformation.

So if you accept that there are some things government shouldn't do, you are in favor of limited government. If not, you are a totalitarian.

False dichotomy.

Then there's a question of what the government is capable of doing. For example, should it outlaw drugs when, in fact, it cannot even keep them out of the prisons where it locks up the drug offenders?

Faulty argument.

So now you have two issues. What can the government legitimately do? and What is the government competent to do? And when you strip it down to these basics, you find out that government can't do very much whether you want it to or not.

I'm not sure where you got these to issues, because governments have done just about everything "legitimately" throughout the ages including burning witches and starting wars of conquest. Governments are competent to the point they have the resources, knowledge, and the will to carry out their programs. Drugs are often impossible to get into supermax prisons. Other more lax facilities could be drug free, but are the costs deemed worth it?

Should the government guarantee a certain wage? It can't unless you want lots of unemployment. So now we'll pass a law guaranteeing employment? Good luck with that. The government would have to tax the people to death to pay for it all.

A lot of shoulds here. And an erroneous conclusions abound!

A society, including, but not limited to, an economy, cannot be run by decree.

But how do you explain the societies that have been run by decree, and done so successfully? I'm not sure you are arguing from history.

We need government to protect us from foreign domination. We need government to protect us from neighbors who might be too aggressive, and we need government to resolve domestic disputes.

Do we need government for any other purposes? What kind of benefit is it for government to tell me that I have to purchase health care? How have I benefitted from the government telling me that I must pay into a retirement plan? I can do those things without government. So the only point of these programs is to protect me from myself.

More faulty conclusions and appeals to emotion. We could talk about the role of government in public health and ask if is it the role of government to quarantine individuals with fatal infections diseases?

What if I don't do them, and I die or end up as a homeless beggar? I become a victim of my own behavior. So would it be appropriate for the government to assume the role of a charitable organization and take care of me? Perhaps. But that is a far cry from cradle to grave welfare and, historically, was a role for state and local governments in America not for Uncle Sam.

Blaming the victim and using platitudes to do so is always popular.

Likewise, in a complex economy such as we have today, people can become victims of circumstance. Depressions, recessions, inflation, stagflation, etc. So what should be do about it? Aside from a few social programs that have historically been the responsibility of state and local governments, the government has proven time again that it is incompetent to run the economy. All of our interventions make matters worse.

Which is interesting as history continues to show us that this isn't the case and to believe so is probably to be either ignorant of history, or blinded by ideology.

So why does the federal government need to do anything beyond its original mandate? What is the advantage of the federal government getting involved in all kinds of problems that it is incompetent to handle? And why on earth do we think the federal government is competent to handle these problems and more in Afghanistan or Syria or Ukraine?

I suppose we could leave it up to the state governments to handle the situation in these places despite the historical lack of success of decentralized states to deal with powerful enemies across the globe not to mention the failure of the Articles of Confederation system in governing the United States.

When you insist that the federal government is legitimately empowered and also competent to handle any and all problems of society, you are asking for totalitarian government. You are denying your own capacity for self-government and the capacity of any other human for self-government and therefore we all need to be governed by OTHER HUMANS who are also incapable of self-government but are somehow capable of governing us.

A strong comprehensive governance is not the same as totalitarianism one. Your equating the two does not make them so.

 

[boneyard bill]

So, Block is taking libertarianism to its logical conclusions? If not, what is he getting wrong?

There is a difference between saying, "Government's proper role is to do X and nothing more." and saying, "Government has no proper role at all and everything that it does is illegitimate."

I don't think the second statement is necessarily a logical extension of the first.

I have always wanted to ask this

How much is enough?

How much privatization is enough?

When will govt be small enough to drown in a bath tub?

Why does government exist? There was a time when it was felt that a primary role of government was to protect the established religious institutions of the society. Do you think that is a proper role of government?

I'm not sure that was a primary role of government, although it was important during the reformation.

So if you accept that there are some things government shouldn't do, you are in favor of limited government. If not, you are a totalitarian.

False dichotomy.

Then there's a question of what the government is capable of doing. For example, should it outlaw drugs when, in fact, it cannot even keep them out of the prisons where it locks up the drug offenders?

Faulty argument.

So now you have two issues. What can the government legitimately do? and What is the government competent to do? And when you strip it down to these basics, you find out that government can't do very much whether you want it to or not.

I'm not sure where you got these to issues, because governments have done just about everything "legitimately" throughout the ages including burning witches and starting wars of conquest. Governments are competent to the point they have the resources, knowledge, and the will to carry out their programs. Drugs are often impossible to get into supermax prisons. Other more lax facilities could be drug free, but are the costs deemed worth it?

Should the government guarantee a certain wage? It can't unless you want lots of unemployment. So now we'll pass a law guaranteeing employment? Good luck with that. The government would have to tax the people to death to pay for it all.

A lot of shoulds here. And an erroneous conclusions abound!

A society, including, but not limited to, an economy, cannot be run by decree.

But how do you explain the societies that have been run by decree, and done so successfully? I'm not sure you are arguing from history.

We need government to protect us from foreign domination. We need government to protect us from neighbors who might be too aggressive, and we need government to resolve domestic disputes.

Do we need government for any other purposes? What kind of benefit is it for government to tell me that I have to purchase health care? How have I benefitted from the government telling me that I must pay into a retirement plan? I can do those things without government. So the only point of these programs is to protect me from myself.

More faulty conclusions and appeals to emotion. We could talk about the role of government in public health and ask if is it the role of government to quarantine individuals with fatal infections diseases?

What if I don't do them, and I die or end up as a homeless beggar? I become a victim of my own behavior. So would it be appropriate for the government to assume the role of a charitable organization and take care of me? Perhaps. But that is a far cry from cradle to grave welfare and, historically, was a role for state and local governments in America not for Uncle Sam.

Blaming the victim and using platitudes to do so is always popular.

Likewise, in a complex economy such as we have today, people can become victims of circumstance. Depressions, recessions, inflation, stagflation, etc. So what should be do about it? Aside from a few social programs that have historically been the responsibility of state and local governments, the government has proven time again that it is incompetent to run the economy. All of our interventions make matters worse.

Which is interesting as history continues to show us that this isn't the case and to believe so is probably to be either ignorant of history, or blinded by ideology.

So why does the federal government need to do anything beyond its original mandate? What is the advantage of the federal government getting involved in all kinds of problems that it is incompetent to handle? And why on earth do we think the federal government is competent to handle these problems and more in Afghanistan or Syria or Ukraine?

I suppose we could leave it up to the state governments to handle the situation in these places despite the historical lack of success of decentralized states to deal with powerful enemies across the globe not to mention the failure of the Articles of Confederation system in governing the United States.

When you insist that the federal government is legitimately empowered and also competent to handle any and all problems of society, you are asking for totalitarian government. You are denying your own capacity for self-government and the capacity of any other human for self-government and therefore we all need to be governed by OTHER HUMANS who are also incapable of self-government but are somehow capable of governing us.

A strong comprehensive governance is not the same as totalitarianism one. Your equating the two does not make them so.

You haven't really given me much to argue about. You've denied my claims without offering any reasons or evidence to support your claims. So all I can do is say you're wrong, and surely you don't expect me to offer any reasons for this claim, after all you have offered nothing in support of yours.

 

[maxparrish]

I just listened to the Majority Report with Sam Seder episode from yesterday. Sam Seder debated Walter Block.

Walter Block is a hoot and a half.

Pray tell me, is he a libertarian? Are his theories representative of libertarian thought?

Click here to listen

http://majority.fm/2014/05/01/51-professor-walter-block-defends-libertarianism/

Professor Walter Block proposed that laissez faire free market exchanges are the best way to organize society, how Block thinks the United States limits freedom, debating the minimum wage, full time workers who live in poverty, debating minimum wages and job losses, what is the value of wages if they don’t provide a living? Professor Block explains his far, far, right views on slavery, Block’s stunning opposition to the Civil Rights movement, Block’s sort “amazing” point about bisexuality and the right to discriminate and debating car safety.

I am somewhat surprised you enjoyed listening to him. While his 'far, far, right views on slavery is not so far right, his opposition to many of the Civil Rights laws is purely libertarian. It was an interesting hour, although the dialog was one of two individuals talking past one another.

 

[maxparrish]

So, Block is taking libertarianism to its logical conclusions? If not, what is he getting wrong?

You are not getting anything wrong. Block's opinions in this audio is entirely consistent with philosophical libertarianism. On the other hand, I have no idea what his self described 'anarcho-capitalism' means on the broader political issues regarding the state's proper role, if any.

Libertarians believe in the 'minimal state', not 'no state'. The best philosophical treatment I have read is in Nozicks classic: "Anarchy, State, and Utopia". I am not familiar with Rothbard's work, he tends to be boring so I have been unable to finish reading any of his essays/books.

 

[Blahface]

So now you have two issues. What can the government legitimately do? and What is the government competent to do? And when you strip it down to these basics, you find out that government can't do very much whether you want it to or not.

This is a problem I have with a lot of Libertarians. They treat government as one monolithic thing. Government can only be classified as “big government” or “small government.” One example of this that I sometimes hear from Libertarians is that we can't have government solutions to protect us from pollution because China and the Soviet Union proved that more government you have the more pollution you have – ignoring the fact that there is a big difference between authoritarian government and liberal democracy.

Like a business, whether or not government is competent to do something depends on how is it organized, who is in charge, and how are people in charge held accountable. If there is a worthwhile goal that a particular government just isn't competent enough to do, the next question should be “why isn't it competent to do it?” and “how could we reorganize it so that it is competent to do it.”

In contrast, the Libertarian's solution to any example of incompetence in government is to say “Well, that's that. Government just isn't capable of doing this task. Let's just recognize that and dissolve government of that responsibility”

Can you imagine if a corporate board of directors had this attitude? Instead of trying to find solutions to bad sales and incompetence from employees, they just use that as an excuse to decide that the company just isn't capable turning a profit and fold up shop at the first opportunity.

 

[boneyard bill]

So now you have two issues. What can the government legitimately do? and What is the government competent to do? And when you strip it down to these basics, you find out that government can't do very much whether you want it to or not.

This is a problem I have with a lot of Libertarians. They treat government as one monolithic thing. Government can only be classified as “big government” or “small government.” One example of this that I sometimes hear from Libertarians is that we can't have government solutions to protect us from pollution because China and the Soviet Union proved that more government you have the more pollution you have – ignoring the fact that there is a big difference between authoritarian government and liberal democracy.

Like a business, whether or not government is competent to do something depends on how is it organized, who is in charge, and how are people in charge held accountable. If there is a worthwhile goal that a particular government just isn't competent enough to do, the next question should be “why isn't it competent to do it?” and “how could we reorganize it so that it is competent to do it.”

In contrast, the Libertarian's solution to any example of incompetence in government is to say “Well, that's that. Government just isn't capable of doing this task. Let's just recognize that and dissolve government of that responsibility”

Can you imagine if a corporate board of directors had this attitude? Instead of trying to find solutions to bad sales and incompetence from employees, they just use that as an excuse to decide that the company just isn't capable turning a profit and fold up shop at the first opportunity.

Government is incompetent, but it isn't inefficient. It is quite efficient at meeting the needs of politicians. The problem is that the needs of politicians do not add up to competent government. Politicians are about reconciling competing interests, and they do that efficiently enough that most politicians stay in power. But reconciling competing particular interests doesn't necessarily add up to promoting the general welfare.

That is the basic problem with government. The decision making process in government doesn't come anywhere close to the same process in a corporation where the goal of maximizing profit is clearly understood even if there are disagreements over how to achieve that.

So we have government campaigns to stop smoking and government subsidies for the tobacco industry, and we subsidize agriculture to keep the prices high. We build interstate highways and drive passenger rail traffic out of business, and then we subsidize passenger rail traffic. We create all kinds of regulatory agencies and then remove their power if they actually try to regulate the rich and the powerful. And we enforce the drug laws against teen-agers, but won't prosecute big banks that launder drug money.

So the problem isn't that politicians or government officials aren't competent. The problem is that they define competence in an entirely different way from what we ordinary people do.