Walter Block, Libertarian Extraordinaire

[travc]

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.

I have no idea what you mean by "philosophical conservatism". You seem to be describing something which is pretty much the opposite of classical conservatism. Remember that those aristocratic (and 'middle-class' in the English sense) estates were money-making enterprises... It used to pretty much be land=wealth, and the state serving the interests of those who own land is pretty damn equivalent to "regulatory capture and corporate welfare".

You pretty much jump-the-shark by saying that progressivism does not also envision a limited government.
In several important ways it is philosophically an extension of classical liberalism. Expanding the franchise (in practice as well as law) to all adults is pretty damn liberal/libertarian. Equal protection/treatment under the law is also central tenet of progressive and libertarian philosophy, but basically antithetical to conservatism (classical or modern).
The core difference between progressive and libertarian is in what is perceived as the most significant threat to personal freedom... Libertarians focus on government limits on freedom, while progressives focus on non-government forces which limit freedom. For progressives, the government is often seen as a tool to enhance people's freedom. There is also a difference on what sort of "freedoms" are most prized... Libertarians don't often think of "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" (or in more modern terms, economic security), but that is a pretty damn important freedom if you think about it.

 

[funinspace]

In

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

IMO I think anarcho-capitalism shouldn’t be considered part of libertarian views. Either way, all such things are just labels for ideas on various topics regarding how we organize society. Most people prefer to just throw monkey shit at each other’s labels. Like all things/ideas, there is a ying and yang, or balance between concerns. I am for a more limited government than currently exists in the US, but not because I want to dismantle HHS and SNAP. If I could wave a wand, I’d first eviscerate 50% of the greater US military/State Dept./NSA/CIA budgets; I’d get the US out of Afghanistan in 12 months, but increase their economic aid. I would shutter 50-70% of our foreign bases. S. Korea would get notice that no US soldiers would be on their soil in 5 years. I would change US drug laws to be on par with the more liberal of European ones. I would not be getting rid of the EPA, FDA, Dept. of Interior, though I might tweak things. Gay marriage would be legal. The list goes on, but I’m short of time….

 

[boneyard bill]

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.

I have no idea what you mean by "philosophical conservatism". You seem to be describing something which is pretty much the opposite of classical conservatism. Remember that those aristocratic (and 'middle-class' in the English sense) estates were money-making enterprises... It used to pretty much be land=wealth, and the state serving the interests of those who own land is pretty damn equivalent to "regulatory capture and corporate welfare".

You pretty much jump-the-shark by saying that progressivism does not also envision a limited government.
In several important ways it is philosophically an extension of classical liberalism. Expanding the franchise (in practice as well as law) to all adults is pretty damn liberal/libertarian. Equal protection/treatment under the law is also central tenet of progressive and libertarian philosophy, but basically antithetical to conservatism (classical or modern).
The core difference between progressive and libertarian is in what is perceived as the most significant threat to personal freedom... Libertarians focus on government limits on freedom, while progressives focus on non-government forces which limit freedom. For progressives, the government is often seen as a tool to enhance people's freedom. There is also a difference on what sort of "freedoms" are most prized... Libertarians don't often think of "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" (or in more modern terms, economic security), but that is a pretty damn important freedom if you think about it.

When I speak of philosophical conservatism I am largely referring the views of Edmund Burke although there are others who have expressed similar views. It isn't the conservatism of the landed aristocracy or of Romanticists like Coleridge who might actually be classed as reactionary. Burke was a Whig, not a Tory. But more significantly, his most famous work, Reflections on the Revolution in France, was all about liberty. The French were seeking British-style liberties but, Burke insisted, they were going about it entirely the wrong way. So Burke's book was about liberty and how it is properly achieved. You tear down institutions of order, and then expect to build liberty on the disorder that you have created.

I think conservatives and libertarians would agree that liberty is possible without democratic government. Expanding the franchise would not necessarily promote liberty. Would liberty be promoted if we abolished the Senate? How about electing the Supreme Court? On the other hand, direct election of Senators didn't exactly expand the franchise, but it did reduce the power of state governments. Democratic elections do not guarantee good government, and good government is certainly possible without Democratic elections. But it is typical of Progressivism that it sees democratic government as a goal rather than as a means, and it tends, therefore, to equate democratic government with good government.

I don't see where equal protection of the laws is rejected at all by modern conservatism. For philosophical conservatism the rule of law is paramount. Without it you get arbitrary rule. But equal protection would be regarded as unachievable in any abstract sense. In the legal sense in which it is used in the fourteenth amendment, I don't think philosophical conservatives would have any particular quarrel with it.

It is precisely where government is seen as a tool for enhancing people's freedom, from freeing them of all the problems of life on earth, that government is seen to be the most incompetent by libertarians and by Burkean conservatives. Conservatives would, however, disagree with libertarians on the idea that government would have no role to play in alleviating extreme cases of distress or misfortune.

But the goal of freeing people from the natural conditions of life and of social living is entirely unachievable. It leads to the enhancement of government power at the same time that it fails to improve the lives of the people it claims to be helping. It doesn't achieve idealism, it achieves corruption. The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia starved millions of their own people. Other Communist regimes were only slightly less unsuccessful. You cannot organize a society around the principle of coercion, and yet that is what progressivism must do. The fact that American progressivism proposes to advance this coercion bit-by-bit rather that all at once does not alter the fact that it cannot be achieved.

The power of the state is the power to commandeer resources. That is the only power that the state possesses. That is what the state does. The doesn't mean that it always expropriates. Sometimes it merely regulates, but in the end it is always about forcing people to do what the state authorities tell them to do. That is not the way to enhance liberty.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Probably among the 5 most prominent living Libertarians and protégé of Murray Rothbard, Block even makes Rothbard sound sane.

The craziness derives, not from anarcho-capitalism, but consistent application of Libertarianism's distinguishing ideological bases : the primacy of property rights and the so-called Non Agression Principle. He defends contract slavery, racial discrimination, sexual harrassment in the workplace, blackmail, dangerous or deadly sweatshop employers, child labour... everything we fear about Libertarianism.

Here, for example, is Block on contract slavery :

" while people may start out as free self-owners of themselves, they have a right to sell themselves into slavery. That is, if they truly own themselves, they can sell themselves. If they cannot sell themselves into slavery, they are then to that extent less than fully free. If I own my shirt, I can sell it to you. If I cannot sell it to you, then and to that extent my ownership rights are attenuated. In effect, people are “just” commodities, as our friends on the other side of the aisle are wont to charge.

Why would anyone consent to sell himself into slavery?
Suppose my child were ill with a dread disease. The cure costs $1 million. Unfortunately, I do not have anything like that amount to my name. Fortunately, you have long desired to have me as a slave, to boss around and order about, to chastise and even kill me if I in any way displease you, or even on a whim. You value the prospect of my enslavement to you as worth far more than the $1 million it will cost you. I, for my part, value my child’s life more than my own freedom, or even my own life, should it come to that. Thus, as in the case of all voluntary contracts, we both benefit, at least in the ex ante sense, from this commercial interaction.

A voluntary slave contract has nothing to do with the sale of the “will.”2 Just as in the case of being unable to not think about a pink elephant when one is mentioned, it would be all but impossible for me to quell my desires for freedom, once enslaved. Slaves can still want to be free. Very much to the contrary, voluntary slavery pertains only to the law of physical invasion: if a policeman sees you whipping me, he might with alacrity rush to my defense. The operational definition of a slave contract is that upon being told that I have sold myself into slavery to you, the policemen will cease in his efforts to stop you from beating me. If anything, he will hold me down, as he would a horse you were attempting to harness, so as to aid in your right to treat your property (e.g., me) in any way you see fit."


- Walter Block, Journal of Libertarian Studies Volume 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003), pp. 39–85, 2003, Ludwig von Mises Institute.​

Block's writings have occasioned speculation that he is secretly batting for the other side. If so, he's doing a fine job

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Probably among the 5 most prominent living Libertarians and protégé of Murray Rothbard, Block even makes Rothbard sound sane.

The craziness derives, not from anarcho-capitalism, but consistent application of Libertarianism's distinguishing ideological bases : the primacy of property rights and the so-called Non Agression Principle. He defends contract slavery, racial discrimination, sexual harrassment in the workplace, blackmail, dangerous or deadly sweatshop employers, child labour... everything we fear about Libertarianism.

Here, for example, is Block on contract slavery :

" while people may start out as free self-owners of themselves, they have a right to sell themselves into slavery. That is, if they truly own themselves, they can sell themselves. If they cannot sell themselves into slavery, they are then to that extent less than fully free. If I own my shirt, I can sell it to you. If I cannot sell it to you, then and to that extent my ownership rights are attenuated. In effect, people are “just” commodities, as our friends on the other side of the aisle are wont to charge.

Why would anyone consent to sell himself into slavery?
Suppose my child were ill with a dread disease. The cure costs $1 million. Unfortunately, I do not have anything like that amount to my name. Fortunately, you have long desired to have me as a slave, to boss around and order about, to chastise and even kill me if I in any way displease you, or even on a whim. You value the prospect of my enslavement to you as worth far more than the $1 million it will cost you. I, for my part, value my child’s life more than my own freedom, or even my own life, should it come to that. Thus, as in the case of all voluntary contracts, we both benefit, at least in the ex ante sense, from this commercial interaction.

A voluntary slave contract has nothing to do with the sale of the “will.”2 Just as in the case of being unable to not think about a pink elephant when one is mentioned, it would be all but impossible for me to quell my desires for freedom, once enslaved. Slaves can still want to be free. Very much to the contrary, voluntary slavery pertains only to the law of physical invasion: if a policeman sees you whipping me, he might with alacrity rush to my defense. The operational definition of a slave contract is that upon being told that I have sold myself into slavery to you, the policemen will cease in his efforts to stop you from beating me. If anything, he will hold me down, as he would a horse you were attempting to harness, so as to aid in your right to treat your property (e.g., me) in any way you see fit."


- Walter Block, Journal of Libertarian Studies Volume 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003), pp. 39–85, 2003, Ludwig von Mises Institute.​

Block's writings have occasioned speculation that he is secretly batting for the other side. If so, he's doing a fine job

Oh this guy is precious. We have to keep him. Get him on more shows immediately! He has to preach this gospel to the world!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, the best way to undermine any libertarian position is generally to have libertarians explain their positions.

 

[ksen]

*sends libertarian party $1,000 of free speech*

 

[boneyard bill]

Probably among the 5 most prominent living Libertarians and protégé of Murray Rothbard, Block even makes Rothbard sound sane.

The craziness derives, not from anarcho-capitalism, but consistent application of Libertarianism's distinguishing ideological bases : the primacy of property rights and the so-called Non Agression Principle. He defends contract slavery, racial discrimination, sexual harrassment in the workplace, blackmail, dangerous or deadly sweatshop employers, child labour... everything we fear about Libertarianism.

Here, for example, is Block on contract slavery :

" while people may start out as free self-owners of themselves, they have a right to sell themselves into slavery. That is, if they truly own themselves, they can sell themselves. If they cannot sell themselves into slavery, they are then to that extent less than fully free. If I own my shirt, I can sell it to you. If I cannot sell it to you, then and to that extent my ownership rights are attenuated. In effect, people are “just” commodities, as our friends on the other side of the aisle are wont to charge.

Why would anyone consent to sell himself into slavery?
Suppose my child were ill with a dread disease. The cure costs $1 million. Unfortunately, I do not have anything like that amount to my name. Fortunately, you have long desired to have me as a slave, to boss around and order about, to chastise and even kill me if I in any way displease you, or even on a whim. You value the prospect of my enslavement to you as worth far more than the $1 million it will cost you. I, for my part, value my child’s life more than my own freedom, or even my own life, should it come to that. Thus, as in the case of all voluntary contracts, we both benefit, at least in the ex ante sense, from this commercial interaction.

A voluntary slave contract has nothing to do with the sale of the “will.”2 Just as in the case of being unable to not think about a pink elephant when one is mentioned, it would be all but impossible for me to quell my desires for freedom, once enslaved. Slaves can still want to be free. Very much to the contrary, voluntary slavery pertains only to the law of physical invasion: if a policeman sees you whipping me, he might with alacrity rush to my defense. The operational definition of a slave contract is that upon being told that I have sold myself into slavery to you, the policemen will cease in his efforts to stop you from beating me. If anything, he will hold me down, as he would a horse you were attempting to harness, so as to aid in your right to treat your property (e.g., me) in any way you see fit."


- Walter Block, Journal of Libertarian Studies Volume 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003), pp. 39–85, 2003, Ludwig von Mises Institute.​

Block's writings have occasioned speculation that he is secretly batting for the other side. If so, he's doing a fine job

I don't recall Rothbard addressing the slavery issue, but he isn't necessarily a more moderate version of Block. Block's argument, an argument from self-ownership, is right out of Rothbard. But actually, Block is quite consistent here. Such is not the case with Rothbard. The basic problem is that self-ownership is simply not a weighty enough principle upon which to base an entire social order, not even in combination with the non-aggression principle. But Rothbard attempts to do that and it leads to all kinds of problems. So he ends up not only endorsing abortion but even extending it to infanticide! How that should be considered libertarian is beyond me!

He accepts that children are not capable of self-ownership so they must be considered to by owned by the mother. (Assuming she decides not to starve them to death). But then he claims that it would be bizarre for libertarian to argue that they could be owned in fee simple so this ownership is somehow not complete ownership. But bizarre as Rothbard seems to think the conclusion that his logic leads to is, it remains a simple fact that that IS where his logic leads, and he seeks to wave it away instead of addressing it.

Block's position at least is not contradictory and not even necessarily as outrageous as people on these boards are suggesting. What if you really DO need a million dollars, and you need it for something that you value MORE than you value your own liberty or even your own life? People have given their lives for a lot less.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Probably among the 5 most prominent living Libertarians and protégé of Murray Rothbard, Block even makes Rothbard sound sane.

The craziness derives, not from anarcho-capitalism, but consistent application of Libertarianism's distinguishing ideological bases : the primacy of property rights and the so-called Non Agression Principle. He defends contract slavery, racial discrimination, sexual harrassment in the workplace, blackmail, dangerous or deadly sweatshop employers, child labour... everything we fear about Libertarianism.

Here, for example, is Block on contract slavery :

" while people may start out as free self-owners of themselves, they have a right to sell themselves into slavery. That is, if they truly own themselves, they can sell themselves. If they cannot sell themselves into slavery, they are then to that extent less than fully free. If I own my shirt, I can sell it to you. If I cannot sell it to you, then and to that extent my ownership rights are attenuated. In effect, people are “just” commodities, as our friends on the other side of the aisle are wont to charge.

Why would anyone consent to sell himself into slavery?
Suppose my child were ill with a dread disease. The cure costs $1 million. Unfortunately, I do not have anything like that amount to my name. Fortunately, you have long desired to have me as a slave, to boss around and order about, to chastise and even kill me if I in any way displease you, or even on a whim. You value the prospect of my enslavement to you as worth far more than the $1 million it will cost you. I, for my part, value my child’s life more than my own freedom, or even my own life, should it come to that. Thus, as in the case of all voluntary contracts, we both benefit, at least in the ex ante sense, from this commercial interaction.

A voluntary slave contract has nothing to do with the sale of the “will.”2 Just as in the case of being unable to not think about a pink elephant when one is mentioned, it would be all but impossible for me to quell my desires for freedom, once enslaved. Slaves can still want to be free. Very much to the contrary, voluntary slavery pertains only to the law of physical invasion: if a policeman sees you whipping me, he might with alacrity rush to my defense. The operational definition of a slave contract is that upon being told that I have sold myself into slavery to you, the policemen will cease in his efforts to stop you from beating me. If anything, he will hold me down, as he would a horse you were attempting to harness, so as to aid in your right to treat your property (e.g., me) in any way you see fit."


- Walter Block, Journal of Libertarian Studies Volume 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003), pp. 39–85, 2003, Ludwig von Mises Institute.​

Block's writings have occasioned speculation that he is secretly batting for the other side. If so, he's doing a fine job

I don't recall Rothbard addressing the slavery issue, but he isn't necessarily a more moderate version of Block. Block's argument, an argument from self-ownership, is right out of Rothbard. But actually, Block is quite consistent here. Such is not the case with Rothbard. The basic problem is that self-ownership is simply not a weighty enough principle upon which to base an entire social order, not even in combination with the non-aggression principle. But Rothbard attempts to do that and it leads to all kinds of problems. So he ends up not only endorsing abortion but even extending it to infanticide! How that should be considered libertarian is beyond me!

He accepts that children are not capable of self-ownership so they must be considered to by owned by the mother. (Assuming she decides not to starve them to death). But then he claims that it would be bizarre for libertarian to argue that they could be owned in fee simple so this ownership is somehow not complete ownership. But bizarre as Rothbard seems to think the conclusion that his logic leads to is, it remains a simple fact that that IS where his logic leads, and he seeks to wave it away instead of addressing it.

Block's position at least is not contradictory and not even necessarily as outrageous as people on these boards are suggesting. What if you really DO need a million dollars, and you need it for something that you value MORE than you value your own liberty or even your own life? People have given their lives for a lot less.

You do realize that slavery is not an economic arrangement between two parties, but a social institution with coercion at its base and the state its chief enforcer, right? That the existence of slavery negates liberty not only for the slave but for the master and and the culture. So your expression of liberty destroys liberty. you do get that, right?

...


Of course you don't get this. And neither does Block.

 

[Underseer]

You do realize that slavery is not an economic arrangement between two parties, but a social institution with coercion at its base and the state its chief enforcer, right? That the existence of slavery negates liberty not only for the slave but for the master and and the culture. So your expression of liberty destroys liberty. you do get that, right?

...


Of course you don't get this. And neither does Block.

Are you silly? The aristocrats lose nothing in the arrangement, therefore allowing slavery makes us more free!

It only makes us less free if it negatively affects the economic elite. No one cares what happens to peasants. [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Canard DuJour]

Probably among the 5 most prominent living Libertarians and protégé of Murray Rothbard, Block even makes Rothbard sound sane.

The craziness derives, not from anarcho-capitalism, but consistent application of Libertarianism's distinguishing ideological bases : the primacy of property rights and the so-called Non Agression Principle. He defends contract slavery, racial discrimination, sexual harrassment in the workplace, blackmail, dangerous or deadly sweatshop employers, child labour... everything we fear about Libertarianism.

Here, for example, is Block on contract slavery :

" while people may start out as free self-owners of themselves, they have a right to sell themselves into slavery. That is, if they truly own themselves, they can sell themselves. If they cannot sell themselves into slavery, they are then to that extent less than fully free. If I own my shirt, I can sell it to you. If I cannot sell it to you, then and to that extent my ownership rights are attenuated. In effect, people are “just” commodities, as our friends on the other side of the aisle are wont to charge.

Why would anyone consent to sell himself into slavery?
Suppose my child were ill with a dread disease. The cure costs $1 million. Unfortunately, I do not have anything like that amount to my name. Fortunately, you have long desired to have me as a slave, to boss around and order about, to chastise and even kill me if I in any way displease you, or even on a whim. You value the prospect of my enslavement to you as worth far more than the $1 million it will cost you. I, for my part, value my child’s life more than my own freedom, or even my own life, should it come to that. Thus, as in the case of all voluntary contracts, we both benefit, at least in the ex ante sense, from this commercial interaction.

A voluntary slave contract has nothing to do with the sale of the “will.”2 Just as in the case of being unable to not think about a pink elephant when one is mentioned, it would be all but impossible for me to quell my desires for freedom, once enslaved. Slaves can still want to be free. Very much to the contrary, voluntary slavery pertains only to the law of physical invasion: if a policeman sees you whipping me, he might with alacrity rush to my defense. The operational definition of a slave contract is that upon being told that I have sold myself into slavery to you, the policemen will cease in his efforts to stop you from beating me. If anything, he will hold me down, as he would a horse you were attempting to harness, so as to aid in your right to treat your property (e.g., me) in any way you see fit."


- Walter Block, Journal of Libertarian Studies Volume 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003), pp. 39–85, 2003, Ludwig von Mises Institute.​

Block's writings have occasioned speculation that he is secretly batting for the other side. If so, he's doing a fine job

I don't recall Rothbard addressing the slavery issue, but he isn't necessarily a more moderate version of Block. Block's argument, an argument from self-ownership, is right out of Rothbard.

Yes and no. Block's argument is, in fact, a critique of Rothbard's argument that it'd be impossible to sell yourself into slavery as so doing would logically contradict self-ownership - itself, a woolly knot of contradictions.

But actually, Block is quite consistent here.

And elsewhere. As I said, the craziness derives, not from anarcho-capitalism, but consistent application of Libertarianism's distinguishing ideological bases : self-ownership and the NAP.

Such is not the case with Rothbard. The basic problem is that self-ownership is simply not a weighty enough principle upon which to base an entire social order, not even in combination with the non-aggression principle. But Rothbard attempts to do that and it leads to all kinds of problems. So he ends up not only endorsing abortion but even extending it to infanticide! How that should be considered libertarian is beyond me!

I think you've already explained it. Self-ownership and the idea of human rights as property rights, or extensions thereof, cheapens humanity. Ownership is a relation of people and institutions to things denoting freedom to dispose of them in any legal manner.

He accepts that children are not capable of self-ownership so they must be considered to by owned by the mother. (Assuming she decides not to starve them to death). But then he claims that it would be bizarre for libertarian to argue that they could be owned in fee simple so this ownership is somehow not complete ownership. But bizarre as Rothbard seems to think the conclusion that his logic leads to is, it remains a simple fact that that IS where his logic leads, and he seeks to wave it away instead of addressing it.

Well he wasn't shy of saying Mommy Libertarian should have the right to starve Baby Libertarian. That's hardly dodging the issue. Out of his fucking mind, yes, but he didn't confirm worst fears about Libertarianism anything like as frequently or comprehensively as Block does.

Block's position at least is not contradictory and not even necessarily as outrageous as people on these boards are suggesting. What if you really DO need a million dollars, and you need it for something that you value MORE than you value your own liberty or even your own life? People have given their lives for a lot less.

Risk and resource pooling eg single-payer healthcare. That's what.

 

[ksen]

Block's position at least is not contradictory and not even necessarily as outrageous as people on these boards are suggesting.

Uh yeah, it is.

 

[boneyard bill]

Probably among the 5 most prominent living Libertarians and protégé of Murray Rothbard, Block even makes Rothbard sound sane.

The craziness derives, not from anarcho-capitalism, but consistent application of Libertarianism's distinguishing ideological bases : the primacy of property rights and the so-called Non Agression Principle. He defends contract slavery, racial discrimination, sexual harrassment in the workplace, blackmail, dangerous or deadly sweatshop employers, child labour... everything we fear about Libertarianism.

Here, for example, is Block on contract slavery :

" while people may start out as free self-owners of themselves, they have a right to sell themselves into slavery. That is, if they truly own themselves, they can sell themselves. If they cannot sell themselves into slavery, they are then to that extent less than fully free. If I own my shirt, I can sell it to you. If I cannot sell it to you, then and to that extent my ownership rights are attenuated. In effect, people are “just” commodities, as our friends on the other side of the aisle are wont to charge.

Why would anyone consent to sell himself into slavery?
Suppose my child were ill with a dread disease. The cure costs $1 million. Unfortunately, I do not have anything like that amount to my name. Fortunately, you have long desired to have me as a slave, to boss around and order about, to chastise and even kill me if I in any way displease you, or even on a whim. You value the prospect of my enslavement to you as worth far more than the $1 million it will cost you. I, for my part, value my child’s life more than my own freedom, or even my own life, should it come to that. Thus, as in the case of all voluntary contracts, we both benefit, at least in the ex ante sense, from this commercial interaction.

A voluntary slave contract has nothing to do with the sale of the “will.”2 Just as in the case of being unable to not think about a pink elephant when one is mentioned, it would be all but impossible for me to quell my desires for freedom, once enslaved. Slaves can still want to be free. Very much to the contrary, voluntary slavery pertains only to the law of physical invasion: if a policeman sees you whipping me, he might with alacrity rush to my defense. The operational definition of a slave contract is that upon being told that I have sold myself into slavery to you, the policemen will cease in his efforts to stop you from beating me. If anything, he will hold me down, as he would a horse you were attempting to harness, so as to aid in your right to treat your property (e.g., me) in any way you see fit."


- Walter Block, Journal of Libertarian Studies Volume 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003), pp. 39–85, 2003, Ludwig von Mises Institute.​

Block's writings have occasioned speculation that he is secretly batting for the other side. If so, he's doing a fine job

I don't recall Rothbard addressing the slavery issue, but he isn't necessarily a more moderate version of Block. Block's argument, an argument from self-ownership, is right out of Rothbard.

Yes and no. Block's argument is, in fact, a critique of Rothbard's argument that it'd be impossible to sell yourself into slavery as so doing would logically contradict self-ownership - itself, a woolly knot of contradictions.

But actually, Block is quite consistent here.

And elsewhere. As I said, the craziness derives, not from anarcho-capitalism, but consistent application of Libertarianism's distinguishing ideological bases : self-ownership and the NAP.

Such is not the case with Rothbard. The basic problem is that self-ownership is simply not a weighty enough principle upon which to base an entire social order, not even in combination with the non-aggression principle. But Rothbard attempts to do that and it leads to all kinds of problems. So he ends up not only endorsing abortion but even extending it to infanticide! How that should be considered libertarian is beyond me!

I think you've already explained it. Self-ownership and the idea of human rights as property rights, or extensions thereof, cheapens humanity. Ownership is a relation of people and institutions to things denoting freedom to dispose of them in any legal manner.

He accepts that children are not capable of self-ownership so they must be considered to by owned by the mother. (Assuming she decides not to starve them to death). But then he claims that it would be bizarre for libertarian to argue that they could be owned in fee simple so this ownership is somehow not complete ownership. But bizarre as Rothbard seems to think the conclusion that his logic leads to is, it remains a simple fact that that IS where his logic leads, and he seeks to wave it away instead of addressing it.

Well he wasn't shy of saying Mommy Libertarian should have the right to starve Baby Libertarian. That's hardly dodging the issue. Out of his fucking mind, yes, but he didn't confirm worst fears about Libertarianism anything like as frequently or comprehensively as Block does.

Block's position at least is not contradictory and not even necessarily as outrageous as people on these boards are suggesting. What if you really DO need a million dollars, and you need it for something that you value MORE than you value your own liberty or even your own life? People have given their lives for a lot less.

Risk and resource pooling eg single-payer healthcare. That's what.

I think we agree that self-ownership and the non-aggression principle are simply inadequate bases for the organization of society. Rothbard and Block want to ground their argument in the inviolability of the autonomous, individual will. The problem is that such a principle, even if were true and according to their own standards, omits probably half the human race since it doesn't include children or the physically or mentally impaired. But, in reality, it doesn't include anyone. We are born into dependency and remain in states of mutual dependency for our entire lives.

 

[boneyard bill]

Block's position at least is not contradictory and not even necessarily as outrageous as people on these boards are suggesting.

Uh yeah, it is.

People have sacrificed their lives and/or liberty for far less than what Block is suggesting. How long did Nelson Mandela serve in prison? Why did not Socrates drink the hemlock? They sacrificed for principles, not even to save the lives of their children. Should they not be allowed to?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Block's position at least is not contradictory and not even necessarily as outrageous as people on these boards are suggesting.

Uh yeah, it is.

People have sacrificed their lives and/or liberty for far less than what Block is suggesting. How long did Nelson Mandela serve in prison? Why did not Socrates drink the hemlock? They sacrificed for principles, not even to save the lives of their children. Should they not be allowed to?

the outrage comes not from what these men did, but from the fact that they were put into situations that compelled them to do it.

Again

This ain't deep.

 

[boneyard bill]

Block's position at least is not contradictory and not even necessarily as outrageous as people on these boards are suggesting.

Uh yeah, it is.

People have sacrificed their lives and/or liberty for far less than what Block is suggesting. How long did Nelson Mandela serve in prison? Why did not Socrates drink the hemlock? They sacrificed for principles, not even to save the lives of their children. Should they not be allowed to?

the outrage comes not from what these men did, but from the fact that they were put into situations that compelled them to do it.

Again

This ain't deep.

Life is about being put into situations that compel you to do things you don't want to do. I'm lazy as hell. I hate work, but I was compelled to work my whole life. It really sucks.

 

[ksen]

Block's position at least is not contradictory and not even necessarily as outrageous as people on these boards are suggesting.

Uh yeah, it is.

People have sacrificed their lives and/or liberty for far less than what Block is suggesting. How long did Nelson Mandela serve in prison? Why did not Socrates drink the hemlock? They sacrificed for principles, not even to save the lives of their children. Should they not be allowed to?

non sequitor

Allowing rentiers to arrange the economy so someone is put into the position where he needs to sell himself into slavery in order to get medicine for his child is stupendously outrageous and I find it hard to believe that someone who wants to be taken seriously would actually put that out there as a desirable situation.

I mean, jesus christ, it's the 21st century now.

 

[ksen]

Block's position at least is not contradictory and not even necessarily as outrageous as people on these boards are suggesting.

Uh yeah, it is.

People have sacrificed their lives and/or liberty for far less than what Block is suggesting. How long did Nelson Mandela serve in prison? Why did not Socrates drink the hemlock? They sacrificed for principles, not even to save the lives of their children. Should they not be allowed to?

the outrage comes not from what these men did, but from the fact that they were put into situations that compelled them to do it.

Again

This ain't deep.

Life is about being put into situations that compel you to do things you don't want to do. I'm lazy as hell. I hate work, but I was compelled to work my whole life. It really sucks.

Life doesn't have to be that way. It's only that way because we allow it to be that way. It's criminal to have an economy that produces more than enough for everyone to live comfortably but a sliver of a sliver of the population has managed to capture so much of the fruits of the economy that the vast majority have to struggle just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

And this is called good and right. Because god forbid we force rentiers to give up some of their rents.

 

[boneyard bill]

Block's position at least is not contradictory and not even necessarily as outrageous as people on these boards are suggesting.

Uh yeah, it is.

People have sacrificed their lives and/or liberty for far less than what Block is suggesting. How long did Nelson Mandela serve in prison? Why did not Socrates drink the hemlock? They sacrificed for principles, not even to save the lives of their children. Should they not be allowed to?

non sequitor

Allowing rentiers to arrange the economy so someone is put into the position where he needs to sell himself into slavery in order to get medicine for his child is stupendously outrageous and I find it hard to believe that someone who wants to be taken seriously would actually put that out there as a desirable situation.

I mean, jesus christ, it's the 21st century now.

Your point is irrelevant. Block didn't put it out there as a desirable situation. He offered it as a hypothetical situation. Let me offer another hypothetical situation. The king, an absolute monarch, is holding your son ransom and demands a payoff of one million dollars. You don't have one million dollars so you offer to be the king's slave in return. The king accepts and your son is freed. Does that mean that Block is advocating a government by absolute monarchy?

 

[boneyard bill]

Block's position at least is not contradictory and not even necessarily as outrageous as people on these boards are suggesting.

Uh yeah, it is.

People have sacrificed their lives and/or liberty for far less than what Block is suggesting. How long did Nelson Mandela serve in prison? Why did not Socrates drink the hemlock? They sacrificed for principles, not even to save the lives of their children. Should they not be allowed to?

the outrage comes not from what these men did, but from the fact that they were put into situations that compelled them to do it.

Again

This ain't deep.

Life is about being put into situations that compel you to do things you don't want to do. I'm lazy as hell. I hate work, but I was compelled to work my whole life. It really sucks.

Life doesn't have to be that way. It's only that way because we allow it to be that way. It's criminal to have an economy that produces more than enough for everyone to live comfortably but a sliver of a sliver of the population has managed to capture so much of the fruits of the economy that the vast majority have to struggle just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

And this is called good and right. Because god forbid we force rentiers to give up some of their rents.

So you want to kill the goose that lays golden eggs because the goose has more gold than you do? The "struggles" that we have to go through are trivial compared to what most of humanity has suffered through most of history. A medieval king never had it as good as the poorest Americans do today. Before you decide that you are going to play Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to the poor, you had better ask what the consequences of such a policy are. In fact, the more effective Robin Hood is at stealing from the rich, the fewer rich people there are to steal from. And what happens when all the rich are gone and the poor are still hungry?

I'm not suggesting that the rich are heroes for having provided all the things we have that a medieval king did not have, but it isn't a ridiculous suggestion either. Before undertaking your simplistic, Robin Hood, solution, I suggest that you consider the broader question of unintended consequences. The one percent have an enormous amount of money but once you spread it among the ninety-nine percent, none of them will get very much. But once their money is gone, what happens to the productive side of the economy.

You might also consider the question of balance. How much can you take from the rich before it becomes counter productive. Everyone likes to cite the wonderful European welfare states, even though their standard of living is lower than ours. But have you looked at their tax structure? They actually tax the rich much less that we do here, and they tax lower income workers much more heavily. And, while their personal income tax rates are higher, they are less progressive than ours. So before you suggest that we should tax the rich more, you need to ask the question of whether or not we are taxing them too much already?

I'm not proposing definite answers to these questions, I'm just suggesting that you ask them and study the subject more thoroughly.

We're currently running deficits of our a trillion dollars a year and, given the projected entitlement spending, they are expected to go much higher. Can you balance the budget by taxing the rich? What would that rates have to be? I'll give you a hint. The recent budget deal that Obama and Boehner reached which repealed the Bush tax cuts on incomes over $400,000, an increase of about 4% from 35% to 39%, is projected to bring in about $50 billion per year.

How high can you go before your increases start to bring in less money? How many loopholes can you close before the rich simply start leaving the country as they were doing in Britain before Margaret Thatcher came to power?

Indeed, as Thatcher herself was fond of saying, "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." So what is your plan to solve that problem?