This article was originally published in The Libertarian Forum Vol. V, No. 6, June 1973, p. 3. Before it was published as a book in 1976 parts of Defending the Undefendable by Walter Block were published in several issues of The Libertarian Forum. In these articles, Walter went so far as to label liars, slumlords, stripminers, pimps, and blackmailers as libertarian heroes. I attacked him for this, even though he was my friend.
by Roy Halliday
In an article entitled "Heroes and Scapegoats," in the March 1973 issue of The Libertarian Forum, Professor Walter Block supplied his definition of libertarianism. According to the professor, there are two premises that define libertarianism:
The first premise is widely accepted and Professor Block’s explanation of it is very good. However, the second premise in this definition alienates all people who have any ethical principles beyond prohibition of crime. It estranges people of all religions and excludes non-religious people like Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard who believe in an objective code of ethics. Can a definition of libertarianism that excludes Murray Rothbard be valid?
- The basic premise of libertarianism is that it is illegitimate to engage in aggression against non-aggressors.
- ... anything not involving the initiation of violence cannot be evil.
Why must libertarians refrain from making personal judgments beyond separating criminals from non-criminals? Couldn’t a person accept the libertarian theory of justice and also be a Christian, Muslim, Objectivist, or Rothbardian? Despite what Professor Block may think, libertarianism is not a substitute for all religious and moral values. Libertarianism is not the alpha and omega of life. It is simply the correct philosophy of justice, and its only requirement should be acceptance of Professor Block’s first premise. His second premise defines a certain type of libertarian, a Blockian. We need not all be single-minded Blockians.
Being libertarian means that we recognize everyone’s right to be free from aggression. As individuals, we still may despise and regard as evil what some people do with their freedom. We do not have to approve all nonaggressive activities and pretend that mankind has learned nothing of life in all these centuries. Libertarianism does not mean that we must admire and regard as hero any social outcast who is not an aggressor. Only Blockian libertarians are so compelled.
Why has Professor Block chosen such a restrictive definition of libertarianism? It may be because he has misinterpreted or overextended the subjective theory of value that explains how voluntary trade operates, and expanded its meaning to include that trade of any kind is morally good and objectively beneficial to society.
Both parties must always feel they gain from a voluntary transaction. Given that they are free not to enter into the trade, the fact that they do decide to trade must prove to be a mutual benefit.If trade is objectively good, regardless of what is traded, and regardless of the motives of the traders, then any person who overcomes great obstacles and takes unusual risks in order to complete a trade is automatically a hero. If someone engages in a socially disapproved form of trade (even if it is disapproved for good reasons) that social outcast is a hero. Blockian libertarians always must recognize as heroes precisely those social outcasts who are the most hated and reviled traders in society, even though the public may have good reason for disliking these non-criminals. If libertarians were all Blockians, the libertarian movement would be doomed to be as unpopular as the most despised "professions" in society.
Fortunately, most libertarians reject the premise that all trade is objectively good. Although, at the time of the trade both parties feel that they will benefit, they may be wrong. They may not both benefit from the transaction when it is judged from an objective point of view, or even from their own point of view reconsidered. The subjective theory of value operated smoothly in economic theory because economics is, and should be, a value-free science. Professor Block makes the mistake of trying to treat ethics as a value-free science instead of as the science of values. He assumes that people do not make mistakes in judgment and that their subjective values are objectively correct. Life is not so uncomplicated. Praxeology cannot take the place of ethics.
Professor Block dismisses charges that in real life his "heroes" actually do commit acts of aggression, by saying that though the charge may be true in any particular case, it is not necessarily true of the social outcast’s profession qua profession. Why, then, does he assume that anyone who hates and maligns his heroes is ipso facto opposed to the nonaggressive nature of the hero’s profession, and why does he assume that everyone who criticizes his heroes wants to initiate aggression against them? In short, why does Professor Block assume only the best about pimps, blackmailers, and dope peddlers while he assumes the worst about their critics? There is nothing intrinsically aggressive about criticizing, disapproving, maligning, not associating with, or even hating someone who is not a criminal.
Professor Block gives the false impression that libertarianism means approval of vice and blindness to all ethical considerations beyond the nonaggression principle. A person does not have to be morally obtuse to be a libertarian. One may be a libertarian not because he believes all values are subjective, but because he believes that objective human values can be achieved best in a free society.
Free trade is not the answer to all of life’s problems; instead, it is the framework within which we can each test ourselves against the inexorable forces of nature. If we defend the right of each person to pursue peaceful activity, we have done our part. The natural consequences of vice will take their course. We do not have to regard drunkards, for example, as heroes. We must only defend their right to drink. We may still agree with William Graham Sumner that a drunk lying in the gutter is exactly where he belongs.
In a stateless society, with no coercive means of enforcing mores, customs, propriety, and good taste, the role of social ostracism and other natural, voluntary means of keeping civilized values alive will become of paramount importance. Instead of joining the Blockians in defending the outcasts and dregs of society, the majority would disassociate themselves from despicable characters, and perhaps, even join the maligners of Block’s unsung heroes.
By portraying these people as heroes, Professor Block is wasting his talents on unworthy causes. He should be satisfied if he can prove that they are not criminals and that some of them are scapegoats. His book, thus far, does not represent the thinking of most libertarians and, if published in its present form, it will be a disservice to the libertarian cause.
I do appreciate your critique of my "heroes." Largely because of it, and because of conversations with Walter Grinder, I've decided to incorporate a page into my introduction which I hope will satisfy you.With this letter Walter was kind enough to enclose a copy of a letter he received from Israel Kirsner in which Professor Kirsner wrote:
I fear that I must join Halliday in surmising that your book, as presently projected, may be doing a disservice to the libertarian cause.When his book was finally published, Walter had deemphasized the heroism of his defendants, choosing to refer to them as scapegoats instead. He autographed my copy of his book and inscribed, "To my friend Roy Halliday for liberty and liberty alone. Walter Block"
Back to Pieces from My Radical Libertarian Period
Back to Libertarian Essays by Roy Halliday
This page was last updated on June 19, 2002.
This site is maintained by Roy Halliday. If you have any comments or
suggestions, please send them to
royhalliday@mindspring.com.