This article, which was never published before, was my follow-up to Blockian Ethics, which was published in The Libertarian Forum Vol. V, No. 6, June 1973, p. 3.
If Professor Block has a hard time making himself understood by libertarians, what chance does he have of being understood by a wider audience? If libertarians find his writing offensive, as I do even after having it explained to me, how will the uninitiated public react?
The problem with Professor Block’s book on libertarian heroes is not simply that the logical inferences of the libertarian theory of justice are sometimes surprising. I have been aware of these inferences for years and am quite comfortable with them. What I object to are the terms Professor Block uses to characterize the libertarian position with respect to the black marketeers and others in his list. His terms are chosen for their shock value rather than for clarity.
He uses words such as wrongdoing, illegitimate, and evil when he means crime, so he can say such things as, "economic scapegoats are guilty of no wrongdoing whatsoever," which sounds more outrageous than saying they are not criminals.
Most people use the word evil in a broader sense than the word crime, but apparently when Professor Block says, "anything not involving the initiation of violence cannot be evil," he means that such acts are not crimes. He does not mean that it is inconsistent for a libertarian to regard some non-criminals as immoral. He only means that when a libertarian does so he is acting on beliefs outside the context of libertarian theory. Professor Rothbard’s reply to my article in the June 1973 issue of the Libertarian Forum demonstrated to my satisfaction that Professor Block’s libertarianism is not exclusionist if you know how to interpret it. This reduces my objections to Professor Block’s book considerably. However, I still contend that it would be a disservice to the libertarian movement to publish it because of Professor Block’s strange and offensive use of the term hero. According to Professor Block, an act is heroic if it is undertaken in an atmosphere of repression and does not violate libertarian principles. He applies this definition consistently when he labels such activities as dope peddling, pimping, loan sharking, smuggling, and rent gouging as heroic.
I suppose that if Ayn Rand can take all the goodness out of altruism, Professor Block can take all the nobility out of heroism. What I don’t understand is why he should bother to do so. At least when Ayn Rand took the goodness out of altruism she proceeded to denounce altruists. Professor Block, on the other hand, after taking the nobility out of heroism, proceeds to defend certain occupations by labeling them heroic! It occurs to me that the professor might be trying to play tricks on his readers. He shows that some low-minded outcasts are not criminals, and then he defines heroism in a way that includes these people--seemingly in the hope that the approbation accorded to heroes by the normal definition will be carried over to his "heroes."
By his definition, heroes need not be admirable nor praiseworthy, yet Professor Block says, "... I think that the accompanying list of scapegoats are rather unsung heroes of the economy," which implies that we should sing their praises, which further implies that they have unrecognized virtues and noble motives. What could they be? Professor Block explains, "... we have seen that their only function is to benefit their fellow man!" Here we have the noble motive, the unrecognized virtue of these "unsung heroes." Could it be that Professor Block sometimes unwittingly switches to the everyday meaning of heroism according to which heroes are to be admired and praised? If so, it would indicate that not only is Professor Block’s terminology confusing to the reader, but also that he has trouble with it himself!
Libertarians need no more be bound to Professor Block’s definition of heroism than they are by Ayn Rand’s definitions of altruism and selfishness. We will be better off if we stop using secret code words and write so that we can be understood by the uninitiated public.
Perhaps Professor Block is unaware that heroism is associated with virtue in the minds of many readers, and perhaps he does not label the people in his list "heroes" with any intention of depicting them in a more favorable light. But, if this is the case, why bother to point out that, by his definition, they are heroes? What is the point of it? Why not be satisfied with demonstrating that they are not criminals?
If Professor Block is actually an aspiring humorist and this series of articles is written with tongue in cheek, like H. L. Mencken’s glorification of bootleggers, I would like to bring to the professor’s attention some observations about his list of "libertarian heroes" that he may find useful. By the strangest of coincidences, all the people on his list happen to be "vegetarian heroes" as well as "libertarian heroes." Their professions are risky and they do not violate vegetarian principles, so they are just as much vegetarian heroes as they are libertarian heroes. Furthermore, I think there is a distinct possibility that all these people are "baseball heroes" as well! What a group! Perhaps the professor would like to investigate this further and see if he can form an alliance with vegetarians and baseball fans to support their common heroes.
A definition that makes heroes of profiteers, loan sharks, dope peddlers, and other people who regard ideals, dedication to moral principles, and integrity as the marks of a sucker, is a bizarre definition. The fact that most of the activities on Professor Block’s list are black-market professions engaged in for purely material considerations suggests that they are not heroic in the usual sense of the term. The profit motive is neither immoral nor heroic. It is mundane. Heroism, as I conceive of it, is not mundane. It is high minded and principled. Even the fictional libertarian heroes of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged are not as much motivated by greed as some of Professor Block’s heroes. Ragnar Danneskjöld, who confiscated goods from the government in order to return them to the rightful owners, was heroic because he acted in behalf of justice and was not simply doing it for the money.
Professor Block’s definition of heroism does not distinguish between the humanitarians who ran the underground railroad to help slaves escape to freedom and dope smugglers who take an equal risk for profit. Such a definition, which blithely ignores the motive behind the act, is degrading to the real heroes of libertarianism who have acted nobly to advance freedom.
A hero, by my definition, is someone who endures unusual risks or sacrifices his material well-being in order to achieve some noble (dare I say altruistic?) goal. This definition emphasizes the motive of the hero instead of ignoring it the way Professor Block’s does. A libertarian hero, by my definition, is not someone who is indifferent to the principle of liberty, but is someone who endures unusual risks to his safety or material well-being for the purpose of advancing liberty. By my definition, the majority of the pimps, rent gougers, dope peddlers, and other Blockian "heroes" are not libertarian heroes at all because they don’t give a damn about the effects of their actions on others, they have no conception of libertarian ideals, they are motivated by greed, they would be glad to have a coercive monopoly in their professions, and they are, by all civilized standards, to be maligned rather than admired. The real libertarian heroes are the Thoreaus, Tuckers, Spooners, Rothbards, and, I predict, some day, the Blocks.
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.