Parsing Blame, Part II

Regarding the ongoing Greek tragedy, I commented recently about the amount of blame that should be allocated to the politicians and technocrats as compared to the blame allocated to the people of Greece.  I concluded that the majority of the blame belongs to the politicians and technocrats.

Joy of joys, I find that Rothbard agrees with me (rest assured, I find more joy when he disagrees – only because this has happened so rarely, only two or three times to my recollection and knowledge).

Why do I write that Rothbard agrees with me, instead of the other way around?  This is because I choose to work out problems of economics, libertarian theory, etc., on my own before digging too deeply into the thoughts of the titans.  I feel more settled in my conclusions (but is anything ever really concluded?) if I come to them through my own reasoning.

So, this is what I found today from Rothbard:

Should it be illegal, we may next inquire, to "incite to riot"? Suppose that Green exhorts a crowd: "Go! Burn! Loot! Kill!" and the mob proceeds to do just that, with Green having nothing further to do with these criminal activities. Since every man is free to adopt or not adopt any course of action he wishes, we cannot say that in some way Green determined the members of the mob to their criminal activities; we cannot make him, because of his exhortation, at all responsible for their crimes. "Inciting to riot," therefore, is a pure exercise of a man's right to speak without being thereby implicated in crime.

On the other hand, it is obvious that if Green happened to be involved in a plan or conspiracy with others to commit various crimes, and that then Green told them to proceed, he would then be just as implicated in the crimes as are the others — more so, if he were the mastermind who headed the criminal gang. This is a seemingly subtle distinction which in practice is clearcut — there is a world of difference between the head of a criminal gang and a soap-box orator during a riot; the former is not, properly to be charged simply with "incitement."

Change the “n” in “Green” to a “k” and Rothbard has nailed it!

While not completely innocent (neither by Rothbard’s argument above nor mine in my previous post), that the Greek people are asking for more benefits is secondary.  Who is taking action?  It is the political class.

“Go steal for me” is meaningless in this regard.  Who is doing the stealing?

I will conclude as I concluded before, now with Rothbard by my side:

Whatever opinion one has of the Greek people, the truth is that the overwhelming preponderance of this mess was caused by their politicians and by the bailing-out of European banks. 

Throwing Sticks at Aunt Sally

Aunt Sally is a traditional English throwing game in which players throw sticks or battens at a model of an old woman's head.

Sounds fun.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

Useful when critical thinking is in short supply.

In the United Kingdom the [straw man] argument is also known as an Aunt Sally, after the pub game of the same name where patrons throw sticks or battens at a model of an old woman's head.

Jason Kuznicki, editor of Cato Unbound, has taken aim at Aunt Sally.  He has thoroughly destroyed her:

Jason Kuznicki argues that “anyone who cares about human liberty—to whatever degree—ought to despise the Confederacy.”

Jason can’t understand why any libertarian would admire the Confederacy:

Whatever others may say on the subject, I can’t understand how anyone might admire the Confederacy and also call themselves a libertarian. Any affinity for the Confederacy marks one very clearly as an enemy of liberty.

Nowhere in this essay does Jason identify a single libertarian – of prominence or otherwise – that holds this view; nowhere does he offer a quote.  Instead, he abuses Aunt Sally.  As he doesn’t bother to name names and identify quotes, it seems inappropriate to defend these non-existent libertarians, so I won’t.

Let’s just say I have yet to read any prominent libertarian who “admires” the Confederacy – I can’t think of any libertarian who admires any state; at most, comparisons of relative aggression are made.  The most one can say regarding the example of the Confederacy is that there are libertarians who support the right of secession…as one must if one adheres to the non-aggression principle.

But, if Jason – or anyone else – can point to such statements from libertarians, please do so.  Aunt Sally can’t long take such a beating.

What does Jason have against the Confederacy?

The Confederate Constitution says all that needs to be said on the subject, and it answers all possible arguments to the contrary.

Suffice it to say, the Confederate Constitution had many passages in defense of the institution of slavery – worse than anything in the US Constitution, according to Jason.  I am guessing that most libertarians understand that the Confederate government supported slavery, but it is important to prop up the old woman’s head before throwing the sticks.

These provisions are unlibertarian, but they are far worse than that. There is only one legal term that seems quite to do them justice. That term is hostis humani generis: The founders of Confederacy were the enemies of all mankind….

Jason thereafter goes apoplectic.  Aunt Sally never took such a thorough beating.  University courses on logical fallacies can be structured around the next several paragraphs of his post.

He closes with an admonition: when faced with a choice between two wrongs (as he doesn’t apologize for Lincoln), better to choose the lesser one – suggesting libertarians choose the Union and condemn the Confederacy.  Of course, adherents to the non-aggression principle condemn both.

But it is worth asking: is the Confederacy automatically the greater evil?  I have no idea how to build a balance sheet on this one; after all and among other aggressions, Lincoln started a war that killed more than 700,000 Americans. 

Comparing evils: Hitler v. Stalin, Yankees v. Red Sox, Barcelona v. Real Madrid, Jason Voorhees v. Freddie Krueger.  How does one decide? 

I will suggest that the Confederacy did nothing more than attempt to perpetuate an already existing evil; slavery existed in the South both before and after Jason’s dreaded Confederate Constitution.  no new evil was introduced.

Lincoln introduced many new evils, not the least of which was the war that killed more than 700,000 and wounded perhaps a like amount.

The status quo of slavery (which would have died of natural, economic causes in short order anyway) or the new evils of war?  I won’t decide.

Libertarians will support secession; where else does the non-aggression principle lead?  Libertarians condemn all initiations of aggression – slavery and war being two of the more egregious violation. 

When it comes to libertarians and the Confederacy, a critic can only attack Aunt Sally on this subject. 

Jason does so admirably.

Walter Block, Specific Performance Contracts, and Abortion

I agree with the vast majority of Walter Block’s positions on the application of the non-aggression principle to the various concerns of the humans that inhabit this planet.  One topic on which we disagree is abortion, with Block advocating evictionism – the unborn child can be evicted but not murdered.  It’s a headscratcher for me, as the “eviction” of any unborn child prior to the last (X) months will likely result in death, but such is the intricacy and nuance of Block’s argument (remember, I am a simpleton).

I suggest that the unborn child has the right to the use of the womb for the term of the pregnancy.  The mother owns the womb (obviously), but the child is a tenant, if you will; a tenant who in no way breached the lease agreement.  My view is based on several aspects of contract and real estate law – all types of contracts upon which I rely I deem as perfectly compatible with the non-aggression principle.

With that as background, I refer to Block’s blog post at LRC regarding specific performance contracts – outlining the right of the counter-party to demand specific performance if the first party has a change of heart.  To make a long story short, he disagrees with those in the libertarian community who suggest that such contracts are invalid within the framework of the NAP.  He believes that enforcement of the terms of a specific performance contract is perfectly legitimate within libertarian theory.

I fully agree – and Block even offered a cite to one of my posts on this topic!

What does this have to do with abortion?  One of the types of contracts upon which I make my case regarding the unborn child’s rights to occupy the womb for the term of the pregnancy – and against the possibility of eviction – is a specific performance contract.  I offer a brief passage from my above-referenced post regarding abortion:

If the mother changes her mind – as Rothbard suggests she has every right to do – it will cause irreparable harm to the unborn child.  Money damages will most certainly not be sufficient for the benefit of the now-dead unborn child.  The counter-party (the unborn child) would be entitled to equitable relief, including specific performance, and such relief shall not be opposed.  What specific performance would the unborn child demand?  It is not difficult to imagine the answer.

Similar language is included in many contracts today, and one would expect in this most one-sided contract between mother and unborn child – where the party that set the terms of the contract could then break the contract and realize a gain while the counter-party suffers death – it seems reasonable that the expectation would be not less than what is standard in every-day commercial agreements – for exchanges much less significant than life and death.

Block has yet to reply to my arguments on this topic – he has agreed to do so if I get the post published in a refereed journal.  I have decided that attempting to do so is a complete waste of my time.

Perhaps one day I will learn why a specific performance contract does not apply to the case of the unborn child (and no, it is most certainly NOT because the unborn child cannot be contracted with; see section XI of the subject post).

But for today, I am glad Block agrees with this much.  One day, he will agree with the rest!

A Leftist Wolf in a Libertarian Sheep’s Clothing

Sheldon Richman offers “The Libertarian Case for Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage.”  I have been thinking about this piece on and off for several days.  Although there are many statements which require some unpacking, on a superficial read it offers nothing with which a thin libertarian might argue.  Yet, I have remained unsettled; something didn’t sit right.

I have decided that my primary issue is that Richman attempts to pull a real bait and switch, the thick-libertarian wolf in thin-libertarian sheep’s clothing.

Richman opens well enough; he offers the bait:

I tried to come up with a solid libertarian argument for why the Supreme Court should not have struck down state bans on same-sex marriage (SSM).

(Is Richman about to make a “thin” argument?  Spoiler alert: after much contemplation, I conclude…don’t hold your breath.) 

On many levels, I tend to agree with him on the above sentence – as I wrote early on, this is a question of culture far more than a question of libertarian principle (beyond “get the state out of marriage,” which Richman reasonably addresses).  Based solely on the NAP, I find little reason to disagree.

So much for Richman’s “bait,” where is his “switch”?  In his post, he buries it in the very last sentence – perhaps so it will not be easily connected to his opening sentence (and certainly why it took me so long to identify the primary source of my unsettled condition).  Richman closes:

It is insulting and condescending to tell them they ought to be satisfied with civil union and its merely material benefits.

Richman’s opening sentence makes clear he is looking for solid libertarian arguments, yet he closes with a sentence that has nothing to do with libertarianism.  As a libertarian, one is certainly free to insult and condescend (although Richman disagrees, as I will come to shortly).  Why couldn’t he leave well enough alone?  On a “solid libertarian argument” – within the context of the reality of a state – it is difficult to argue with him.  Why does he have to get “thick”?

In between his first sentence and his last, there are other points worth addressing – not as important, necessarily; perhaps inserted for no other reason than to distract from the bait and switch.

Most important of these to address, Richman recognizes the burdens that will be placed on employers:

Now it is true that mandated family and medical leave coercively imposes costs on employers (and ultimately employees) and therefore cannot pass libertarian muster. It is also true that with this latest Supreme Court decision, FMLA benefits will now apply to more people. But contrary to some libertarians, that is no reason to condemn the Supreme Court’s decision. Rather, it’s simply a reason to work for the repeal of the FMLA.

This is a very reasonable view, and – one could argue – a very libertarian view.  This can only be a libertarian view if one constantly upholds the recognition of property rights.  Yet nowhere have I read that Richman advocates for the property rights of bakers who refuse service to gay couples, or of bartenders who refuse service to (insert your favorite protected class here).  In fact, he often writes what could easily be interpreted as the opposite – and even calls it libertarian.

Yet Richman, in this post, pretends otherwise – that he is actually concerned about the property rights of the baker:

Similarly, the prospect of the government’s compelling bakers and photographers to participate in same-sex weddings hardly constitutes a reason to ban same-sex marriages. Let’s target the actual rights violators and leave the innocent alone.

Richman does not care about the baker’s or photographer’s property rights in such circumstances.  He has written often that libertarian philosophy should embrace treating others respectfully (including to not insult or condescend), see here and here – please take a few seconds (it won’t take more) to consider his arguments in the context of gay couples and bakers of wedding cakes.

Libertarian philosophy leaves room for racists, sexists, and other so-called “brutalists” (and I am pleased to welcome Jeffrey Tucker into the brutalist club).  Of course, individual libertarians need not approve of these worldviews (I write, for those for whom this need be stated explicitly).

Richman (and other left-libs), insist that it is necessary to integrate culture into libertarian theory when it is the culture of which they approve: no matter the behavior, don’t condescend, don’t insult, don’t exercise property rights in a discriminatory (racist, sexist, whatever) manner.  Ask them how they feel about integrating a more traditional Judeo-Christian culture into the libertarian philosophy – I bet you will find it has no place in their libertarian world.

Treating all people – even people who live a lifestyle of which you might disapprove – with respect has nothing to do with libertarian theory; at least when I write about culture I don’t insist (or even suggest) that you must (or should) agree with me to hold true to libertarian philosophy and the non-aggression principle.  This is why thin libertarians leave more room in the tent.  You need not pass a cultural test to enter.

Unfortunately, even when Richman has solid libertarian grounds to make his point, he cannot help but revert to his thick, left-leaning view; at this point, I struggle to decide which is more core to his philosophical framework: the non-aggression principle or the embrace of causes that might be broadly labeled “social justice.”

----------------------------------------

I struggle no more…. I was about to publish this post when I ran across a curious exchange.  Richman’s piece was also posted at Liberty.me; see the comments:

Long Lost Friend June 26, 2015, 5:02 pm

You acknowledge that the decision today will expand the state’s programs like the FMLA and even the issuance of marriage licenses itself, but then you go on to say that this is a preferable situation in the interim until we can manage to get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

My argument is that there is going to be LESS incentive to do that now. A government that grants cash and prizes to same-sex couples will not be opposed by these couples. Not to mention the fact that this is just a slippery slope to the government further encroaching on the liberties of those who choose personally not to recognize marriages between same-sex couples on religious grounds. My prediction is that it will not be too long before churches that refuse to marry same-sex couples lose their tax-exempt status, while those who do engage in the practice will retain it. Rather than celebrating this decision as a temporary fix, we should grieve it as a portent of even greater state overreach.

Sheldon Richman June 26, 2015, 7:20 pm

The world is a messy place, but I don’t believe in sacrificing people to The Cause.

Richman capitalizes “The Cause.”  The capitalization suggests something.  But Richman doesn’t expand – not in his reply here, at least.

I did a search for “the cause” and “Sheldon Richman,” and came up with the following:

…we will never bring the mass of people to the cause of liberty.

…the cause of understanding society, prosperity, and liberty.

So I, for one, don’t accept the division of the case for freedom into “the moral” and “the practical.” It’s a mistake, not to mention harmful to the cause.

And what happens to the cause when “privatization” is perceived to fail, as it did with the Baltimore schools and elsewhere?

“The Cause” is liberty.  Richman does not “believe in sacrificing people to” liberty.  Consider what this suggests within the context of all of the left-leaning writing that Richman has done.

Let me be clear – I do not believe in sacrificing people for any cause; this is at the root of the non-aggression principle.  But context is important.  When a thin libertarian makes such a statement, the meaning is clear.  Richman, on the other hand, regularly includes features such as “respect” and “dignity” in his definition of libertarian.

Richman does not believe in sacrificing people to the cause of not sacrificing people!  To make some sense of this: Richman believes in the enforcement of (his preferred) positive rights to the detriment of the protection of your negative rights.

I have regularly posed the question: what would Richman suggest when his “shoulds” (treat all people, regardless of race, sex, lifestyle, etc., with respect and dignity) conflict with my property rights?  I have never received an answer.  I need not wait anymore; Richman’s answer is clear.  It is my property (my liberty) that will be sacrificed. 

I can only conclude that Richman is a leftist – in the very commonly-understood meaning of the term.  Libertarianism is useful to Richman only when it does not get in the way of his leftist philosophy.

A leftist wolf masquerading as a libertarian sheep.