Libertarian classic- Defending the Undefendable

[Pure]

Defending the Undefendable, by Walter Block. [orig. pub. 1976]

This is a classic in the minimal government genre. He argues that whatever we think about the morality of the following persons, the governement should NOT be coming after them. IOW, there should be no laws on the books by which they can be prosecuted Indeed, in economic terms, says Block, many of them contribute, despite their scapegoat status. [[ADDED: That is one reason that Block calls them 'heroes'; they are doing something worthy despite social opprobrium.]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8051279/Defending-the-Undefendable

Among those he considers and defends are the following.

pimp, blackmailer, drug pusher, slanderer/libeler, the dishonest cop, the strip miner, the employer of child labor.

What is Block's criterion for a proper law? according to him, the [only] correct justification for a law and the use of the cops to enforce it: if someone, improperly, initiates force or threatens to, against another. removal or destruction of someone's property will be included in this description.
Comments? Does this simple concept generate all the proper laws?

I post this because some self said proponents of liberty, here, apparently want a VERY active government, e.g. one which tells people whom they can marry, and who can sell contraceptives to whom, etc. these are better classified as 'social conservatives' who believe in strong gov't authority.




The Blackmailer

THE BLACKMAILER
t first glance it is not hard to answer the question, “Is blackmail really illegitimate?” The only problem it would seem to pose is, “Why is it being asked at all?” Do not blackmailers, well . . . blackmail people? And what could be worse? Blackmailers prey on people’s dark hidden secrets. They threaten to expose and publicize them. They bleed their victims, and often drive them to suicide. We will find, however, that the case against the blackmailer cannot stand serious analysis; that it is based upon a tissue of unexamined shibboleths and deep philosophical misunderstandings.

What, exactly, is blackmail? Blackmail is the offer of trade. It is the offer to trade something, usually silence, for some other good, usually money. If the offer of the trade is accepted, the blackmailer then maintains his silence and the blackmailee pays the agreed-upon price. If the blackmail offer is rejected, the blackmailer may exercise his rights of free speech and publicize the secret. There is nothing amiss here. All that is happening is that an offer to maintain silence is being made. If the offer is rejected, the blackmailer does no more than exercise his right of free speech.


The sole difference between a gossip and a blackmailer is that the blackmailer will refrain from speaking—for a price. In a sense, the gossip is much worse than the blackmailer, for the blackmailer has given the blackmailee a chance to silence him. The gossip exposes the secret without warning. Is not the person


with a secret better off at the hands of a blackmailer than a gossip? With the gossip, all is lost; with the blackmailer, one can only gain, or at least be no worse off. If the price requested by the blackmailer is lower than the secret is worth, the secretholder will pay the blackmailer—this being the lesser of the two evils. He thus gains the difference to him between the value of the secret and the price of the blackmail. When the blackmailer demands more than the secret is worth, his demand will not be met and the information will become public. However, in this case the person is no worse off with the blackmailer than he would have been with the inveterate gossip. It is indeed difficult, then, to account for the vilification suffered by the blackmailer, at least compared to the gossip, who is usually dismissed with slight contempt and smugness. Blackmail need not entail the offer of silence in return for money. This is only the best known form. But blackmail may be defined without reference to either.

Defined in general terms, blackmail is the threat to do something—anything which is not in itself illegal—unless certain demands are met. Many actions in the public arena qualify as acts of blackmail, but, instead of being vilified, they have often attained a status of respectability! For example, the recent lettuce boycott is a form of blackmail. Through the lettuce boycott (or any boycott) threats are made to retailers and wholesalers of fruits and vegetables. If they handle nonunion lettuce, the boycotters assert, people will be asked not to patronize their establishments. This conforms perfectly to the definition: a threat that something, not in itself illegal, will take place unless certain demands are met.

But what about the threats involved in blackmail? This perhaps more than anything else, is the aspect of blackmail that is most misunderstood and feared. At first glance, one is inclined to agree that threats are immoral. The usual dictum against aggression, for example, warns not only against aggression per se but also against the threat of aggression. If a highwayman accosts a traveler, it is usually the threat of aggression alone that will compel obedience.


Consider the nature of threats. When what is threatened is aggressive violence, the threat is condemnable. No individual has the right to initiate aggressive violence against another. In blackmail, however, what is being “threatened” is something that the blackmailer does have a right to do!—whether it be exercising the right of free speech, or refusing to patronize certain stores, or persuading others to do likewise. What is being threatened is not in itself illegitimate; it is, therefore, not possible to call the “threat” an illegitimate threat. Blackmail can only be illegitimate when there is a special foresworn relationship between the blackmailer and the blackmailee.

A secret-keeper may take a lawyer or a private investigator into his confidence on the condition that the confidence be maintained in secrecy. If the lawyer or private investigator attempts to blackmail the secret-keeper, that would be in violation of the contract and, therefore, illegitimate. However, if a stranger holds the secret without contractual obligations, then it is legitimate to offer to “sell” his silence. In addition to being a legitimate activity, blackmail has some good effects, litanies to the contrary notwithstanding.

Apart from some innocent victims who are caught in the net, whom does the blackmailer usually prey upon? In the main, there are two groups. One group is composed of criminals: murderers, thieves, swindlers, embezzlers, cheaters, rapists, etc. The other group consists of people who engage in activities, not illegitimate in themselves, but which are contrary to the mores and habits of the majority: homosexuals, sado-masochists, sexual perverts, communists, adulterers, etc. The institution of blackmail has beneficial, but different, effects upon each of these groups. In the case of criminals, blackmail and the threat of blackmail serves as a deterrent. They add to the risks involved in criminal activity. How many of the anonymous “tips” received by the police—the value of which cannot be overestimated— can be traced, directly or indirectly, to blackmail? How many criminals are led to pursue crime on their own, eschewing the aid of fellow criminals in “jobs” that call for cooperation, out ofthe fear of possible blackmail?


Finally, there are those individuals who are on the verge of committing crimes, or at the “margin of criminality” (as the economist would say), where the least factor will propel them one way or another. The additional fear of blackmail may be enough, in some cases, to dissuade them from crime. If blackmail itself were legalized, it would undoubtedly be an even more effective deterrent. Legalization would undoubtedly result in an increase in blackmail, with attendant depredations upon the criminal class. It is sometimes said that what diminishes crime is not the penalty attached to the crime but the certainty of being caught. Although this controversy rages with great relevance in current debates on capital punishment, it will suffice to point out that the institution of blackmail does both. It increases the penalty associated with crime, as it forces criminals to share part of their loot with the blackmailer.

It also raises the probability of being apprehended, as blackmailers are added to police forces, private citizen and vigilante groups, and other anticrime units. Blackmailers, who are often members in good standing in the criminal world, are in an advantageous position to foil crimes. Their “inside” status surpasses even that of the spy or infiltrator, who is forced to play a role. Legalizing blackmail would thus allow anticrime units to take advantage of two basic crime fighting adages at the same time: “divide and conquer,” and “lack of honor among thieves.” It is quite clear that one important effect of legalizing blackmail would be to diminish crime, real crime, that is.

The legalization of blackmail would also have a beneficial effect upon actions which do not involve aggression, but are at variance with the mores of society as a whole. On these actions, the legalization of blackmail would have a liberating effect. Even with blackmail still illegal, we are witnessing some of its beneficial effects. Homosexuality, for instance, is technically illegal in some instances, but not really criminal, since it involves no aggression. For individual homosexuals, blackmail very often causes considerable harm and can hardly be considered beneficial. But for the group as a whole, that is, for each individual as a member of the group, blackmail has helped by making the public more aware and accustomed to homosexuality. Forcing individual members of a socially oppressed group into the open, or “out of the closet,” cannot, of course, be considered a service. The use of force is a violation of an individual’s rights.

But still, it does engender an awareness on the part of members of a group of one another’s existence. In forcing this perception, blackmail can legitimately take some small share of the credit in liberating people whose only crime is a deviation from the norm in a noncriminal way. In reflecting on the old aphorism, “the truth shall make you free,” the only “weapon” at the disposal of the blackmailer is the truth. In using the truth to back up his threats (as on occasion he must), he sets the truth free, very often without intent, to do whatever good or bad it is capable of doing.



THE SLANDERER
AND

LIBELER

It is easy to be an advocate of free speech when it applies to the rights of those with whom one is in agreement. But the crucial test concerns controversial speech—statements which we may consider vicious and nasty and which may, in fact, even be vicious and nasty. Now, there is perhaps nothing more repugnant or vicious than libel. We must, therefore, take particular care to defend the free speech rights of libelers, for if they can be protected, the rights of all others—who do not give as much offense—will certainly be more secure. But if the rights of free speech of libelers and slanderers are not protected, the rights of others will be less secure.

The reason civil libertarians have not been involved in the protection of the rights of libelers and slanderers is clear—libel is ruinous to reputations. Harsh tales about lost jobs, friends, etc., abound. Far from being concerned with the free speech rights of the libeler and slanderer, civil libertarians have been concerned with protecting those who have had their reputations destroyed, as though that in itself was unpardonable. But obviously, protecting a person’s reputation is not an absolute value. If it were, if, that is, reputations were really sacrosanct, then we would have to prohibit most categories of denigration, even truthful ones. Unfavorable literary criticism, satire in movies, plays, music or book reviews could not be allowed. Anything which diminished any individual’s or any institution’s reputation would have to be forbidden.


Of course, civil libertarians would deny that their objection to slander and libel commits them to the view described. They would admit that a person’s reputation cannot always be protected, that sometimes it must be sacrificed. But this, they might say, does not exonerate the libeler. For a person’s reputation is not something to be taken lightly. It may not be damaged without good reason. But what is a person’s “reputation”? What is this thing which may not be “taken lightly”? Clearly, it is not a possession which may be said to belong to him in the way, for example, his clothes do. In fact, a person’s reputation does not “belong” to him at all. A person’s reputation is what other people think of him; it consists of the thoughts which other people have. A man does not own his reputation any more than he owns the thoughts of others—because that is all his reputation consists of.

A man’s reputation cannot be stolen from him any more than can the thoughts of other people be stolen from him. Whether his reputation was “taken from him” by fair means or foul, by truth or falsehood, he did not own it in the first place and, hence, should have no recourse to the law for damages. What then are we doing when we object to, or prohibit, libel? We are prohibiting someone from affecting or trying to affect the thoughts of other people. But what does the right of free speech mean if not that we are all free to try to affect the thoughts of those around us? So we must conclude that libel and slander are consistent with the rights of free speech.


Finally, paradoxical though it may be, reputations would probably be more secure without the laws which prohibit libelous speech! With the present laws prohibiting libelous falsehoods, there is a natural tendency to believe any publicized slur on someone’s character. “It would not be printed if it were not true,” reasons the gullible public. If libel and slander were allowed, however, the public would not be so easily deceived. Attacks would come so thick and fast that they would have to be substantiated before they could have any impact. Agencies similar to Consumers Union or the Better Business Bureau might be organized to meet the public’s demand for accurate scurrilous information. The public would soon learn to digest and evaluate the statements of libelers and slanderers—if the latter were allowed free rein. No longer would a libeler or slanderer have the automatic power to ruin a person’s reputation.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Interesting post. I have not read the Block text from which you quote, so I am not entirely sure if I completely understand what his thesis is. Sometimes, when taken out of context, passages from a larger work are difficult to discern. But, I will go out on a limb here and suggest that his ideas remind me of something I read in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov long ago:

"Everything is permitted..." and therefore "All is lawful."

The concept behind these words is that with this attitude, the human race is therefore required to hold themselves to a higher standard of morality. If everything is permitted and lawful, then we are being asked to raise the bar and hold ourselves accountable for everything. Theoretically, this would create a better world, in Dostoevsky's view. However, I have never entirely been able to get my head around this philosophy when I see around me every day of my life evidence that most men and women do not want to think that long or hard about their morality and would rather have legal zealots do that for them.

 

[Guest]

Interesting post. I have not read the Block text from which you quote, so I am not entirely sure if I completely understand what his thesis is. Sometimes, when taken out of context, passages from a larger work are difficult to discern. But, I will go out on a limb here and suggest that his ideas remind me of something I read in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov long ago:

"Everything is permitted..." and therefore "All is lawful."

The concept behind these words is that with this attitude, the human race is therefore required to hold themselves to a higher standard of morality. If everything is permitted and lawful, then we are being asked to raise the bar and hold ourselves accountable for everything. Theoretically, this would create a better world, in Dostoevsky's view. However, I have never entirely been able to get my head around this philosophy when I see around me every day of my life evidence that most men and women do not want to think that long or hard about their morality and would rather have legal zealots do that for them.

I think I've read enough of the linked text to be able to form an opinion.

Walter isn't saying that everything is lawful; to him, contracts are sacred and the "natural" means by which human interaction should be initiated.

Take, for example, his idea of the

"THE PERSON WHO YELLS “FIRE!” IN A CROWDED THEATER" as a hero:

In a case against free speech, the “fire!” screamer is Exhibit A. Even those who argue in defense of civil liberties and the right of free speech stipulate that these rights do not include the right to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater. This is the one case where all parties seem to agree that the right to free speech is not as important as other rights. But to override the right of free speech, for any reason, is a dangerous precedent, and never necessary. Certainly it is not necessary in the case of the person who yells “fire!” The rights of theater patrons can be protected without legally prohibiting free speech. For example, theater owners could contract with their customers not to yell “fire!” (unless, of course, there is a fire in the theater). The contract might take the form of an agreement, in small print, on the back of a theater ticket or a large message on wall posters placed throughout the theater, prohibiting any disturbance of the entertainment or singling out the shouting of the word, “fire!” But however the prohibition appeared, the contract would effectively put an end to the supposed conflict between the right of free speech and other rights. For the person who yelled “fire!” would then simply be violating a contract and could be dealt with accordingly. The situation would be entirely analogous to that of someone under contract to sing at a concert, but who refuses to sing, and instead lectures on economics. What is involved in both cases is not the right of free speech, but the obligation to honor a contract.

Why look at the prohibition in this way? There are several important reasons. First, the market would be much more effective in removing threats to the public health and safety—such as the one posed by the “fire!” screamer—than an all-encompassing governmental prohibition. A market contract system would work more efficiently because theater entrepreneurs would be in competition with each other with regard to the efficiency with which they prevented outbursts disruptive to the audience. Thus, they would have a great incentive to diminish the number and severity of such outburts. The government, on the other hand, offers no incentive. No one automatically
loses money when the government fails to maintain order in a theater." [Emphases added]

What's clear is that Walter, when he wrote this, was living in a thought bubble... which have an unfortunate tendency to pop when coming in contact with reality. Please note that he fails to specify any means by which theaters could control such outbursts without initiating physical violence--a crime, according to his philosophy. (After all, the audience rushing for the exits doesn't necessarily damage the theater's property.) What if the offender didn't yell "Fire!" but simply asked loudly, "Is something on fire?" (Of course, only the last word would be picked up by those at the edges of hearing.) He also fails to specify how, in the ensuing panic, the individual violating the "contract" could be identified so that he or she could be sued for breach of contract--his idea of the appropriate remedy. Finally, would all of us have to carry "underinsured person" insurance to protect ourselves against the financial cost of medical treatment for injuries resulting from the panicked rush following this exercise of "free speech?"

This reminds me of sophomoric bull sessions--in high school, not college--where we all sat around and opined that "the world would be perfect if only every body would..."

 

[shereads]

double post

 

[shereads]

I've asked about this 'line' before, during discussions of civil liberties, abortion rights, drug legalization, etc., and have never received a clear answer. Everybody seems to favor "Individual Freedom" with certain fiercely-defended exceptions.

My own view is that every consensual act among informed adults should be legal provided that there is no significant likelihood of harm to anyone else. (Harm can be anything from violence to a degraded environment.)

Want to drink a quart of vodka, shoot heroin, sky-dive, marry someone of the same sex and someone of the opposite sex and someone of indeterminate sex, all at the same time? Fine. As long as you're neither harming nor risking harm to innocent bystanders, you have the right to choose your own path.

Want to drive drunk, sell heroin to a minor, sky-dive into traffic in mid-town Manhattan, or coerce someone into sex or marriage? No. Same goes for despoiling the environment: you aren't exercising personal freedom here; you're depriving others of their right to choose or refuse an informed risk.

It's simple, really. Until you add politics and religion to the mix. Then it goes all to hell.

 

[amicus]

".

..
What is Block's criterion for a propoer law? according to him, the correct justification for a law and the use of the cops to enforce it: if someone, improperly, initiates force or threatens to, against another. removal or destruction of someone's property will be included in this description.

Comments? Does this simple concept generate all the proper laws?

I post this because some self said proponents of liberty, here, apparently want a VERY active government, e.g. one which tells people whom they can marry, and who can sell contraceptives to whom, etc. these are better classified as 'social conservatives' who believe in strong gov't authority..."

"..."The free market system, thus, cannot be considered a moral one..."

~~~

Regardless of how many time 'Pure' poses this question and regardless of how man time I, personally answer it, the pretense goes on with each new crop of readers as they come and go in the fullness of time. Why not simply admit you do not understand the workings of the free market place, individual human rights and liberties and the concept of law?

Whilst driving a back country road through the mid Willamette Valley in Oregon today, I had thought to ponder the difference between urban and inner city dwellers and those who lived within my view, with homes a half mile or more apart and back from the road for privacy. I thought also of the long and tortured history of Europe, from which most Americans migrated; thoughts coalesced that may be pertinent, so I will share them.

The environment of an urban area varies in degree, related to the distance one is from the maximum population, however, even in the suburbs, the proximity of others is much greater than the rural environment the men who wrote our Constitution and Bill of Rights lived in.

Our distant European neighbors, again, our ancestors, deal with the same demographics, but have an added burden; they have never truly witnessed a free society.

Let that sink in a bit as I feel it a crucial differentiation between Americans and the rest of the world combined. We have never had a King or an all powerful Church, to whose obedience, our very lives depended.

I am saying, that you habitual city dwellers, born, bred and raised elbow to elbow, and those who hail from Mother Europe, simply cannot comprehend the very essential concept of human individual liberty and personal freedom.

You really do not understand America, and all the time I thought you were just stupid; little did I realize that individuality has been bred out of you.

~~~

Now to your post: "

...some self said proponents of liberty, here, apparently want a VERY active government, e.g. one which tells people whom they can marry, and who can sell contraceptives to whom, etc..."

, , well, now, that would be me, right?

You left out abortion, the taking of an innocent human life, because we have tussled over that before.

Marriage is a contract of law, defined as between a man and a woman; what part of that do you not understand?

Contraceptives, specifically the morning after abortion pill, in the current issue, concerns minors without parental permission, age 17, now approved by Government that infringes upon the rights of the parents to provide guidance until the child reaches a majority.

That answers the paltry questions in your own words and I stopped reading the Libertarian Manifesto at the point I quoted above: "...The free market system, thus, cannot be considered a moral one...", because the statement is incorrect.

The free market system is the only moral system of exchange and trade between free individuals because it functions on mutual agreement and contractual terms, without the use of coercion or force or fraud.

I would take the time to explain morals and ethics, the values involved, such as honesty and integrity as individual characteristics, but you wouldn't understand anyway, so why bother?

Amicus

 

[Pure]

Full black mail portion.

The Blackmailer

THE BLACKMAILER

At first glance it is not hard to answer the question, “Is blackmail really illegitimate?” The only problem it would seem to pose is, “Why is it being asked at all?” Do not blackmailers, well . . . blackmail people? And what could be worse? Blackmailers prey on people’s dark hidden secrets. They threaten to expose and publicize them. They bleed their victims, and often drive them to suicide. We will find, however, that the case against the blackmailer cannot stand serious analysis; that it is based upon a tissue of unexamined shibboleths and deep philosophical misunderstandings.

What, exactly, is blackmail? Blackmail is the offer of trade. It is the offer to trade something, usually silence, for some other good, usually money. If the offer of the trade is accepted, the blackmailer then maintains his silence and the blackmailee pays the agreed-upon price. If the blackmail offer is rejected, the blackmailer may exercise his rights of free speech and publicize the secret. There is nothing amiss here. All that is happening is that an offer to maintain silence is being made. If the offer is rejected, the blackmailer does no more than exercise his right of free speech.


The sole difference between a gossip and a blackmailer is that the blackmailer will refrain from speaking—for a price. In a sense, the gossip is much worse than the blackmailer, for the blackmailer has given the blackmailee a chance to silence him. The gossip exposes the secret without warning. Is not the person


with a secret better off at the hands of a blackmailer than a gossip? With the gossip, all is lost; with the blackmailer, one can only gain, or at least be no worse off. If the price requested by the blackmailer is lower than the secret is worth, the secretholder will pay the blackmailer—this being the lesser of the two evils. He thus gains the difference to him between the value of the secret and the price of the blackmail.

When the blackmailer demands more than the secret is worth, his demand will not be met and the information will become public. However, in this case the person is no worse off with the blackmailer than he would have been with the inveterate gossip. It is indeed difficult, then, to account for the vilification suffered by the blackmailer, at least compared to the gossip, who is usually dismissed with slight contempt and smugness. Blackmail need not entail the offer of silence in return for money. This is only the best known form. But blackmail may be defined without reference to either.

Defined in general terms, blackmail is the threat to do something—anything which is not in itself illegal—unless certain demands are met. Many actions in the public arena qualify as acts of blackmail, but, instead of being vilified, they have often attained a status of respectability!

For example, the recent lettuce boycott is a form of blackmail. Through the lettuce boycott (or any boycott) threats are made to retailers and wholesalers of fruits and vegetables. If they handle nonunion lettuce, the boycotters assert, people will be asked not to patronize their establishments. This conforms perfectly to the definition: a threat that something, not in itself illegal, will take place unless certain demands are met.

But what about the threats involved in blackmail? This perhaps more than anything else, is the aspect of blackmail that is most misunderstood and feared. At first glance, one is inclined to agree that threats are immoral. The usual dictum against aggression, for example, warns not only against aggression per se but also against the threat of aggression. If a highwayman accosts a traveler, it is usually the threat of aggression alone that will compel obedience.


Consider the nature of threats. When what is threatened is aggressive violence, the threat is condemnable. No individual has the right to initiate aggressive violence against another. In blackmail, however, what is being “threatened” is something that the blackmailer does have a right to do!—whether it be exercising the right of free speech, or refusing to patronize certain stores, or persuading others to do likewise. What is being threatened is not in itself illegitimate; it is, therefore, not possible to call the “threat” an illegitimate threat. Blackmail can only be illegitimate when there is a special foresworn relationship between the blackmailer and the blackmailee.

A secret-keeper may take a lawyer or a private investigator into his confidence on the condition that the confidence be maintained in secrecy. If the lawyer or private investigator attempts to blackmail the secret-keeper, that would be in violation of the contract and, therefore, illegitimate. However, if a stranger holds the secret without contractual obligations, then it is legitimate to offer to “sell” his silence. In addition to being a legitimate activity, blackmail has some good effects, litanies to the contrary notwithstanding.

Apart from some innocent victims who are caught in the net, whom does the blackmailer usually prey upon? In the main, there are two groups. One group is composed of criminals: murderers, thieves, swindlers, embezzlers, cheaters, rapists, etc. The other group consists of people who engage in activities, not illegitimate in themselves, but which are contrary to the mores and habits of the majority: homosexuals, sado-masochists, sexual perverts, communists, adulterers, etc.

The institution of blackmail has beneficial, but different, effects upon each of these groups. In the case of criminals, blackmail and the threat of blackmail serves as a deterrent. They add to the risks involved in criminal activity. How many of the anonymous “tips” received by the police—the value of which cannot be overestimated— can be traced, directly or indirectly, to blackmail? How many criminals are led to pursue crime on their own, eschewing the aid of fellow criminals in “jobs” that call for cooperation, out ofthe fear of possible blackmail?


Finally, there are those individuals who are on the verge of committing crimes, or at the “margin of criminality” (as the economist would say), where the least factor will propel them one way or another. The additional fear of blackmail may be enough, in some cases, to dissuade them from crime. If blackmail itself were legalized, it would undoubtedly be an even more effective deterrent.

Legalization would undoubtedly result in an increase in blackmail, with attendant depredations upon the criminal class. It is sometimes said that what diminishes crime is not the penalty attached to the crime but the certainty of being caught. Although this controversy rages with great relevance in current debates on capital punishment, it will suffice to point out that the institution of blackmail does both. It increases the penalty associated with crime, as it forces criminals to share part of their loot with the blackmailer.

It also raises the probability of being apprehended, as blackmailers are added to police forces, private citizen and vigilante groups, and other anticrime units. Blackmailers, who are often members in good standing in the criminal world, are in an advantageous position to foil crimes. Their “inside” status surpasses even that of the spy or infiltrator, who is forced to play a role. Legalizing blackmail would thus allow anticrime units to take advantage of two basic crime fighting adages at the same time: “divide and conquer,” and “lack of honor among thieves.” It is quite clear that one important effect of legalizing blackmail would be to diminish crime, real crime, that is.

The legalization of blackmail would also have a beneficial effect upon actions which do not involve aggression, but are at variance with the mores of society as a whole. On these actions, the legalization of blackmail would have a liberating effect. Even with blackmail still illegal, we are witnessing some of its beneficial effects.

Homosexuality, for instance, is technically illegal in some instances, but not really criminal, since it involves no aggression. For individual homosexuals, blackmail very often causes considerable harm and can hardly be considered beneficial. But for the group as a whole, that is, for each individual as a member of the group, blackmail has helped by making the public more aware and accustomed to homosexuality. Forcing individual members of a socially oppressed group into the open, or “out of the closet,” cannot, of course, be considered a service. The use of force is a violation of an individual’s rights.

But still, it does engender an awareness on the part of members of a group of one another’s existence. In forcing this perception, blackmail can legitimately take some small share of the credit in liberating people whose only crime is a deviation from the norm in a noncriminal way. In reflecting on the old aphorism, “the truth shall make you free,” the only “weapon” at the disposal of the blackmailer is the truth. In using the truth to back up his threats (as on occasion he must), he sets the truth free, very often without intent, to do whatever good or bad it is capable of doing.

 

[Pure]

The Money Lender and the Slumlord

Two further cases, from Block, verbatim. [Not adjacent in the original.]

17
THE MONEYLENDER

Ever since Biblical times, when the moneylenders were driven from the temple, they have been scorned, criticized, vilified, persecuted, prosecuted, and caricatured. Shakespeare, in The Merchant of Venice, characterized the moneylender as a Jew scurrying around trying to exact his “pound of flesh.” In the movie, The Pawnbroker, the moneylender was an object of loathing. The moneylender, however, together with his first cousins, the usurer, the pawnbroker, and the loan shark, have been badly misjudged. Although they perform a necessary and important service, they are, nevertheless, extremely unpopular. Lending and borrowing take place because people differ as to their rate of time preference (the rate at which they are willing to trade money they presently possess, for money they will receive in the future).

Mr. A may be anxious to have money right now, and not care too much about what money he may have in the future. He is willing to give up $200 next year in order to have $100 now. Mr. A has a very high rate of time preference. At the other end of the spectrum are the people with very low rates of time preference. To them, “future money” is almost as important as “present money.” Mr. B, with a low rate of time preference, is willing to give up only $102 next year in order to receive $100 now. Unlike Mr. A, who cares much more about present money than future money, Mr. B would not give up a large amount of future money for cash in hand. (It should be noted that a negative time preference does not exist, that is, a preference for money in the future over money in the present.

This would be equivalent to saying that there would be a preference toward giving up $100 in the present, in order to get $95 in the future. This is irrational unless there are conditions other than time preference which operate. For example, one might want to purchase protection for money that is unsafe now, but will be safe a year hence, etc. Or, one may want to savor his dessert and postpone consumption until after dinner. “Dessert-before-dinner” would then be considered a different good than “dessertafter-dinner,” no matter how similar the two goods were in physical terms. There is thus no preference shown for a good in the future over the same good in the present.)

Although it is not necessary, it is usual for a person with a high time preference (Mr. A), to become a net borrower of money, and for a person with a low time preference (Mr. B), to become a lender. It would be natural, for example, for Mr. A to borrow from Mr. B. Mr. A is willing to give up $200 a year from now in order to get $100 now, and Mr. B would be willing to loan $100 now if he can get at least $102 after one year has elapsed. If they agree that $150 is to be repaid a year hence for a present loan of $100, they both gain. Mr. A will gain the difference between the $200 he would have been willing to pay for $100 now and the $150 that he will actually be called upon to pay. That is, he will gain $50. Mr. B will gain the difference between the $150 that he will actually get a year hence and the $102 that he would have been willing to accept in a year for giving up the $100 now, a gain of $48. In fact, because moneylending is a trade, like any other trade, both parties must gain or they would refuse to participate. A moneylender may be defined as someone who loans out his own money or the money of others. In the latter case his function is that of intermediary between the lender and borrower.

In either case, the moneylender is as honest as any other businessman. He does not force anyone to do business with him nor is he himself compelled. There are, of course, dishonest moneylenders just as there are dishonest people in all walks of life. But there is nothing dishonest or reprehensible about moneylending per se. Some criticism of this view deserves further examination. 1. “Moneylending is infamous because it is frequently accompanied by violence. Borrowers (or victims) unable to pay their debts are often found murdered—usually by the loan shark.” Individuals who borrow money from moneylenders usually have contracts with them to which they have fully agreed. One is hardly a victim of a moneylender if one has agreed to repay a loan, and then reneges on the contractual promise. On the contrary, the moneylender is the victim of the borrower. If the loan, but not the repayment is consummated, the situation is equivalent to theft. There is little difference between the thief who breaks into the moneylender’s office and steals money, and the person who “borrows” it contractually, and then refuses to pay it back.

In both cases, the result is the same—someone has taken possession of money which is not theirs. Killing a debtor is an unjust overreaction, just as the murder of a thief would be. The primary reason moneylenders take the law into their own hands, however, and do not hesitate to use forceful means, even murder, is that moneylending is controlled by the underworld. But this control came about virtually at the public’s request! When courts refuse to compel debtors to pay their rightful debts, and they prohibit the lending of money at high rates of interest, the underworld steps in. Whenever the government outlaws a commodity for which there are consumers, be it whiskey, drugs, gambling, prostitution, or high interest loans, the underworld enters the industry that law-abiding entrepreneurs fear to service. There is nothing in whiskey, drugs, gambling, prostitution, or moneylending that is intrinsically criminal. It is solely because of a legal prohibition that gangland methods become associated with these fields. 2. “Money is sterile and produces nothing by itself. Therefore, any interest charge for its use is exploitative.

Moneylenders, who charge abnormal interest rates, are among the most exploitative people in the economy. They richly deserve the opprobrium they receive.” Apart from the ability of money to buy goods and services, having money earlier, rather than later, provides an escape from the pain of waiting for fulfillment. It fosters a productive investment which, at the end of the loan period, even after paying the interest charge, yields more goods and services than at the beginning. As for the “exorbitantly high” rates of interest, it should be understood that in a free market, the rate of interest tends to be determined by the time preferences of all the economic actors.

If the rate of interest is inordinately high, forces will tend to develop which will push it down. If, for example, the rate of interest is higher than the time preference rate of the people involved, the demand for loans will be less than the supply, and the interest rate will be forced down. If the interest rate shows no tendency to decrease, this indicates not that it is too high, but that only a high rate of interest can equilibrate the demand for loans, and satisfy the time preference rate of the economic actors. The critic of high interest rates has in mind a “fair” rate of interest.

But a “fair” rate of interest or a “just” price does not exist. This is an atavistic concept, a throwback to medieval times when monks debated the question, along with the question of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. If there is any meaning to the “fair” rate of interest doctrine, it can only be the rate which is mutually agreeable to two consenting adults, and that is exactly what the market rate of interest is. 3. “Moneylenders prey upon the poor by charging higher rates of interest than they charge other borrowers.” It is a common myth that the rich compose virtually the whole moneylending class and that the poor virtually all the borrowing class.

This, however, is not true. What determines whether a person becomes a net borrower or lender is his rate of time preference, not his income. Rich corporations that sell bonds are borrowers, for the sale of bonds represents money borrowed. Most wealthy people who own real estate or other properties which are heavily mortgaged, are almost certainly net borrowers, not net lenders. On the other hand, every poor widow or pensioner with a small bank account is a moneylender.



It is true that moneylenders charge the poor higher rates of interest than they charge other people, but when stated in this way it can be misleading. For moneylenders charge higher rates of interest to individuals who are greater risks—those who are less likely to repay the loan—regardless of wealth. One way to decrease the risk of default and, therefore, the rate of interest charged, is to put up collateral or real property that would be forfeited if the loan is not repaid. Since rich people are more capable of putting up collateral for loans than poor people, their loans are granted at lower rates of interest.

The reason, however, is not because they are rich, but because the lender is less likely to undergo losses in case of default. There is nothing untoward or unique about this situation. Poor people pay a higher rate for fire insurance since their houses have less fìreproofìng than rich people’s houses. They are charged more for medical care since they are less healthy. Food costs are higher for poor people because there is more crime in their neighborhoods, and crime raises the cost of conducting a business. This is, to be sure, regrettable, but it is not the result of malice against the poor.

The moneylender, like the health insurance company and the grocer, seeks to protect his investment. Imagine the results of a law which prohibits usury, which can be defined as charging a rate of interest higher than the lawmaker approves of. Since the poor and not the rich pay the higher interest rate, the law would have its first effects on them. The effect would be to hurt the poor, and, if anything, enhance the rich. The law seems to be designed to protect the poor from having to pay high interest rates, but in reality it would really make it impossible for them to borrow money at all!

If the moneylender must choose between loaning money to the poor at rates he regards as too low, and not loaning them any money at all, it is not difficult to see what choice he will make. What will the moneylender do with the money he would have loaned to the poor but for the prohibitory law? He will make loans exclusively to the rich, incurring little risk of nonrepayment. This will have the effect of lowering the interest rates for the rich, because the greater the supply of a good in any given market, the lower the price. The question of whether or not it is fair to prohibit exorbitant rates of interest is not now under discussion, only the effects of such a law. And these effects are, quite clearly, calamitous for the poor.

[other examples]
[...]
THE SLUMLORD

To many people, the slumlord—alias ghetto landlord and rent gouger—is proof that man can, while still alive, attain a satanic image. Recipient of vile curses, pincushion for needle bearing tenants with a penchant for voodoo, perceived as exploiter of the downtrodden, the slumlord is surely one of the most hated figures of the day. The indictment is manifold: he charges unconscionably high rents; he allows his buildings to fall into disrepair; his apartments are painted with cheap lead paint which poisons babies, and he allows junkies, rapists, and drunks to harass the tenants. The falling plaster, the overflowing garbage, the omnipresent roaches, the leaky plumbing, the roof cave-ins and the fires, are all integral parts of the slumlord’s domain. And the only creatures who thrive in his premises are the rats.

The indictment, highly charged though it is, is spurious. The owner of ghetto housing differs little from any other purveyor of low cost merchandise. In fact, he is no different from any purveyor of any kind of merchandise. They all charge as much as they can. First consider the purveyors of cheap, inferior, and secondhand merchandise as a class. One thing above all else stands out about merchandise they buy and sell: it is cheaply built, inferior in quality, or secondhand.

A rational person would not expect high quality, exquisite workmanship, or superior new merchandise at bargain rate prices; he would not feel outraged and cheated if bargain rate merchandise proved to have only bargain rate qualities. Our expectations from margarine are not those of butter. We are satisfied with lesser qualities from a used car than from a new car.

However, when it comes to housing, especially in the urban setting, people expect, even insist upon, quality housing at bargain prices. But what of the claim that the slumlord overcharges for his decrepit housing? This is erroneous. Everyone tries to obtain the highest price possible for what he produces, and to pay the lowest price possible for what he buys. Landlords operate this way, as do workers, minority group members, socialists, babysitters, and communal farmers. Even widows and pensioners who save their money for an emergency try to get the highest interest rates possible for their savings.

According to the reasoning which finds slumlords contemptible, all these people must also be condemned. For they “exploit” the people to whom they sell or rent their services and capital in the same way when they try to obtain the highest return possible. But, of course, they are not contemptible—at least not because of their desire to obtain as high a return as possible from their products and services. And neither are slumlords. Landlords of dilapidated houses are singled out for something which is almost a basic part of human nature—the desire to barter and trade and to get the best possible bargain. The critics of the slumlord fail to distinguish between the desire to charge high prices, which everyone has, and the ability to do so, which not everyone has.

Slumlords are distinct, not because they want to charge high prices, but because they can. The question which is, therefore, central to the issue—and which the critics totally disregard—is why this is so. What usually stops people from charging inordinately high prices is the competition which arises as soon as the price and profit margin of any given product or service begins to rise. If the price of frisbees, for example, starts to rise, established manufacturers will expand production, new entrepreneurs will enter the industry, used frisbees will perhaps be sold in secondhand markets, etc.

All these activities tend to counter the original rise in price. If the price of rental apartments suddenly began to rise because of a sudden housing shortage, similar forces would come into play. New housing would be built by established real estate owners and by new ones who would be drawn into the industry by the price rise. Old housing would tend to be renovated; basements and attics would be pressed into use. All these activities would tend to drive the price of housing down, and cure the housing shortage. If landlords tried to raise the rents in the absence of a housing shortage, they would find it difficult to keep their apartments rented. For both old and new tenants would be tempted away by the relatively lower rents charged elsewhere.

Even if landlords banded together to raise rents, they would not be able to maintain the rise in the absence of a housing shortage. Such an attempt would be countered by new entrepreneurs, not party to the cartel agreement, who would rush in to meet the demand for lower priced housing. They would buy existing housing, and build new housing. Tenants would, of course, flock to the noncartel housing. Those who remained in the high price buildings would tend to use less space, either by doubling up or by seeking less space than before. As this occurs it would become more difficult for the cartel landlords to keep their buildings fully rented. Inevitably, the cartel would break up, as the landlords sought to find and keep tenants in the only way possible: by lowering rents.

It is, therefore, specious to claim that landlords charge whatever they please. They charge whatever the market will bear, as does everyone else. An additional reason for calling the claim unwarranted is that there is, at bottom, no really legitimate sense to the concept of overcharging. “Overcharging” can only mean “charging more than the buyer would like to pay.” But since we would all really like to pay nothing for our dwelling space (or perhaps minus infinity, which would be equivalent to the landlord paying the tenant an infinite amount of money for living in his building), landlords who charge anything at all can be said to be overcharging. Everyone who sells at any price greater than zero can be said to be overcharging, because we would all like to pay nothing (or minus infinity) for what we buy.




Disregarding as spurious the claim that the slumlord overcharges, what of the vision of rats, garbage, falling plaster, etc.? Is the slumlord responsible for these conditions? Although it is fashionable in the extreme to say “yes,” this will not do. For the problem of slum housing is not really a problem of slums or of housing at all. It is a problem of poverty—a problem for which the landlord cannot be held responsible. And when it is not the result of poverty, it is not a social problem at all.

Slum housing with all its horrors is not a problem when the inhabitants are people who can afford higher quality housing, but prefer to live in slum housing because of the money they can save thereby. Such a choice might not be a popular one, but other people’s freely made choices which affect only them cannot be classified as a social problem. (If that could be done, we would all be in danger of having our most deliberate choices, our most cherished tastes and desires characterized as “social problems” by people whose taste differs from ours.) Slum housing is a problem when the inhabitants live there of necessity—not wishing to remain there, but unable to afford anything better.

Their situation is certainly distressing, but the fault does not lie with the landlord. On the contrary, he is providing a necessary service, given the poverty of the tenants. For proof, consider a law prohibiting the existence of slums, and, therefore, of slumlords, without making provisions for the slumdwellers in any other way, such as providing decent housing for the poor, or an adequate income to buy or rent good housing. The argument is that if the slumlord truly harms the slumdweller, then his elimination, with everything else unchanged, ought to increase the net well-being of the slum tenant. But the law would not accomplish this. It would greatly harm not only the slumlords but the slumdwellers as well. If anything, it would harm the slumdwellers even more, for the slumlords would lose only one of perhaps many sources of income; the slumdwellers would lose their very homes. They would be forced to rent more expensive dwelling space, with consequent decreases in the amount of money available for food, medicines, and other necessities. No.

The problem is not
the slumlord; it is poverty. Only if the slumlord were the cause of poverty could he be legitimately blamed for the evils of slum housing. Why is it then, if he is no more guilty of underhandedness than other merchants, that the slumlord has been singled out for vilification? After all, those who sell used clothes to Bowery bums are not reviled, even though their wares are inferior, the prices high, and the purchasers poor and helpless. Instead of blaming the merchants, however, we seem to know where the blame lies—in the poverty and hopeless conditon of the Bowery bum. In like manner, people do not blame the owners of junkyards for the poor condition of their wares or the dire straits of their customers. People do not blame the owners of “day-old bakeries” for the staleness of the bread. They realize, instead, that were it not for junkyards and these bakeries, poor people would be in an even worse condition than they are now in.

Although the answer can only be speculative, it would seem that there is a positive relationship between the amount of governmental interference in an economic arena, and the abuse and invective heaped upon the businessmen serving that arena. There have been few laws interfering with the “day-old bakeries” or junkyards, but many in the housing area. The link between government involvement in the housing market and the plight of the slumlord’s public image should, therefore, be pinpointed. That there is strong and varied government involvement in the housing market cannot be denied. Scatter-site housing projects, “public” housing and urban renewal projects, zoning ordinances and building codes, are just a few examples. Each of these has created more problems than it has solved. More housing has been destroyed than created, racial tensions have been exacerbated, and neighborhoods and community life have been shattered. In each case, it seems that the spillover effects of bureaucratic red tape and bungling are visited upon the slumlord. He bears the blame for much of the overcrowding engendered by the urban renewal program. He is blamed for not keeping his buildings up to the standards set forth in unrealistic building codes which, if met, would radically worsen the situation of the slumdweller. (Compelling “Cadillac housing” can only harm the inhabitants of “Volkswagen housing.”

It puts all housing out of the financial reach of the poor.) Perhaps the most critical link between the government and the disrepute in which the slumlord is held is the rent control law. For rent control legislation changes the usual profit incentives, which put the entrepreneur in the service of his customers, to incentives which make him the direct enemy of his tenantcustomers. Ordinarily the landlord (or any other businessman) earns money by serving the needs of his tenants. If he fails to meet these needs, the tenants will tend to move out. Vacant apartments mean, of course, a loss of income. Advertising, rental agents, repairs, painting, and other conditions involved in rerenting an apartment mean extra expenditures. In addition, the landlord who fails to meet the needs of the tenants may have to charge lower rents than he otherwise could. As in other businesses, the customer is “always right,” and the merchant ignores this dictum only at his own peril. But with rent control the incentive system is turned around. Here the landlord can earn the greatest return not by serving his tenants well, but by mistreating them, by malingering, by refusing to make repairs, by insulting them.


When the rents are legally controlled at rates below their market value, the landlord earns the greatest return not by serving his tenants, but by getting rid of them. For then he can replace them with higher paying non-rent-controlled tenants. If the incentive system is turned around under rent control, it is the self-selection process through which entry to the landlord “industry” is determined. The types of people attracted to an occupation are influenced by the type of work that must be done in the industry. If the occupation calls (financially) for service to consumers, one type of landlord will be attracted. If the occupation calls (financially) for harassment of consumers, then quite a different type of landlord will be attracted. In other words, in many cases the reputation of the slumlord as cunning, avaricious, etc., might be well-deserved, but it is the rent control program in the first place which encourages people of this type to become landlords.


If the slumlord were prohibited from lording over slums, and if this prohibition were actively enforced, the welfare of the poor slumdweller would be immeasurably worsened, as we have seen. It is the prohibition of high rents, by rent control and similar legislation, that causes the deterioration of housing. It is the prohibition of low-quality housing, by housing codes and the like, that causes landlords to leave the field of housing. The result is that tenants have fewer choices, and the choices they have are of low quality. If landlords cannot make as much profit in supplying housing to the poor as they can in other endeavors, they will leave the field.

Attempts to lower rents and maintain high quality through prohibitions only lower profits and drive slumlords out of the field, leaving poor tenants immeasurably worse off. It should be remembered that the basic cause of slums is not the slumlord, and that the worst “excesses” of the slumlord are due to governmental programs, especially rent control. The slumlord does make a positive contribution to society; without him, the economy would be worse off. That he continues in his thankless task, amidst all the abuse and vilification, can only be evidence of his basically heroic nature.

 

[Pure]

Block on the Money Lender and the Slumlord.

Block is giving the classical "free market" approach to 'usury' laws. He is thus going MORE towards de regulation of the market than, iirc, Adam Smith. The money lender at 'exorbitant' interest is offering an apparently desired service to someone who would not other have any service. Further, the laws against money lending at such rates make things worse---drive up the money lender's rates. BUT, even if they did not, and if they 'succeeded', the alleged beneficiary gets nothing. He's a "poor risk", unable to borrow from the lenders the government says are legitimate.

As far as the slumlord goes, the argument is classic and one would think it would appeal to the likes of amicus. Let the market sort out quality issues. As with the money lender, the slumlord puts something on the market for which there is a demand. So to say, he "exploits" the situation. But, argues Block, in fact, he is useful, in the same way the money lender is. After all, "cadillac" housing is just not available to poor people. Hence IF the legislation succeeded in suppressing "slumlords", the poor would have no place to live except tents. Even though the slumlord 'exploits' a situation, it's important to note that he did not create it. Povery pre-exists. Hence the "blight" of slum properties is a consequent of poverty, NOT of there being "slum landlords." Further, arguably, slum lords do NOT maintain the alleged evil, i.e. cause it to continue to exist. Poverty does.

I do note that Block is mildly inconsistent, here: Most of his examples deal with *criminal laws* and those he considers bad ones, e.g. those against prostitution, pimping, blackmail, slander/libel.

Here the matter is Building Codes. Infractions here. however, do not result in criminal penalities, typically, but, rather, fines. Even in severe cases i know of [when the owner does not comply with 'work orders' after *years* of pressure] , the City will 'seize' a property and fix it up, and bill the owner. If he pays, he does not lose it.

It's easy to see that doing away with building codes is an apparent consequent of treating property as sacred. Something Amicus does routinely.

 

[Pure]

reply to amicus

ami I stopped reading the Libertarian Manifesto at the point I quoted above:That answers the paltry questions in your own words and I stopped reading the Libertarian Manifesto at the point I quoted above: "...The free market system, thus, cannot be considered a moral one...", because the statement is incorrect.

The free market system is the only moral system of exchange and trade between free individuals because it functions on mutual agreement and contractual terms, without the use of coercion or force or fraud.

I would take the time to explain morals and ethics, the values involved, such as honesty and integrity as individual characteristics, but you wouldn't understand anyway, so why bother?
because the statement is incorrect.

The free market system is the only moral system of exchange and trade between free individuals because it functions on mutual agreement and contractual terms, without the use of coercion or force or fraud.

I would take the time to explain morals and ethics, the values involved, such as honesty and integrity as individual characteristics, but you wouldn't understand anyway, so why bother?

hi ami,

i figured you would NOT take to a genuine "minimal government" or classic libertarian approach. For you want the gov't involved, at least in some cases, in the enforcement of morals. Block does not.

to clarify his remark: "...The free market system, thus, cannot be considered a moral one...",

i believe this is simply a restatement of his basic point that some of the figures he discusses, e.g. the slanderer/libelerm are NOT persons we might approve of. So if Block had his way, 'the market' in ideas would handle the problem. HENCE there would be no gov't interference. In that sense the gov't is not exactly a *moral* force.

in a larger sense, however, Block is published by the Von Mises institute and recommmended by Von Mises, a classical capitalist in his thinking. hence Block would say that he HAS described the proper sphere of gov't [prevent initiation of force, or afterwards, punish it], and the sphere of the 'market'. In that sense, therefore, the 'free market' IS moral... as you might wish it to be. It's running as it should, according to Block, Von Mises, etc.

 

[rickyd123]

You can rite a mouth full

 

[SimonBrooke]

What is Block's criterion for a proper law? according to him, the [only] correct justification for a law and the use of the cops to enforce it: if someone, improperly, initiates force or threatens to, against another. removal or destruction of someone's property will be included in this description.
Comments? Does this simple concept generate all the proper laws?

I'm always interested by people who call themselves 'libertarians' but nevertheless support property laws. The concept of heritable property (as opposed, for example, to usufruct) is essentially a means of hegemonising wealth, and is therefore the exact opposite of what a libertarian stands for.

The so called 'libertarian right' of America is not libertarian in the least: it is a political expression of the haves who wish to prevent any further have-nots from joining them. Right wingers claim to believe in meritocracy - that those who are successful (which inevitably, to some extent, means 'lucky') should be able to keep what they gain. And, if they limited that to a man's lifetime, I'd see that as an entirely just - if harsh - doctrine. If every child started on a level playing field with exactly the same quality of education and exactly the same amount of inherited wealth, then that would be just. But that is not what the right want. They want their children to be able to inherit their wealth and thus have a head start - to lock in and fossilise social and economic privilege. And that is simply not a tolerable social doctrine.

No man is an island. Wealth is mainly a product of communal action, and extreme wealth usually comes from externalising costs onto other people. Therefore is seems to me just that wealth that is created should be shared by the community as a whole. But beyond that the whole concept of property in land is based entirely on expropriation, extortion, theft, fraud and dishonesty. Originally, no-one owned the land. How, then, did it become property? People expropriated it. End of story. And, the proceeds of crime should not be permitted to become the property of the criminal.

 

[Corylea]

If every child started on a level playing field with exactly the same quality of education and exactly the same amount of inherited wealth, then that would be just. But that is not what the right want. They want their children to be able to inherit their wealth and thus have a head start - to lock in and fossilise social and economic privilege. And that is simply not a tolerable social doctrine.

I mostly agree with you, but I feel compelled to point out: neither you nor I have any children. We might have different attitudes about heritable property if we had kids.

 

[rgraham666]

I will make my usual point that libertarianism is one of the most successful rebrandings in history.

Anarchy has a bad rap, deservedly in my opinion. So they rebranded themselves as libertarians. This has two advantages.

The first is since many people take words as truth they don't connect anarchy and libertarianism. Thus libertarianism shook off the baggage of anarchy.

The second is that this rebranding made it difficult to argue against libertarianism. Since the root word of libertarianism is liberty, to be against libertarianism is to be against liberty. So anyone arguing against libertarianism is automatically shuffled into the category of evil. For only evil people can be against liberty.

Brilliant.

In actuality libertarianism is just another ideology. Its adherents use it for two purposes, as all ideologues do. They use it to gain power and they use it to excuse their actions against the rest of humanity. They never have to be responsible for what they did ever again.

 

[Pure]

note to simon; note to rg

The so called 'libertarian right' of America is not libertarian in the least: it is a political expression of the haves who wish to prevent any further have-nots from joining them. Right wingers claim to believe in meritocracy - that those who are successful (which inevitably, to some extent, means 'lucky') should be able to keep what they gain. And, if they limited that to a man's lifetime, I'd see that as an entirely just - if harsh - doctrine. If every child started on a level playing field with exactly the same quality of education and exactly the same amount of inherited wealth, then that would be just

hi simon. i think youre right about the 'libertarians,' amicus being one local example. some believe in liberty, others believe, as you say, in the "liberty" of the larger corporations and business entities and their owners to do as they please.

you are right about inheritance as a problem. Block, in fact, has a chapter defending the 'inheritor,' just as he does, the slumlord. you might read that section. his argument, however, is NOT of the type for slumlord. rahter he argues that inheritance is essentially a gift; so the guy with property has a right to make it. i think in one way, though Block is right: he further argues that no laws that could stop inheritance could work without loads of other restrictions, e.g. on making 'birthday gifts' of one's wealth.

i think the problem is essentially unsolvable. SOME defense of property seems necessary, but once that gov't is in place, it's going to end up defending accumulation, inheritance, etc.

so as you say, what starts as 'liberty' and 'free market' and 'efforts rewarded proportionately' ends up with 'ensure that the better off, stay that way.
=

to rg.
I think you're right about libertarian being a re branding.

unfortunately self labelled anarchists are rather rare and often maligned. those who actually oppose ALL gov't authority. amicus wants the gov't to exert authority in lots of ways, e.g. wiretapping, detaining 'suspects,' torturing them for info, etc. essentially a 'national security state' with the added moral agenda of 'defending familiy values,' e.g. exerting pressure on teen to abstain; forcing teen moms to bear the kids and to put them up for adoption.

the true anarchist has to take a further step beyond minimum gov't. he or she must resist OTHER authorities as well. libertarians and the Ayn Rand subtype (who don't like the term) should, if they favor the "individual," should be concerned to insure that, besides the gov't, other entities do not push around the individual: Standard Oil, General Motors and Kaiser Permanente.

from almost all libertarians, for the same reasons as simon gives, there is at best a deafening silence [Rand] or worse a *defense of monopoly juxtaposed with the supposed defence of the 'free market.'

 

[Liar]

The second is that this rebranding made it difficult to argue against libertarianism. Since the root word of libertarianism is liberty, to be against libertarianism is to be against liberty. So anyone arguing against libertarianism is automatically shuffled into the category of evil. For only evil people can be against liberty.

I dunno. It seems to be fairly easy for people to argue against socialism.

If the root word for liberalism is liberty, the root word for socialism must be society.

Anyone who is against society, raise your hand.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Defending the Undefendable, by Walter Block. [orig. pub. 1976]

This is a classic in the minimal government genre. He argues that whatever we think about the morality of the following persons, the governement should NOT be coming after them. IOW, there should be no laws on the books by which they can be prosecuted Indeed, in economic terms, says Block, many of them contribute, despite their scapegoat status. [[ADDED: That is one reason that Block calls them 'heroes'; they are doing something worthy despite social opprobrium.]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8051279/Defending-the-Undefendable

Among those he considers and defends are the following.

pimp, blackmailer, drug pusher, slanderer/libeler, the dishonest cop, the strip miner, the employer of child labor.

I deleted everything below this point because I considered it to be extremely distorted and twisted logic, using only some facts and ignoring others.

There are some crimes that do not involve force or threat of force, which should remain against the law. They include things such as forgery, receiving stolen property, rape of an unconscious person, burglary of an unoccupied place, most car thefts, swindling, perjury, and others.


As for people that Black has said should not be considered criminals:

Pimp: Since I believe that prostitution should be legal, that people should have the right to charge for sexual services, pimps should not be thought of as criminals. If a person works as a prostitute, and he or she decides to hire a manager to arrange dates and to take care of money, that manager should be regarded as any other manager. With prostitution legalized, the stereotypical pimp would pretty much disappear.

Of course, this does not apply to white slavers and persons who force children into the sex trade. Such persons should be punished as severely as possible.

Blackmailer or extortionist: This should be illegal but, since many of the incidents which they threaten to expose would no longer be illegal, the offense would become less common than it is now. At the same time, for example, suppose there is a young woman who works as a stripper to pay her college expenses, and goes to work for a rather straight-laced employer after graduation. Suppose further that another person threatens to tell her employer about the woman's previous occupation, unless paid off. This kind of thing should remain illegal.

Drug pushers: Most drug pushers already operate within the law anyhow. I am referring to bartenders and owners and emloyees of liquor stores. Since I believe that almost all drugs should be legal, with some controls, drug pushing would be no more illegal than bartending is now. I don't recommend people using drugs; I am just saying they should have the choice.

Slanderer/libeler: Are you crazy! Do you think it should be perfectly legal to blacken the reputation of any business rival or political candidate or estranged spouse or anybody else you want? Do you think it should be legal for a newspaper to fabricate a story about somebody molesting their little children? If such things were legal, nobody would ever believe anything they hear or read, and persons who actually commit evil deeds could do so with impunity, because nobody would believe anybody who exposed them.

Dishonest cop: If you are referring to a cop who takes payoffs from pimps or bookies or similar persons, this would be moot, because such persons would no longer be operating outside the law, and no payoff would be called for. If you are referring to a cop who acts as a lookout for burglars or who rolls drunks or does other illegal acts, such persons should be punished more than others who do the same thing, because they would be abusing their authority and betraying a trust.

 

[SimonBrooke]

In favour of anarchism

rgraham666 describes libertarianism as rebranding of anarchism:

Anarchy has a bad rap, deservedly in my opinion. So they rebranded themselves as libertarians.

This simply isn't true. I'll come clean at this stage and say: I am an anarchist. I don't believe in government at all. I believe in a world of free agreements between voluntary collectivities of people. I certainly don't believe that government should be retained for the sole purpose of maintaining an inequitable social order.

Pure says:

you are right about inheritance as a problem.

Inheritance isn't a problem. Property is a problem. Once you have the concept of heritable property, then inheritance is a problem. Anarchists don't believe in heritable property: as Proudhon said property is theft.. An anarchist cannot believe in inalienable rights. How could he? Without a God to hand down inalienable rights on tablets of stone, how could we know what they were? So an anarchist cannot believe that property is an inalienable right.

Right-wing nutjobs may believe that they could exploit a system of anarchy to raise themselves into robber barons protected by arsenals of Mad Max style weaponry. But that would not be anarchy; rather, they would have raised themselves as tyrants and imposed a tyranny. And, in any case, it would be economically inefficient. What motivates the other people to work for the tyrant? Only fear. Fear does not make people creative, or productive. Although, I admit that, for me, right-wing nut jobs of that nature do represent one of the practical problems in establishing an anarchy.

As to how the use of goods and land should be managed under anarchy, the answer is it will vary from locality to locality. That's the nature of anarchy. Free people in voluntary associations voluntarily order things as best suits their circumstances and their needs. But its likely that in most places the practice of usufruct will be followed, as it was in most peasant societies in Europe before the development of the feudal system. People would be able to expect to have the continued use of something they were using effectively to the community's benefit. In most places people would also expect to have first call on the fruits of their own labour.

None of this is desperately complicated. Human beings have drives towards both competition and co-operation. Capitalism emphasises the drives to competitiveness and greed, but on the whole most people are still co-operative and generous. And if they are so under capitalism, they could only be more so under anarchy.

A final note on how the problem of property can be managed, and, indeed, was managed in many traditional native American communities. Gift cultures are cultures in which social status is measured not by how much you have but by how much you have given away. This is represented for example in the practice of the potlatch. The gifting in a potlatch festival redistributes wealth among the community, returning it from those who have accumulated wealth. It's a good - and simple, and readily understandable - model.

As Jesus said to the rich young man, give everything you have to the poor and follow me.

 

[JamesSD]

What is Block's criterion for a proper law? according to him, the [only] correct justification for a law and the use of the cops to enforce it: if someone, improperly, initiates force or threatens to, against another. removal or destruction of someone's property will be included in this description.
Comments? Does this simple concept generate all the proper laws?

You can very, very loosely define "property" to create a proper set of laws. For example, the slanderer/libeler is in fact damaging another's property, if you consider their "good name" to be property, an argument you could make quite effectively for many politicians and celebrities.

Typically this line of thought goes most strongly against "nanny-state" laws that protect people from themselves (and indirectly harming other people physically or financially). It also tends to be completely devoid of any moral obligation the state has to help its less fortunate citizens. Either the free market will create a solution, or well, fuck them.

Basically, this is more theoretical than socialism, in it makes unrealistic assumptions about human nature.

 

[Pure]

note to box

box Slanderer/libeler: Are you crazy! Do you think it should be perfectly legal to blacken the reputation of any business rival or political candidate or estranged spouse or anybody else you want? Do you think it should be legal for a newspaper to fabricate a story about somebody molesting their little children? If such things were legal, nobody would ever believe anything they hear or read, and persons who actually commit evil deeds could do so with impunity, because nobody would believe anybody who exposed them.

==

first, i am describing Block. do not attribute Block's views to me unless i state my agreement. maybe Block is "crazy", but it's up to you to say why, for example, you MIGHT even read what he wrote!

---

your line about [Block would allow one to] //blacken the reputation of any business rival or political candidate

is rather amusing. i guess you slept through the Bush years or find the "chimp" and "retard" labels not so black. [of course Rep'ns are rather skilled, themselves, at blackening: e.g. the Willie Horton thing against Dukakis, iirc... so payback is nice, but....]

i won't waste words on a post that declares "won't read', but one has, also, to consider the effects of trying to regulate libel/slander. e.g. remember the Danish paper accused of "slandering" the Prophet (and arguably, by implication, Muslims).

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

You can very, very loosely define "property" to create a proper set of laws. For example, the slanderer/libeler is in fact damaging another's property, if you consider their "good name" to be property, an argument you could make quite effectively for many politicians and celebrities.

Typically this line of thought goes most strongly against "nanny-state" laws that protect people from themselves (and indirectly harming other people physically or financially). It also tends to be completely devoid of any moral obligation the state has to help its less fortunate citizens. Either the free market will create a solution, or well, fuck them.

Basically, this is more theoretical than socialism, in it makes unrealistic assumptions about human nature.

In accounting, a company's reputation is very much an asset. It's called "Good Will" and is depreciable over an extended period. A reputation for honest dealing and providing good products and services is irreplacable.

As an example, the NY Times printed an unfounded rumor as fact, saying that Sen. McCain had an affair with somebody a few years ago. This is probably Libel but there isn't much he can do about it.

 

[amicus]

Ah, yes, the, 'usual suspects', with the 'usual method', of criticizing any aspect of individual freedom, the free market, without ever presenting, explaining, defining or defending their particular brand of 'slave state' they advocate...nuthin new here, except:

"In Roman Law, usufruct was a type of servitude or ius in re aliena, a right in another's property."

It never ceases to amaze me that some posters just cannot escape European Statism, in all its many forms and guises, be it a Theocracy, a Monarchy or Fascism and Communism. I go back to another statement that you folks are incapable of conceptualizing human freedom as you have never experienced it.

Property is not just land; it is the clothes on your back, the tools you use, be they stone age adzes or a computer keyboard, individual property and ownership of it, is the means by which humans sustain themselves.

Simonbrooks is just silly, Pure is his usual plagiaristic self, anything to denigrate human free association while carefully even whispering that his preferred system is one of slavery.

Left wing, 'nutjobs' in full evidence here, but without even the integrity to acknowledge their advocacy of human slavery; but I can at least point that out for others to see.

Cloudy will appreciate your, 'potlatch' socialist derivative as her people are still on the Rez claiming foul.

Such a deal...

Amicus

 

[cloudy]

A final note on how the problem of property can be managed, and, indeed, was managed in many traditional native American communities. Gift cultures are cultures in which social status is measured not by how much you have but by how much you have given away. This is represented for example in the practice of the potlatch. The gifting in a potlatch festival redistributes wealth among the community, returning it from those who have accumulated wealth. It's a good - and simple, and readily understandable - model.

We still have Giveaways.

I forget now who said it, but it was in an address to Congress, I believe - it was something like: "We didn't have a problem with theft. If someone did not have a blanket or a horse, he would be given those things as a matter of course."

The well-being of the community was of primary importance. It's still that way on reservations, which is why I enjoyed living there so much. We take care of each other.

 

[amicus]

We still have Giveaways.

I forget now who said it, but it was in an address to Congress, I believe - it was something like: "We didn't have a problem with theft. If someone did not have a blanket or a horse, he would be given those things as a matter of course."

The well-being of the community was of primary importance. It's still that way on reservations, which is why I enjoyed living there so much. We take care of each other.[/QUOTE]

~~~

"...Cloudy will appreciate your, 'potlatch' socialist derivative as her people are still on the Rez claiming foul...."

Hi, Cloudy, I added the above as an afterthought, just to smoke you out.

(Gotcha!)



ami

 

[R. Richard]

We still have Giveaways.

I forget now who said it, but it was in an address to Congress, I believe - it was something like: "We didn't have a problem with theft. If someone did not have a blanket or a horse, he would be given those things as a matter of course."

The well-being of the community was of primary importance. It's still that way on reservations, which is why I enjoyed living there so much. We take care of each other.

In almost any small town, there's no problem with theft. If a member of the small town steals anything, where did he/she get it? The members of the community know who has the resources to buy things and who doesn't. Aside from petty theft, small town/tribal theft is impractical.

In a tribal society, a man is given the tools he needs to survive. If he needs a balnket to keep from freezing to death, he buy's/is given that. If he needs a rifle or a horse to feed himself and his family, he buys/ is given that. Else, he must steal from another member of the tribe and murder inevitably follows. However, among at least most of the Amerind tribes, a man had to pass tests BEFORE he became a man. The tests were typically not easy. If a man passed the tests, he was worthy.

In a city, there are few tests, few who know what the guy next door can afford or does for a living and very little involvement with others. The fact that the guy down the block may be unworthy is undoubtedly a key factor in the lack of city concern for others. JMHO.