Ben, I think that you are still conceding too much to libertarians on the issue of property and nonaggression. The nonaggression principle is a pretty good principle if used sensibly, and it puts supporters of strong private property rights on the defensive. Private property in tangible things is impossible without aggression - my house and my car are not really mine if I can't stop other people from using them, by initiating force if necessary (or calling on the state's monopoly of force). In the case of things like my house and my car, the aggression might be justified on fairness grounds. I worked hard to earn these things, and I will lose the benefit of my sacrifice unless I have exclusive use of them, enforced by the threat of aggression.
But the presumption against aggression is hard to overcome when it comes to large amounts of wealth, especially wealth that was not earned through sacrifice. Supporters of capitalism should have to answer the question: what justifies aggressively excluding people from unearned private property?
Also, two snappy responses on the argument that a system that runs on mutually beneficial transactions must be good.
1. It ignores externalities.
2. If you put a gun to my head and I hand you my wallet, we both benefit. You get my cash, and I avoid getting shot. The obvious response is "I meant mutually beneficial and *voluntary*," but the distribution of property that forces people into mutually beneficial transactions that still suck , is also not voluntary.
I have a friend like this, and after a couple of beers we usually get him wound up to a point where he starts explaining how privatized healthcare would be better than the public healthcare we get now. It's fun enough to poke at him a little to see how a person can be put together in order to get at these positions, but eventually it always becomes obvious that few arguments are ever going to bite with him. I think the sunk cost of reading time and intellectual labour is just too great for these guys. These kinds of debates are good as sparring sessions, and in your case, Ben, there is definitely some value in doing it publicly to try to convince the audience, but at some point you have to take the Humean way out and just play some pool or backgammon.
Walter Block’s ideology is transparently absurd and betrays little understanding of economics —economic mythology, yes. He is an apologist for unenlightened self-interest and utopian capitalism that denies the existence of capitalist metaphysics. His example of privately owned roads does allow for the concept of public goods. He sounds like the plutocratic tyrant William Vanderbilt. You give Block FAR too much rope. If I were debating him I would go for the jugular and end it quickly.
It’s a fair question. Block’s entire argument is based on false assumptions of economics that virtually beatifies economic selfishness. I would immediately put him on the defensive by forcing him to acknowledge that his idea of unfettered capitalism is based on an untenable, idealized understanding of human nature, is based on assumptions not facts and cannot account for the greater efficiencies found in public spending. People like Block merely elevate their prejudice against publicly funded services to that of an economic theory, which it isn’t.
I agree with your assessment. I just don’t know if the strategy would help. I don’t think Block is going to change his mind due to his worldview being challenged, no matter how strong the argument is. The hope is that people hear/see the debate and realize how misguided the libertarian line of thought is. Your tactic would likely draw some people in and isolate others. Much like Ben’s debating tactic appeals to some—like myself—more than others. More than one way to go about it.
Well put. Block is a true believer and so is intellectually incapable of dealing with challengers to his biases. My intent would be to expose the baselessness of his claims and publicly embarrass him.
Ben, I think that you are still conceding too much to libertarians on the issue of property and nonaggression. The nonaggression principle is a pretty good principle if used sensibly, and it puts supporters of strong private property rights on the defensive. Private property in tangible things is impossible without aggression - my house and my car are not really mine if I can't stop other people from using them, by initiating force if necessary (or calling on the state's monopoly of force). In the case of things like my house and my car, the aggression might be justified on fairness grounds. I worked hard to earn these things, and I will lose the benefit of my sacrifice unless I have exclusive use of them, enforced by the threat of aggression.
But the presumption against aggression is hard to overcome when it comes to large amounts of wealth, especially wealth that was not earned through sacrifice. Supporters of capitalism should have to answer the question: what justifies aggressively excluding people from unearned private property?
Also, two snappy responses on the argument that a system that runs on mutually beneficial transactions must be good.
1. It ignores externalities.
2. If you put a gun to my head and I hand you my wallet, we both benefit. You get my cash, and I avoid getting shot. The obvious response is "I meant mutually beneficial and *voluntary*," but the distribution of property that forces people into mutually beneficial transactions that still suck , is also not voluntary.
I have a friend like this, and after a couple of beers we usually get him wound up to a point where he starts explaining how privatized healthcare would be better than the public healthcare we get now. It's fun enough to poke at him a little to see how a person can be put together in order to get at these positions, but eventually it always becomes obvious that few arguments are ever going to bite with him. I think the sunk cost of reading time and intellectual labour is just too great for these guys. These kinds of debates are good as sparring sessions, and in your case, Ben, there is definitely some value in doing it publicly to try to convince the audience, but at some point you have to take the Humean way out and just play some pool or backgammon.
Walter Block’s ideology is transparently absurd and betrays little understanding of economics —economic mythology, yes. He is an apologist for unenlightened self-interest and utopian capitalism that denies the existence of capitalist metaphysics. His example of privately owned roads does allow for the concept of public goods. He sounds like the plutocratic tyrant William Vanderbilt. You give Block FAR too much rope. If I were debating him I would go for the jugular and end it quickly.
I apologize if this sounds fastidious, because it’s not my intent, but how would you go for the jugular?
It’s a fair question. Block’s entire argument is based on false assumptions of economics that virtually beatifies economic selfishness. I would immediately put him on the defensive by forcing him to acknowledge that his idea of unfettered capitalism is based on an untenable, idealized understanding of human nature, is based on assumptions not facts and cannot account for the greater efficiencies found in public spending. People like Block merely elevate their prejudice against publicly funded services to that of an economic theory, which it isn’t.
Thank you for your breakdown.
I agree with your assessment. I just don’t know if the strategy would help. I don’t think Block is going to change his mind due to his worldview being challenged, no matter how strong the argument is. The hope is that people hear/see the debate and realize how misguided the libertarian line of thought is. Your tactic would likely draw some people in and isolate others. Much like Ben’s debating tactic appeals to some—like myself—more than others. More than one way to go about it.
Well put. Block is a true believer and so is intellectually incapable of dealing with challengers to his biases. My intent would be to expose the baselessness of his claims and publicly embarrass him.