Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms

FOREWORD

It is a pleasure to introduce Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms, the latest book by my friend, Dr. Walter Block. This book is a sequel to Dr. Block’s seminal 1976 work Defending the Undefendable.

The original book caused quite a stir and I suspect that Dr. Block’s follow-up will prove even more controversial—and influential. This book should find a larger audience than the original, since many more Americans (especially young Americans) are now interested in the ideas of liberty. Furthermore, Dr. Block was a young and relatively unknown scholar in 1976, whereas today he is widely recognized as one of the liberty movement’s most important intellectuals.

As for controversy, how could a book which purports to defend corporate raiders, human-organ merchants, and polygamists not be controversial? I have no doubt that even many libertarians will at least initially react with shock and outrage at some portions of the book. Some may also wonder how a pro-life, Christian, culturally conservative libertarian like me can endorse this book.

I endorse Dr. Block’s book for the same reason culturally conservative libertarians such as F. A. Hayek and Murray Rothbard endorsed the first in this series: despite the misleading title, Dr. Block’s purpose is not to defend “indefensible” activities, but the worthy basis of libertarianism: the non-aggression axiom.

The non-aggression axiom is the simple idea that it is immoral to initiate force against another person or their property. This axiom follows logically from a belief in private property rights, including the individual’s property interest in his or her own body. After all, if people have a right to control their own bodies and property, it cannot be moral to forcefully prevent them from engaging in activities which do not violate the rights of others—even if such activities are widely considered immoral.

Most people support applying the non-aggression axiom to private conduct. What distinguishes libertarians from modern conservatives and liberals is that we apply the non-aggression axiom to the government! To libertarians, any use of force to change people’s behavior for any reason is a profoundly immoral act. Furthermore, state action to forbid or regulate individual behavior always has unintended consequences that often harm the very people the state claims will benefit from the intervention!

For example, minimum wage laws, by outlawing work below a state-set wage, shove those at the bottom of the income and experience ladder out of the job market. The drug war simply creates incentives for drug dealers to sell increasingly stronger and more dangerous drugs while discouraging drug addicts from seeking help. I saw an example of this in my years as an OB-GYN: patients who used illegal drugs were oftentimes reluctant to share with me their history of drug use for fear that it would result in their imprisonment. Obviously this made it more difficult for me to protect the health of the woman and her unborn child.

Adherence to the non-aggression axiom in no way implies approval of behaviors like drug use. Many, if not most, libertarians have strong moral objections to the behaviors like drug use and pornography. However libertarians recognize the only moral and effective way to combat these behaviors is through the peaceful means of education and moral persuasion. Private institutions such as strong families, communities, and churches are much more effective at instilling moral values than laws or government programs. Of course, libertarians also oppose any government attempt to force people to subsidize, associate with, or otherwise support lifestyle choices they find morally objectionable or self-destructive. A society where individuals bear the responsibility for their own actions would see much less drug abuse and other harmful behaviors than one in which the government effectively subsidizes the problems resulting from self-destructive behaviors.

Dr. Block also points out that consistent adherence to the non-aggression axiom will resolve many, if not most, areas of social conflicts. In a free society, property owners could decide whether or not to allow smoking on their property, and what constitutes a valid marriage. Respecting the rights of property and contracts would also provide for efficient environmental protection. In a libertarian society, for example, oil companies would have incentives to drill for oil in the most efficient and safe manner possible because they would be liable for all harm caused by their actions.

The non-aggression axiom is thus not an invitation to libertinism; it is instead rooted in the recognition of one of the natural rights of all humans to life, liberty, and property. If there is one area where I disagree with Walter Block, it is that I wish he spent more time separating libertarianism from libertinism.

However, that in no way diminishes the value of this new work, which will hopefully serve, as Roger Lea MacBride said of the original book, as “Drano for clogged minds.” I am confident that Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms will show a new generation the importance of consistent adherence to the non-aggression axiom.

Ron Paul, U.S. Congress, 14th District, Texas