Introduction

INTRODUCTION

In 1974, when I began putting together the collection of iconoclastic essays that eventually came to be known as Defending the Undefendable (1976 Fleet, 1991 Fox and Wilkes, 2008 Mises Institute, 2013 Terra Libertas), my purpose was simple and easily stated. It was to promote an appreciation of libertarianism by applying it to the “hard” cases.

What is libertarianism? This is the political philosophy that asks but one question, and gives but one answer. The question? When is force or the threat of force justified? The answer? Only in response to, or in defense from, or in retaliation against, the prior use of violence against a person or his legitimately owned property. And what is its source? How does virgin territory properly become converted into private property? Again libertarianism is succinct: through homesteading, and any subsequent legitimate form of title transfer. Homesteading consists of mixing your labor with the land or other unowned parts of nature, and property may be legitimately transferred from one person to another through any voluntary non-fraudulent means: sale, gift, barter, trade, gambling, inheritance, etc.

This mode of converting nature into appropriable property for mankind has been criticized when it comes to land most, appreciated precisely for its pristine virtues; for example, a stand of redwood trees or the Grand Canyon. But even here, there is some mixing of labor that can establish ownership: clearing away dead branches, creating paths and building bathroom facilities, etc., so that the land may be more readily enjoyed. This is not a “perfect” solution to the problem, but all the alternatives are far worse. One possibility is to grant ownership to government. But there are two problems with that option. First, the minions of the state have done nothing to demonstrate ownership; they have not mixed their labor with this land. Secondly, government is itself an invasive institution, in that it forces people to join against their will, and will not allow them to leave (laws against secession). Another possibility is to convert virgin territory into private property through mere announcement. The difficulty, here, is that anyone can verbally claim anything he wants, and disputes will continue. I hereby claim the sun, the moon and the stars, and so do you. The rightful owner is still to be determined. A third possibility is to divide all property up equally, for everyone in the world. Thus, we would each own one six billionth of all territory on the planet. But this would be a recipe for non-action with regard to land, due to very long committee meetings, and the subsequent death of most of the Earth’s population, as the wrangling continued indefinitely. If we applied this concept to the most important piece of private property we all own, our bodies, the system would fall apart immediately, as no one would be allowed to raise his arm to demonstrate approval at one of these meetings, let alone breathe, since we would all be owned by everyone else, and would have to seek their permission before doing any such thing.

Libertarianism is an aspect of political philosophy. It is separate and distinct from ethics. It does not address itself to what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. It confines itself solely to the issue of the justified and unjustified use of force. Take heroin use as an example. There are numerous theories of morality that denigrate such a practice. But as a libertarian, I must ask only one question: does placing such harmful substances in one’s (adult) body, or buying or selling them, constitute a per se invasion? And the answer is clear: these acts do not fall outside the realm of legitimate acts in this political philosophy. As such, violence against those who engage in them is unjustified. To personally oppose the use of such drugs, yet reject physical sanctions against drug users sounds like a logical contradiction, but it is not.

This is just one of the hard cases, where people are engaging in activities that do not violate libertarian precepts, and yet they are largely reviled by much of society and/or threatened with violence, often in the form of imprisonment. Heroin usage is a perfect case in point. There are thousands of prisoners now incarcerated for this victimless crime of drug use. Not one of them has necessarily initiated violence; therefore, they deserve to be freed. (Anyone in this industry who has violated property or personal rights deserves punishment, but only for these acts, not for buying, selling or using these banned substances.) The present book, Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms, is dedicated to discussing, analyzing and, most importantly, defending a whole host of economic actors innocent of violations of the libertarian code, yet they are under severe attack, either physically or intellectually. In many cases their actions are heroic, in that they persevere, even in the face of these unwarranted condemnations.

It is all well and good to promote libertarianism with regard to the “easy” cases. Books outlining the importance of privatization, deregulation, lower taxes, etc. are crucial. Articles showing the flaws of minimum wage laws, rent control and tariffs are a necessary part of the fight for liberty. And, some essays of this sort are included in the present work. But, sometimes, it is also important to ratchet up the pressure a bit: to show that not only is it desirable to rid ourselves of barriers to international trade, but, also, to give the smuggler his due; to demonstrate that not only is it desirous to deregulate the stock market, but it is also a legitimate part of the struggle to thank the inside trader, the corporate raider, and the multinational corporation for their heroic deeds.

Libertarianism is almost unique in that most people buy into its basic premises, but do not follow through to its logical conclusions. Who, after all, maintains that it is quite all right to go up to a non-aggressing stranger and physically accost him? To engage in rape, murder, theft, embezzlement? But this is precisely of what much modern legislation consists! Laws against heroin aggress against peaceful heroin users. Minimum wage laws violate the rights of those who disobey them; surely, it is not per se invasive to offer to hire someone for a mutually agreeable wage deemed too low by others. Rent control legislation penalizes people for setting prices on their own property.

Why, then, the need for a Freedom in All Realms? For one thing, you may not have noticed this, but we do not yet have a fully free pure libertarian society. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all of us to continue to strive mightily in that direction. One small contribution to this effort is to outline more and more hard cases; to demonstrate that libertarianism is a hardy weed, able to withstand all sorts of intellectual onslaughts against its basic premises, even difficult challenges. Another is educational. For some newcomers, the best way to introduce them to economic and social liberty is through a series of cases, starting with the easy basics and pretty much ending with them, while entirely eschewing the more and more radical instances of libertarianism. If you are looking for that sort of approach, Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms is not the book for you. But for other neophytes, the only way to show them the merits of this philosophy is to also hit them with an (intellectual) bat right between the eyes. Hopefully, this book will merit that sort of description.

I have written this book in order to promote libertarianism. Too many people think that the only political options open to them are the left, liberal, nostrums offered by the Democratic party, or, the right, conservative ones offered by the Republicans. The former are relatively (but far from entirely) libertarian concerning personal liberties, such as the right to smoke marijuana, or to keep the prying eyes of the state out of the nation’s bedrooms. But when it comes to economic liberties, the right to buy and sell, “truck and barter,” engage in free enterprise, the party represented by the donkey is horrified. The party symbolized by the elephant, in contrast, is the very opposite: they oppose wage and price controls and some interventionistic regulations, and thus have some small adherence to laissez faire capitalism. But as far as personal liberties are concerned, they are bitterly opposed.

There is a third option, however. It is only the libertarian who favors human freedom in all realms of existence. Only the libertarian philosophy opposes imperialistic wars of aggression against nations that have not first invaded us. In sharp contrast, both Bush and Obama supporters favor aggressive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the maintenance of some 800 U.S. military bases in about 150 different countries. That is hardly defense.

I chose the topics included in this volume because they all exemplify the libertarian premises of non-invasion and property rights. Most of them are my attempt to demonstrate the benefits of basic economic principles. Very few of them are relatively noncontroversial; what most of them have in common, however, is that they are like poking a (figurative) stick into the eye of the non-economist, and particularly the non-libertarian. Note to the general public: if you want a restful read, one that will not challenge your deeply held preconceptions in political economy, perhaps you should look elsewhere. I choose these topics because I am naturally confrontational. My formal courses in the teaching of economics are not aimed, so much, at getting the material across to my students. Instead, my modus operandi is to provoke the hell out of them, so that they will pick this up on their own. My aim here is similar: not so much to baby nonlibertarians into adopting this philosophy, as to get them so angry that they will challenge their fondly held beliefs. Then, too, there is a matter of internal education: not all those who call themselves libertarians are yet ready to accept the full implications of this perspective. Perhaps this book will gently help them along this path.

I think it is important for the general public to examine these controversial topics from a social/cultural point of view because libertarianism is the last best hope for a civilized life for mankind, indeed, for its very survival. It is the only philosophy predicated on the notion of “anything that is peaceful.” Man may do anything he wishes, provided, only, that he respects the equal right of everyone else to do precisely the same thing. All other perspectives on political economy posit that it is all right to force innocent people to do things (e.g., pay taxes, exhibit passports, licenses, etc.) against their will, provided that someone in authority (the dictator, the democratically elected leader) approves. But, it is barbaric to compel innocent people to undertake acts of which they disapprove. This sort of compulsion when applied to domestic policy leads to unemployment, inflation, internal disarray. When applied to foreign policy it brings about unjustified wars. Given modern technology, the very future of our species is at stake, unless we adopt libertarianism. There can be nothing more important than that.

As in the case, I am sure, of all authors, it is my fervent hope that this book will have a strong impact. In the present case, that it will promote an understanding of this libertarian way of thinking on the part of the general public; that after reading this book they will no longer confuse libertarianism with libertinism, or liberalism; at best, that they will adopt this philosophy as their own and act so as to promote liberty. And, if not that, then they will at least no longer so bitterly oppose the freedom philosophy.

However, if past experience is any guide, the main response of the public will be utter revulsion. “How can you say that?” “That is so cold and calculating,” “But what about the poor?” “You have no human feelings” and charges of “economic illiteracy” will be the typical reaction. As if the poverty stricken in relatively capitalist countries—replete with cars, TV sets, air conditioning—are now immigrating en masse to the nations with greater economic interventionism. No, indeed, the traffic is pretty much all in the opposite direction. But, there will be those who will take to heart the challenges in this book; they will mull them over, do research on their own, and maybe, perhaps, just possibly, come to immerse themselves in the one and only ethical and true political economic philosophy.

The concept of “private property rights” and the principle of “non-aggression” are not the two main philosophies behind the logic of my thoughts presented here? No, those two are not the “main” perspectives undergirding this book. Rather, they are the sole and only ones doing so. Anything else is window dressing.

There are not any other key philosophies involved. No, none, nada, zero. Let us consider a few alternatives and see why all of them must be rejected. Libertarianism is sometimes confused with individualism, and a rejection of collectivism. The followers of Ayn Rand are particularly guilty of this obfuscation. Here, individualism is promoted and collectivism denigrated. But, there is nothing at all wrong with acting collectively, provided it is done on a voluntary basis. If it were really true that only individual action was legitimate, not cooperation between different individuals on a voluntary basis, then we would have to reject team sports such as football, basketball, baseball, as improper, while extolling the virtues, only, of individual sports, such as track, swimming, or arm wrestling. But singling out team sports is just plain silly.

Here is another one. It is sometimes claimed that jazz is the only libertarian music, while baroque, for example, is not. Why? Because in the former case, given certain very wide limitations, the musician is free to play pretty much whatever he wants, while in the latter, there is no latitude at all: the member of the orchestra must follow exactly what is in the score. And, not only that, all the strings must bow in unison. It is even worse for the winds; they must breathe exactly when the conductor allows. There can hardly be anything more intrusive than being told when to inhale or exhale. Even slave masters don’t usually go in for that sort of thing. So is freedom of (musical) expression part of liberty? Of course not, as long as all members of the jazz entourage or string quartet engage in their pursuits free of threat, and no one has ever suggested this is not the case, both are free, equally free, insofar as political economy is concerned. One might as well say that Jackson Pollock had more liberty than Vincent van Gogh, since the former could spray paint on canvas seemingly willy-nilly, while the latter placed himself under great constraint. Again, this is frivolous.

Consider another case. It has sometimes been defined as ethical, indeed, as embodying the essence of morality, to embrace the notion: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” How does libertarianism react to this principle? Need it be rejected outright? No, not at all. As long as this concept is implemented by, and applied to, only those who agree with it, there is nothing incompatible with it and the doctrine that underlies this book. For example, the following voluntary institutions, to a greater or lesser extent, embrace this view: the nunnery, convent, kibbutz, commune, monastery, abbey, priory, friary, and any other religious community. Even the typical traditional family operates in this manner: the little girl eats in accordance with her needs, not her ability to earn money. So, there is nothing in the slightest incompatible with the embrace of this concept, and adherence to the libertarian principle.

Here is one last example. It is sometimes said that we should “live libertarianism.” This is usually interpreted to mean that we should be nice, charitable, tolerant; we should embrace virtues of that sort. While there is nothing at all, certainly, incompatible between libertarianism on the one hand, and these characteristics on the other, there is also, equally, no requirement that libertarians embody them, either. There is no doubt that Ebenezer Scrooge could also incorporate the freedom philosophy. All he need do is act in accordance with the non-aggression axiom, based on private property rights. Apart from that, he could be as mean, bitter, nasty, intolerant, and uncharitable as he wished, with no tarnishing of his libertarian credentials whatsoever.