Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Radical Privatization and Other Libertarian Conundrums

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Property Rights

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism ((PASTCL))

  • 521 Accesses

Abstract

A conundrum is a seeming logical contradiction, one that can actually be solved, or resolved. Perhaps the most famous example in theology is the following challenge: can God create a stone so big that even He cannot lift it. Either way, the case for religion loses out, at least at first glance. If God can create such a big stone, all well and good for Him; however, then, as He cannot also lift it, there can be no such thing as a Higher Power. On the other hand, if God is unable to create so heavy an object, then the case for belief in Him is dashed from the very start. For He cannot be truly omnipotent, since here is something He cannot do.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The critique of the argument presented in the text, of course, cannot prove that God exists. Only that this particular refutation has failed.

  2. 2.

    Suppose a starving woman agrees to sexual congress only in order to feed herself and her children. Is this coercive, and thus tantamount to rape? If her customer put her in this precarious position in the first place, then and only then is this so. Not because of the sexual act, but because of the initial theft. If on the other hand this customer was in no way responsible for her plight, then the trade of sexual services for money is not equivalent to rape. Indeed, the customer is the benefactor to the woman, as he saves her and her children from starvation. She, of course, benefits him as well; this should be no surprise, as all trade is mutually beneficial.

  3. 3.

    Rothbard (1973), Block (1976/1991).

  4. 4.

    Block (1986, 1997), Rothbard (1962).

  5. 5.

    Manne (1966a, 1966b), McGee and Block (1989).

  6. 6.

    Block and Williams (1981), Block and Walker (1982), Block (1992), Epstein (1992), Levin (1984, 1987, 1997).

  7. 7.

    Rothbard (1982), Barnett and Hagel (1977), King (1980), Kinsella (1997, 1996a, b spring and fall, 1992).

  8. 8.

    There are two main branches of utilitarianism: act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. In the former case, that act which brings about the most utility is to be preferred. In the latter case, behavior is judged on the basis of whether or not it is compatible with a rule that, if followed, maximizes utility. See on this Mill (1957, 1971).

  9. 9.

    This is problematic on its face since how can any third party ever accurately observe whether utility rises or falls. For a libertarian perspective on utilitarianism, see Rothbard (1982, 1977).

  10. 10.

    They have not given prior assent to this contractually; the brute fact of the matter is that in reality, either no one, or very few, have ever signed a constitution. Nor do we demonstrate our agreement to be bound by a government by continuing to live under its rule. According to the consent theory of the state, we came first, before the government. We don’t have to leave if we don’t like it; rather, they do.

  11. 11.

    On this see Rothbard (1973, 1982), Hoppe (1989, 1992, 1993), and Benson (1989a, 1989b, 1990).

  12. 12.

    See Rothbard (1973, 1982) and Spooner (1870).

  13. 13.

    Exceptions sometimes include children, a loved one, or a principle or a philosophy. That is, sometimes people are willing to sacrifice themselves for values they hold higher than even their own life.

  14. 14.

    I owe this addition to the traditional “Martian” critique of libertarianism to Matthew Block.

  15. 15.

    Prohibited by libertarian law.

  16. 16.

    One conclusion which can be drawn from this is that the connection between libertarianism and utilitarianism is not an apodictic or necessary one; rather, it is contingent and empirical. That is, the claim that libertarianism leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number is akin to the claim that water runs downhill and that water consists of oxygen and hydrogen. It is not in the same synthetic a priori category as the statements “Square circles are impossible,” “minimum wage legislation leads to unemployment,” and “free trade benefits mankind.” On this see Hoppe (1988, 1991, 1995).

  17. 17.

    Surely we owe no debt of truthfulness to would-be mad bombers, at least qua libertarians.

  18. 18.

    Of course, if we lie to the mad bomber, and word of this gets out, our options become more truncated with regard to the next terrorist.

  19. 19.

    For an argument that monarchy is a superior form of government when compared to democracy, see Hoppe (2001).

  20. 20.

    This is very similar to Nozick’s (1974) claim that the state can arise out of a totally justified libertarian process. For critiques, see Barnett (1977), Childs (1977), Evers (1977), Rothbard (1977), and Sanders (1977).

  21. 21.

    See Block (1999, forthcoming a, b, c, d).

  22. 22.

    One such incident in the entire world is all it would take, appropriately publicized, as it would be.

  23. 23.

    The author is grateful for the financial and moral support of David Kennedy and Tony Sullivan of the Earhart Foundation. Without friends such as these, his task would have been a far more arduous one.

References

  • Barnett, Randy E., The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, Randy, and Hagel, John, eds., Assessing the Criminal. Cambridge MA: Ballinger, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, Randy, 1977, “Whither Anarchy? Has Robert Nozick Justified the State?,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter, pp. 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, Bruce L., The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, Bruce L., “The Spontaneous Evolution of Commercial Law,” Southern Economic Journal, 55: 644–661, 1989a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, Bruce L., 1989b, Enforcement of Private Property Rights in Primitive Societies: Law Without Government,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 1, Winter, pp. 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter, “The Economics of Discrimination,” The Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11, 1992, pp. 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter and Walker, Michael A., eds., Discrimination, Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity. Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter and Walter Williams, 1981, “Male-Female Earnings Differentials: A Critical Reappraisal,” Journal of Labor Research, 2(2): 383–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter, Defending the Undefendable. New York: Fleet Press, 1976, Fox and Wilkes, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter, “Market Inalienability Once Again: Reply to Radin,” Thomas Jefferson Law Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, Fall 1999, pp. 37–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter, “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Gordon, Smith, Kinsella and Epstein,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, forthcoming-a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter, “Alienability, Inalienability, Paternalism and the Law: Reply to Kronman,” American Journal of Criminal Law, forthcoming-b.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter, “Epstein on Alienation: A Rejoinder,” forthcoming-c.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter, “Kuflik on Inalienability: A Rejoinder,” forthcoming-d.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter, “The Case for De-Criminalizing Blackmail: A Reply to Lindgren and Campbell,” Western State University Law Review, Vol. 24, No. 2, Spring, 1997, pp. 225–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter, “Trading Money for Silence,” University of Hawaii Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, Spring 1986, pp. 57–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childs, Roy A., Jr., 1977, “The invisible hand strikes back,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter, pp. 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, Richard A., Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evers, Williamson M., 1977, “Toward a reformulation of the law of contracts,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter, pp. 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, Hans-Hermann, Democracy, the God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order, New Brunswick, N.J. Transaction Publishers, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, Hans-Hermann, Praxeology and Economic Science. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute, Auburn University, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (1995), Economic Science and the Austrian Method. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, Hans-Hermann, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics and Ethics. Boston: Dordrecht, 1989.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, Hans-Hermann, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy. Boston: Kluwer, 1993.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, Hans-Hermann, “Austrian Rationalism in the Age of the Decline of Positivism,” Ebeling, R., ed., Austrian Economics: Perspectives on the Past and Prospects for the Future. Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale College Press, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, Hans-Hermann, “The Economics and Sociology of Taxation,” Rockwell. L., ed., Taxation: An Austrian View. Boston: Dordrecht, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. Charles, A Rationale for Punishment, 4 J. Libertarian Stud. 151, 154 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsella, Stephan N., “A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights,” (volume) 30 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 607 45 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsella, Stephan N., “New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory,” 12:2 J. Libertarian Studies 313 26 (Fall 1996a).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsella, Stephan N., “Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach,” 12:1 J. Libertarian Studies 51 (Spring 1996b).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsella, Stephan N., “Estoppel: A New Justification for Individual Rights,” Reason Papers No. 17 (Fall 1992), p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, Michael, “Comparable Worth: The Feminist Road to Socialism,” Commentary, September 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, Michael, Feminism and Freedom. New York: Transaction Books, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, Michael, Why Race Matters. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manne, Henry A., “In Defense of Insider Trading,” Harvard Business Review, 113, Nov/Dec 1966a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manne, Henry A., Insider Trading and the Stock Market. New York: The Free Press, 1966b.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee, Robert W., and Block, Walter, “Information, Privilege, Opportunity and Insider Trading,” Northern Illinois University Law Review, December 1989, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism: With Critical Essays, Samuel Gorowitz, ed. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism, New York: The Library of Liberal Arts, no. 1, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothbard, Murray N., Man, Economy and State. Los Angeles, Nash, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothbard, Murray N., For a New Liberty. New York: Macmillan, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothbard, Murray N., The Ethics of Liberty. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothbard, Murray N., 1977, “Robert Nozick and the immaculate conception of the state, The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter, pp. 45–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, John T., 1977, “The free market model versus Government: a reply to Nozick,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter, pp. 35–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spooner, Lysander. 1870. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority and A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard, Larkspur, Colorado: Rampart College; http://jim.com/treason.htm.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Loyola University, New Orleans, LA, USA

    Walter E. Block

Authors
  1. Walter E. Block
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Walter E. Block .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Block, W.E. (2019). Radical Privatization and Other Libertarian Conundrums. In: Property Rights. Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28353-7_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28353-7_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28352-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28353-7

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation