I enthusiastically agree with every substantive word that Bionic Mosquito says. I have only a verbal dispute with him. Why confuse matters by saying that "government" is compatible with libertarianism? Why not just say that we Rothbardian libertarians favor "governance," but not "government?"
Now let me reply to these two comments.
1. "If you thumb through Dr. block's YouTube videos, specifically that one when he was in Canada debating about Milton Friedman, he explicitly strikes out classical liberalism from the spectrum of libertarianism, jokingly saying that we cannot let political riff-raffs hijack the word."
Yes, I've changed my mind on this. I've become "wet" in my old age. Alzheimers must be setting in. I now think of Milton as a libertarian, although in the fourth and lowest category. I was young and foolish and too rabid in my Canadian days. Hey, I now live in New Orleans, which is closer to Washington D.C. than Vancouver, Canada. See? I've "grown" in office, so to speak.
2. "Classical liberals as defined above i would not consider libertarians either. Block defines them as "...those with relatively good free market inclinations and favoring relatively smaller government." But relative to WHAT? A communist state? A socialist state? Social democratic? Mercantilist? Relative to Obama? Bush? Clinton? Reagan? FDR? "
C'mon, be fair. Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Rand Paul are quite a bit better than anyone on that list. You don't get to be widely considered "Mr. Libertarian" like Milton if you aren't good on SOME things. Milton was magnificent on minimum wage, rent control, free trade, occupational licensure for doctors, and much much more. (Of course, he doesn't deserve the appellation "Mr. Libertarian." That's Murray Rothbard). Friedrich Hayek was very very very good on central planning, and the Austrian business cycle. And what about Rand Paul? Bob Wenzel has accurately and courageously mentioned Rand's numerous deviations from the libertarian philosophy. But, surely, Bob would agree with me that Rand is the most libertarian person in the Senate at present? If so, I claim, he deserves to be considered a libertarian. Although, I supposed, I'm open to considering Milton, Friedrich and Rand not as libertarians, but as classical liberals, provided that we regard classical liberals as our closet cousins
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Walter Block Responds to Bionic Mosquito on Whether Rand Paul and Milton Friedman Should Be Considered Libertarians
In the comments section of the post, The Libertarian Spectrum and Government, Dr. Walter Block has responded to Bionic Mosquito:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dr. Block, I am truly humbled....
ReplyDeleteMay I address one comment? "Why not just say that we Rothbardian libertarians favor 'governance,' but not 'government?'"
In my clumsily worded way, I attempted to do just this...well, I thought I did. From the subject post: 'I am all for government that doesn’t violate these. I don’t know how society could exist without such 'government.' Perhaps a better term that fits within my cube would be 'governance.'"
Best regards
I think Block is just saying that something like this would have been better: "I am all for governance (not to be confused with "government") that doesn’t violate these. I don’t know how society could exist without such governance."
DeleteDear Dr. Block,
Delete"You don't get to be widely considered "Mr. Libertarian" like Milton if you aren't good on SOME things." Milton was magnificent on minimum wage, rent control, free trade, occupational licensure for doctors, and much much more."
I certainly would not claim they are full blown statists. But in my honest opinion the question is not what they are good at, but what they are not good at, and what the consequences of that would be for liberty. Judging by an article written by an esteemed libertarian by the name of Dr. Walter Block, he is pretty bad in that regard, seeing a role for government in the economy among others.
http://www.academia.edu/1353501/Is_Milton_Friedman_a_Libertarian
Hayek, as has been established elsewhere, believed in welfarism. In my humble opinion a complete disqualifier for a libertarian. How can one be considered a libertarian if one rejects the two main staples: the non-aggression principle and the right to private property? I reiterate here the problem that once one justifies welfarism, there really is no objective and logical reason not to see a role for government in anything. To say that the state needs to support the downtrodden. Well who could possibly not be seen as "downtrodden" by one person or another?
"But, surely, Bob would agree with me that Rand is the most libertarian person in the Senate at present? If so, I claim, he deserves to be considered a libertarian."
With all due respect, but i am baffled by this logic. Just because he is the "most" libertarian person in the Senate he therefor *is* a libertarian? Does this mean that in the ultimate race between Obama and Romney, the lesser of these two evils is also a libertarian? Pardon me, but i am afraid this seems like a devaluation of the meaning of what it is to be a libertarian.
You did indeed say that, and not clumsily at all. However, you also said pretty much the opposite, all throughout, by taking about family government, religious government, etc.
ReplyDeleteFair enough, thank you again for the feedback.
DeleteRand Paul is not a libertarian. He wants govt to regulate every pregnancy in the country.
ReplyDelete"I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life." - Rand Paul