WEBVTT

NOTE Introduction to Libertarianism I

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:15.000
I was wondering, we firmly established that protectionism is wrong, but what about the possibility of threatening protectionism in order to prevent another country from engaging in protectionism against you?

2
00:00:15.000 --> 00:00:20.000
Let me first correct the question very slightly.

3
00:00:20.000 --> 00:00:23.000
We haven't established that protectionism is wrong.

4
00:00:23.000 --> 00:00:24.000
Well, I guess we have.

5
00:00:24.000 --> 00:00:26.000
At the beginning, I said it was wrong.

6
00:00:26.000 --> 00:00:30.000
But mainly, I try to work on why it was inefficient and all.

7
00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:35.000
But I guess I'll accept wrong, so I'm correcting my correction.

8
00:00:35.000 --> 00:00:37.000
That was a very interesting question.

9
00:00:37.000 --> 00:00:42.000
I was asked this in between sessions, and I really don't know the answer.

10
00:00:42.000 --> 00:00:48.960
but the reason I wanted it to be asked publicly is 35 other people will think about it and whoever

11
00:00:48.960 --> 00:00:54.320
hears this will think about it and my theory is that the more people that turn around in their

12
00:00:54.320 --> 00:01:00.880
minds difficult questions the more likely we ought to arrive at an answer. So let me give what I think

13
00:01:00.880 --> 00:01:06.640
is my first impression of an answer because I've never really been asked this and it's very tempting

14
00:01:06.640 --> 00:01:10.880
to say yes because just the mere threat of protectionism might get those guys to stop their

15
00:01:10.880 --> 00:01:15.640
protectionism. Now just because we in the great and glorious free enterprise U.S.

16
00:01:15.640 --> 00:01:22.960
were reverting to the U.S. so we're leaving Canada, favor free enterprise and free

17
00:01:22.960 --> 00:01:32.280
trade, ha ha ha, it doesn't mean that we, it doesn't mean that Japanese or Mexicans

18
00:01:32.280 --> 00:01:37.240
or whoever not allowing us to trade with them is good. So if we can threaten them

19
00:01:37.240 --> 00:02:07.240
I tell them that if you don't get your tariffs off, we'll put tariffs on you, not intending to do it, but they don't know it, this is sort of an aside, they can't hear this, it might have some good, so it's tempting, but my thought is, as a libertarian, now this is a, as an economic issue, it might be good, it might be efficient to do that, because if you define efficiency as free trade, it might work, but as a libertarian, I ask myself, can you threaten things

20
00:02:07.240 --> 00:02:16.240
that you have no right to do. And my analysis of that is you can only threaten things that you have a right to do and you only have a right to do things that you have a right to threaten.

21
00:02:16.240 --> 00:02:29.240
In other words, the two go together, you can't rip them apart. So for example, I have no right to threaten to punch you in the nose because I have no right to punch you in the nose.

22
00:02:29.240 --> 00:02:39.240
To go together. I have a right to threaten you that I won't be your friend, because you have no right against me that I be your friend.

23
00:02:39.240 --> 00:02:45.240
And also, not only do I have a right to threaten not to be your friend, but I have a right not to be your friend.

24
00:02:45.240 --> 00:02:52.240
So the two go together, the threat and the action go together. And that's my first hack at this.

25
00:02:52.240 --> 00:03:00.240
But please think about it, and if anyone has a better answer or, you know, tomorrow, it might be a good subject to write about even.

26
00:03:00.240 --> 00:03:06.240
I'm sure lewrockwell.com is always looking for good essays, so this might be one.

27
00:03:06.240 --> 00:03:17.240
Okay, I want to get into defending the undefendable, but before I do, I thought I would tell you just a little bit about my history and how I got into this movement.

28
00:03:17.240 --> 00:03:26.680
Movement. I was a pinko commie type, hippie, hard to believe, but true. When I was at Brooklyn

29
00:03:26.680 --> 00:03:40.720
College in 1962, I was a senior and I come from a Jewish background. I live in New York City. The air

30
00:03:40.720 --> 00:03:48.080
Where I breathed was left liberalism, and my theory was that if we had free enterprise,

31
00:03:48.080 --> 00:03:51.960
the mass starvation and the idea of babies starving in the street was just a bit too

32
00:03:51.960 --> 00:03:58.000
much. I was a humanist in those days. Now I'm a bit hard-hearted about such things,

33
00:03:58.000 --> 00:04:05.080
but in those days I was sort of pinkish, and Ayn Rand came to lecture at Brooklyn College.

34
00:04:05.080 --> 00:04:09.840
So I came to Boo and Hisar, because she was the incarnate of evil. She was in favor of

35
00:04:09.840 --> 00:04:13.840
freedom and laissez-faire, capitalism, it was just horrible stuff.

36
00:04:13.840 --> 00:04:18.840
So I booed and booed and hissed and hissed along with all the other Brooklyn pinkos.

37
00:04:18.840 --> 00:04:25.840
And at the end of the seminar, and there must have been 4,000 kids in a big gym,

38
00:04:25.840 --> 00:04:30.840
at the end of the seminar, the people that had invited her there,

39
00:04:30.840 --> 00:04:35.840
the Ayn Rand Study Club or something like that, said that there's a luncheon in her honor,

40
00:04:35.840 --> 00:04:37.840
and anyone can come whether you agree or not.

41
00:04:37.840 --> 00:04:43.840
I hadn't gotten enough booing and hissing yet, so I figured I'd go and, you know, give her the what for.

42
00:04:43.840 --> 00:04:49.840
So I went there, and it was a big, long, long table, maybe the length of this room.

43
00:04:49.840 --> 00:04:53.840
And Ayn Rand was sitting at the head, and Nathaniel Brand, and then Picoff.

44
00:04:53.840 --> 00:04:57.840
I don't know if Alan Greenspan was there or not. He might well have been.

45
00:04:57.840 --> 00:05:01.840
That was before he became Alan Greenspan.

46
00:05:01.840 --> 00:05:05.840
And I was relegated to the foot of the table.

47
00:05:05.840 --> 00:05:11.840
So I turned to my neighbor and I said, what is this capitalist crap? It's evil, it's fascism, you know, the usual stuff.

48
00:05:11.840 --> 00:05:15.840
And he said, well, you know, I don't really know, but the people who do are at the other end of the table.

49
00:05:15.840 --> 00:05:19.840
So I went up, I was a chutzpahnik in those days.

50
00:05:19.840 --> 00:05:24.840
I went up there and I stuck my head between Einz and Nathaniel's and I said,

51
00:05:24.840 --> 00:05:27.840
there's a socialist here who wants to debate someone about socialism and capitalism.

52
00:05:27.840 --> 00:05:30.840
And I said, well, who is it? And I said, it was me.

53
00:05:30.840 --> 00:05:35.840
I was 22, a senior in college, and Brandon was very gracious.

54
00:05:36.840 --> 00:05:41.840
He said, I'll come to the other end of the table and sit next to you and we'll talk on two conditions.

55
00:05:41.840 --> 00:05:48.840
One, that you don't let the conversation lapse with this one discussion, but we keep going until one of us convinces the other.

56
00:05:50.840 --> 00:05:54.840
That's what he said. And secondly, you have to read two books that I'll mention to you.

57
00:05:54.840 --> 00:05:58.840
One was Atlas Shrugged, the other was Economics and One Lesson by Henry Haslett.

58
00:05:58.840 --> 00:06:11.840
Well, to make a long, long story short, I read the two books, I went to his house, I went to Ayn Rand's house, and in about two or three sessions I was convinced, I was converted, I was now a free enterpriser.

59
00:06:11.840 --> 00:06:32.840
I was never a randroid. I went to the NBI lectures in various hotels and then in the basement of the, what is that building, the big building, the one that didn't get knocked down? Empire State Building.

60
00:06:32.840 --> 00:06:38.360
and but I was always on the outskirts because you know the free enterprise

61
00:06:38.360 --> 00:06:43.520
stuff was great but then they give you A is A and B is B and and and Mozart was

62
00:06:43.520 --> 00:06:48.640
evil and you know I just couldn't connect with that stuff and the metaphysics and

63
00:06:48.640 --> 00:06:54.600
philosophy my mother used to call it foolosophy majoring in philosophy so I

64
00:06:54.600 --> 00:07:01.560
was sort of a free enterprise and then the next step in my education is I was a

65
00:07:01.560 --> 00:07:31.560
I was a student at Columbia University, and I absolutely hated economics, but I was too busy for the first year to realize that I hated it, because they really pumped it into you, it was just math and stat, it had nothing to do with Hazlitt and Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrug, which is what I loved about economics, but there was a war in Vietnam and I figured, you know, might as well stick it out, but it was boring and hateful and evil and all sorts of stuff,

66
00:07:31.560 --> 00:07:45.560
He was a fellow student of mine, and he kept approaching me saying, well, based on the questions I would be asking, he'd say, you've got to come meet this Murray Rothbard, and finally I did, and I met Murray and I got Rothbard eyes, there's something like that.

67
00:07:45.560 --> 00:07:56.560
Now, how did I start writing the Defending the Undefendable? The way I did is I was writing a dissertation on rent control, which is a perfectly reasonable subject that any libertarian or Austrian could get into.

68
00:07:56.560 --> 00:07:59.880
I wasn't really an Austrian then, but you know, I was still free enterprise enough.

69
00:07:59.880 --> 00:08:03.080
Hazlitt had a chapter on rent control and I was sort of

70
00:08:03.080 --> 00:08:06.240
doing a Hazlitt on stuff, but it was all

71
00:08:06.240 --> 00:08:09.840
econometric equations and statistics and it was boring as

72
00:08:09.840 --> 00:08:13.520
sin. So what I did is I promised myself that if I wrote

73
00:08:13.520 --> 00:08:18.280
ten pages of the dissertation or if I did this regression or whatever, I'd reward myself.

74
00:08:18.280 --> 00:08:22.760
And what was my reward? My reward was I could take a whole day or two and write

75
00:08:22.760 --> 00:08:23.920
exactly what I wanted.

76
00:08:23.920 --> 00:08:31.920
And I'd write about what a great guy the pimp was, or how everyone should blackmail everyone.

77
00:08:31.920 --> 00:08:36.920
And by the time I finished the dissertation, I had about 30 of these little essays.

78
00:08:36.920 --> 00:08:42.920
And I put them together in a book, and I sent it out to various publishers.

79
00:08:42.920 --> 00:08:51.920
I must have sent it out to about 10 publishers, got rejections, and then I must have sent it out to maybe another 100 rejections.

80
00:08:51.920 --> 00:09:21.920
and then what I did is I got this list of all book publishers and I got rid of the ones that specialize in children's books or Bible books or art books and any every other publisher I sent well now would be too expensive to send the whole book out so I just sent out a letter saying here is the table of contents here's what it's about here's a chapter or two if you like it let me know and I'll send you the whole kit and caboodle and I got three people out of about 500 to say yes

81
00:09:21.920 --> 00:09:34.920
sent me it and one person actually published it, Fleet Press in 1976, I got my PhD in 72, it took a while for me to get a publisher because there was just rejections all over the place.

82
00:09:34.920 --> 00:09:48.920
Now the reaction of the mainstream press, this publisher sent out review copies all over the place, the reaction of the mainstream press was either not to review it, as you know utterly ridiculous,

83
00:09:48.920 --> 00:09:54.120
or if they reviewed it it was just scathing like I remember the the New

84
00:09:54.120 --> 00:09:58.680
York London Literary Times Sunday supplement or something reviewed it and

85
00:09:58.680 --> 00:10:04.640
said the book is complete crap the only good thing about it is the cartoons and

86
00:10:04.640 --> 00:10:10.800
naturally I hadn't done the cartoon so it was a pretty critical thing the

87
00:10:10.800 --> 00:10:14.760
reaction of the libertarian press and there was even then such a thing as the

88
00:10:14.760 --> 00:10:19.760
The libertarian press, now there's a lot more, was bimodal.

89
00:10:19.760 --> 00:10:21.760
Either they hated or they loved it.

90
00:10:21.760 --> 00:10:23.760
There was hardly any middle ground.

91
00:10:23.760 --> 00:10:26.760
No one said, you know, it was pretty good, but there were these errors.

92
00:10:26.760 --> 00:10:30.760
It was either very, very good, or it was horrible.

93
00:10:30.760 --> 00:10:32.760
Why was it horrible?

94
00:10:32.760 --> 00:10:35.760
The reason it was horrible was it was too radical.

95
00:10:35.760 --> 00:10:41.760
One commentator said, you'd need a cast iron stomach to read this book.

96
00:10:41.760 --> 00:10:50.660
Another one said it'll turn off libertarians, you know, if you give this, it's a good way of keeping people from becoming libertarians.

97
00:10:50.660 --> 00:10:56.960
Well, I'm sort of a methodological individualist on this issue as I am on every other issue.

98
00:10:56.960 --> 00:11:00.060
Is Adam here? Oh, there he is.

99
00:11:00.060 --> 00:11:11.160
He wrote a magnificent piece just within the last week or two on individualism, on methodological individualism from an Austrian point of view, and I highly recommend that.

100
00:11:11.160 --> 00:11:15.360
My own theory on this was different strokes for different folks.

101
00:11:15.360 --> 00:11:21.560
Some people need a gradual process where you show them why rent control is no good,

102
00:11:21.560 --> 00:11:27.760
why you show them why profits allocates resources, and you sort of take them along very, very slowly.

103
00:11:27.760 --> 00:11:34.060
And if you smack them in the face with a wet fish, they'll say, yeah.

104
00:11:34.060 --> 00:11:38.760
On the other hand, some people need a smack in the face with a wet fish, figuratively, you know,

105
00:11:38.760 --> 00:11:43.760
The coercion, you know, to hit somebody, but some people need the shock treatment.

106
00:11:43.760 --> 00:11:46.760
It's like shock therapy.

107
00:11:46.760 --> 00:11:52.760
And I don't know, I've had some success in converting people with the use of this book,

108
00:11:52.760 --> 00:11:56.760
and other people who have adopted this for classes report success.

109
00:11:56.760 --> 00:12:01.760
I'm sure there are failures, and I'm sure there are other ways of going about this,

110
00:12:01.760 --> 00:12:07.760
like the Hazlitt book, which isn't really shocking, it's not in your face.

111
00:12:07.760 --> 00:12:11.760
And nobody's going to say, ah, Haslett, this is horrible, he's a Nazi or something, whereas...

112
00:12:11.760 --> 00:12:25.760
Well, there are some that would, but many fewer, whereas this book is, you know, just sort of over the top and out of control, so people are very critical of it.

113
00:12:25.760 --> 00:12:34.760
And as I say, it works for some people, it doesn't work for other people, and maybe at different times, some people will be susceptible to it and other people will not be susceptible to it.

114
00:12:34.760 --> 00:12:44.760
In any case, to me it was sort of a payback to Hazlitt. I mean, I read that book, that converted me.

115
00:12:44.760 --> 00:12:54.760
I meant it to be in that pattern. Namely, Hazlitt had a thesis or a theme, the broken window fallacy and alternative costs and stuff like that.

116
00:12:54.760 --> 00:13:01.760
The broken window fallacy. And then he illustrated it with 35 chapters, give or take.

117
00:13:01.760 --> 00:13:12.760
Well, this book is built along the same pattern. It, too, has a thesis, the non-aggression axiom of libertarianism, and then it applies it to 30, 35 different chapters.

118
00:13:12.760 --> 00:13:21.760
So, it's sort of my homage to his book, and I was very gratified when he was one of the people who gave a testimonial to it.

119
00:13:21.760 --> 00:13:30.760
Hasslett also gave a testimonial to it, and I thought he was drunk when he did it, because he compared me to Mises, and I was just this punk kid, you know, sort of saying,

120
00:13:30.760 --> 00:13:45.760
Well, you know, I learned from this book just like I learned from my teacher Mises, you know, that was lunatic, but I was very delighted to have it and obviously Murray Rothbard and Nozick and a few other people also gave testimonials to it.

121
00:13:45.760 --> 00:13:59.760
So, what is libertarianism? What is this thesis that underlies the book? Well, it's libertarianism, as you know, is the non-aggression axiom that you can do anything you damn well please, you just got to keep your midst to yourself.

122
00:13:59.760 --> 00:14:06.760
You can't keep your midst to yourself. You can't put your hands on other people or their property without their permission.

123
00:14:06.760 --> 00:14:14.760
Now if you tell this to most people, they'll say sure, libertarianism is not off the wall.

124
00:14:14.760 --> 00:14:17.760
I mean, most people in their everyday lives keep their midst to themselves.

125
00:14:17.760 --> 00:14:21.760
Very few people are rapists or murderers or thieves or anything like that.

126
00:14:21.760 --> 00:14:26.760
Most people you meet, your neighbors, the people that you play ball with or you go to picnics with or whatever,

127
00:14:26.760 --> 00:14:31.560
None of them will bash you in the nose if you have a different view than theirs or anything like that.

128
00:14:31.560 --> 00:14:34.560
This is the view that most people espouse.

129
00:14:34.560 --> 00:14:43.960
So there's nothing really radical or indeed out of the ordinary about the libertarian non-aggression axiom.

130
00:14:43.960 --> 00:14:47.660
However, what did I say? The devil is in the details.

131
00:14:47.660 --> 00:14:52.360
When you start applying it to things, people start saying, whoa, you're a maniac.

132
00:14:52.360 --> 00:14:56.060
You can't apply it to that.

133
00:14:56.060 --> 00:15:01.560
Now, libertarianism is not a philosophy of life.

134
00:15:01.560 --> 00:15:08.560
It doesn't say, you know, eat good foods or don't eat good foods or it doesn't say exercise or not exercise.

135
00:15:08.560 --> 00:15:12.560
It has nothing to do with religion. It's not a philosophy of life.

136
00:15:12.560 --> 00:15:18.060
It's a very, it focuses on a very, very narrow, limited part of life.

137
00:15:18.060 --> 00:15:21.060
Just what should the law be?

138
00:15:21.060 --> 00:15:29.060
Libertarianism asks one question, what should the law be, and gives one answer.

139
00:15:29.060 --> 00:15:33.060
The law should incorporate the non-aggression axiom and all of its implications.

140
00:15:33.060 --> 00:15:36.060
And that's it. It's very simple.

141
00:15:36.060 --> 00:15:40.060
Again, the interesting part is when you come to apply it to things.

142
00:15:40.060 --> 00:15:46.060
It's got nothing to do with morality, or at least we have to distinguish between morality and libertarianism.

143
00:15:46.060 --> 00:15:57.060
Libertarianism is a small subset of morality. In other words, if morality is the big circle, then libertarianism is some small part of morality.

144
00:15:57.060 --> 00:16:07.060
Maybe it extends there, I'm not sure. But it's a very small part of morality. Like, it has nothing to do with being nice to your friends.

145
00:16:07.060 --> 00:16:14.060
I mean, being nice to your friends and not committing suicide and taking care of your body and things like that

146
00:16:14.060 --> 00:16:24.060
are all part of morality and they're all important. I don't deny that they're important. It's just that, given the division of labor, I'm focusing on a very narrow subset of morality.

147
00:16:24.060 --> 00:16:31.060
So as a libertarian, I don't address issues of morality. I only address issues of what the law should be.

148
00:16:31.060 --> 00:16:37.060
Sort of like George Washington Carver, the black inventor of the peanut, once prayed to God.

149
00:16:37.060 --> 00:16:46.060
I'm not the inventor of the peanut, that was, boy, I'm losing, pretty soon I'll start drooling, then you'll know you're in trouble.

150
00:16:46.060 --> 00:16:51.060
He's not the inventor of the peanut, he rather invented all sorts of ways to deal with the peanut.

151
00:16:51.060 --> 00:16:54.060
And the story goes, you know, he prayed to God, give me knowledge of everything.

152
00:16:54.060 --> 00:17:00.060
God said, you know, forget it. And then George Washington Carver said, well, give me knowledge of all biology.

153
00:17:00.060 --> 00:17:06.060
And he said, no, no, no. Well, how about all plant life? No, no, no. Finally all the peanut, and then he said, okay.

154
00:17:06.060 --> 00:17:13.060
So, in like manner, we libertarians are modest types. We don't have a theory of everything.

155
00:17:13.060 --> 00:17:21.060
We just have a theory of what the law should be. It only concerns what just law is.

156
00:17:21.060 --> 00:17:33.060
Now, we have to distinguish the normative from the positive because libertarianism is a normative science

157
00:17:33.060 --> 00:17:40.060
or a normative discipline or a normative concern where the positive economics is not.

158
00:17:40.060 --> 00:17:46.060
So don't confuse libertarianism and Austrianism. You can be both or not.

159
00:17:46.060 --> 00:17:52.060
You can be a libertarian and an Austrian as I am or you could be a libertarian and not an Austrian.

160
00:17:52.060 --> 00:18:02.060
For example, David Friedman and Brian Kaplan are notable libertarians, solid libertarians, as solid as anyone else

161
00:18:02.060 --> 00:18:11.060
And then there are people who are Austrians, but not libertarians.

162
00:18:11.060 --> 00:18:19.060
Now I'm not an expert on this, but my friend Richard Ebeling and maybe Joe Salerno, who are much more expert than I in the history of thought,

163
00:18:19.060 --> 00:18:25.060
and Bob Murphy is also expert in this field, they tell me that there are lots of, well not lots,

164
00:18:25.060 --> 00:18:33.820
And some Nazi types who are Austrians in good standing but not at all libertarians. For

165
00:18:33.820 --> 00:18:43.140
example, you could take the view as an Austrian non-libertarian that you favor rent control

166
00:18:43.140 --> 00:18:50.340
and minimum wage in Israel. Why? Because you're an anti-Semite and you want to ruin the Israeli

167
00:18:50.340 --> 00:19:00.340
and you advocate things that will ruin their economy. It's a perfectly coherent position, not a very nice position, but it's a coherent position.

168
00:19:00.340 --> 00:19:10.340
You're not committing a contradiction by saying that you want inflation and regulation just for Jews or just for blacks or whoever it is that you don't like.

169
00:19:10.340 --> 00:19:19.340
And there are some people, as I understand it, from these other sources who are Austrians in good standing, as good an Austrian as anyone else,

170
00:19:19.340 --> 00:19:22.340
But they're just not libertarian, they're anti-libertarian.

171
00:19:22.340 --> 00:19:26.340
So don't confuse the two, even though the Mises Institute is really both,

172
00:19:26.340 --> 00:19:32.340
where most of the people associated with the Mises Institute, certainly all the faculty, are both.

173
00:19:32.340 --> 00:19:35.340
But the two are very different sorts of things.

174
00:19:35.340 --> 00:19:42.340
So not only do we have to distinguish between libertarianism and morality,

175
00:19:42.340 --> 00:19:48.340
we also have to distinguish between Austrianism and libertarianism.

176
00:19:48.340 --> 00:19:50.460
And there I don't think that there's any overlap.

177
00:19:50.460 --> 00:19:55.900
I'm still a little puzzled by Hans Hoppe's argument from argument.

178
00:19:55.900 --> 00:20:01.880
The idea is that the only way you can, I'm not puzzled by the argument, I agree with

179
00:20:01.880 --> 00:20:07.060
it wholeheartedly, I'm just puzzled by whether he's bridged the gap between Austrianism

180
00:20:07.060 --> 00:20:12.640
and libertarianism, namely whether he's bridged the gap between the odd and the is.

181
00:20:12.640 --> 00:20:18.100
What he argues, brilliantly I think, is that the only way you can get to the truth in anything

182
00:20:18.100 --> 00:20:29.100
Arguing is through a process of arguing. You say thesis amongst his antithesis, you get synthesis, people have to argue, and if you can't argue, you can never attain the truth.

183
00:20:29.100 --> 00:20:42.100
But arguing itself implies, and that was a positive statement, but arguing itself implies certain things, like you let the other guy speak, you don't grab him by the neck and throttle him,

184
00:20:42.100 --> 00:20:48.600
You concede to him the right to use his tongue and his larynx and his body.

185
00:20:48.600 --> 00:20:54.200
You have to concede to him the right to stand somewhere or sit somewhere, which means property rights.

186
00:20:54.200 --> 00:20:58.900
So I'm a little puzzled as to whether Hans has bridged this gap. I don't know. He denies it.

187
00:20:58.900 --> 00:21:04.400
I think it has been, but that's sort of a complexity that I leave for your thinking about.

188
00:21:04.400 --> 00:21:08.400
I'm not clear in my own mind about that.

189
00:21:12.100 --> 00:21:30.100
Okay, the next thing I want to mention is that the book Defending the Undefendable is motivated by a desire to match the libertarian axiom against not easy cases, but hard cases.

190
00:21:30.100 --> 00:21:39.100
In other words, if you can use libertarianism and say, show that we should privatize the post office or something like that, fine, that's all well and good.

191
00:21:39.100 --> 00:21:46.100
That's all well and good, and I'm not against that, and certainly I applaud people that have done that, and I've contributed to that effort as well.

192
00:21:46.100 --> 00:21:53.100
One of my own interests is a little bit more radical, privatizing roads and highways and stuff, but that's all well and good.

193
00:21:53.100 --> 00:21:58.100
Well, I guess that's pretty radical, privatizing highways, roads, streets, sidewalks.

194
00:21:58.100 --> 00:22:04.100
Most people say, what? You know, loony tunes.

195
00:22:04.100 --> 00:22:06.300
But I don't think we should shrink from the hard cases.

196
00:22:06.300 --> 00:22:12.800
If libertarianism can't match the hard cases, then to the extent that it can't, it's a weaker philosophy,

197
00:22:12.800 --> 00:22:16.100
and it's a stronger philosophy to the extent that it can.

198
00:22:16.100 --> 00:22:23.800
So I think we have to apply this theory to the hard cases.

199
00:22:23.800 --> 00:22:28.500
Let's talk a little bit more about the non-aggression axiom.

200
00:22:28.500 --> 00:22:35.300
Suppose I go up to Dan here and I grab his pen and I run away with it.

201
00:22:35.300 --> 00:22:38.600
Have I violated his rights?

202
00:22:38.600 --> 00:22:40.700
It's not clear.

203
00:22:40.700 --> 00:22:46.300
Superficially I have, because I said it was his pen, I should have said the pen that's sitting in front of him that he's grabbing.

204
00:22:46.300 --> 00:22:51.100
But it might be that yesterday he stole that pen from me and I'm the rightful owner.

205
00:22:51.100 --> 00:22:58.400
So there are really two axioms here, it's just not the non-aggression axiom, it's rather the non-aggression axiom is one side of the coin,

206
00:22:58.400 --> 00:23:02.600
And on the other side of the coin is a theory of property rights.

207
00:23:02.600 --> 00:23:06.960
Suppose I punch him in the mouth. I'm not going to. He's a little bigger than I am.

208
00:23:06.960 --> 00:23:08.960
Is this a rightful act or not?

209
00:23:08.960 --> 00:23:13.280
Well, it's possible that it could be a rightful act if he were my slave,

210
00:23:13.280 --> 00:23:16.360
and if slavery were justified.

211
00:23:16.360 --> 00:23:20.200
In other words, to say that it's not right for me to hit him in the nose

212
00:23:20.200 --> 00:23:25.080
is to say that he has a right to the nose which gets you into a theory of property rights.

213
00:23:25.080 --> 00:23:28.320
So we libertarians not only have to have a theory

214
00:23:28.320 --> 00:23:32.480
of Non-Aggression. We also have to have a theory of property rights.

215
00:23:32.480 --> 00:23:36.200
What is the libertarian theory of property rights?

216
00:23:36.200 --> 00:23:40.120
It's pretty much homesteading. It stems from Locke

217
00:23:40.120 --> 00:23:44.240
and Rothbard and Hoppe have done the most work of libertarians in

218
00:23:44.240 --> 00:23:48.440
extending and exemplifying this theory.

219
00:23:48.440 --> 00:23:53.240
I happen to have become friends with a Hasidic rabbi in

220
00:23:53.240 --> 00:23:58.240
Vancouver and he and I discussed the Talmud

221
00:23:58.240 --> 00:24:08.040
and the Holocaust. And there's an eerie, eerie overlap between libertarian theory and libertarian theory.

222
00:24:08.040 --> 00:24:18.840
You know, sometimes when I'm having troubles puzzling about libertarian theory, I resort to other things in order to clarify things for myself, for example, utilitarianism,

223
00:24:18.840 --> 00:24:26.040
which is not exactly libertarianism, but it's not totally unrelated either. And sometimes if you don't see your way clear to arguing here,

224
00:24:26.040 --> 00:24:30.720
You go there and then that's clear and then maybe you apply it here with a better insight.

225
00:24:30.720 --> 00:24:38.280
Well, the Torah also is eerily libertarian, not a hundred percent, but there's like a ninety-eight percent overlap.

226
00:24:38.280 --> 00:24:47.200
And they've done much, much more work than we, we being Locke and Rothbard and Hoppe and such people, about homesteading.

227
00:24:47.200 --> 00:24:54.640
One of the earliest parts of the Torah is this thing called Baba Metzia where two people

228
00:24:54.640 --> 00:25:01.520
grab a cloth at the same time and now how do you determine who owns it? It's very fascinating

229
00:25:01.520 --> 00:25:07.020
stuff. In any case, to get back to homesteading, the Lockean theory is if you mix your labor

230
00:25:07.020 --> 00:25:15.760
with the land, you own the land. You put in a crop or two, you plant the seeds, you clear

231
00:25:15.760 --> 00:25:20.760
You own the land, you plant the seeds, you get the crop in, you own the land.

232
00:25:20.760 --> 00:25:28.760
And if someone owns the land and now has wheat, based on that, and someone else captured a cow and domesticated the cow,

233
00:25:28.760 --> 00:25:33.760
through a process of trade, you can now have legitimate title ownership to stuff you didn't produce.

234
00:25:33.760 --> 00:25:39.760
For example, the wheat farmer trades his wheat for the milk, and now he has milk even though he didn't produce it.

235
00:25:39.760 --> 00:25:44.760
but he can still trace his ownership back to some sort of legitimate process

236
00:25:44.760 --> 00:25:49.760
including homesteading or trading or gift giving or what have you.

237
00:25:49.760 --> 00:25:54.760
Now the homesteading theory is by no means cut and dried.

238
00:25:54.760 --> 00:25:59.760
For example, well just how long do you have to homestead the land before you can say you own it?

239
00:25:59.760 --> 00:26:04.760
It's unclear. Is it a year? Is it two years? Is it five years?

240
00:26:04.760 --> 00:26:09.760
Just how extensive or intensive does the farming have to be?

241
00:26:09.760 --> 00:26:18.760
If you put in a corn plant, if you go out into Iowa somewhere or Illinois, you'll see corn plants and they're about this far apart from each other.

242
00:26:18.760 --> 00:26:24.760
Well, how about if they were that far apart? How about that far apart? How about if you planted one corn plant every square mile?

243
00:26:24.760 --> 00:26:26.760
Would you own it?

244
00:26:26.760 --> 00:26:33.760
This is a continuum problem and my claim is that there is no real answer to any continuum problems.

245
00:26:33.760 --> 00:26:41.260
For example, if I'm over here and I go like this to Dan, does he have a right to shoot me?

246
00:26:41.260 --> 00:26:50.160
If we were in a crowded bar in a different context and I were this close to him and I was shaking my fist at him, he would.

247
00:26:50.160 --> 00:26:57.460
On the other hand, in an academic discourse and I'm further away from him, if he shot me now it would be murder.

248
00:26:57.460 --> 00:27:03.860
But just how close do I have to be, and how bad does the context have to be, is a continuum problem.

249
00:27:03.860 --> 00:27:11.460
Another continuum problem is the age of majority. Statutory rape is obviously justified for three-year-old girls.

250
00:27:11.460 --> 00:27:16.620
If you rape, or if you have sexual intercourse with a three-year-old girl, it's rape.

251
00:27:16.620 --> 00:27:20.020
Because the three-year-old girl is too young to give consent.

252
00:27:20.020 --> 00:27:27.420
A thirty-year-old girl, a woman, is obviously old enough such that if it's consensual sex, it's not statutory rape.

253
00:27:27.420 --> 00:27:33.020
Well, where's the cutoff point? Is it 13, 15, 17, 19, 21?

254
00:27:33.020 --> 00:27:38.220
No matter what age you mention, there's someone younger who's more mature.

255
00:27:38.220 --> 00:27:45.020
So what's the right answer? There is no right answer that I know of for any of these continuing problems.

256
00:27:45.020 --> 00:27:51.620
So we have to sort of accept the homesteading theory as a work in progress.

257
00:27:51.620 --> 00:27:57.120
Murray says that it's based on custom, which seems very reasonable.

258
00:27:57.120 --> 00:28:05.120
Well, for example, east of the Mississippi, it's more fertile, so the plants are typically closer together.

259
00:28:05.120 --> 00:28:14.120
West of the Mississippi, it's less fertile, less water there, so you wouldn't have to plant as intensively.

260
00:28:14.120 --> 00:28:21.120
Now, I'll do a bit more on this homesteading theory when I get into reparations, but I just wanted to introduce it to you now

261
00:28:21.120 --> 00:28:25.920
as an example of how, of what the libertarian theory is. The libertarian theory

262
00:28:25.920 --> 00:28:30.640
is the non-aggression axiom, but it's buttress, though the other side of the coin of it

263
00:28:30.640 --> 00:28:33.880
is property rights, because before you can determine whether something is

264
00:28:33.880 --> 00:28:35.200
aggression or not,

265
00:28:35.200 --> 00:28:37.040
you have to know

266
00:28:37.040 --> 00:28:43.400
who owns it.

267
00:28:43.400 --> 00:28:45.160
Why be libertarian?

268
00:28:45.160 --> 00:28:48.760
This is sort of introduction to the book, I'll get to the book eventually, but

269
00:28:48.760 --> 00:28:56.760
I just had a list here of why I'm a libertarian and I wanted to share it with you and maybe you can add more reasons to it

270
00:28:56.760 --> 00:29:00.760
and we can co-author an article on it. I'm big into co-authoring. I don't know if you've noticed that.

271
00:29:00.760 --> 00:29:06.760
But if you look at my CV, I've probably co-authored more articles with more people than a lot of people.

272
00:29:06.760 --> 00:29:12.760
Sort of a way of becoming friendly. You make friends when you co-author stuff.

273
00:29:12.760 --> 00:29:17.760
One is to have a better world for ourselves and our children. It's an obvious one.

274
00:29:17.760 --> 00:29:23.760
Another is to promote justice. A third is nose tweaking. I love nose tweaking.

275
00:29:23.760 --> 00:29:26.760
You know, you sort of take a snout and you tweak it.

276
00:29:26.760 --> 00:29:31.760
Especially pompous ones who win Nobel prizes in economics and then pontificate about things.

277
00:29:31.760 --> 00:29:38.760
It's just great to get them with a good libertarian smack, theoretical in writing, you know.

278
00:29:38.760 --> 00:29:49.760
Another one is to give back what my mentors and teachers have so generously given me, mainly Murray Rothbard, although there are others.

279
00:29:49.760 --> 00:29:58.760
I sort of think of him up there in heaven looking down on me and smiling if I do something good and not if I don't, and I want to give back to him.

280
00:29:58.760 --> 00:30:02.760
Perhaps the most important reason for me is just pure aesthetic enjoyment.

281
00:30:02.760 --> 00:30:11.760
To me, the libertarian theory is beautiful. It out-Mozart's Mozart. I mean, and I'm a big Mozart fan, but libertarian theory is more beautiful than Mozart.

282
00:30:11.760 --> 00:30:21.760
And I can't say more about the beauty of it than that. It's just a gorgeous thing, and I thank my lucky stars that I was, well, not born a libertarian, but I became one.

283
00:30:21.760 --> 00:30:27.760
And I enjoy every day as a libertarian. It's just a big turn-on.

284
00:30:27.760 --> 00:30:33.760
How should we promote libertarianism? Well, there are two ways, violent and non-violent.

285
00:30:33.760 --> 00:30:42.760
Should we pick up a gun and assassinate people? Well, I don't think that's a great idea.

286
00:30:42.760 --> 00:30:55.760
Even assuming that the government was totally beyond whatever, the Nazi government, the Soviet government,

287
00:30:55.760 --> 00:30:58.760
The Soviet government, the North Korean, the Cuban, whatever.

288
00:30:58.760 --> 00:31:01.760
Even there it would not be justified.

289
00:31:01.760 --> 00:31:06.760
On one ground is specialization in division of labor and comparative advantage.

290
00:31:06.760 --> 00:31:09.760
We types, I know you went out shooting somewhere,

291
00:31:09.760 --> 00:31:13.760
Lauren was saying that you've been going to a shooting range, but still,

292
00:31:13.760 --> 00:31:18.760
you shouldn't do it even if you're expert marksman, it's not a good idea.

293
00:31:18.760 --> 00:31:23.760
A friend of mine, Jeff Hummel, says that the pen is mightier than the sword.

294
00:31:23.760 --> 00:31:27.760
Now if you think of a pen and a sword dueling, obviously the sword is bigger than the pen.

295
00:31:27.760 --> 00:31:30.760
How's the pen going to beat the sword?

296
00:31:30.760 --> 00:31:37.760
The answer is that the pen that is writing and theoretical knowledge and publishing

297
00:31:37.760 --> 00:31:41.760
determines which way the sword is pointing.

298
00:31:41.760 --> 00:31:46.760
So instead of picking up the sword or the gun, you do the academic thing

299
00:31:46.760 --> 00:31:52.760
and you get the chance to determine which way the sword or the gun is pointed.

300
00:31:52.760 --> 00:31:58.660
a much more, well, interesting to me personally, way of going about it.

301
00:31:58.660 --> 00:32:05.360
In other words, I'm into, and I suggest that you get into, and to a great degree you already are,

302
00:32:05.360 --> 00:32:10.760
into the battle not of bullets, but of ideas.

303
00:32:10.760 --> 00:32:15.260
We're in a battle of ideas with the forces of unreason and injustice.

304
00:32:15.260 --> 00:32:20.060
And our weapons are books and articles and speeches and getting PhDs

305
00:32:20.060 --> 00:32:27.060
and getting law degrees and things like that.

306
00:32:32.300 --> 00:32:36.500
Now, there are some fallacies

307
00:32:36.500 --> 00:32:42.260
that have to do with libertarianism. Let me go over some of them.

308
00:32:42.260 --> 00:32:46.140
One of them is that there's such a thing as living libertarianism.

309
00:32:46.140 --> 00:32:52.780
You can't live a libertarianism. All living libertarian means sensibly is don't aggress.

310
00:32:52.780 --> 00:33:02.660
But what these people mean by it is kill a bad guy or assassinate somebody or do drugs.

311
00:33:02.660 --> 00:33:06.420
In other words, since we favor the legalization of drugs, if you don't do drugs,

312
00:33:06.420 --> 00:33:13.380
and I don't mean by this penicillin or aspirin, you're somehow not a libertarian.

313
00:33:13.380 --> 00:33:23.380
Isn't that weird? And yet there are people that actually say that, that you can live libertarianism and, you know, I wear a shirt and ties so I'm not a libertarian because shirts and ties are against libertarianism.

314
00:33:23.380 --> 00:33:27.380
I mean, it's just the most nonsense on stilts.

315
00:33:27.380 --> 00:33:31.380
Another one is that libertarianism is against authoritarianism.

316
00:33:31.380 --> 00:33:36.380
Libertarianism and authoritarianism are very different things.

317
00:33:36.380 --> 00:33:38.380
We're not against authoritarianism.

318
00:33:38.380 --> 00:33:50.380
You know, they say that you should have, not hierarchies, we're against hierarchies, only hippies are against hierarchies, libertarians aren't hippies, necessarily, some of them are, but you need not be.

319
00:33:50.380 --> 00:33:58.380
Look, the employer-employee relationship is a hierarchical one, is it therefore non-libertarian? That's silly.

320
00:33:58.380 --> 00:34:05.380
I used to be in an orchestra, I play the violin, I'm what's called a hit violinist, if you hate your neighbor you hire me to play near his house.

321
00:34:05.380 --> 00:34:16.380
And every time I played a bad note or out of time or off time, the conductor would hit his podium and go like this and say block, shape up or I'm kicking you out.

322
00:34:16.380 --> 00:34:22.380
Do you know what they did with the wind players? They told them when to breathe.

323
00:34:22.380 --> 00:34:34.380
Anyone here play a wind instrument in an orchestra? You know that. I mean there's a certain time when you're supposed to breathe and if you breathe at the wrong time, the guy hits the podium with his little thing

324
00:34:34.380 --> 00:34:40.380
And he yells at you, you breathe at the wrong time. Now come on, that's pretty totalitarian.

325
00:34:40.380 --> 00:34:45.380
I mean, even the Nazis, even the slave owners, they didn't tell their slaves, you know, you want to breathe.

326
00:34:45.380 --> 00:34:49.380
But the conductor tells you you want to breathe. Now that's pretty authoritarian.

327
00:34:49.380 --> 00:34:54.380
Is it non-libertarian? No. It's perfectly libertarian because you're there voluntarily.

328
00:34:54.380 --> 00:35:00.380
So don't confuse libertarianism and anti-authoritarianism.

329
00:35:00.380 --> 00:35:12.380
Another fallacy, and I got these, actually there are people that see these things, is individualism, that libertarians are individualists.

330
00:35:12.380 --> 00:35:16.380
Now we're methodological individualists as Austrians, but we're not individualists in any other way.

331
00:35:16.380 --> 00:35:24.380
For example, this guy, he was running for, God help me, President of the U.S. on the libertarian ticket, he didn't make it happily,

332
00:35:24.380 --> 00:35:32.380
and make it happily, but he was telling me that track and swimming are more libertarian than basketball and football.

333
00:35:32.380 --> 00:35:37.380
Why? Because track and swimming are individual sports,

334
00:35:37.380 --> 00:35:46.380
whereas basketball and football and soccer are team sports and we're against socialism and team sports are socialism.

335
00:35:46.380 --> 00:35:52.380
My jaw dropped, you know, I sort of felt like taking him and shaking him or slapping some sense into him.

336
00:35:52.380 --> 00:35:55.780
This is a total misinterpretation of libertarianism.

337
00:35:55.780 --> 00:35:59.980
Look, I forgive you. If you play team sports, it's okay.

338
00:35:59.980 --> 00:36:04.280
It's just as libertarian as an individual sport.

339
00:36:04.280 --> 00:36:08.780
The key is, is it voluntary? Not whether you're cooperating with other people.

340
00:36:08.780 --> 00:36:13.880
I mean, that is, you know, I used to have a full head of hair before I heard this stuff.

341
00:36:13.880 --> 00:36:16.780
Now look at me. It's just horrible stuff.

342
00:36:16.780 --> 00:36:20.080
Another one is tolerance.

343
00:36:20.080 --> 00:36:23.080
You've heard that, we have to be, you don't have to be tolerant.

344
00:36:23.080 --> 00:36:26.080
You can be a curmudgeon, you can be a hater.

345
00:36:26.080 --> 00:36:30.080
You can hate everyone, be an equal opportunity hater.

346
00:36:30.080 --> 00:36:34.080
You can hate certain racial or ethnic groups.

347
00:36:34.080 --> 00:36:39.080
I hate blacks, I hate Jews, I hate homosexuals, I hate, hate, hate, hate.

348
00:36:39.080 --> 00:36:43.080
Hate is fine, just keep your myths to yourself.

349
00:36:43.080 --> 00:36:49.080
I travel in weird circles and one time I gave a lecture

350
00:36:49.080 --> 00:37:19.080
I was trying to convert them to libertarianism, as is my want, and my argument was, as far as I said, look, we'll give you a better deal than those guys, well, you can sing all the songs you want, you can goose-step, you can have the swastika, you can have ovens, you just can't put people in there without their consent, but you can have ovens, you can do whatever you want, you can do whatever you want, you can do whatever you want, you can do whatever you want, you can do whatever you want.

351
00:37:19.080 --> 00:37:23.680
But you just have to keep your midst to yourself. Whereas those guys, they won't even let you

352
00:37:23.680 --> 00:37:28.400
sing or, you know, dance or whatever. Well, remember that springtime for Hitler where

353
00:37:28.400 --> 00:37:35.520
they danced in the swastika, the producers? I mean, we'll let them do that. Whereas the

354
00:37:35.520 --> 00:37:41.920
people who are against hate, you know, hate crimes and hostile environments and all that

355
00:37:41.920 --> 00:37:46.000
crap, they won't let them do that. So I try to convert them. I don't think I succeeded,

356
00:37:46.000 --> 00:37:51.000
You know, at least I had something in my repertoire to try to convert them.

357
00:37:51.000 --> 00:37:58.000
Another one is that religion is evil. If you're a religious person you can't be a libertarian.

358
00:37:58.000 --> 00:38:08.000
Where do we get this from? From Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand probably even more than Murray Rothbard is responsible for more libertarians being libertarians.

359
00:38:08.000 --> 00:38:21.000
She's converted a lot of people and she's a hater of religion and somehow a lot of people who are libertarians were affected or influenced by her and think that if you're religious you can't be a libertarian. That's crazy.

360
00:38:21.000 --> 00:38:34.000
She's converted a lot of people and she's a hater of religion and somehow a lot of people who are libertarians were affected or influenced by her and think that if you're religious you can't be a libertarian. That's crazy.

361
00:38:34.000 --> 00:38:47.000
Tom Woods was here a couple of weeks ago. He's written several magnificent books on the school of Salamanca and other religious people who have contributed mightily to the libertarian enterprise.

362
00:38:47.000 --> 00:38:55.000
So don't swallow that myth either, or that you can't be an altruist.

363
00:38:55.000 --> 00:38:59.000
Another Ayn Rand thing, that if you give charity...

364
00:38:59.000 --> 00:39:04.000
I mean, the way she would couch it was, we won't have a law against charity.

365
00:39:04.000 --> 00:39:10.000
But, you know, I think charity is a virtue as a moral claim, not as a libertarian.

366
00:39:10.000 --> 00:39:14.000
So I don't think you have to shrink from being a charitable person.

367
00:39:14.000 --> 00:39:20.000
Another is libertinism. Some people confuse libertarianism with libertinism.

368
00:39:20.000 --> 00:39:26.000
They sound alike. They use many of the same letters. So does librarianism.

369
00:39:26.000 --> 00:39:32.000
So you don't have to love libraries either. But nobody really convinces us with librarian theoreticians.

370
00:39:32.000 --> 00:39:36.000
But they do convince us with libertines. They say, oh, you...

371
00:39:36.000 --> 00:39:43.000
Ayn Rand used to call us hippies of the right. She would say, hippies of the right.

372
00:39:43.000 --> 00:39:50.000
because we favored legalizing drugs and porn and this and that and the other

373
00:39:50.000 --> 00:39:52.000
and some of us favored using them

374
00:39:52.000 --> 00:39:56.000
and somehow conflated that with libertarianism

375
00:39:56.000 --> 00:39:59.000
that if you don't act in porn films you're not really a libertarian

376
00:39:59.000 --> 00:40:03.000
well, you know, those people were hippies to the right

377
00:40:03.000 --> 00:40:08.000
but libertarians, properly understood, don't have to be porn actors or anything like that

378
00:40:08.000 --> 00:40:11.000
or porn watchers or you don't have to be involved in it all

379
00:40:11.000 --> 00:40:20.000
All you have to do is say that you don't want to throw them in jail for consensual acts between adults.

380
00:40:20.000 --> 00:40:32.000
So these are some of the misinterpretations of libertarianism that I would warn you against.

381
00:40:32.000 --> 00:40:42.700
Let me get back to defending the undefendable because these comments were sort of background to the book.

382
00:40:42.700 --> 00:40:53.400
What I'm trying to do is list groups and actors and people who do not violate the libertarian axiom.

383
00:40:53.400 --> 00:40:57.400
I've got about 30 chapters. Let me read them very quickly.

384
00:40:57.400 --> 00:41:12.400
the prostitute, the pimp, the male chauvinist pig, drug pusher, drug addict, blackmailer, slanderer, libeler, denier of academic freedom, advertiser, person who yells fire on a crowded theater, one of my favorites.

385
00:41:12.400 --> 00:41:24.400
Not a one of these violates or necessarily violates the libertarian code. Now there are pimps who beat up their prostitutes, but they don't have to, and they can still be pimps without doing it.

386
00:41:24.400 --> 00:41:34.400
For example, there are bakers and candlestick makers who engage in violence, but that doesn't impugn baking and candlestick making, right?

387
00:41:34.400 --> 00:41:39.400
The gypsy cab driver, ticket scalper, dishonest cop, I'll get into that one.

388
00:41:39.400 --> 00:41:45.400
Non-government counterfeiter, Bob and I have got a... did you ever get that thing published on the counterfeiter?

389
00:41:45.400 --> 00:41:46.400
It was accepted.

390
00:41:46.400 --> 00:41:50.400
It'll come out, so Bob and I are going to have a little friendly debate on that.

391
00:41:50.400 --> 00:41:54.400
And by the way, I pride myself on having friendly debates with people.

392
00:41:54.400 --> 00:41:58.400
Bob and I have been buddies for years and he's criticizing this chapter of mine.

393
00:41:58.400 --> 00:42:06.400
And we're still very good friends. I'll get him on his book, Chaos, but no.

394
00:42:06.400 --> 00:42:10.400
The miser, inheritor, money lender, non-contributor to charity,

395
00:42:10.400 --> 00:42:16.400
curmudgeon, slumlord, ghetto merchant, speculator, importer, middleman, profiteer,

396
00:42:16.400 --> 00:42:25.400
Strip Miner, Literar, Waste Maker, Fat Capitalist Pig Employer, another favorite of mine, Scab, Rate Buster and Employer of Child Labor

397
00:42:25.400 --> 00:42:35.400
So these are the chapters in the book and I won't be able to go over all the chapters but I'll try to leave some time for questions

398
00:42:35.400 --> 00:42:41.400
although this morning's experience convinces me I'm not going to get too many questions but maybe I'll get more out of this session

399
00:42:41.400 --> 00:42:51.680
maybe the free trade was you know too much mainstream libertarianism another

400
00:42:51.680 --> 00:42:59.720
fallacy of libertarianism is that somehow libertarians are capitalists

401
00:42:59.720 --> 00:43:03.560
remember I gave you this bit with voluntary socialism before I find these

402
00:43:03.560 --> 00:43:27.560
These sort of tables are helpful and what I do is I say that the real debate is not between socialism and capitalism but rather between voluntarism and coercivism, if I can coin two phrases, because you can have voluntary socialism, the kibbutz, the commune, the family, take the family.

403
00:43:27.560 --> 00:43:44.560
Now, if you define socialism, not as state ownership of the means of production, which is one reasonable definition of socialism, but in a different way, from each according to his ability to each according to his need, which is another Marxist philosophy.

404
00:43:44.560 --> 00:43:54.560
Well, the three-year-old girl, does she eat in accordance with her ability to produce income or in accordance with her need? Obviously in accordance with her need.

405
00:43:54.560 --> 00:44:01.560
So there's egalitarianism. So there's nothing wrong with egalitarianism as long as it's done by a voluntary group.

406
00:44:01.560 --> 00:44:11.560
So if people want to have socialized medicine and they just include those who want to be in on it, libertarianism has no objection.

407
00:44:11.560 --> 00:44:18.560
We only object when they force you, when they draft you into the voluntary socialist commune or whatever it is that they're getting up.

408
00:44:18.560 --> 00:44:27.560
So there's nothing wrong, per se, with socialized medicine if it's limited to people who voluntarily subscribe to it.

409
00:44:27.560 --> 00:44:31.560
If Hillary wants to have Hillary care and she signs up people, God bless her.

410
00:44:31.560 --> 00:44:36.560
But let her not force others into it, which is the way the state does it.

411
00:44:36.560 --> 00:44:45.560
The kibbutz, the commune, the Jesuits have a monastery or whatever it is, nunnery.

412
00:44:45.560 --> 00:44:48.560
All these groups operate according to socialist principles.

413
00:44:48.560 --> 00:44:55.560
The kibbutz sometimes get subsidies from the Israeli government, but it's possible to imagine a kibbutz that didn't.

414
00:44:55.560 --> 00:45:02.560
The hippie commune, perfectly libertarian, or at least consistent with libertarianism.

415
00:45:02.560 --> 00:45:09.560
On the other hand, obviously laissez-faire capitalism is fine also, and you can be in any of the top row and be a libertarian,

416
00:45:09.560 --> 00:45:17.560
of the Libertarian, whereas the bottom row is the bad stuff. There you have coercive socialism, or welfare state, or fascism, or what have you.

417
00:45:29.560 --> 00:45:34.560
Proudhon, a famous philosopher, said that property is theft.

418
00:45:34.560 --> 00:45:41.560
This is a problem for libertarians, because remember we're basing our theory on private property rights.

419
00:45:41.560 --> 00:45:51.560
I would say Proudhon is wrong. It's not that property is theft, it's rather that you can't have theft without property in the first place,

420
00:45:51.560 --> 00:45:55.560
because theft is the taking of legitimately owned property.

421
00:45:55.560 --> 00:46:01.560
So if there were no such thing as legitimately owned property, there couldn't be theft.

422
00:46:01.560 --> 00:46:18.560
If I take the can of coke that's sitting in front of Dan, or I take the shoes that he's got on, or if I grab him, it's not theft or assault and battery or anything, because theft and assault and battery and murder are only dependent upon property rights in the first place.

423
00:46:18.560 --> 00:46:26.560
So Proudhon has got it backwards six ways, I think. He's all wrong.

424
00:46:26.560 --> 00:46:39.560
Okay, not only do I say with regards to all these chapter headings that they are not necessarily guilty of initiation of aggression and therefore they shouldn't be jailed, but I also say they're heroic.

425
00:46:39.560 --> 00:46:45.560
Now what's with this heroic business? Why is the pimp not only should stay out of jail, but why is he actually heroic?

426
00:46:45.560 --> 00:46:51.560
The reason I think he's heroic is because he's violating an illegitimate law.

427
00:46:51.560 --> 00:46:58.560
You know, the people on the left are always having these marches against Jim Crow laws.

428
00:46:58.560 --> 00:47:07.560
Well, the pimp or the guy who charges whatever he wants for his apartment or pays whatever he can agree to with an employee

429
00:47:07.560 --> 00:47:12.560
and violates the minimum wage law, is heroically violating the law.

430
00:47:12.560 --> 00:47:15.560
No, I don't advocate that you do this.

431
00:47:15.560 --> 00:47:22.560
Again, we have specialization in division of labor and I don't think ours, if I can speak for you, is to violate the law.

432
00:47:22.560 --> 00:47:26.560
But if people do violate the law, I can say they're heroic.

433
00:47:26.560 --> 00:47:31.560
Look, right now it's legal to wear a blue tie.

434
00:47:31.560 --> 00:47:35.560
Suppose they pass the law, blue ties are illegal to wear.

435
00:47:35.560 --> 00:47:40.560
And suppose I now wore it. Wouldn't that be heroic?

436
00:47:40.560 --> 00:47:44.560
Not saintly, there's nothing intrinsically, I'm not claiming too much for myself.

437
00:47:44.560 --> 00:47:52.560
But as a protest against an unjust law, if, as I say, if the law says you can't wear a blue tie and I wear a blue tie,

438
00:47:52.560 --> 00:47:58.560
I'll put in the next issue of defending the undefendable, the blue tie wearer.

439
00:47:58.560 --> 00:48:04.560
Now it sounds silly because, you know, anyone can wear a blue tie, but if the law was that you couldn't wear a blue tie,

440
00:48:04.560 --> 00:48:12.560
and I persisted in wearing one, seems not only that I shouldn't go to jail, but I'm doing something, a mitzvah,

441
00:48:12.560 --> 00:48:41.560
Okay, let me get into some of the chapters, and the first chapter that I want to get into is libel and slander, and I'm going to be libeling and slandered some of you good people, so don't take it personally, and if it's true, I don't mean it, but here we go.

442
00:48:41.560 --> 00:48:46.260
here we go and if I've left you out it's because you weren't on a list that I

443
00:48:46.260 --> 00:48:51.940
was given by Pat so don't take it as an insult but come see me later I'll add

444
00:48:51.940 --> 00:49:03.340
you on in the next session Prem Barbosa pervert Simon Bielo or Bielo not here

445
00:49:03.340 --> 00:49:18.100
Bill O'Connor, Steve Berger, weirdo, Rosemary Bittetti, pinko, Mike Blakeney, takes candy

446
00:49:18.100 --> 00:49:35.220
Money from Babies, Christopher Brandt, rubber fetishist, Julie Brandt, sicko, Lenka Kamrova, sadist,

447
00:49:35.220 --> 00:49:51.580
Lisa Casanova, Nazi, Dick Clark, masochist, you should see him, Nicholas Carrot, heroin

448
00:49:51.580 --> 00:50:04.260
addict, Dan D'Amico, pornographer, sorry it came out, I meant to keep your secret but

449
00:50:04.260 --> 00:50:12.260
Ken Garshina, a former student of mine at Holy Cross who will be coming in a day or so, lesbian.

450
00:50:12.260 --> 00:50:19.260
Ben Kilpatrick, who will be here in a day or so, pimp.

451
00:50:19.260 --> 00:50:26.260
Vladimir Krauss, slumlord.

452
00:50:26.260 --> 00:50:42.260
Eric Kubinski, Eric, is he here? Is he married? Because he's an adulterer. I hope he's single.

453
00:50:42.260 --> 00:50:57.920
Dan Curry, rapist, Carlo Lottieri, murderer, Matt Machock, thief, Adam Morton, blackmailer,

454
00:50:57.920 --> 00:51:07.880
Dan McCarthy, extortionist, Gabriel Mercado, drug dealer, Adrian Ravier, highway robber,

455
00:51:07.880 --> 00:51:25.780
Carrie Anne Citrin, pirate, Matthew Skelton, prostitute, Nick Snow, gigolo, sorry Nick, you know, the truth is the truth,

456
00:51:25.780 --> 00:51:35.480
Maximilian Travato, porn star, I guess you work with Dan, Noah Tyler, watermelon.

457
00:51:35.480 --> 00:51:39.960
Watermelon is someone who's red on the inside and green on the outside.

458
00:51:39.960 --> 00:51:46.280
You know, one of these environmental-o, pink-o commies.

459
00:51:46.280 --> 00:51:50.720
Marcus Verhey, randried.

460
00:51:50.720 --> 00:51:57.040
Alexander Villacampa, takes a bath with a rubber ducky.

461
00:51:57.040 --> 00:51:59.840
Who else do we have here? Wait.

462
00:51:59.840 --> 00:52:22.320
Murray Rothbard, nymphomaniac, Lew Rockwell, leather fetishist, Jeff Tucker, plays with blow-up rubber sex toys, Dick Clark, wimp,

463
00:52:22.320 --> 00:52:36.880
Look, the truth will out. Chad Parrish is a sissy, Mark Thornton is a wuss, Bob Murphy is a mama's boy, and Pat Barnett is a crybaby.

464
00:52:36.880 --> 00:52:44.720
Now, for the rest of you who I haven't covered, you're either tattletales, weenies, infomaniacs, schizophreniacs,

465
00:52:44.720 --> 00:52:53.720
Where's diapers, bed wetter, nose picker, transvestite peterist, bad breath, thumb sucker, hypocrite, whiner, bully and rotten kid.

466
00:52:53.720 --> 00:52:56.720
That's what you guys are.

467
00:52:56.720 --> 00:53:00.720
Okay, now what have I done here? What have I done?

468
00:53:00.720 --> 00:53:03.720
I'm going to be sued by everyone.

469
00:53:03.720 --> 00:53:10.720
What I've done is I've engaged in libel and slander.

470
00:53:10.720 --> 00:53:40.720
And the argument against this is that I violated property rights in your reputation because if I'm the New York Times and I said that or I'm a big shot or something and I say, you know, that this one plays with a rubber ducky and this one's a weirdo and a pervert, people will reason, well, you know, whether smoke this fire, you know, Block can't be wrong on all these accusations. Some of them must be true. And this will ruin your reputation. It's a small town. We all live in Auburn, say.

471
00:53:40.720 --> 00:53:49.720
You know, you have a restaurant and I say, you know, you wear diapers or something and people aren't going to come to your restaurant.

472
00:53:49.720 --> 00:53:54.720
Or people won't employ you. They'll say, well, there's smoke, there's fire. So I've ruined your reputation.

473
00:53:54.720 --> 00:53:57.720
And reputation is a very important thing.

474
00:53:57.720 --> 00:54:08.720
You know, you can sell a business where the break-up value of it is $100,000, but the goodwill is $500,000 and you can sell it for $600,000.

475
00:54:08.720 --> 00:54:14.680
And now I've taken away 500,000 of goodwill. It's true you still have the fixed capital

476
00:54:14.680 --> 00:54:20.960
and the fixtures and the tables or whatever it is, but I've taken away five-sixths of

477
00:54:20.960 --> 00:54:26.880
the value of your company. And since you own your reputation and I just stole something

478
00:54:26.880 --> 00:54:33.560
of great value to you, I mean if I stole the chairs and the tables from the Mises Institute,

479
00:54:33.560 --> 00:54:36.720
it wouldn't be worth as much as their good name. And if I said that they're a cult and

480
00:54:36.720 --> 00:54:41.320
And they're Nazis and, you know, pederasts or whatever it is that I'm accusing them of.

481
00:54:41.320 --> 00:54:47.120
And if it sticks and people, you know, distance themselves from the Mises Institute, I've

482
00:54:47.120 --> 00:54:52.680
really done them some harm. So did I violate their property rights, which is the key for

483
00:54:52.680 --> 00:54:58.540
libertarians, not whether you do harm. It's okay to do harm. We can do harm. It's rather

484
00:54:58.540 --> 00:55:03.260
rights violations that are against libertarianism. How can you do harm that's compatible with

485
00:55:03.260 --> 00:55:07.580
Libertarianism. Well, if there's a boy and a girl and the boy's trying to date

486
00:55:07.580 --> 00:55:12.100
the girl and then the girl goes off with another boy, the second boy hurt the

487
00:55:12.100 --> 00:55:17.060
first boy, didn't he, by taking his girlfriend away? He harmed him in a very

488
00:55:17.060 --> 00:55:21.740
important way. Or if you have a grocery store and I open up a grocery store

489
00:55:21.740 --> 00:55:26.540
right across the street and I steal half your customers, did I harm you? Yeah, I

490
00:55:26.540 --> 00:55:31.420
harmed you. Do I have a right to do that? Yes, I have a right to compete. So

491
00:55:31.420 --> 00:55:36.340
So harming is not the key. Don't make that mistake. It's rather rights violations, and

492
00:55:36.340 --> 00:55:41.540
the rights violation has to constitute a property rights violation, where we look at property

493
00:55:41.540 --> 00:55:48.540
rights in a widespread way. So McDonald's and Burger King can compete. McDonald's can

494
00:55:48.580 --> 00:55:54.100
have Ronald McDonald, they can have a Whopper Wednesday, but they can't firebomb each other's

495
00:55:54.100 --> 00:55:57.220
premises. That's not legitimate competition.

496
00:55:57.220 --> 00:56:05.220
Okay, so now let's get back to reputation. And my claim in this chapter is paradox upon paradox.

497
00:56:05.220 --> 00:56:12.220
The first paradox is even though you benefit from your reputation, you work hard to get a good reputation,

498
00:56:12.220 --> 00:56:19.220
still you don't own your reputation because your reputation consists not of your thoughts,

499
00:56:19.220 --> 00:56:24.220
which we can say by some extension that you own, but rather your thoughts consist of our,

500
00:56:24.220 --> 00:56:33.220
Rather, your reputation consists of our thoughts. So, Rosa Maria's reputation consists of what we all think about her.

501
00:56:33.220 --> 00:56:38.220
Maximilian's reputation consists of what we think about him.

502
00:56:38.220 --> 00:56:47.220
Now, let's take that clearly, or carefully, or slowly. Maximilian's reputation, sitting here, consists of what we think about him.

503
00:56:47.220 --> 00:56:53.220
His reputation, in here is in us, or is in our heads in some poetic way.

504
00:56:53.220 --> 00:57:02.220
We own those thoughts, he doesn't own those thoughts, so who owns his reputation if his reputation consists of my thoughts and Dan's thoughts and Dick's thoughts?

505
00:57:02.220 --> 00:57:10.220
Well, we own his reputation. I own a little bit of it, Dan owns a little bit of it, Prem owns a little bit, all of Maximilian's reputation.

506
00:57:10.220 --> 00:57:19.220
So that's the first paradox. You don't own your reputation even though you work for your reputation, even though you benefit from your reputation

507
00:57:19.220 --> 00:57:25.360
when you sell it in the form of goodwill but you still don't own it because it

508
00:57:25.360 --> 00:57:31.020
consists of our thoughts so I haven't stolen anything from you when I called

509
00:57:31.020 --> 00:57:35.820
you all those names even if I succeeded in ruining your reputation and we say

510
00:57:35.820 --> 00:57:42.260
your reputation it's sort of like we say my tailor I'm going to my tailor doesn't

511
00:57:42.260 --> 00:57:48.380
mean I own him if he if it if I really owned him as a tailor and he closed up

512
00:57:48.380 --> 00:58:18.380
My tailor, what is he thinking of closing down, right? Or since I'm his customer, if I go somewhere else, he can sue me. So the possessive pronoun, my, doesn't mean ownership. My reputation, my wife, my tailor, my customer, you don't really own it. It's just sort of a trick of language. So that's the first paradox. The second paradox is that reputations would be safer

513
00:58:18.380 --> 00:58:24.380
in a regime where we have full free speech and no libel laws.

514
00:58:24.380 --> 00:58:32.380
Safer. Paradox, big paradox, because look, right now if somebody says that Simon is a bum,

515
00:58:32.380 --> 00:58:39.380
people start saying, maybe Simon is a bum. But under a regime of freedom, you know,

516
00:58:39.380 --> 00:58:43.380
right now you go to the newspapers and you see help wanted ads and cars for sale

517
00:58:43.380 --> 00:59:00.380
houses for sale and kittens to, you know, roommates wanted, whatever. We'd have libel sections, you know, this one's a bum, this one's a pervert, this one's a commie, and no longer would a mere allegation suffice to ruin a reputation.

518
00:59:00.380 --> 00:59:06.380
Now, people would read that Nick Snow is a pornographer, or whatever he is, gigolo, I think.

519
00:59:06.380 --> 00:59:14.380
Forgot. And no longer would they say, hey, I didn't know that about Nick, he doesn't look that way, but you know, maybe he is.

520
00:59:14.380 --> 00:59:17.380
People would say, well, that's silly, or where's the proof, where's the evidence?

521
00:59:17.380 --> 00:59:23.380
Because everyone would be calling everyone something. It would sort of get lost in the static.

522
00:59:23.380 --> 00:59:47.380
I hate to sound in favor of the poor, God forbid, but right now if you besmirch the reputation of a poor person, not much he can do about it. He can't afford to sue you. The New York Times and people like that get away with an awful lot. So right now it sort of favors the rich in a bad way or an improper way.

523
00:59:47.380 --> 00:59:56.380
So we have paradox after paradox after paradox. We'd be better off if we had freedom.

524
00:59:56.380 --> 01:00:04.380
Now these blonde jokes will be on the exam, so you better take them down.

525
01:00:04.380 --> 01:00:13.380
How does a man show he is planning for the future? He buys two cases of beer.

526
01:00:13.380 --> 01:00:19.220
Remember these are payback for blonde jokes. What is the difference between men

527
01:00:19.220 --> 01:00:26.660
and government bonds? The bonds will eventually mature. Why are blonde jokes

528
01:00:26.660 --> 01:00:34.740
so short? So that men can remember them. How many men does it take to change a

529
01:00:34.740 --> 01:00:42.340
roll of toilet paper? We don't know, it has never happened. Why is it difficult

530
01:00:42.340 --> 01:00:47.340
It's difficult for women to find men who are sensitive, caring and good-looking.

531
01:00:47.340 --> 01:00:54.340
They all already have boyfriends.

532
01:00:54.340 --> 01:00:59.340
What do you call a woman who knows where her husband is every night?

533
01:00:59.340 --> 01:01:06.340
A widow.

534
01:01:06.340 --> 01:01:13.060
Why are married women usually heavier than single women?

535
01:01:13.060 --> 01:01:16.740
Single women come home, see what's in the fridge, and go to bed.

536
01:01:16.740 --> 01:01:23.180
Married women come home, see what's in bed, and go to the fridge.

537
01:01:23.180 --> 01:01:26.180
How do you get a man to do sit-ups?

538
01:01:26.180 --> 01:01:30.380
Tape the remote control between his toes.

539
01:01:30.380 --> 01:01:44.880
Okay, Chad, are these stupid jokes on the tape? Great. Let her roll. Total honesty, that's our motto.

540
01:01:44.880 --> 01:01:50.880
Okay, the next one I'm going to do is blackmail, and I'm going to stop after I do blackmail.

541
01:01:50.880 --> 01:01:53.380
And I've got whole bunches of more, and I can do them.

542
01:01:53.380 --> 01:01:59.880
I think tomorrow's lesson is sort of like defending the undefendable too, and I want to have questions and discussion.

543
01:01:59.880 --> 01:02:05.880
But if there aren't, then I'll just keep going, but I'll just do the blackmail and then call for questions and see how it goes.

544
01:02:05.880 --> 01:02:13.380
Maybe I'm just saying stuff that's, you know, just obvious to everyone and, you know, you're wondering when I'm going to get to the controversial stuff, but...

545
01:02:13.380 --> 01:02:16.380
Okay, here we go, blackmail.

546
01:02:16.380 --> 01:02:22.380
Now, blackmail is against the law in every state and every country.

547
01:02:22.380 --> 01:02:25.380
It's sort of like a no-brainer in law school.

548
01:02:25.380 --> 01:02:30.940
You're in law school, you can probably verify this.

549
01:02:30.940 --> 01:02:35.460
There's a crucial distinction that has to be made and that's between blackmail

550
01:02:35.460 --> 01:02:39.580
on the one hand and extortion on the other hand. Both of them

551
01:02:39.580 --> 01:02:44.100
threaten something and both of them demand something.

552
01:02:44.100 --> 01:02:48.720
The demand is usually for money but it could be for money or sexual services or

553
01:02:48.720 --> 01:02:51.980
anything and they both threaten.

554
01:02:51.980 --> 01:03:02.060
The difference is that the blackmailer threatens a legitimate act, whereas the extortionist threatens an illegitimate act.

555
01:03:02.060 --> 01:03:15.580
For example, if I blackmail you, I say, unless you give me a hundred bucks, I'm going to tattle and tell that you're a pederast or that you cheat on your wife.

556
01:03:15.580 --> 01:03:20.180
Now, do I have a right to tell other people that you cheat on your wife?

557
01:03:20.180 --> 01:03:29.580
Yeah, it's gossip. It's free speech. I'm not violating your rights when I say that you cheat on your wife or you do any of these other things.

558
01:03:29.580 --> 01:03:38.180
You're a transvestite or a nose picker or you wear diapers or whatever it is. You take a bath with a rubber ducky. It's just gossip.

559
01:03:38.180 --> 01:03:45.180
Would anyone put me in jail for gossiping? We haven't got to that point yet in this country. It is still legal to gossip.

560
01:03:45.180 --> 01:03:51.980
You see two women over the laundry talking and they're gossiping, men too. Everyone gossips.

561
01:03:51.980 --> 01:04:01.580
Gossip makes the world go round. Gossip performs an important sociological function of keeping people in line,

562
01:04:01.580 --> 01:04:06.680
keeping them civilized, because if you're uncivilized people will gossip about you and your reputation will get out

563
01:04:06.680 --> 01:04:12.580
and people will shun you, which is why we're politer than we would otherwise be had there been no gossip.

564
01:04:12.580 --> 01:04:26.820
So, gossip is a good thing, certainly it shouldn't be against the law, because merely to gossip is not to engage in a physical violation of anyone's rights, like punching or raping or murdering.

565
01:04:26.820 --> 01:04:34.460
So, all I'm doing when I blackmail you is I'm threatening to do that which I have a right to do.

566
01:04:34.460 --> 01:04:42.180
Well, how can it be illegal properly? Remember what libertarianism is, is a theory of what the law should be.

567
01:04:42.180 --> 01:04:47.420
How can it properly be illegal to threaten what I have a right to do?

568
01:04:47.420 --> 01:04:50.740
I have a right to sit down in this chair right next to Dan.

569
01:04:50.740 --> 01:04:57.700
See, I can do it. And by doing it, I didn't violate anyone's rights.

570
01:04:57.700 --> 01:05:03.740
Now, do I have a right to threaten to sit down there? Yeah. It's innocuous.

571
01:05:03.740 --> 01:05:07.500
I have a right to look at the time and to scratch my ear.

572
01:05:07.500 --> 01:05:09.900
Do I have a right to threaten Rosemaria?

573
01:05:09.900 --> 01:05:12.900
Unless you give me a hundred bucks, I'm going to look at my watch.

574
01:05:12.900 --> 01:05:15.500
It's a little weird, but I have a right to do it.

575
01:05:15.500 --> 01:05:20.600
Maximilian, unless you give me a thousand bucks, I'm going to scratch my ear.

576
01:05:20.600 --> 01:05:25.900
Oh, he's going to cough up quick.

577
01:05:25.900 --> 01:05:29.200
Okay, well, now I go to prem and I say, prem, unless you give me money,

578
01:05:29.200 --> 01:05:34.600
I'm going to tell people that you're a wuss or something.

579
01:05:34.600 --> 01:05:40.760
Where did I violate a proper law? I didn't, I don't think.

580
01:05:40.760 --> 01:05:50.480
And yet every jurisdiction, known to man and some unknown to man, kidding, have laws against blackmail.

581
01:05:50.480 --> 01:05:57.280
Now, extortion is very different. If I go to Lauren and I say, Lauren, unless you give me money, I'm going to plug you.

582
01:05:57.280 --> 01:06:03.240
Well, that's extortion. It's a threat of bodily harm.

583
01:06:03.240 --> 01:06:08.720
I should go to jail or be penalized and we'll get into libertarian punishment theory one of these days

584
01:06:08.720 --> 01:06:12.000
but I should certainly be punished for shooting her

585
01:06:12.000 --> 01:06:14.800
and I should also be punished for threatening the shooter

586
01:06:14.800 --> 01:06:16.640
I mean most holdups

587
01:06:16.640 --> 01:06:19.840
guy comes with a gun says give me your money or I'll shoot you

588
01:06:19.840 --> 01:06:21.720
he doesn't usually end up shooting him

589
01:06:21.720 --> 01:06:26.540
most people give up the money and then that's the end of the transaction

590
01:06:26.540 --> 01:06:29.040
so yes extortion should be against the law

591
01:06:29.040 --> 01:06:31.740
I haven't lost leave of my senses

592
01:06:31.740 --> 01:06:36.140
We have to have a law-abiding society. We have to have civilization. Fine.

593
01:06:36.140 --> 01:06:39.020
Extortion is against the law.

594
01:06:39.020 --> 01:06:41.220
Threatening bodily harm.

595
01:06:41.220 --> 01:06:45.620
Threatening something that you have no right to do. I'm going to kidnap your children if you don't give me money.

596
01:06:45.620 --> 01:06:51.540
I'm going to blow your house up if you don't give me money or sexual services or whatever it is that I want.

597
01:06:51.540 --> 01:06:58.260
I can't legitimately threaten something I have no right to do, which gets back to the question that we talked about before,

598
01:06:58.260 --> 01:07:02.540
about threatening and doing, and the two go together.

599
01:07:02.540 --> 01:07:03.900
If you can threaten, you can do,

600
01:07:03.900 --> 01:07:06.660
and if you can't threaten, then you can't do,

601
01:07:06.660 --> 01:07:08.180
and if you can do, you can threaten,

602
01:07:08.180 --> 01:07:10.900
and if you can't do, you can't threaten, four ways.

603
01:07:10.900 --> 01:07:11.900
Hope I said it right.

604
01:07:14.820 --> 01:07:19.820
Yet, this claim was made by Murray Rothbard

605
01:07:22.820 --> 01:07:25.220
in Man Economy and State in one sentence,

606
01:07:25.220 --> 01:07:32.220
And on the basis of that there were various conservative groups that consigned his book to the outer depths.

607
01:07:32.220 --> 01:07:36.220
I think it's Man Economy and State. There's one book where he said this in one sentence.

608
01:07:36.220 --> 01:07:40.220
Pretty sure it's that book. It might have been a different book, but I'm pretty sure it's that one.

609
01:07:40.220 --> 01:07:52.220
And what I did is I've written a lot about this because a lot of law reviews have arguments as to why blackmail should be illegal because of this paradox.

610
01:07:52.220 --> 01:08:09.220
See, what I'm doing is I gave you a paradox that it's licit to do what you can threaten and to threaten what you can do and legal scholars have come up with various theories as to why it should be illegal to blackmail.

611
01:08:09.220 --> 01:08:16.220
Blackmail. Some of the theories are utilitarian. This would be the Coase and the Posner types.

612
01:08:16.220 --> 01:08:24.220
Others, they come up with various reasons which I can't really understand why on non-utilitarian grounds.

613
01:08:24.220 --> 01:08:32.220
It turns out that I think I'm the most heavily published person on blackmail in the known universe

614
01:08:32.220 --> 01:08:38.220
because there was a while where I was going through my blackmail phase. I wasn't blackmailing people

615
01:08:38.220 --> 01:08:45.220
I'm not blackmailing people, but I was writing articles in reply and response to articles in law reviews

616
01:08:45.220 --> 01:08:57.220
where the law reviews said, you know, here's why blackmail should be illegal and what I say is, you know, you're full of beans and here's why.

617
01:08:57.220 --> 01:09:01.220
Which would you rather be in the hands of, a gossip or a blackmailer?

618
01:09:01.220 --> 01:09:09.220
If you were doing something that you shouldn't be doing, and you have two choices.

619
01:09:09.220 --> 01:09:16.220
Now if you're in the hands of a gossip, it's case closed, it's over, you're screwed.

620
01:09:16.220 --> 01:09:20.220
Because the gossip is a big blabber mouth that's going to just blabber.

621
01:09:20.220 --> 01:09:28.220
The blackmailer has the decency, the kindness, the consideration to come to you and say,

622
01:09:28.220 --> 01:09:32.220
Give me money and I'll shut up.

623
01:09:32.220 --> 01:09:36.220
Can you sue them if they remain?

624
01:09:36.220 --> 01:09:42.220
Yeah, sure. It's a contract. It's a services contract.

625
01:09:42.220 --> 01:09:48.220
I promise to keep quiet, John, about the fact that you're a weirdo.

626
01:09:48.220 --> 01:09:54.220
And you give me a thousand bucks and the next thing you know I'm babbling that John is a weirdo.

627
01:09:54.220 --> 01:09:58.500
You come and sue me. Sure. I mean, the secret's already out.

628
01:09:58.500 --> 01:10:04.540
And it'll hurt me because I'll get the reputation of a blackmailer who can't keep his mouth shut.

629
01:10:04.540 --> 01:10:12.380
So the next time I go to Dick and I say, hey, Dick, you know, give me money, or I'll say, you're really a lousy computer person.

630
01:10:12.380 --> 01:10:18.060
Dick will say, you know, take a hike, or publish and be damned is the expression that's sometimes used.

631
01:10:18.060 --> 01:10:24.140
Because Dick will know that what's the point of giving me money? I can't keep my mouth shut.

632
01:10:24.140 --> 01:10:31.980
So, yeah, a blackmailer has the decency to make a commercial deal with you.

633
01:10:31.980 --> 01:10:37.740
And if he reneges or if he changes, he says, okay, it'll be a thousand dollars and that's it.

634
01:10:37.740 --> 01:10:42.900
And then a month later, I come back another thousand, you can sue me.

635
01:10:42.900 --> 01:10:46.940
And now you've got a hook into me because I violated my contract.

636
01:10:46.940 --> 01:10:54.740
And in a free society, if you violate a contract, you can be held responsible.

637
01:10:54.740 --> 01:10:58.240
So what's this asking for another thousand?

638
01:10:58.240 --> 01:11:01.240
There's a line in one of the Sherlock Holmes things.

639
01:11:01.240 --> 01:11:04.440
Moriarty was the bad guy in the Sherlock Holmes.

640
01:11:04.440 --> 01:11:07.140
He was the arch-fiend, the arch-villain.

641
01:11:07.140 --> 01:11:12.040
And what he did is he stole people's souls, according to Arthur Conan Doyle.

642
01:11:12.040 --> 01:11:15.040
Namely, he engaged in blackmail.

643
01:11:15.040 --> 01:11:21.240
So it's not only law professors and legal theoreticians, it's literature, it's just everything.

644
01:11:21.240 --> 01:11:27.340
Everyone says blackmail is the worst thing in the known universe.

645
01:11:27.340 --> 01:11:32.140
But the libertarian analysis leads you to a different conclusion.

646
01:11:32.140 --> 01:11:34.440
So this is powerful stuff.

647
01:11:34.440 --> 01:11:38.440
I started off by saying, you know, everyone would agree, non-aggression, sure, sure.

648
01:11:38.440 --> 01:11:44.440
Now all of a sudden we're keeping blackmailers out of jail and libel is okay, or at least legally okay.

649
01:11:44.440 --> 01:11:47.540
Now look, I'm not saying it's nice to be a blackmailer.

650
01:11:47.540 --> 01:11:51.140
I'm not saying that you should grow up and try to, you know, become a blackmailer.

651
01:11:51.140 --> 01:11:53.840
That this is a virtuous thing. It's not moral to do that.

652
01:11:53.840 --> 01:11:58.840
It's not moral to blackmail. It's not moral to libel.

653
01:11:58.840 --> 01:12:02.940
We're only talking about should you go to jail or should violence be visited upon you.

654
01:12:02.940 --> 01:12:07.240
And we libertarians say that the only time violence should be visited upon you

655
01:12:07.240 --> 01:12:11.740
is if you first engage in something that is equivalent to violence.

656
01:12:11.740 --> 01:12:17.740
For example, fraud, or pickpocketing. Look, pickpocketing is a very delicate thing.

657
01:12:17.740 --> 01:12:26.740
Or bad check writing, there's no violence, but still there's an illicit transfer of property when pickpocketing occurs.

658
01:12:26.740 --> 01:12:31.740
You know, you must have surgeon's hands to pickpocket, or you write a bad check, or you forge a check,

659
01:12:31.740 --> 01:12:39.740
or I sell you 10 pounds of apples and you open it as 10 pounds of rocks, I stole the money from you.

660
01:12:39.740 --> 01:12:54.740
Now, I'm not saying it has to be violent, but there has to be either violence, or a threat of violence, or fraud, or some illicit transfer of property, and then libertarianism kicks in and says, uh-uh, gotta stop you.

661
01:12:54.740 --> 01:13:05.740
But blackmail and libel and slander don't do that. So I think it is incumbent upon us, if we want to be consistent with the libertarian vision, to say, well, you shouldn't go to jail.

662
01:13:05.740 --> 01:13:19.740
Remember, what libertarianism is about is only who goes to jail, or who gets punished, or under what conditions is violence justified, and the answer is when previous violence or the threat occurred.

663
01:13:19.740 --> 01:13:24.740
Okay, we've only got about 15 minutes. Questions? Comments? Dan?

664
01:13:24.740 --> 01:13:41.740
There's a practical question in regards to raising payment, like the blackmailer says initially and in fact, okay, it's going to be $1,000 and then later on they come and raise the states, well, it doesn't.

665
01:13:41.740 --> 01:13:49.740
That's still problematic in the sense that the enforcement, to enforce the contract at that stage of the game where he hasn't revealed anything,

666
01:13:49.740 --> 01:13:56.740
would then kind of hurt the blackmailee in the sense that he doesn't want the information out.

667
01:13:56.740 --> 01:14:03.740
So to go to a third party to arbitrate according to a contract that you've written is just as bad as breaking the contract.

668
01:14:03.740 --> 01:14:16.740
Well, not just as bad, but very bad, okay? In other words, you're trying to keep it secret that you're a weenie and you paid me a thousand dollars and now I'm about, and now I say another thousand.

669
01:14:16.740 --> 01:14:23.740
You say, what do you mean another thousand? The deal is a deal and it was just one thousand. What's the second thousand?

670
01:14:23.740 --> 01:14:29.740
and I say, well, look, pay the second thousand or I'm going public and you're still stuck

671
01:14:29.740 --> 01:14:36.740
but you're in a better position than you were the first time because now at least you've got something on me

672
01:14:36.740 --> 01:14:41.740
it's mutual blackmail, you know, mutual assured destruction, mutual assured blackmail

673
01:14:41.740 --> 01:14:48.740
because now you can blackmail me, you can say, hey look, give me 500 back

674
01:14:48.740 --> 01:15:18.740
You dirty rat, because you're going against your contract, and I'm going public, yes, I'll admit I'm a weenie, but you are a, what's the word, a reneging blackmailer, and if I have any sense of self, position to uphold in the community, or more realistically speaking, if I ever want to blackmail anyone else, the word now gets out that I'm an untrustworthy blackmailer,

675
01:15:18.740 --> 01:15:23.060
any money in the beginning. They might be more likely to say publish and be damned.

676
01:15:23.060 --> 01:15:29.900
Yeah, I mean, I agree with your position, but I wanted to create a sort of hard case to see how

677
01:15:29.900 --> 01:15:33.740
you might respond to it. Suppose that you are blackmailing, you have information on someone

678
01:15:33.740 --> 01:15:38.420
who's committed a murder, and if blackmail is legal, you now have a financial interest in

679
01:15:38.420 --> 01:15:42.260
keeping that information secret and blackmailing the murderer and getting money. If on the other

680
01:15:42.260 --> 01:15:47.380
hand blackmail were illegal, you would have no interest in keeping it secret, basically,

681
01:15:47.380 --> 01:15:50.380
You would have, you could potentially go to the authorities more easily.

682
01:15:50.380 --> 01:15:55.380
You wouldn't be getting a stream of revenue for it, and thus getting an additional incentive to keep it secret.

683
01:15:55.380 --> 01:15:59.380
You might still keep it secret, but there would be less incentive than a blackmail lawyer.

684
01:15:59.380 --> 01:16:02.380
That's a very good point.

685
01:16:02.380 --> 01:16:05.380
Do you call that extortion?

686
01:16:05.380 --> 01:16:08.380
There's no threat of violence, so it's not extortion.

687
01:16:08.380 --> 01:16:11.380
What about the information on the murder against the law?

688
01:16:11.380 --> 01:16:14.380
It is against the law, but is it against the proper law?

689
01:16:14.380 --> 01:16:16.380
Oh, proper law.

690
01:16:16.380 --> 01:16:20.780
Remember, for libertarianism there are no positive obligations.

691
01:16:20.780 --> 01:16:28.580
Now it would be nice, it would be virtuous, we know Dan is a murderer, but he's a nice guy, so far no one is telling.

692
01:16:28.580 --> 01:16:35.380
It would be nice if we went to the cops, private cops or the forces of law and order, whoever they are, let's leave that in abeyance,

693
01:16:35.380 --> 01:16:40.380
and said, look, Dan is a murderer, we've got evidence and here it is, and put him away.

694
01:16:40.380 --> 01:16:46.080
But it's not incumbent upon us as libertarians to do that, there are no positive obligations.

695
01:16:46.080 --> 01:16:50.080
Let me just finish this and then I'll call on other people.

696
01:16:50.080 --> 01:16:54.080
There are no positive obligations, the only obligations are negative.

697
01:16:54.080 --> 01:17:00.080
Remember, if there are positive obligations, then you have to give your money to the poor or something like that.

698
01:17:00.080 --> 01:17:07.080
There are no positive obligations, and when I get to stem cell research and abortion,

699
01:17:07.080 --> 01:17:12.080
I'll be saying something that's seemingly incompatible with that, but I'll...

700
01:17:12.080 --> 01:17:27.080
Well, I want to mention it now just briefly. In the abortion case, the tradition is, not the abortion case, well, in the child abuse case.

701
01:17:27.080 --> 01:17:38.080
If you have a child, the traditional thing from common law is if you didn't want to take care of your child, you put it on the church steps or you bring it to a hospital.

702
01:17:38.080 --> 01:17:50.380
There was an incident in Nash, a TV show in Nash, where they had this Korean, half Korean, half American baby, and nobody wanted to take care of it, and they brought it to the monastery.

703
01:17:50.380 --> 01:18:03.380
Well, suppose they just left it in the back room and let it starve. In other words, is putting the baby on the church steps, is that a positive obligation?

704
01:18:03.380 --> 01:18:20.380
And I'm arguing no, and my argument is, well this is a roundabout way of answering that question, but bear with me, it's a thing called forestalling.

705
01:18:20.380 --> 01:18:27.380
Now you remember, here is a bagel.

706
01:18:27.380 --> 01:18:39.860
Do you remember we were talking about homesteading land as a way of getting to own it and the ideas that all land should be owned?

707
01:18:39.860 --> 01:18:48.100
Locke had some sort of stupid proviso that there has to be as much and as good left around but we libertarians don't buy that part of it.

708
01:18:48.100 --> 01:18:54.380
You homestead and anyone can homestead and the homesteading should end up with all property owned

709
01:18:54.380 --> 01:19:05.880
And if you prevent someone from homesteading, like Dan is trying to plow and I beat him up and I say you can't plow, that's forestalling, that's preventing him from homesteading.

710
01:19:05.880 --> 01:19:21.680
Well, suppose I homestead a bagel-shaped area. I homestead this area, the dotted area, leaving the X area empty.

711
01:19:21.680 --> 01:19:26.800
Am I allowed to do that? My take on this is that I'm not allowed to do that

712
01:19:26.800 --> 01:19:34.680
because I am forestalling, I am acting in such a way as that all property can't be homesteaded.

713
01:19:34.680 --> 01:19:38.680
Now, if it's impossible to tunnel under or bridge over,

714
01:19:38.680 --> 01:19:43.280
let's say we don't have the technology or the rock is too hard or whatever it is,

715
01:19:43.280 --> 01:19:49.320
my claim is that this guy with the bagel-shaped area has to allow

716
01:19:49.320 --> 01:19:55.080
a path into the x area so that people can homestead the inner part of the bagel

717
01:19:55.080 --> 01:20:01.720
because the whole point of ownership is so that we can not have fights.

718
01:20:01.720 --> 01:20:06.520
The reason we have to have ownership, and this is my pen and this is Dan's pen, is so we don't fight over it.

719
01:20:06.520 --> 01:20:10.120
But if there's unowned stuff, then we can fight over it.

720
01:20:10.120 --> 01:20:12.420
So everything has to be privatized.

721
01:20:12.420 --> 01:20:14.080
If it moves, privatize it.

722
01:20:14.080 --> 01:20:15.680
If it doesn't move, privatize it.

723
01:20:15.680 --> 01:20:20.180
Since everything either moves or doesn't move, you privatize everything.

724
01:20:20.180 --> 01:20:26.680
The forestaller is engaged in some sort of illicit activity.

725
01:20:26.680 --> 01:20:33.580
And what I'm claiming is, is that to put the baby on the church steps or notify the hospital that you have an unwanted baby

726
01:20:33.580 --> 01:20:41.280
is absolutely required, and it's not a positive obligation, because if you don't, you're guilty of forestalling the baby.

727
01:20:41.280 --> 01:20:48.320
Not that you can own the baby, but you can own the rights to bring up the baby, by bringing it up?

728
01:20:48.320 --> 01:20:58.880
Okay, so now to get back to your question, there is no positive obligation to tell anyone that someone is a murderer.

729
01:20:58.880 --> 01:21:02.040
And I think your question was intimately dependent upon that.

730
01:21:02.040 --> 01:21:07.880
No, but I think that someone who wants to defend black male laws is going to say that one of the reasons to have them

731
01:21:07.880 --> 01:21:18.880
to make sure that criminal activity is going to be, it may not, you don't necessarily have to insist that there are laws that are going to compel people to reveal criminal activity on another person's part,

732
01:21:18.880 --> 01:21:22.880
but if they're allowed to blackmail, that will give them a financial incentive not to reveal that information.

733
01:21:22.880 --> 01:21:28.880
So it seems like having blackmailed illegal makes it a little more likely that the information will come out.

734
01:21:28.880 --> 01:21:32.880
This is a good utilitarian criticism of my theory.

735
01:21:32.880 --> 01:21:40.880
I mean, we'll have more crime with the libertarian theory and if we keep the law as it is, it'll encourage people to turn in criminals.

736
01:21:40.880 --> 01:21:50.880
So, but it's only a utilitarian argument, mere utilitarianism, and libertarians are not necessarily utilitarians.

737
01:21:50.880 --> 01:21:58.880
I agree with all this, but I'm just not sure that how would you make an argument that interacts at all in an effective manner with the utilitarian argument?

738
01:21:58.880 --> 01:22:28.880
Well, one way is to say that libertarianism is broadly utilitarian, and that if we buy the libertarian principle, even in cases where it seems not to be utilitarian, it's sort of like rule utilitarianism as opposed to act utilitarianism, which what you have is an act utilitarian argument, Kevin you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong on this rule versus act utilitarianism,

739
01:22:28.880 --> 01:22:39.880
But you could defend against the act utilitarian attack. Please don't talk while I'm talking because I have a very weak voice and I don't want to talk over it.

740
01:22:39.880 --> 01:22:55.880
What I'm saying is you are now launching an act utilitarian attack on my position and I'm saying I have in my control a rule utilitarian answer, namely act according to the rule which will maximize utility.

741
01:22:55.880 --> 01:22:59.880
And the rule is Libertarianism.

742
01:22:59.880 --> 01:23:03.880
Kevin.

743
01:23:03.880 --> 01:23:07.880
This is something new. I wonder, are you going to talk about child support?

744
01:23:07.880 --> 01:23:11.880
Because if you are, I'll wait, but I have a question if you want.

745
01:23:11.880 --> 01:23:15.880
Well, go ahead, shoot.

746
01:23:15.880 --> 01:23:19.880
I've heard some people argue that child support could be legitimate under Libertarianism

747
01:23:19.880 --> 01:23:23.880
because there are types of implicit contracts and bans.

748
01:23:23.880 --> 01:23:53.380
I will be talking about this at greater length when I talk about abortion, but let me just answer now since it's been asked, I don't think that it's just to compel people to take care of children.

749
01:23:53.880 --> 01:24:03.880
First of all, the child who's the product of rape can't within a million miles be considered to be a voluntary mother.

750
01:24:03.880 --> 01:24:08.880
And if you believe that all children have equal rights because they're all equally innocent,

751
01:24:08.880 --> 01:24:16.880
she certainly has no obligation there and therefore no one else does either, is one way to go at it, if all children have equal rights.

752
01:24:16.880 --> 01:24:24.880
And she, the rape victim, has no obligation to take care of this particular raped child or product of raped child?

753
01:24:24.880 --> 01:24:31.880
Well, then no child has a duty that any parent has to support.

754
01:24:31.880 --> 01:24:36.880
Second is this implicit contract business. Now, I'm a fan of implicit contracts.

755
01:24:36.880 --> 01:24:43.880
If I go to a restaurant and I order a cup of coffee and I drink it, and then they present me with a bill for a million dollars,

756
01:24:43.880 --> 01:24:52.880
I say, uh-uh, if you want to charge me that, it's your responsibility to tell me that this is a special cup of coffee.

757
01:24:52.880 --> 01:25:01.880
So I agree with implicit contracts, but I insist that for there to be an implicit contract, there has to be at least two parties to it.

758
01:25:01.880 --> 01:25:09.880
And at the time of intercourse, forgetting about the father for the moment, let's suppose he's out of the picture, there aren't two parties.

759
01:25:09.880 --> 01:25:14.880
Namely, there's only the mother with an egg here and a sperm over there.

760
01:25:14.880 --> 01:25:23.880
So at this point, before the egg and the sperm meet, now even when they meet, it's hard to see how you can have an implicit contract with a fertilized egg.

761
01:25:23.880 --> 01:25:29.880
Although I'm maybe sympathetic to that, because at least it's an entity if not an adult.

762
01:25:29.880 --> 01:25:33.880
But before the egg and the sperm meet, there's no one that you can have a contract with.

763
01:25:33.880 --> 01:25:39.880
and my view is that for there to be an implicit contract you have to have at least two people.

764
01:25:39.880 --> 01:25:47.880
Okay, just briefly. Of course the rate case would be distinguishable from the others

765
01:25:47.880 --> 01:25:51.880
by saying there's obviously no ground for implicit contract in that case.

766
01:25:51.880 --> 01:25:55.880
So responding to the second one, the argument would be that it's an obligation to the child.

767
01:25:55.880 --> 01:26:02.880
It would be an argument that it was an obligation to the other parent, say, a husband or something like that.

768
01:26:02.880 --> 01:26:23.880
Well, Murray would probably say there was no consideration passed and also if the implicit contract is just between the mother and the father, what does that have to do with the baby?

769
01:26:23.880 --> 01:26:31.880
See, you have to have, if you want to have the baby protected by an implicit contract, the baby has to be part of the implicit contract.

770
01:26:31.880 --> 01:26:36.880
And if you're just talking about the mother and the father, you don't reach the baby.

771
01:26:36.880 --> 01:26:43.880
And then there's all this stuff about Mary Beth White or somebody like that who was paid to have a man's baby.

772
01:26:43.880 --> 01:26:50.880
And there there's a contract, now you have a contract between the mother and the father, but again it has nothing to do with the baby.

773
01:26:50.880 --> 01:26:54.540
We're out of time and I understand that you're supposed to keep to the strict

774
01:26:54.540 --> 01:27:03.440
hour and a half, so is that right Chad? Okay, so let's end now and we'll continue

775
01:27:03.440 --> 01:27:05.960
tomorrow.