What do you think?
Rate this book
Defending the Undefendable: The Pimp, Prostitute, Scab, Slumlord, Libeler, Moneylender, and Other Scapegoats in the Rogue's Gallery of American Society
Professor Block's book is in a new edition from the Mises Institute, completely reset and beautifully laid out in an edition worthy of its contents. It is among the most famous of the great defenses of victimless crimes and controversial economic practices, from profiteering and gouging to bribery and blackmail. However, beneath the surface, this book is also an outstanding work of microeconomic theory that explains the workings of economic forces in everyday events and affairs. Murray Rothbard explains why: "Defending the Undefendable performs the service of highlighting, the fullest and starkest terms, the essential nature of the productive services performed by all people in the free market. By taking the most extreme examples and showing how the Smithian principles work even in these cases, the book does far more to demonstrate the workability and morality of the free market than a dozen sober tomes on more respectable industries and activities. By testing and proving the extreme cases, he all the more illustrates and vindicates the theory." F.A. Hayek agreed, writing the author as follows: "Looking through Defending the Undefendable made me feel that I was once more exposed to the shock therapy by which, more than fifty years ago, the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position. ... Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it. A real understanding of economics demands that one disabuses oneself of many dear prejudices and illusions. Popular fallacies in economics frequently express themselves in unfounded prejudices against other occupations, and showing the falsity of these stereotypes you are doing a real services, although you will not make yourself more popular with the majority."
257 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1976
115 people are currently reading
1792 people want to read
About the author
Walter Block
66 books127 followersWalter Block earned his PhD in Economics at Columbia University. He is an author, editor, and co-editor of many books which include Defending the Undefendable; Lexicon of Economic Thought, Economic Freedom of the World 1975-1995; Rent Control: Myths and Realities; Discrimination, Affirmative Action, and Equal Opportunity; Theology, Third Word Development and Economic Justice; Man, Economy, and Liberty: Essays in Honor of Murray N. Rothbard; Religion, Econonomics, and Social Thought; and Economic Freedom: Toward a Theory of Measurement.
Dr. Block has written more than 500 articles for various non-refereed journals, magazines and newspapers, and is a contributor to such journals as The Review of Austrian Economics, Journal of Libertarian Studies, The Journal of Labor Economics, Cultural Dynamics, and the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He is currently a professor and chair of economics, college of business administration, at Loyola University.
Dr. Block has written more than 500 articles for various non-refereed journals, magazines and newspapers, and is a contributor to such journals as The Review of Austrian Economics, Journal of Libertarian Studies, The Journal of Labor Economics, Cultural Dynamics, and the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He is currently a professor and chair of economics, college of business administration, at Loyola University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews
March 11, 2013
In the first couple of sections, Sexual & Medical, he presents some good arguments in favor of less government interference & that's not surprising, given his Libertarian stance that he warns about in the introduction. His arguments are somewhat thin, but not too bad.
I found that the third section on free speech lost some cohesiveness of argument. His arguments for not regulating blackmail, slander & libel were very thin. His comparisons against 'academic freedom' aren't particularly valid. He presupposes rationality & responsibility on the part of businesses that I don't believe exist, especially in his case for free speech against the yelling of, "Fire!" in a movie theater. This is an unfortunate habit of Libertarians.
He puts up a fair defense for advertising & overall brings up some good points, but they lack the conviction & depth of his earlier arguments supporting sex & drugs. His arguments for unregulated cab drivers are OK, immediately followed by poor arguments supporting ticket scalping. Over & over he does this. He makes valid points & then weak ones usually due to faulty premises, not the logic inherent to his argument until he gets to 'The Dishonest Cop' & here his logic & premises fall apart.
He takes his theories over the top into absurdity in his discussions about counterfeiting money, saying that only gold & silver are real money, again showing his premises are incorrect. He forgets (or ignores) that currency is a consensus of worth. Precious metals, jewels & even seashells were historically used because they were not counterfeitable, fairly rare & ornamental. They had no use in industry, yet everyone wanted them & agreed on their worth. The current global consensus is not to base money on any specific goods since there isn't enough of anything that would make sense & their value would affect significant industries. He shows that he understands debasement, inflation & other ills that can befall a currency, yet makes specious arguments for allowing counterfeiting on the grounds that the government already does it. Silly.
The book gets worse, if possible, after this in sections V, VI & VII, Finaces, Business & Ecology, respectively. Several categories don't need any defense; inheritors & speculators. Others, profiteers, stripminers & litterers, are improperly defined, poorly defended & a waste of time to read. He goes out of his way to make completely improper comparisons in his rant against the establishment & its departure from his Libertarian values.
He gets somewhat back on track with section VIII, Labor, & his discussion on the minimum wage law, but fails to take into account the growth of technology, which undermines one of his major arguments. That's the pattern - make a somewhat convincing argument & then blow it through neglect or diatribe.
He follows this near success with the most specious & horrible arguments for child labor. I guess he doesn't read much history, as he actually writes, "Moreover, the institution of child labor is an honorable one, with a long and glorious history of good works." Abortion wasn't legal when this book was written, so one of his main arguments against parental responsibility is void.
Basically, the book was a waste of time. If it teaches anything, it's to watch what you spend time reading.
I found that the third section on free speech lost some cohesiveness of argument. His arguments for not regulating blackmail, slander & libel were very thin. His comparisons against 'academic freedom' aren't particularly valid. He presupposes rationality & responsibility on the part of businesses that I don't believe exist, especially in his case for free speech against the yelling of, "Fire!" in a movie theater. This is an unfortunate habit of Libertarians.
He puts up a fair defense for advertising & overall brings up some good points, but they lack the conviction & depth of his earlier arguments supporting sex & drugs. His arguments for unregulated cab drivers are OK, immediately followed by poor arguments supporting ticket scalping. Over & over he does this. He makes valid points & then weak ones usually due to faulty premises, not the logic inherent to his argument until he gets to 'The Dishonest Cop' & here his logic & premises fall apart.
He takes his theories over the top into absurdity in his discussions about counterfeiting money, saying that only gold & silver are real money, again showing his premises are incorrect. He forgets (or ignores) that currency is a consensus of worth. Precious metals, jewels & even seashells were historically used because they were not counterfeitable, fairly rare & ornamental. They had no use in industry, yet everyone wanted them & agreed on their worth. The current global consensus is not to base money on any specific goods since there isn't enough of anything that would make sense & their value would affect significant industries. He shows that he understands debasement, inflation & other ills that can befall a currency, yet makes specious arguments for allowing counterfeiting on the grounds that the government already does it. Silly.
The book gets worse, if possible, after this in sections V, VI & VII, Finaces, Business & Ecology, respectively. Several categories don't need any defense; inheritors & speculators. Others, profiteers, stripminers & litterers, are improperly defined, poorly defended & a waste of time to read. He goes out of his way to make completely improper comparisons in his rant against the establishment & its departure from his Libertarian values.
He gets somewhat back on track with section VIII, Labor, & his discussion on the minimum wage law, but fails to take into account the growth of technology, which undermines one of his major arguments. That's the pattern - make a somewhat convincing argument & then blow it through neglect or diatribe.
He follows this near success with the most specious & horrible arguments for child labor. I guess he doesn't read much history, as he actually writes, "Moreover, the institution of child labor is an honorable one, with a long and glorious history of good works." Abortion wasn't legal when this book was written, so one of his main arguments against parental responsibility is void.
Basically, the book was a waste of time. If it teaches anything, it's to watch what you spend time reading.
August 14, 2013
I liked the book in its entirety for making clear arguments that fly in the face of many dogmatic popular stances on controversial topics such as drugs, prostitution, profit making, rate busting, child labor, litter, slander,..
When libertarian ideas taken to their logical conclusions, these fields in human conduct should be inquired upon, and Block does a great job doing this.
One point of disagreement I have, is his stance towards children and parenting. In the last chapter of the book he says that parents have no positive obligations towards their children. He uses the example of involuntary conception of a child, in the case of rape, and that in such a case a parent has no positive moral obligation. This makes sense, but only in the case of rape (involuntary conception). I would argue, and most people would, that in the case of voluntary conception (the overwhelming majority of conceptions), the parents do have POSITIVE obligations to provide their children with the tools and environment that will prepare them for a productive and happy future. So this is a great downer for me, other than that, the book is great.
When libertarian ideas taken to their logical conclusions, these fields in human conduct should be inquired upon, and Block does a great job doing this.
One point of disagreement I have, is his stance towards children and parenting. In the last chapter of the book he says that parents have no positive obligations towards their children. He uses the example of involuntary conception of a child, in the case of rape, and that in such a case a parent has no positive moral obligation. This makes sense, but only in the case of rape (involuntary conception). I would argue, and most people would, that in the case of voluntary conception (the overwhelming majority of conceptions), the parents do have POSITIVE obligations to provide their children with the tools and environment that will prepare them for a productive and happy future. So this is a great downer for me, other than that, the book is great.
January 13, 2010
Now, this is an amazing book. Let's be clear about the full title: "Defending the Undefendable: The pimp, prostitute, scab, slumlord, libeler, moneylender and other scapegoats in the rogue's gallery of American society." Walter Block gives very compelling (potentially world-view challenging) arguments for the legalization of everything a social conservative and bleeding-heart liberal would faint over. He does so by devoting a chapter to each "villain" of modern-day society, such as the "drug lord" and the "extortionist." This book is certainly not a Ron-Paul-libertarianism-for-the-masses book. Nor, is it for the intellectually challenged. The arguments are deep, compelling, and gives a rebuttal to almost every commonly-held view against his points.
May 3, 2011
While undoubtedly the author is very smart I'm afraid he defends for the sake of defending, as opposed to being fair and trying to get to the bottom of truths. His effort and verbal skills are still appreciated but while they do have some good points I saw also some slight of hand type things.
June 14, 2013
I'm familiar with Walter Block from Mises Institute-sponsored lectures on their YouTube channel. I like him and agree with many of his arguments, which makes negatively reviewing this book something of an unpleasant chore.
For starters, the tone of this book reinforces every libertarian stereotype out there: brash, pedantically argumentative, overly-theoretical, and absolutist. Personally, I like these traits in people, but they are wholly counter-productive in the kind of "apology" literature that this book purports to be. Even when you agree with Block, he makes you want to argue the minutiae with him.
Second, he conflates a pragmatic legal argument with a moral argument. There is no need to define pimps, drug pushers, etc. as "heroes" to defend the legality of these actions and in fact attempting this alienates folks who agree on pragmatic grounds.
If Block insists on making the pedantic, semantically-narrow "moral hero" case, he should have done it at the end of the book in a dedicated chapter after he had done his best with the pragmatic approach. Ideally, he would have done so in an entirely separate book.
Third, he is overly reliant on deductive, a priori reasoning, occasionally making unsubstantiated assertions that he could easily back up with facts and figures but doesn't bother.
Fourth, some of his arguments are just plain idiotic. I offer up the chapter defending litterbugs as exemplary. Block makes compelling arguments too, but his strongest ones can be found in other books that are not as incendiary and are therefore more likely to convince, like Economics in One Lesson.
Finally, the tone and word choice in some cases sounds vaguely racist to modern ears, despite the fact that he's trying to make pro-minority arguments at the time. I'm willing to chalk this up to the fact that the book was originally written in 1976.
Regrettably, I can only recommend this book to Block's ideological cohorts because he fails to frame his argument in a way that will actually convince people who are not already likely to agree.
For starters, the tone of this book reinforces every libertarian stereotype out there: brash, pedantically argumentative, overly-theoretical, and absolutist. Personally, I like these traits in people, but they are wholly counter-productive in the kind of "apology" literature that this book purports to be. Even when you agree with Block, he makes you want to argue the minutiae with him.
Second, he conflates a pragmatic legal argument with a moral argument. There is no need to define pimps, drug pushers, etc. as "heroes" to defend the legality of these actions and in fact attempting this alienates folks who agree on pragmatic grounds.
If Block insists on making the pedantic, semantically-narrow "moral hero" case, he should have done it at the end of the book in a dedicated chapter after he had done his best with the pragmatic approach. Ideally, he would have done so in an entirely separate book.
Third, he is overly reliant on deductive, a priori reasoning, occasionally making unsubstantiated assertions that he could easily back up with facts and figures but doesn't bother.
Fourth, some of his arguments are just plain idiotic. I offer up the chapter defending litterbugs as exemplary. Block makes compelling arguments too, but his strongest ones can be found in other books that are not as incendiary and are therefore more likely to convince, like Economics in One Lesson.
Finally, the tone and word choice in some cases sounds vaguely racist to modern ears, despite the fact that he's trying to make pro-minority arguments at the time. I'm willing to chalk this up to the fact that the book was originally written in 1976.
Regrettably, I can only recommend this book to Block's ideological cohorts because he fails to frame his argument in a way that will actually convince people who are not already likely to agree.
March 5, 2019
In Defending the Undefendable, Walter Block takes on the laudable task of defending libertarianism from moral panic and sentimentalism. Arguments like: Without the state, who will kick prostitutes off the streets? What about loan sharks or evil landlords? That kind of thing. Blocks counter-argumentation in this book, as per the title, is to show the good sides of things like loan sharking and blackmail. Sometimes, he's very compelling, as when he says that the reason why loan sharks demand such high interest rates is because they give loans to high-risk clients. Always, his perspectives are at least worth taking in, whether you ultimately find them convincing or not. The very least he does is stop people in their tracks who want to condemn business practices on a moral whim.
That said, I don't always find him convincing, and I don't agree with all his conclusions. His argument for blackmail, namely that it is better than gossipping in that it gives the prospective victim the choice to prevent the embarassing truth from spreading, does not hold if you look at the finality of both actions. Say you blackmail someone with the fact of him having a homosexual affair. What this usually demonstrates is that you are willing to harm a homosexual with outing him, but that you don't believe homosexuals ought to be outed. There is a clear normative contradiction in this, and actions that you cannot take without entering a normative contradiction cannot be morally right. Whether these should be prohibited is another question, but at the very least it means libertarians should portray them as an evil to be tolerated, not a morally positive action.
It is the same with prostitution, drug dealing, and other such evils. People are repulsed by them for a reason. That we cannot prohibit these things effectively does not mean we should defend them. I think most libertarians these days know this. Conceeding that libertarianism won't solve every ill there is in society will make it less attractive if you're in the habit of comparing political blueprints, but not when you have grown to accept the facts that people are imperfect, that the world is imperfect, and that we have no other choice but to tolerate this state of affairs. Knowing that I won't be forced to subsidize or engage in immorality is enough to make libertarianism attractive to me.
This book, then, is definitely worth picking up, but it should neither be your first nor your last step on your libertarian journey.
That said, I don't always find him convincing, and I don't agree with all his conclusions. His argument for blackmail, namely that it is better than gossipping in that it gives the prospective victim the choice to prevent the embarassing truth from spreading, does not hold if you look at the finality of both actions. Say you blackmail someone with the fact of him having a homosexual affair. What this usually demonstrates is that you are willing to harm a homosexual with outing him, but that you don't believe homosexuals ought to be outed. There is a clear normative contradiction in this, and actions that you cannot take without entering a normative contradiction cannot be morally right. Whether these should be prohibited is another question, but at the very least it means libertarians should portray them as an evil to be tolerated, not a morally positive action.
It is the same with prostitution, drug dealing, and other such evils. People are repulsed by them for a reason. That we cannot prohibit these things effectively does not mean we should defend them. I think most libertarians these days know this. Conceeding that libertarianism won't solve every ill there is in society will make it less attractive if you're in the habit of comparing political blueprints, but not when you have grown to accept the facts that people are imperfect, that the world is imperfect, and that we have no other choice but to tolerate this state of affairs. Knowing that I won't be forced to subsidize or engage in immorality is enough to make libertarianism attractive to me.
This book, then, is definitely worth picking up, but it should neither be your first nor your last step on your libertarian journey.
March 31, 2013
This book was written for logical people. People who use critical thinking skills. It is not for the person that allows emotions to cloud their judgement. Walter Block clearly defines the libertarian ethos, although they are not necessarily followed at all times during this book. Those weak at heart or stomach need not apply. I am not saying that all the actions in this book are agreeable to my interpretation of morality, but it is just that, 'MY INTERPRETATION' of it and who am I to use force to make you comply with 'MY INTERPRETATION' of morality?
In some instances, Block exaggerates some of his positions. I truly believe he does this in order to bring to light the issues with thinking emotionally. The chapter on Advertising was a bit out there. To those willing to read this book, I give you one piece of advice. Don't get caught up on the details. Try to open your mind.
All-in-all, the book was good. Made me think about a few things I had not. At the end of the day, I believe the purpose of this book is to make people think. It surely did to me.
In some instances, Block exaggerates some of his positions. I truly believe he does this in order to bring to light the issues with thinking emotionally. The chapter on Advertising was a bit out there. To those willing to read this book, I give you one piece of advice. Don't get caught up on the details. Try to open your mind.
All-in-all, the book was good. Made me think about a few things I had not. At the end of the day, I believe the purpose of this book is to make people think. It surely did to me.
March 22, 2025
This book provides wonderful opening moves for those who enjoy the game of political debate. It is short, clear, and entertaining. Most of the defenses are eminently logical and therefore very convincing. However, it is clear that Block will always decide against the government. Since everything is a foregone conclusion, you can read this book like trail mix: either eat handfuls of anti-government sentiment or pick out the particular defenses that appeal to your standards for substantial argument.
Block is mildly inconsistent. For example, while defending the right of parents to neglect their children in order to justify the case of a child who chooses to freely contract, a raped mother is used to provide a counterexample to the claim that all children are owed parental care due to the voluntary nature of conception. However, Block has previously stated that women have the right over their body including to perform an abortion in the “Male Chauvinist Pig” chapter. Block would have to conceded that a woman impregnated by rape could choose to abort the fetus and avoid having the child. By choosing not to perform the abortion, she takes implicit responsibility for the child. So while the conception of the child was not voluntary the fabrication certainly was. The sole counterexample on which Block builds his entire argument is thus weakened to a threadbare technicality by his previous assertion. Since his arguments sometimes stand weaker together than they do independently, I consider Block inconsistent.
Block intermittenly misses low hanging fruit. For example, in the case of the man who shouts fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, he provides a frustrating tangle of words. The much simpler argument is this: the man who shouts fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire exposes the unreadiness of the theater to a true fire. In fact, an enterprising theater owner may charge this sadist to initiate fire drills the theater owner would perform anyway. In this way the sadist not only exposes the danger but subsidizes its improvement. This sadist must, like any other volunteer firefighter, be regarded as a hero.
These are minor quibbles. Most of the defenses are convincing. There are even some bonus defenses. Here is a short defense of fast fashion I enjoyed: “Products are made which are least wasteful in the view of the consumers. lf consumers decide that, given rapid changes in fashion, it is wasteful to buy clothing that lasts for five years or more, manufacturers will find it more profitable to produce less durable, less expensive clothing. If the market called for it, manufacturers would offer clothing made out of paper.”
I would like to see Block defend the elements of the government he respects, possibly the provision of public goods, of courts, and of defensive military action (imagine a section ‘The Tax Man’ or ‘The Murderous General’). Only then would he be defending the truly indefensible. While the eclectic selection makes for an interesting (though misspelled) conceit, Block is apparently, though not really, a contradictor rather than a reasoning man with strong principles. I would like to see him remedy this by eviscerating the culturally despised people he also despises, presumably the rent-seeking corporation such as the warmonger or the monopolist, the bribe-taking politician, the thief, the murderer, the rapist, the contract-breacher, the liar, and the confidence man.
Block is mildly inconsistent. For example, while defending the right of parents to neglect their children in order to justify the case of a child who chooses to freely contract, a raped mother is used to provide a counterexample to the claim that all children are owed parental care due to the voluntary nature of conception. However, Block has previously stated that women have the right over their body including to perform an abortion in the “Male Chauvinist Pig” chapter. Block would have to conceded that a woman impregnated by rape could choose to abort the fetus and avoid having the child. By choosing not to perform the abortion, she takes implicit responsibility for the child. So while the conception of the child was not voluntary the fabrication certainly was. The sole counterexample on which Block builds his entire argument is thus weakened to a threadbare technicality by his previous assertion. Since his arguments sometimes stand weaker together than they do independently, I consider Block inconsistent.
Block intermittenly misses low hanging fruit. For example, in the case of the man who shouts fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, he provides a frustrating tangle of words. The much simpler argument is this: the man who shouts fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire exposes the unreadiness of the theater to a true fire. In fact, an enterprising theater owner may charge this sadist to initiate fire drills the theater owner would perform anyway. In this way the sadist not only exposes the danger but subsidizes its improvement. This sadist must, like any other volunteer firefighter, be regarded as a hero.
These are minor quibbles. Most of the defenses are convincing. There are even some bonus defenses. Here is a short defense of fast fashion I enjoyed: “Products are made which are least wasteful in the view of the consumers. lf consumers decide that, given rapid changes in fashion, it is wasteful to buy clothing that lasts for five years or more, manufacturers will find it more profitable to produce less durable, less expensive clothing. If the market called for it, manufacturers would offer clothing made out of paper.”
I would like to see Block defend the elements of the government he respects, possibly the provision of public goods, of courts, and of defensive military action (imagine a section ‘The Tax Man’ or ‘The Murderous General’). Only then would he be defending the truly indefensible. While the eclectic selection makes for an interesting (though misspelled) conceit, Block is apparently, though not really, a contradictor rather than a reasoning man with strong principles. I would like to see him remedy this by eviscerating the culturally despised people he also despises, presumably the rent-seeking corporation such as the warmonger or the monopolist, the bribe-taking politician, the thief, the murderer, the rapist, the contract-breacher, the liar, and the confidence man.
May 10, 2018
These are the party-line libertarian arguments against banning various kinds of "bad" activities; basically arguing that anything which isn't a violation of the non-aggression principle and property rights shouldn't be prohibited by government. The problem is that it doesn't argue that these bad things are "good", only that banning them is "bad", and a lot of people don't accept this argument.
To many people, government banning "bad" things is desirable. To a smaller number of people, it's still ok to ban things which are "bad" when the harms of banning those bad things are less than the harms of those things. Other people think anything which isn't illegal is endorsed or good, and thus the legal system needs to ban a lot of things.
I tend to agree with the AnCap viewpoint of a government protecting only property rights, and then other systems (private law, etc.) protecting other values, allowing people to choose which other restrictions and enforcement mechanisms they want. This book makes a reasonable argument against government regulations, but probably won't be particularly convincing to most people who believe the role of government is to do more than protect property.
To many people, government banning "bad" things is desirable. To a smaller number of people, it's still ok to ban things which are "bad" when the harms of banning those bad things are less than the harms of those things. Other people think anything which isn't illegal is endorsed or good, and thus the legal system needs to ban a lot of things.
I tend to agree with the AnCap viewpoint of a government protecting only property rights, and then other systems (private law, etc.) protecting other values, allowing people to choose which other restrictions and enforcement mechanisms they want. This book makes a reasonable argument against government regulations, but probably won't be particularly convincing to most people who believe the role of government is to do more than protect property.
January 7, 2021
This is a controversial book that will surprise you if you're a rational person and you will probably hate it if you're sentimental.
I feel that Block is being politically incorrect on purpose, but I also can see that the reason why he is doing it, is because this is the way to make his point.
I like it, it is honest, it is logical and it is tough, but it is definitely bad propaganda for the libertarian movement, this is a good book that I can't recommend.
I feel that Block is being politically incorrect on purpose, but I also can see that the reason why he is doing it, is because this is the way to make his point.
I like it, it is honest, it is logical and it is tough, but it is definitely bad propaganda for the libertarian movement, this is a good book that I can't recommend.
September 24, 2022
This book will definitely make you think! The author, and economic mics professor, makes an argument in defense of those who engage in controversial practice, such as pimps, prostitutes, drug dealers, blackmailers, corrupt law enforcers, etc. it is not an endorsement of someone ch practices, but a great way of causing you to think critically.
July 18, 2019
author is a fucking psychopath and his thesis is peak mental illness
March 23, 2018
This book was so bad, it inspired me to institute a new way of taking notes so that I could collect the material that I knew I was going to post on this 1-star review.
Blocks 2 biggest enemies are evidence-based theory and probabilistics.
Let me start off my saying that I'm heavily biased against libertarians and libertarian viewpoints. I have many objections to it on the basis both of theoretical flaws, observation of common deficiencies among its adherents and fault with it's its distribution means. With that said,I will strive to keep my review grounded in evidence and reason in the hopes of preventing future readers from wasting their time ans hopefully inspiring someone to abandon that train of thought altogether.
General issues: First among the problems with the arguments presented is the fact that block does not explicitly state (or ever support) many of his core assumptions. He openly defines terms as he sees fit and outside of the normal scope of usage, without attributing to any other body of work that would reasonably support them. In that, he does a thoroughly insufficient job of keeping Agrippa's trilemma at bay.
Second, as someone familiar with the their, evidence and nuanced positions of several subjects broached, Block shows up as highly versed in rhetorical logic, peppered throughout either with an elementary grasp of the subject described or with the minimum amount of research he felt comfortable doing (even if that was less than requisite). Just as a starter, there is absolutely no reason to accept any of his arguments that are compromised by the fundamental attribution error.
Third, and most important, from the outset this books seeks to "defend the undefendable" but also explicitly sells this defense as narrowly consisting of the consideration of violence as defined by libertarianism. Oh, how I wish the person who uploaded the audiobook had not bungled the file order such that I learned of this only after I had made my way through this entire nightmare of quasi-logical navel-gazing. The very reasons that make these professions and activities undefendable is explicitly exempted by the introduction, reducing this entire text to pointless intellectual masturbation with no applicability in real world environments or to human beings aware of such novel gifts as basic empathy.
I will not address this book holistically. I will not engage this text in a carefully arranged critical framework. I will not construct fully elucidated formal logical arguments. This book, and author, has gotten quite enough of my time and my heuristics in dealing with people, in general, indicate that such an effortful attack of the book would no better inform a scientifically-minded reader, nor would it dissuade a rationalist from taking to this as pigs take to slop. Rather, I will point out all the problems I encountered with the text, exactly as I recorded them in evernote at the time of reading, absent context or further justification and that will be my sole contribution to the gestalt opinion on this, aside from my 1-star review given in lieu of the ability to give negative star ratings.
Here is my non-exhaustive list of faults with this text:
Says people charge what the market will bear when talking about slum lords but accuses community leaders of raising prices at ghetto stores by stressing the owners. Those positions are logically incompatible.
Implies that theft has higher incidence in the ghetto than rich areas.
Never once takes into account choices constrained by literal life or death conditions. Book predates behavioral economics, so the treatment of people as rational econs is just barely forgivable.
Believes that competitive forces are the highest arbiter of the survival of a behavior or interaction scheme. Systems thinking wasn't a field when he wrote this. Just barely forgivable.
Says that the government intervening in the economy is marked by inefficiency, venality and corruption. Apparently doesn't remember that he earlier argued that regulatory capture (government corruption ) happens as a result of interference by companies.
Using survival of the fittest analogy doesn't seem to fit models like Comcast who deliver a terrible product because they've mobilized governmental and market forces to remove potential competition. That's the thing about capitalism. Every round win successively leads to future wins by way of increase of probability of victory, regardless of current ability to "satisfy consumers". Game theory wasn't well developed when this book was written either. Letting it pass, barely.
Treats thought experiments and anecdotes as evidence and baselines or mode. No sense of the probable distribution of his scenarios in the actual population.
Strawmans arguments in order to reductio ad absurdum them.
Claims trade makes us different from animals because it, and it alone makes specialization and division of labor possible. Forgets both that insects exist and that slavery also made those things possible. Or is cotton picking not specialization now? Or rather, does Mr. Block think the overseers and masters were sharing in that labor?
Claims that people would not even be able to feed themselves if specialization and trade didn't occur. Forgets that agrarian societies often had families growing food for themselves.
Argues for free trade between adults or nations. Says that one party can always just not consent to the party. Doesn't seem to realize that one citizen not consenting won't stop an international trade deal. Doesn't recall that the government he's trashing in this section is elected by, and responsive to, the voting public.
Calls fiat currency counterfeit. Doesn't realize tokens fur trade are one of our most resilient innovations and have persisted from long before metal coins were ever struck. We know there were clay tokens in the fertile crescent. Representative currency has been moderately ubiquitous throughout our history.
Middleman argument was debunked irl by services like Amazon which cut out distributors and brick and mortar stores by providing a link to the company (or individual creating the product). The self publishing market has been flourishing as a result of this exact process. Again , using edge cases to validate arguments which falter in practice.
Distributed liability for damages caused is a good idea and is agreeable but is unenforceable. Re: housing crash.
Discusses rational criteria but does not fully support the rationality involved.
Fails to distinguish between evolutionary structures governing parasites (like companies) and those governing macro life forms. Competition can lead to best case results for the host in the case of parasitic species, or it can lead to death. A substantial portion of his arguments suffer from this analogical flaw.
Compelling argument for employing market progresses in government projects. Unfair accusation that governments don't have to satisfy customers. That is precisely how revolutions occur.
Ignores energy costs of transgression.
Frequently abstracts arguments to the point of paradox or absurdity, failing to take a systems view.
Doesn't account for all relevant variables. For example, doesn't account for brand loyalty or monopolizing.
Assumes new energy sources will replace current ones before depletion based on prior occurrences of same. Assumes linear, uniform, or infinite development in this area. Assumes linear or uniform depletion.
Says all energy comes from the sun. Ignores nuclear energy. Forecasts we'll move to other suns for energy. Forgets about the heat death of the universe.
Apparently fails to realize that renewable energy makes more economical sense of our resource usage.
Vigorous, turgid defense of not having a minimum wage. Forgets company scrip existed. Doesn't believe in inflation perhaps.
Young black on street corner? Yep, Mr. Block definitely read Sowell.
Minimum wage laws don't prevent internships. They are exactly the 'horatio alger' scenario given.
Talks about minimum wage laws making disabled people unemployable. First, assumes disabled people are, by default, less productive at all jobs than non disabled people. Second, ignores the fact that many disabled people currently work legally for less than the minimum wage.
Pretends that unions don't have members at the current minimum wage and aren't obligated to argue on their behaves. Meanwhile, I'm a member of one such union and have worked in one such situation in the last 5 years. Again, evidence doesn't support his hypothetical arguments. Oh, also, I'm black, given his knack for foisting race struggles off as arguments against class struggle.
Uses flimsy semantic attacks to discredit the idea of ownership over a job. Forgets that modern agreements between companies and individuals are ubiquitously enforced by contracts. Goes on to argue that contracts don't constitute that. Was literally just talking about unions. In what economic universe does Mr. Block live where guarantees aren't built into union contracts which are negotiated and agreed to by the company or its representatives?
Frequently leans on the slave analogy while giving full throated defenses, explicitly and implicitly, to the market forces that created and sustained it. Doesn't seem familiar with psychological biases at all, including distortions created by power differentials or money.
Says that scabs initiating violence is a separate issue. This is the sort of meaningless parsing of observable phenomena into abstract pseudo-independence that cripples many of these arguments. It's this same sort of senseless parsing that gives us the paradox of the race when, in observable reality, you can really just run a race without having to infinitely subdivide its segments.
Tries to repudiate lump of labor fallacy by stating there is more work to be done. That is neither the operative issue in the specific case given, nor does it take into account what people are willing to pay for. In no way proves that there is any causal certainty in support of his position.
Refuses to acknowledge that child cognitive development factors into fairness of agreement to trade. Violates own assumptions from rest of book in the attempt. We know, not speculate, what abilities and cognitive faculties develop and in what phases. I'm unsure on whether Block is only ignorant of the facts or wholly disregards sciences more predictive than his own.
Paremts have no obligation to care for their children. I'm glad it took 200k years of anatomical modernity for someone to come to that conclusion. Our species probably would be extinct by now had this navel-gazing paradox-obsessed lunacy propagated early in our societal development.
Violates own principles in stating that a parent cannot merely abandon a child. It is not an act of aggression. Using his own reasoning, a non-act cannot, by definition, be construed as an act. So, if it's not aggression, and it involves free choice, he ought to have nothing else to say on the subject.
Unless you're the sort that gets your rocks off on contrarian smack talking, don't waste your time on this nonsense. If you've ever seen someone troll about matters of importance, you've almost certainly seen some variation on almost every single argument here. Further, his defenses are all based on monetary exchange (despite tackling issues which are undefendable for MORAL reasons). If it makes money and people can "choose" to engage in it, he's for it. More useless tripe from the library of Babel.
Blocks 2 biggest enemies are evidence-based theory and probabilistics.
Let me start off my saying that I'm heavily biased against libertarians and libertarian viewpoints. I have many objections to it on the basis both of theoretical flaws, observation of common deficiencies among its adherents and fault with it's its distribution means. With that said,I will strive to keep my review grounded in evidence and reason in the hopes of preventing future readers from wasting their time ans hopefully inspiring someone to abandon that train of thought altogether.
General issues: First among the problems with the arguments presented is the fact that block does not explicitly state (or ever support) many of his core assumptions. He openly defines terms as he sees fit and outside of the normal scope of usage, without attributing to any other body of work that would reasonably support them. In that, he does a thoroughly insufficient job of keeping Agrippa's trilemma at bay.
Second, as someone familiar with the their, evidence and nuanced positions of several subjects broached, Block shows up as highly versed in rhetorical logic, peppered throughout either with an elementary grasp of the subject described or with the minimum amount of research he felt comfortable doing (even if that was less than requisite). Just as a starter, there is absolutely no reason to accept any of his arguments that are compromised by the fundamental attribution error.
Third, and most important, from the outset this books seeks to "defend the undefendable" but also explicitly sells this defense as narrowly consisting of the consideration of violence as defined by libertarianism. Oh, how I wish the person who uploaded the audiobook had not bungled the file order such that I learned of this only after I had made my way through this entire nightmare of quasi-logical navel-gazing. The very reasons that make these professions and activities undefendable is explicitly exempted by the introduction, reducing this entire text to pointless intellectual masturbation with no applicability in real world environments or to human beings aware of such novel gifts as basic empathy.
I will not address this book holistically. I will not engage this text in a carefully arranged critical framework. I will not construct fully elucidated formal logical arguments. This book, and author, has gotten quite enough of my time and my heuristics in dealing with people, in general, indicate that such an effortful attack of the book would no better inform a scientifically-minded reader, nor would it dissuade a rationalist from taking to this as pigs take to slop. Rather, I will point out all the problems I encountered with the text, exactly as I recorded them in evernote at the time of reading, absent context or further justification and that will be my sole contribution to the gestalt opinion on this, aside from my 1-star review given in lieu of the ability to give negative star ratings.
Here is my non-exhaustive list of faults with this text:
Says people charge what the market will bear when talking about slum lords but accuses community leaders of raising prices at ghetto stores by stressing the owners. Those positions are logically incompatible.
Implies that theft has higher incidence in the ghetto than rich areas.
Never once takes into account choices constrained by literal life or death conditions. Book predates behavioral economics, so the treatment of people as rational econs is just barely forgivable.
Believes that competitive forces are the highest arbiter of the survival of a behavior or interaction scheme. Systems thinking wasn't a field when he wrote this. Just barely forgivable.
Says that the government intervening in the economy is marked by inefficiency, venality and corruption. Apparently doesn't remember that he earlier argued that regulatory capture (government corruption ) happens as a result of interference by companies.
Using survival of the fittest analogy doesn't seem to fit models like Comcast who deliver a terrible product because they've mobilized governmental and market forces to remove potential competition. That's the thing about capitalism. Every round win successively leads to future wins by way of increase of probability of victory, regardless of current ability to "satisfy consumers". Game theory wasn't well developed when this book was written either. Letting it pass, barely.
Treats thought experiments and anecdotes as evidence and baselines or mode. No sense of the probable distribution of his scenarios in the actual population.
Strawmans arguments in order to reductio ad absurdum them.
Claims trade makes us different from animals because it, and it alone makes specialization and division of labor possible. Forgets both that insects exist and that slavery also made those things possible. Or is cotton picking not specialization now? Or rather, does Mr. Block think the overseers and masters were sharing in that labor?
Claims that people would not even be able to feed themselves if specialization and trade didn't occur. Forgets that agrarian societies often had families growing food for themselves.
Argues for free trade between adults or nations. Says that one party can always just not consent to the party. Doesn't seem to realize that one citizen not consenting won't stop an international trade deal. Doesn't recall that the government he's trashing in this section is elected by, and responsive to, the voting public.
Calls fiat currency counterfeit. Doesn't realize tokens fur trade are one of our most resilient innovations and have persisted from long before metal coins were ever struck. We know there were clay tokens in the fertile crescent. Representative currency has been moderately ubiquitous throughout our history.
Middleman argument was debunked irl by services like Amazon which cut out distributors and brick and mortar stores by providing a link to the company (or individual creating the product). The self publishing market has been flourishing as a result of this exact process. Again , using edge cases to validate arguments which falter in practice.
Distributed liability for damages caused is a good idea and is agreeable but is unenforceable. Re: housing crash.
Discusses rational criteria but does not fully support the rationality involved.
Fails to distinguish between evolutionary structures governing parasites (like companies) and those governing macro life forms. Competition can lead to best case results for the host in the case of parasitic species, or it can lead to death. A substantial portion of his arguments suffer from this analogical flaw.
Compelling argument for employing market progresses in government projects. Unfair accusation that governments don't have to satisfy customers. That is precisely how revolutions occur.
Ignores energy costs of transgression.
Frequently abstracts arguments to the point of paradox or absurdity, failing to take a systems view.
Doesn't account for all relevant variables. For example, doesn't account for brand loyalty or monopolizing.
Assumes new energy sources will replace current ones before depletion based on prior occurrences of same. Assumes linear, uniform, or infinite development in this area. Assumes linear or uniform depletion.
Says all energy comes from the sun. Ignores nuclear energy. Forecasts we'll move to other suns for energy. Forgets about the heat death of the universe.
Apparently fails to realize that renewable energy makes more economical sense of our resource usage.
Vigorous, turgid defense of not having a minimum wage. Forgets company scrip existed. Doesn't believe in inflation perhaps.
Young black on street corner? Yep, Mr. Block definitely read Sowell.
Minimum wage laws don't prevent internships. They are exactly the 'horatio alger' scenario given.
Talks about minimum wage laws making disabled people unemployable. First, assumes disabled people are, by default, less productive at all jobs than non disabled people. Second, ignores the fact that many disabled people currently work legally for less than the minimum wage.
Pretends that unions don't have members at the current minimum wage and aren't obligated to argue on their behaves. Meanwhile, I'm a member of one such union and have worked in one such situation in the last 5 years. Again, evidence doesn't support his hypothetical arguments. Oh, also, I'm black, given his knack for foisting race struggles off as arguments against class struggle.
Uses flimsy semantic attacks to discredit the idea of ownership over a job. Forgets that modern agreements between companies and individuals are ubiquitously enforced by contracts. Goes on to argue that contracts don't constitute that. Was literally just talking about unions. In what economic universe does Mr. Block live where guarantees aren't built into union contracts which are negotiated and agreed to by the company or its representatives?
Frequently leans on the slave analogy while giving full throated defenses, explicitly and implicitly, to the market forces that created and sustained it. Doesn't seem familiar with psychological biases at all, including distortions created by power differentials or money.
Says that scabs initiating violence is a separate issue. This is the sort of meaningless parsing of observable phenomena into abstract pseudo-independence that cripples many of these arguments. It's this same sort of senseless parsing that gives us the paradox of the race when, in observable reality, you can really just run a race without having to infinitely subdivide its segments.
Tries to repudiate lump of labor fallacy by stating there is more work to be done. That is neither the operative issue in the specific case given, nor does it take into account what people are willing to pay for. In no way proves that there is any causal certainty in support of his position.
Refuses to acknowledge that child cognitive development factors into fairness of agreement to trade. Violates own assumptions from rest of book in the attempt. We know, not speculate, what abilities and cognitive faculties develop and in what phases. I'm unsure on whether Block is only ignorant of the facts or wholly disregards sciences more predictive than his own.
Paremts have no obligation to care for their children. I'm glad it took 200k years of anatomical modernity for someone to come to that conclusion. Our species probably would be extinct by now had this navel-gazing paradox-obsessed lunacy propagated early in our societal development.
Violates own principles in stating that a parent cannot merely abandon a child. It is not an act of aggression. Using his own reasoning, a non-act cannot, by definition, be construed as an act. So, if it's not aggression, and it involves free choice, he ought to have nothing else to say on the subject.
Unless you're the sort that gets your rocks off on contrarian smack talking, don't waste your time on this nonsense. If you've ever seen someone troll about matters of importance, you've almost certainly seen some variation on almost every single argument here. Further, his defenses are all based on monetary exchange (despite tackling issues which are undefendable for MORAL reasons). If it makes money and people can "choose" to engage in it, he's for it. More useless tripe from the library of Babel.
March 21, 2025
This is an entertaining and provocative book, well worth reading regardless of whether one is a libertarian or not. It's also quite easy to read. The chapters are very short and need not be read in any particular order, so one can dip into it at one's leisure. More important is Block's clear prose, neatly explaining various economic concepts with minimum use of jargon.
Substantively, it's a bit of a mixed bag. Some of the chapters are quite persuasive, often surprisingly so. For example, his chapter on pimps basically points out that their defining role is to act as a kind of broker between consenting adults who wish to engage in trade. The thuggery and violence which people (myself included) associate with pimps is obviously condemnable, but such behavior is not a necessary part of that profession. (You might think it is a disreputable profession nonetheless, but Block would insist that if everybody involved in the transaction consents, we may not interfere with them.) Another example is his chapter on scabs, where he points out that what scabs do is functionally equivalent to what many other workers do. In effect, Block offers an argument by parity: scorn for scabs should commit you to scorn for hosts of other workers; if you lack scorn for them, you should lack scorn for scabs; and so on. Similar arguments appear throughout, and here is where his argumentation is at its strongest.
Other chapters, though, are quite weak. There is a consistent tendency throughout to offer a motte-and-bailey of sorts. He claims that his chapters show that the "rogue's gallery of American society" not only act defensibly, but often heroically. But very rarely can he sustain the claim that such people are genuine heroes. His chapter on littering provides a typical example. Some of the discussion of how private businesses handle litter is interesting, but his claim that public litterers can act heroically comes off as silly. It's like he came up with a hook for each chapter ("these scoundrels are actually heroes!") and was determined to include it in all of his analyses, but it just seems forced much of the time. Merely being content to defend the moral and legal permissibility of various types of "roguish" behavior may have made for a less entertaining book, but it also would have made for a more plausible book.
Still, the good in this book outweighs the bad. And even if you disagree with Block's analyses, you can nonetheless learn something from them.
Substantively, it's a bit of a mixed bag. Some of the chapters are quite persuasive, often surprisingly so. For example, his chapter on pimps basically points out that their defining role is to act as a kind of broker between consenting adults who wish to engage in trade. The thuggery and violence which people (myself included) associate with pimps is obviously condemnable, but such behavior is not a necessary part of that profession. (You might think it is a disreputable profession nonetheless, but Block would insist that if everybody involved in the transaction consents, we may not interfere with them.) Another example is his chapter on scabs, where he points out that what scabs do is functionally equivalent to what many other workers do. In effect, Block offers an argument by parity: scorn for scabs should commit you to scorn for hosts of other workers; if you lack scorn for them, you should lack scorn for scabs; and so on. Similar arguments appear throughout, and here is where his argumentation is at its strongest.
Other chapters, though, are quite weak. There is a consistent tendency throughout to offer a motte-and-bailey of sorts. He claims that his chapters show that the "rogue's gallery of American society" not only act defensibly, but often heroically. But very rarely can he sustain the claim that such people are genuine heroes. His chapter on littering provides a typical example. Some of the discussion of how private businesses handle litter is interesting, but his claim that public litterers can act heroically comes off as silly. It's like he came up with a hook for each chapter ("these scoundrels are actually heroes!") and was determined to include it in all of his analyses, but it just seems forced much of the time. Merely being content to defend the moral and legal permissibility of various types of "roguish" behavior may have made for a less entertaining book, but it also would have made for a more plausible book.
Still, the good in this book outweighs the bad. And even if you disagree with Block's analyses, you can nonetheless learn something from them.
May 2, 2018
Sometimes this is a book defending certain norms (e.g., property rights) and other times this is a book defending certain unsavory people (e.g., the pimp), but always this is a book defending liberty, not libertinism.
Some of the characters in this book are people that do some pretty immoral things (like the aforementioned pimp) and other characters are people who are just completely misunderstood (the lender). With regard to the latter, Block is simply shedding light on the necessary function that these people serve in a civilized society. In the case of the former, Block is simply trying to make the case that these people both do not of necessity create victims (pimps often beat their workers - creating a victim, but that's not a natural concomitant, like, in the case of a professional hitman who murders, but is mostly the result of prostitution being a black market service) and in some sense do some good (pimps acts as brokers) or you might say lessen the bad that already exists.
This book is not an endorsement of immoral lifestyles. I think, more than anything, it's an attempt to show some contrast between a stateless society and the one we live in - where we try to legislate morality, and in doing so, tend to worsen problems.
Some of the characters in this book are people that do some pretty immoral things (like the aforementioned pimp) and other characters are people who are just completely misunderstood (the lender). With regard to the latter, Block is simply shedding light on the necessary function that these people serve in a civilized society. In the case of the former, Block is simply trying to make the case that these people both do not of necessity create victims (pimps often beat their workers - creating a victim, but that's not a natural concomitant, like, in the case of a professional hitman who murders, but is mostly the result of prostitution being a black market service) and in some sense do some good (pimps acts as brokers) or you might say lessen the bad that already exists.
This book is not an endorsement of immoral lifestyles. I think, more than anything, it's an attempt to show some contrast between a stateless society and the one we live in - where we try to legislate morality, and in doing so, tend to worsen problems.
May 30, 2022
This was the first book chosen for this year’s book club. It is an economic book written by the Austrian school economist, Walter Block. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and would recommend it to my friends. If there was only one thing I learned from this book, it would be that the free market is and will always be the best solution. Any other alternative is seriously deficient, because it stands on misconceptions about freedom and rights as such. Defending the Undefendable is an apologia. It defends the individuals and ideas that people, government, and institutions denounce as evil to society. This kind of conclusion—that these ideas harm society and is against the law—is a result of short-sighted reasoning. In his book, Economics in one lesson, Henry Hazlitt has said that “the bad economist sees only what strikes the eye; the good economist looks beyond.” Frédéric Bastiat also said a similar thing in his book, that Which is Seen and that Which is not Seen. And I do not look at this quote in the field of economics only, it perhaps applies the most in reason per se, which is to see what is not direct to the eye, but what’s beyond. Our way of determining what is good or evil is through our objective reasoning. In this book, you will notice that many of the behaviors or types of people that are being denounced as evil or immoral, and try to impose their views on them through interventions and regulations, are reasonably ethical.
At the beginning of the book, the author identifies that what is evil (in libertarian ethics) is an initiation of force and violence. Anything that uses force as a means to reach some good (end) is unjustifiable. So, in claiming that forcing someone to abide by the regulations only to help them and becoming their savior is not justified and therefore evil. Through the book, you will see that many things that are considered evil are not because it does not initiate the use of force and it is based on voluntary trade and mutual agreement. The book does not discuss whether a thing is immoral or not (although I find something confusing here, or maybe I did not get this point). Many things are immoral but this does not mean imposing a law on them. You cannot make people virtuous by imposing laws on them that you think will make them moral. If both parties, let’s say, agree on certain terms, such as prostitution, no one has the right to impose/prohibit this act. What is evil is using force to prevent an agreement.
My favorite chapters were the Miser, Drug Addict, Counterfeiter, and the Fat Capitalist-Pig Employer. I believe many things that were said are neither immoral nor should be illegal/determined by the law, such as minimum wage laws. There is this misconception which occurs that the sources of our rights come from laws. However, laws can be corrupt. Laws merely come to protect our natural rights, not to prohibit or allow them. And so if it is a natural right to practice free speech, act the way we please with our property (even if we harm it), and practice our judgment, and products from our productive work, then no law should prohibit nor allow but merely protect. So, even if an action is immoral, no law should impose anything on anyone. This book tries to separate between what is immoral and what is within the scope of legislation. In a capitalist society, everything is done on the grounds of mutual agreement and voluntary trade. What I found confusing in this book (or perhaps a question was risen while reading this book) is the difference between evil and immorality, are they the same thing?
We know that evil is immoral, but is every immoral thing evil? This question rests on other questions: what is evil? What is immorality? And what definition are we using here? If, according to the author, the government prevents the initiation of force (which means prevent evil which also means immoral), wouldn't it be justifiable for the government to also try to prevent the evil that “harms” citizens? Knowing that what is evil is immoral, and every immoral thing could also be considered evil. I am against this, but I find it confusing because I somehow, through this reasoning, find it justifiable. Though I also see that there is a contradiction in this reasoning, too. A government initiating force (evil) to prevent evil or what is seen as evil is also unjustifiable and immoral. Perhaps, the concept of private property comes here. Private property comes from the right to life, it is a natural right and hence you are allowed to use your property however you please. What you are not allowed to use is someone else’s property, say his/her car without permission or through using force, and this is where the government’s role comes in: to protect property rights. Here, the government is not initiating force but using it on those who initiated force. I am still confused regarding this matter, but I will look more into it.
Overall I loved this book and learned many things I never thought or heard of. And to be honest, a lot of the things said were moral, in my opinion. I tried to review the core of this book and not about each topic. I looked at the common denominator of these chapters, and it is the following: no one should impose anything on anyone’s property (not even the government), and everything should be done based on voluntary trade and agreement.
At the beginning of the book, the author identifies that what is evil (in libertarian ethics) is an initiation of force and violence. Anything that uses force as a means to reach some good (end) is unjustifiable. So, in claiming that forcing someone to abide by the regulations only to help them and becoming their savior is not justified and therefore evil. Through the book, you will see that many things that are considered evil are not because it does not initiate the use of force and it is based on voluntary trade and mutual agreement. The book does not discuss whether a thing is immoral or not (although I find something confusing here, or maybe I did not get this point). Many things are immoral but this does not mean imposing a law on them. You cannot make people virtuous by imposing laws on them that you think will make them moral. If both parties, let’s say, agree on certain terms, such as prostitution, no one has the right to impose/prohibit this act. What is evil is using force to prevent an agreement.
My favorite chapters were the Miser, Drug Addict, Counterfeiter, and the Fat Capitalist-Pig Employer. I believe many things that were said are neither immoral nor should be illegal/determined by the law, such as minimum wage laws. There is this misconception which occurs that the sources of our rights come from laws. However, laws can be corrupt. Laws merely come to protect our natural rights, not to prohibit or allow them. And so if it is a natural right to practice free speech, act the way we please with our property (even if we harm it), and practice our judgment, and products from our productive work, then no law should prohibit nor allow but merely protect. So, even if an action is immoral, no law should impose anything on anyone. This book tries to separate between what is immoral and what is within the scope of legislation. In a capitalist society, everything is done on the grounds of mutual agreement and voluntary trade. What I found confusing in this book (or perhaps a question was risen while reading this book) is the difference between evil and immorality, are they the same thing?
We know that evil is immoral, but is every immoral thing evil? This question rests on other questions: what is evil? What is immorality? And what definition are we using here? If, according to the author, the government prevents the initiation of force (which means prevent evil which also means immoral), wouldn't it be justifiable for the government to also try to prevent the evil that “harms” citizens? Knowing that what is evil is immoral, and every immoral thing could also be considered evil. I am against this, but I find it confusing because I somehow, through this reasoning, find it justifiable. Though I also see that there is a contradiction in this reasoning, too. A government initiating force (evil) to prevent evil or what is seen as evil is also unjustifiable and immoral. Perhaps, the concept of private property comes here. Private property comes from the right to life, it is a natural right and hence you are allowed to use your property however you please. What you are not allowed to use is someone else’s property, say his/her car without permission or through using force, and this is where the government’s role comes in: to protect property rights. Here, the government is not initiating force but using it on those who initiated force. I am still confused regarding this matter, but I will look more into it.
Overall I loved this book and learned many things I never thought or heard of. And to be honest, a lot of the things said were moral, in my opinion. I tried to review the core of this book and not about each topic. I looked at the common denominator of these chapters, and it is the following: no one should impose anything on anyone’s property (not even the government), and everything should be done based on voluntary trade and agreement.
June 28, 2024
Quintessential libertarian read, everyone needs to read this at least once in their lives. Summarizes and applies a lot of key concepts of the libertarian ethics. Excellent.
February 3, 2024
I have mixed feelings about this book. First, there's the question of whether I agree with Block's stance on each of these topics and then there's the separate question of whether I think his arguments are well-formed. And there are a lot of topics and I certainly didn't agree with all of it.
I think a lot of activities are seen as immoral which are not immoral at all, so I'm the kind of person who is geared to find this book reasonable rather than ridiculous or controversial. But first, it's prudent for me to define morality. I think it's pretty simple. Morals have to be universal, otherwise you have different standards for different people, meaning some are above others. Then you may as well have no principles at all, just those with some kinds of rights and dignities and those with none.
Once we accept the universality or symmetry necessary for a system or principle to be moral, there is only one rule which you can really have - that you're free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt others. In other words, the only thing which ever needs to be considered immoral is the violation of other people's property (including their body, physical belongings, personal information, etc). This aligns pretty well with the general libertarian outlook on things.
I think Block is right about most of the topics he brings up. I also think most of his arguments are pretty good. But some cases he tries to make were flimsy or even absurd and some of his arguments fall apart completely. But since many of the topics are controversial and seldom discussed in this kind of detail (or being defended), Block is often making interesting points, even if not all of it holds up.
Let's go through a bunch of examples, since I like to summarise these things and understand them for my own sake.
Prostitutes and pimps - I think they're fine. Sure, it's not exactly a noble profession, but it's not immoral. It's not your business. As long as they're consenting adults, they can do what they want. There's a difference between saying something is okay, or should be legal, and actively encouraging it. I'm saying that prostitution is okay, not something I would hope my daughter would get into, for example.
The real world isn't perfect and people need ways to make money. There are women who can make decent money by selling their body - shouldn't that be their choice? There are lonely men who can afford to pay for sex - who are you to judge that? Again, other issues like cheating or abuse distract from the issue - they can and do occur in every industry. In fact, that's part of the point (Block's and mine) - there would be less violence and crime associated with prostitution if it was legalised.
Of course, children should be protected/insulated from it, but for adults, it's fine. You would have discreet brothels and they could have security, require certain procedures (like using condoms) and call the police if necessary. They wouldn't be in back alleys if they were legal. Disputes would be easier to solve since the police could help and everyone can be transparent without worrying about being arrested for prostitution.
As for the male chauvinist pig, Block gets a bit absurd here. I get his point, but he's way more vague than he needs to be. To me, the point is that a man hiring an attractive woman as a secretary is fine. Hiring attractive young women to work as receptionists, etc., is quite normal. And a certain amount of flirting, even when it slightly crosses certain lines, is also pretty normal in the wide world. Not everyone is the same and not everyone has the same preferences. If some women can make more money by showing cleavage or tolerating a certain amount of "attention", then that's their choice. As long as they have the right to say "no".
Having said that, obviously men who harass women or leer or cheat on their wives, etc., are not heroes, they are indeed horrible people. Just like some bosses are terrible. But those willing and able to tolerate bad bosses may be able to make a little more money, just as those willing to do dangerous work often receive a slightly higher income for it. The flip side being that bosses/workers who are unpleasant will find it harder to hire people or get jobs than people who are pleasant - in a free market, that is.
The point here should be that the market should decide how much harassment, and what types, should be tolerated, not gov't decree. Because gov't tends to rule with "same size for all" while the real world is much more varied. Some people might like joking at work or a bit of flirting. Some people might hate that. Let different companies create different environments and attract different workers and bosses. Let the chips fall where they do. But let's not act like jerks are heroes. They are just sometimes worth tolerating, depending on your patience and the alternatives available. And things like "inclusion training" tend to just waste time and money while doing nothing to stop pigs. The best solution is a free market where nobody will want to work for pigs (or hire them).
Drugs should be legal in general. I agree with that. The point is not that drugs are fine, but that it should be a personal choice. The War on Drugs in the US, pushed around the 70s and 80s and with bipartisan support, was pretty objectively a massive disaster, just as prohibition was about 50 years earlier. Ban alcohol - people drink it anyway. But now almost everyone is a criminal and violent crime rates go up because the industry has to turn to black markets. Everyone's lying, everyone knows they're lying, corruption increases - it doesn't work.
The same with drugs - people are still doing them, everyone knows they're doing them, people lie to police about homicides for fear of getting caught on drug charges, etc. When a drug deal goes badly, nobody calls the police, they turn to their own means, gangs, organised crime, etc.
With blackmail, I think it depends. The blackmailing part isn't bad itself, necessarily. It's really an offer. I saw you do bad thing X. I'm gonna tell on you. Oh, you don't want me to? How much are you willing to pay me? Again, it's not exactly noble, but allowing someone the chance to pay you to keep quiet about something isn't always evil. It allows someone to express how important a piece of information to them is. It also allows all parties to maintain their freedom even if they can't control all the outcomes.
However, Block should address the type of information being threatened to be released and how it was acquired. And even if certain actions should be legal, that's not the same as saying that they are good, decent or consistent things. Eg) If I find out someone is gay and threaten to out them unless they pay me, that's not nice. Sure, maybe I should have the right to share the truth, but if my motive is to hurt someone or threaten them for profit, that's not heroic.
On the other hand, if I write a movie script, someone reads the ending and really wants to share it, but the movie is coming out soon, maybe I can pay them to keep quiet. I'm asking a favour of them and it really matters to me. It doesn't really make a difference if I offer the money first or if they ask for it. What matters is what information is involved, how was it acquired and why should it be shared (or not shared).
As a general rule, it should be legal to offer money to entice someone to do something (like keep quiet) or to request money on the condition that you do something (like keep quiet).
Slander and libel I find tricky. I think free speech is very important, but outright lying can be harmful. Spreading negative rumours about someone - is that heroic? Accusing someone of horrible things they never did - is that okay with Block? Would he do that?
It's one thing to mock the president, criticise a public figure or even make negative comments about a racial group - that's your opinion and it's important that you have the right to express your views (but not the entitlement for anyone to listen). It's another thing to make false statements about someone on purpose with the intention of harm or in a way which facilitates harm. Eg) You can't share someone's address online - that's private information. I would say you also can't deliberately lie about someone or a company, especially not if your status is that you're a journalist and claim to be presenting the news in a objective way.
It's like a transaction. When you watch the news, read the newspaper - you're expecting facts. Not lies or exaggeration. If someone sells you a car and the brakes don't work, you can sue them. It's illegal because any trade implies a contract with certain basic expectations. When the media deliberately lies to you, they have violated their contract with the public. That should not be legal, in the same way false advertising should be illegal.
It's one thing to express an opinion, even an extreme one. You can even lie to some degree - we can't control all language or police all lies. But what we can do is make sure people don't deliberately spread harmful lies on a mass scale where it directly causes damage. For example, I'm glad Nick Sandmann and Kyle Rittenhouse successfully sued the media giants who slandered their names and spread lies about them, all for personal political gain and in ways which went directly against the facts they had available to them.
Advertising is completely normal and necessary. Yes, at times it can feel disruptive or wasteful. So much money merely going to advertising. It's not productive! But the thing is, it can't be avoided. Without it, nobody would know what even exists to buy. These days, it's more efficient than ever before - countless little pop-ups online, for example. In any case, it's a company's choice how to spend their money and if they spend it on ads, maybe they know better than you do how their money should be spent. You're welcome to start a business and never advertise it. Good luck with that.
Of course, political advertising is another question since it's at tax-payer expense and arguably doesn't even advertise anything useful, just empty promises and attacks on the opponent.
The person yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre - this was an absurd example. It's the kind of thing 99.999% of people will never do, never even think of doing. But if it DOES happen, the repercussions can be very harmful and Block ignores this. His analysis leaves a lot to be desired.
For example, let's say Alan yells "FIRE!" in a theatre. Hundreds of people get up and run. People panic. Let's say someone has a heart attack. A couple of people get crushed. One or two people are injured. And Block's solution is... oh well? Hey, let's not forget about the masochists - maybe some of the theatre-goers enjoy pain and liked the experience. That literally seems to be Block's argument.
Now, of course the theatre could introduce a rule saying that you can't yell "fire". Great. But then what if you do it anyway? What power does a theatre have? They could ban you, but you could go elsewhere. If you're visiting a country, just yell "fire" once at each venue, have a jolly good time and here's Block saluting you as a hero and defending your actions. FFS. This part of the book went full retard.
To be clear, at a certain point, when your actions endanger others, you've violated their privacy and the state must get involved - you must be punished. The exact limits may not always be obvious. But the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded area is popular for a reason - it's incredibly dangerous and irresponsible to do that. It should be illegal. Private businesses cannot arrest people. They can have some of their own rules, but some principles are universal and this is one of them. Similarly, you can't yell in someone's ear multiple times without their permission. I don't care if the theatre allows it, it's their ear, they own it. You can't do bomb scares or call in swat teams or prank call emergency services - this is common sense and Block's arguments don't work here at all.
Gypsy cab drivers - Block seems to basically be predicting Uber here. Absolutely, anyone should be able to give a lift if they want. No system will be perfect, there are always limits on reliability, safety, experience of the driver, etc. That's true however people get lifts. But the monopoly of cab companies always artificially inflates prices, blocks people out of the industry so they can't compete, and limits the choice of people. But Uber and similar companies have already fixed much of this.
Ticket scalping I think is fine. As Block points out, it's an indication of too low a price in the first place. If the price was right, the venue would just barely sell out and everyone would be happy. Nobody would be able to scalp if they tried to because the price is already at the maximum anyone is willing to pay. Scalping is only possible if people are willing to pay more. And in that case, scalping changes the system from "first in, first served" to "whoever is willing to pay the most gets the ticket". The latter is far better, so scalpers do indeed perform a service here and might be close to legitimate "heroes", in Block's sense.
The dishonest cop - I saw Serpico ages ago and remember nothing, I'll have to watch it again. This is a tricky area. A cop breaking the law to do the right thing? I guess. But they should also follow the rules. The risk is a big-headed cop taking the law into his own hands when he's completely wrong. Perhaps he turns a blind eye to a murder because the victim "had it coming". Perhaps he plants evidence to catch a guy he personally dislikes. Let's not advocate for cops to do whatever they personally think is right. But yes, some of the time, cops breaking the rules may be a good thing, but only if those rules are clearly immoral.
Counterfeiting - I don't think it's okay. Destroying money doesn't seem like a big issue - it's not productive, but it basically increases the value of everyone else's intact money. It doesn't really change the economy. But if you create fake money and spend it, you really are causing problems. At the very least, it's dishonest. Even if you argued that money is somehow invalid or that the gov't is printing too much, or whatever, two wrongs don't make a right. The money system works well enough. You can't just make fake money and pass it off as real. It rips people off and amounts to stealing.
Maybe I'm missing something here (monetary economics always strikes me as mysterious and divisive between different economic schools), but Block completely failed to convince me.
Inheriting money I think is completely legit. If someone works hard, saves up and wants their savings to go to their children, what right do third parties have to come along and take that money? Sure, some kids have a better lot than others. But that's all the more motivation for you to save and invest in your children and children's children. Why should the hard-working, loving parents be punished to subsidise the lazy, selfish parents? There's always room for charity, but no justification for forcibly taking inherited money. Such laws would only encourage people to spend on themselves more anyway or to get around the law with gifts or overseas bank accounts, etc.
Moneylending is not only okay, it is a positive good for society. Jews especially seem to be demonised for their common role as money-lenders. It's a service. It helps money get to where it's more valued in the present, leading to more overall wealth creation in the long run. It's one of the long standing and deep misconceptions in economics, often found in religion as well. Nobody's obliged to borrow money. It's not yours after all. If someone is willing to give you their money now, it's perfectly reasonable that they charge you a fee (interest) for that service, in addition to paying back the money.
Aside from this, again, people can be charitable when they want and some people can just give without asking in return. But that's a separate phenomenon. As a business, money-lending has costs to cover and is a completely morally acceptable way to make profits. This class of people might be the most truly unambiguously heroic of all the groups Block defends.
Noncontribution to charity - totally fine. Nobody should be obliged to give to charity. In fact, what's disgusting is seeing politicians and "influencers" constantly brag about caring, sharing hashtags and selfies, calling for all kinds of new laws and programs, but seldom doing anything themselves. When 9/11 occurred, apparently Steve Buscemi went to help out since he used to be a firefighter. I never heard about that until years later. He just did it. I don't think he should be given a trophy, but gee, he seems like a good guy. I wanna be like that.
On the other hand, would I feel comfortable pointing a gun at an ex-firefighter's head to make him go help after 9/11? Of course not. Charity is only charity when it's voluntary. It's not heroic to not give to charity, but it's your choice. Give to charity when you feel like it, if you feel like it, in the way that you think makes sense. Don't pressure others to do things, focus on yourself.
Slumlords are similarly hated for no good reason. They are running a business. And like any business, they try to cut corners. I always do that - finding a small saving by buying from a different company. Or waiting for a sale. Everyone's motivated to make money for themselves. What keeps us honest and keeps things moving is a free market. Competition raises the standards. The better slumlord will tend to attract more tenants. And the more profitable it is to rent out, the more apartments will get built. Rent control laws just tend to deteriorate the quality and decrease the supply.
Speculators are fine - they're actually beneficial in a similar way to moneylenders since they help money get to where it's more valued at a given point in time. If a speculator is good at predicting the future (or guessing), he can help resources more quickly and smoothly get to where they are needed. If a business stocks up on basic goods in anticipation of a hurricane which indeed hits, that benefits people. Maybe the business only did it for money, but the Invisible Hand made them benefit others.
One more: littering is disgusting. Maybe gov't doesn't need to police it, but companies should often ban and punish it. It's not hard to put away your rubbish.
I'll leave it there, obviously I had a lot of thoughts but now I've reached the space limit. The book is pretty good, just stupid a few times.
Bonus: child labour is fine. Teens can earn money and get experience, we're not talking about coal mines!
I think a lot of activities are seen as immoral which are not immoral at all, so I'm the kind of person who is geared to find this book reasonable rather than ridiculous or controversial. But first, it's prudent for me to define morality. I think it's pretty simple. Morals have to be universal, otherwise you have different standards for different people, meaning some are above others. Then you may as well have no principles at all, just those with some kinds of rights and dignities and those with none.
Once we accept the universality or symmetry necessary for a system or principle to be moral, there is only one rule which you can really have - that you're free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt others. In other words, the only thing which ever needs to be considered immoral is the violation of other people's property (including their body, physical belongings, personal information, etc). This aligns pretty well with the general libertarian outlook on things.
I think Block is right about most of the topics he brings up. I also think most of his arguments are pretty good. But some cases he tries to make were flimsy or even absurd and some of his arguments fall apart completely. But since many of the topics are controversial and seldom discussed in this kind of detail (or being defended), Block is often making interesting points, even if not all of it holds up.
Let's go through a bunch of examples, since I like to summarise these things and understand them for my own sake.
Prostitutes and pimps - I think they're fine. Sure, it's not exactly a noble profession, but it's not immoral. It's not your business. As long as they're consenting adults, they can do what they want. There's a difference between saying something is okay, or should be legal, and actively encouraging it. I'm saying that prostitution is okay, not something I would hope my daughter would get into, for example.
The real world isn't perfect and people need ways to make money. There are women who can make decent money by selling their body - shouldn't that be their choice? There are lonely men who can afford to pay for sex - who are you to judge that? Again, other issues like cheating or abuse distract from the issue - they can and do occur in every industry. In fact, that's part of the point (Block's and mine) - there would be less violence and crime associated with prostitution if it was legalised.
Of course, children should be protected/insulated from it, but for adults, it's fine. You would have discreet brothels and they could have security, require certain procedures (like using condoms) and call the police if necessary. They wouldn't be in back alleys if they were legal. Disputes would be easier to solve since the police could help and everyone can be transparent without worrying about being arrested for prostitution.
As for the male chauvinist pig, Block gets a bit absurd here. I get his point, but he's way more vague than he needs to be. To me, the point is that a man hiring an attractive woman as a secretary is fine. Hiring attractive young women to work as receptionists, etc., is quite normal. And a certain amount of flirting, even when it slightly crosses certain lines, is also pretty normal in the wide world. Not everyone is the same and not everyone has the same preferences. If some women can make more money by showing cleavage or tolerating a certain amount of "attention", then that's their choice. As long as they have the right to say "no".
Having said that, obviously men who harass women or leer or cheat on their wives, etc., are not heroes, they are indeed horrible people. Just like some bosses are terrible. But those willing and able to tolerate bad bosses may be able to make a little more money, just as those willing to do dangerous work often receive a slightly higher income for it. The flip side being that bosses/workers who are unpleasant will find it harder to hire people or get jobs than people who are pleasant - in a free market, that is.
The point here should be that the market should decide how much harassment, and what types, should be tolerated, not gov't decree. Because gov't tends to rule with "same size for all" while the real world is much more varied. Some people might like joking at work or a bit of flirting. Some people might hate that. Let different companies create different environments and attract different workers and bosses. Let the chips fall where they do. But let's not act like jerks are heroes. They are just sometimes worth tolerating, depending on your patience and the alternatives available. And things like "inclusion training" tend to just waste time and money while doing nothing to stop pigs. The best solution is a free market where nobody will want to work for pigs (or hire them).
Drugs should be legal in general. I agree with that. The point is not that drugs are fine, but that it should be a personal choice. The War on Drugs in the US, pushed around the 70s and 80s and with bipartisan support, was pretty objectively a massive disaster, just as prohibition was about 50 years earlier. Ban alcohol - people drink it anyway. But now almost everyone is a criminal and violent crime rates go up because the industry has to turn to black markets. Everyone's lying, everyone knows they're lying, corruption increases - it doesn't work.
The same with drugs - people are still doing them, everyone knows they're doing them, people lie to police about homicides for fear of getting caught on drug charges, etc. When a drug deal goes badly, nobody calls the police, they turn to their own means, gangs, organised crime, etc.
With blackmail, I think it depends. The blackmailing part isn't bad itself, necessarily. It's really an offer. I saw you do bad thing X. I'm gonna tell on you. Oh, you don't want me to? How much are you willing to pay me? Again, it's not exactly noble, but allowing someone the chance to pay you to keep quiet about something isn't always evil. It allows someone to express how important a piece of information to them is. It also allows all parties to maintain their freedom even if they can't control all the outcomes.
However, Block should address the type of information being threatened to be released and how it was acquired. And even if certain actions should be legal, that's not the same as saying that they are good, decent or consistent things. Eg) If I find out someone is gay and threaten to out them unless they pay me, that's not nice. Sure, maybe I should have the right to share the truth, but if my motive is to hurt someone or threaten them for profit, that's not heroic.
On the other hand, if I write a movie script, someone reads the ending and really wants to share it, but the movie is coming out soon, maybe I can pay them to keep quiet. I'm asking a favour of them and it really matters to me. It doesn't really make a difference if I offer the money first or if they ask for it. What matters is what information is involved, how was it acquired and why should it be shared (or not shared).
As a general rule, it should be legal to offer money to entice someone to do something (like keep quiet) or to request money on the condition that you do something (like keep quiet).
Slander and libel I find tricky. I think free speech is very important, but outright lying can be harmful. Spreading negative rumours about someone - is that heroic? Accusing someone of horrible things they never did - is that okay with Block? Would he do that?
It's one thing to mock the president, criticise a public figure or even make negative comments about a racial group - that's your opinion and it's important that you have the right to express your views (but not the entitlement for anyone to listen). It's another thing to make false statements about someone on purpose with the intention of harm or in a way which facilitates harm. Eg) You can't share someone's address online - that's private information. I would say you also can't deliberately lie about someone or a company, especially not if your status is that you're a journalist and claim to be presenting the news in a objective way.
It's like a transaction. When you watch the news, read the newspaper - you're expecting facts. Not lies or exaggeration. If someone sells you a car and the brakes don't work, you can sue them. It's illegal because any trade implies a contract with certain basic expectations. When the media deliberately lies to you, they have violated their contract with the public. That should not be legal, in the same way false advertising should be illegal.
It's one thing to express an opinion, even an extreme one. You can even lie to some degree - we can't control all language or police all lies. But what we can do is make sure people don't deliberately spread harmful lies on a mass scale where it directly causes damage. For example, I'm glad Nick Sandmann and Kyle Rittenhouse successfully sued the media giants who slandered their names and spread lies about them, all for personal political gain and in ways which went directly against the facts they had available to them.
Advertising is completely normal and necessary. Yes, at times it can feel disruptive or wasteful. So much money merely going to advertising. It's not productive! But the thing is, it can't be avoided. Without it, nobody would know what even exists to buy. These days, it's more efficient than ever before - countless little pop-ups online, for example. In any case, it's a company's choice how to spend their money and if they spend it on ads, maybe they know better than you do how their money should be spent. You're welcome to start a business and never advertise it. Good luck with that.
Of course, political advertising is another question since it's at tax-payer expense and arguably doesn't even advertise anything useful, just empty promises and attacks on the opponent.
The person yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre - this was an absurd example. It's the kind of thing 99.999% of people will never do, never even think of doing. But if it DOES happen, the repercussions can be very harmful and Block ignores this. His analysis leaves a lot to be desired.
For example, let's say Alan yells "FIRE!" in a theatre. Hundreds of people get up and run. People panic. Let's say someone has a heart attack. A couple of people get crushed. One or two people are injured. And Block's solution is... oh well? Hey, let's not forget about the masochists - maybe some of the theatre-goers enjoy pain and liked the experience. That literally seems to be Block's argument.
Now, of course the theatre could introduce a rule saying that you can't yell "fire". Great. But then what if you do it anyway? What power does a theatre have? They could ban you, but you could go elsewhere. If you're visiting a country, just yell "fire" once at each venue, have a jolly good time and here's Block saluting you as a hero and defending your actions. FFS. This part of the book went full retard.
To be clear, at a certain point, when your actions endanger others, you've violated their privacy and the state must get involved - you must be punished. The exact limits may not always be obvious. But the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded area is popular for a reason - it's incredibly dangerous and irresponsible to do that. It should be illegal. Private businesses cannot arrest people. They can have some of their own rules, but some principles are universal and this is one of them. Similarly, you can't yell in someone's ear multiple times without their permission. I don't care if the theatre allows it, it's their ear, they own it. You can't do bomb scares or call in swat teams or prank call emergency services - this is common sense and Block's arguments don't work here at all.
Gypsy cab drivers - Block seems to basically be predicting Uber here. Absolutely, anyone should be able to give a lift if they want. No system will be perfect, there are always limits on reliability, safety, experience of the driver, etc. That's true however people get lifts. But the monopoly of cab companies always artificially inflates prices, blocks people out of the industry so they can't compete, and limits the choice of people. But Uber and similar companies have already fixed much of this.
Ticket scalping I think is fine. As Block points out, it's an indication of too low a price in the first place. If the price was right, the venue would just barely sell out and everyone would be happy. Nobody would be able to scalp if they tried to because the price is already at the maximum anyone is willing to pay. Scalping is only possible if people are willing to pay more. And in that case, scalping changes the system from "first in, first served" to "whoever is willing to pay the most gets the ticket". The latter is far better, so scalpers do indeed perform a service here and might be close to legitimate "heroes", in Block's sense.
The dishonest cop - I saw Serpico ages ago and remember nothing, I'll have to watch it again. This is a tricky area. A cop breaking the law to do the right thing? I guess. But they should also follow the rules. The risk is a big-headed cop taking the law into his own hands when he's completely wrong. Perhaps he turns a blind eye to a murder because the victim "had it coming". Perhaps he plants evidence to catch a guy he personally dislikes. Let's not advocate for cops to do whatever they personally think is right. But yes, some of the time, cops breaking the rules may be a good thing, but only if those rules are clearly immoral.
Counterfeiting - I don't think it's okay. Destroying money doesn't seem like a big issue - it's not productive, but it basically increases the value of everyone else's intact money. It doesn't really change the economy. But if you create fake money and spend it, you really are causing problems. At the very least, it's dishonest. Even if you argued that money is somehow invalid or that the gov't is printing too much, or whatever, two wrongs don't make a right. The money system works well enough. You can't just make fake money and pass it off as real. It rips people off and amounts to stealing.
Maybe I'm missing something here (monetary economics always strikes me as mysterious and divisive between different economic schools), but Block completely failed to convince me.
Inheriting money I think is completely legit. If someone works hard, saves up and wants their savings to go to their children, what right do third parties have to come along and take that money? Sure, some kids have a better lot than others. But that's all the more motivation for you to save and invest in your children and children's children. Why should the hard-working, loving parents be punished to subsidise the lazy, selfish parents? There's always room for charity, but no justification for forcibly taking inherited money. Such laws would only encourage people to spend on themselves more anyway or to get around the law with gifts or overseas bank accounts, etc.
Moneylending is not only okay, it is a positive good for society. Jews especially seem to be demonised for their common role as money-lenders. It's a service. It helps money get to where it's more valued in the present, leading to more overall wealth creation in the long run. It's one of the long standing and deep misconceptions in economics, often found in religion as well. Nobody's obliged to borrow money. It's not yours after all. If someone is willing to give you their money now, it's perfectly reasonable that they charge you a fee (interest) for that service, in addition to paying back the money.
Aside from this, again, people can be charitable when they want and some people can just give without asking in return. But that's a separate phenomenon. As a business, money-lending has costs to cover and is a completely morally acceptable way to make profits. This class of people might be the most truly unambiguously heroic of all the groups Block defends.
Noncontribution to charity - totally fine. Nobody should be obliged to give to charity. In fact, what's disgusting is seeing politicians and "influencers" constantly brag about caring, sharing hashtags and selfies, calling for all kinds of new laws and programs, but seldom doing anything themselves. When 9/11 occurred, apparently Steve Buscemi went to help out since he used to be a firefighter. I never heard about that until years later. He just did it. I don't think he should be given a trophy, but gee, he seems like a good guy. I wanna be like that.
On the other hand, would I feel comfortable pointing a gun at an ex-firefighter's head to make him go help after 9/11? Of course not. Charity is only charity when it's voluntary. It's not heroic to not give to charity, but it's your choice. Give to charity when you feel like it, if you feel like it, in the way that you think makes sense. Don't pressure others to do things, focus on yourself.
Slumlords are similarly hated for no good reason. They are running a business. And like any business, they try to cut corners. I always do that - finding a small saving by buying from a different company. Or waiting for a sale. Everyone's motivated to make money for themselves. What keeps us honest and keeps things moving is a free market. Competition raises the standards. The better slumlord will tend to attract more tenants. And the more profitable it is to rent out, the more apartments will get built. Rent control laws just tend to deteriorate the quality and decrease the supply.
Speculators are fine - they're actually beneficial in a similar way to moneylenders since they help money get to where it's more valued at a given point in time. If a speculator is good at predicting the future (or guessing), he can help resources more quickly and smoothly get to where they are needed. If a business stocks up on basic goods in anticipation of a hurricane which indeed hits, that benefits people. Maybe the business only did it for money, but the Invisible Hand made them benefit others.
One more: littering is disgusting. Maybe gov't doesn't need to police it, but companies should often ban and punish it. It's not hard to put away your rubbish.
I'll leave it there, obviously I had a lot of thoughts but now I've reached the space limit. The book is pretty good, just stupid a few times.
Bonus: child labour is fine. Teens can earn money and get experience, we're not talking about coal mines!
March 6, 2018
Сводник, проститутка, клеветник, лихвар, спекулант – все презрени от обществото, и в много случаи незаконни професии, обект на непрестанно заклеймяване от страна на медии, политици, общественици. Приликата между тях? Те не вредят на никого, а дори напротив – помагат на обществото…
Човешките права произхождат от английското обичайно право (common law) и най-просто могат да се сведат до това, че човек сам притежава себе си, собственото си тяло и мисъл, както и плодо��ете на своя труд, и е свободен в действията си докато не вреди на други хора. Тези индивидуални човешки права са основа на съвременното право и законност.
Тази концепция обаче бавно и трудно си е пробивала път през вековете на кралска, религиозна, комунистическа, фашистка и всякаква друга тирания, под която е живяло човечеството – дотолкова трудно, че дори сега не е напълно изчистена нито в законодателството, нито в разбиранията на хората. Пример за това са споменатите от Уолтър Блок хора и професии в книгата му „Defending the Undefendable: The pimp, prostitute, scab, slumlord, libeler, moneylender and other scapegoats in the rogue’s gallery of American society„. За много хора може да изглежда парадоксално, но всъщност никоя от споменатите в книгата низвергнати професии не е нито вредна, нито неморална.
Сексът е легален, търговията е легална… защо търговията със секс (при условие че й продавачът и купувачът са съгласни възрастни) да е противозаконна? На какво основание? Проститутката има право да разполага със собственото си тяло както намери за добре и ако е решила да го дава под наем на някой… това си е само нейна работа по същия начин, по който аз давам под наем мозъка и пръстите на ръцете си по 8 часа на ден и получавам заплата за това
Спекулантът? Какво изобщо означава понятието „спекула“, което тъпоглавият ни земеделски министър размахва последните седмици? Да купуваш евтино и да продаваш скъпо? Че тогава всеки търговец е „спекулант“… Понятието „спекула“ няма никакъв научен икономически смисъл – то е само популистки и заблуждаващ термин, използван от хора които нямат понятие от това какво е цена и как тя се образува (а именно – от доброволното споразумение между продавач и купувач чрез акта на покупката).
Лихвар? Човек който дава пари на заем срещу лихва на който иска да вземе? И после иска да му се върнат? Какво коварство от негова страна, как не го е срам… Такова е и положението с множеството други професии описани в книгата – ненавиждани, но съвсем естествно продължение на основното човешко право да разполагаш със собственото си тяло и собствеността си както намериш за добре, да ги продаваш на когото пожелаеш на каквато цена двамата се съгласите.
За съжаление, авторът е можел и по-добре да се справи със задачата да обясни защо тия професии не са вредни и неморални. Аргументите му на места издишат, а е пропуснал много важни и необорими. Свободата, която е основата на самопритежанието и човешките права, не присъства никъде… Все пак, книгата дава интересен поглед върху идейните възгледи през 70-те години – когато левите идеи властват дотолкова, че ще предизвикат осемдесетарския политически backlash и възраждането на дясното, олицетворено от Рейгън и Тачър.
Човешките права произхождат от английското обичайно право (common law) и най-просто могат да се сведат до това, че човек сам притежава себе си, собственото си тяло и мисъл, както и плодо��ете на своя труд, и е свободен в действията си докато не вреди на други хора. Тези индивидуални човешки права са основа на съвременното право и законност.
Тази концепция обаче бавно и трудно си е пробивала път през вековете на кралска, религиозна, комунистическа, фашистка и всякаква друга тирания, под която е живяло човечеството – дотолкова трудно, че дори сега не е напълно изчистена нито в законодателството, нито в разбиранията на хората. Пример за това са споменатите от Уолтър Блок хора и професии в книгата му „Defending the Undefendable: The pimp, prostitute, scab, slumlord, libeler, moneylender and other scapegoats in the rogue’s gallery of American society„. За много хора може да изглежда парадоксално, но всъщност никоя от споменатите в книгата низвергнати професии не е нито вредна, нито неморална.
Сексът е легален, търговията е легална… защо търговията със секс (при условие че й продавачът и купувачът са съгласни възрастни) да е противозаконна? На какво основание? Проститутката има право да разполага със собственото си тяло както намери за добре и ако е решила да го дава под наем на някой… това си е само нейна работа по същия начин, по който аз давам под наем мозъка и пръстите на ръцете си по 8 часа на ден и получавам заплата за това
Спекулантът? Какво изобщо означава понятието „спекула“, което тъпоглавият ни земеделски министър размахва последните седмици? Да купуваш евтино и да продаваш скъпо? Че тогава всеки търговец е „спекулант“… Понятието „спекула“ няма никакъв научен икономически смисъл – то е само популистки и заблуждаващ термин, използван от хора които нямат понятие от това какво е цена и как тя се образува (а именно – от доброволното споразумение между продавач и купувач чрез акта на покупката).
Лихвар? Човек който дава пари на заем срещу лихва на който иска да вземе? И после иска да му се върнат? Какво коварство от негова страна, как не го е срам… Такова е и положението с множеството други професии описани в книгата – ненавиждани, но съвсем естествно продължение на основното човешко право да разполагаш със собственото си тяло и собствеността си както намериш за добре, да ги продаваш на когото пожелаеш на каквато цена двамата се съгласите.
За съжаление, авторът е можел и по-добре да се справи със задачата да обясни защо тия професии не са вредни и неморални. Аргументите му на места издишат, а е пропуснал много важни и необорими. Свободата, която е основата на самопритежанието и човешките права, не присъства никъде… Все пак, книгата дава интересен поглед върху идейните възгледи през 70-те години – когато левите идеи властват дотолкова, че ще предизвикат осемдесетарския политически backlash и възраждането на дясното, олицетворено от Рейгън и Тачър.
July 2, 2014
O lucrare libertariana clasica. In ea Walter Block ia apararea unor categorii sociale detestabile: prostituata, proxenetul, santajistul, traficantul de droguri si multi altii. Aceste categorii nu au fost alese intamplator, desigur. Ele au un scop dublu: in primul rand pentru a scandaliza si a atrage atentia asupra lucrarii; apoi, pentru a arata ca daca logica pietei libere functioneaza si in cazuri atat de extreme atunci cu siguranta functioneaza si in restul societatii.
Deci care este aceasta logica a pietei libere, cheia intregii lucrari? Ideea de baza este ca o intelegere facuta de comun acord intre doi sau mai multi adulti care nu face rau nimanui nu ar trebui criminalizata. Dupa cum se poate observa, sistemul penal ar trebui sa urmareasca protejarea integritatii fizice si a proprietatii, nu impunerea unor norme morale. Asta inseamna ca normele morale nu conteaza? Bineinteles ca nu. Insa libertatea personala, dreptul de a alege pentru tine nu poate fi suprimat in numele lor.
De exemplu, cazul prostituatei. Intelegerea este intre doi adulti si nu agreseaza alti membri ai societatii? Da. Este si imorala? Cei mai multi am spune ca da. Merita pedepsiti penal cei doi? Conform lui Walter Block (parere la care subscriu), nu. Piata libera poate fi asemanat cu focul: dupa un incendiu nimeni nu acuza focul, ci pe oamenii care l-au cauzat. In gospodarie, nu focul singur prepara mancarea, ci oamenii care il folosesc. Focul nu este nici bun, nici rau. Depinde cine il foloseste.
In acelasi mod, piata libera nu este nici buna, nici rea. Depinde doar de oamenii care o folosesc. Daca ei sunt de o moralitate joasa, atunci vom vedea prostituate peste tot. Daca nu, ele vor disparea de la sine, fara interventia politiei. Caci nimeni nu are nevoie de serviciul lor. Aici, la acest nivel ar trebui dusa lupta, daca chiar se doreste acest lucru, nu pur si simplu la interzicerea alegerii.
Deci care este aceasta logica a pietei libere, cheia intregii lucrari? Ideea de baza este ca o intelegere facuta de comun acord intre doi sau mai multi adulti care nu face rau nimanui nu ar trebui criminalizata. Dupa cum se poate observa, sistemul penal ar trebui sa urmareasca protejarea integritatii fizice si a proprietatii, nu impunerea unor norme morale. Asta inseamna ca normele morale nu conteaza? Bineinteles ca nu. Insa libertatea personala, dreptul de a alege pentru tine nu poate fi suprimat in numele lor.
De exemplu, cazul prostituatei. Intelegerea este intre doi adulti si nu agreseaza alti membri ai societatii? Da. Este si imorala? Cei mai multi am spune ca da. Merita pedepsiti penal cei doi? Conform lui Walter Block (parere la care subscriu), nu. Piata libera poate fi asemanat cu focul: dupa un incendiu nimeni nu acuza focul, ci pe oamenii care l-au cauzat. In gospodarie, nu focul singur prepara mancarea, ci oamenii care il folosesc. Focul nu este nici bun, nici rau. Depinde cine il foloseste.
In acelasi mod, piata libera nu este nici buna, nici rea. Depinde doar de oamenii care o folosesc. Daca ei sunt de o moralitate joasa, atunci vom vedea prostituate peste tot. Daca nu, ele vor disparea de la sine, fara interventia politiei. Caci nimeni nu are nevoie de serviciul lor. Aici, la acest nivel ar trebui dusa lupta, daca chiar se doreste acest lucru, nu pur si simplu la interzicerea alegerii.
September 6, 2020
Wow, this was the hardest book I've ever tried to read. At first I liked the "thought experiment" way the author used to convey the libertarian way of thinking, but after some time I was just tired of it, I felt like he is defending for the sake of defending
July 26, 2016
This book explains exactly why I can't just dive into the deep end of libertarian ideology. It is only a materialistic theory it can't account for anything beyond economics (and it is the best economic theory out there). It is libertarianism's ideological consistency that makes it so appealing, but also so disconcerting to most moderates.
Yes, it is true that prostitution is a transaction between consenting adults, but are there not other consequences besides economic outcomes?
Maybe, just maybe, a doctor could be a great doctor and a heroin addict, but I don't want to take that risk. I think it's fine to differentiate between legalizing marijuana and legalizing heroin. They are different substances. But if you are a hard core libertarian, there is no difference.
My favorite quote came from the nonsensical chapter defending child labor only because it does point out how misguided absolute trust in the government really is:
"It does not follow, however, that the welfare of children will be raised by placing them in the hands of the state apparatus. The state, too, makes unwise, and even unhealthy decisions concerning
children, and a child can much more easily leave his parent than leave his government, which rules us all."
This was worth reading to gain an understanding of many different aspects of libertarianism. Most of the arguments are logical enough, I just don't know if I could stomach their implementation into regular society...
Yes, it is true that prostitution is a transaction between consenting adults, but are there not other consequences besides economic outcomes?
Maybe, just maybe, a doctor could be a great doctor and a heroin addict, but I don't want to take that risk. I think it's fine to differentiate between legalizing marijuana and legalizing heroin. They are different substances. But if you are a hard core libertarian, there is no difference.
My favorite quote came from the nonsensical chapter defending child labor only because it does point out how misguided absolute trust in the government really is:
"It does not follow, however, that the welfare of children will be raised by placing them in the hands of the state apparatus. The state, too, makes unwise, and even unhealthy decisions concerning
children, and a child can much more easily leave his parent than leave his government, which rules us all."
This was worth reading to gain an understanding of many different aspects of libertarianism. Most of the arguments are logical enough, I just don't know if I could stomach their implementation into regular society...
August 30, 2015
Note: This is between a 3 and a 4 star review.
Block's approach is wonderfully iconoclastic. He takes the free market approach, i.e. the libertarian approach, to its mad-dog logical conclusion, in this boisterous and occasionally infuriating collection of essays.
He tackles drug-dealers, pimps, slum landlords, child labour, etc., with the sort of unapologetic glee that would make 99,9% of people squirm - and for good reason. People have taboos, and not all taboos are bad. But to think about issues logically - even if the validity of the logic of Austrian economics and libertarianism is not universally agreed upon - is a wonderful exercise in philosophical "what if". And if you read this book, you are bound to nod your head in agreement to many of the simple but powerful arguments that Block provides.
Now, I think that the empirical evidence of the "heroism" of pimps and landlords is ambiguous as best, and Block often fails to take into account of the dark side of these practices, but more often than not his approach succeeds. Taken alone, Block's arguments are very narrow and one-sided, but reflected against the prevailing morality and statist impulses prevalent in our society, they are best seen as vital antidote, or even a temporary cure, to our blind taboos.
You should not blindly agree with Block, or even take him too seriously, but you should, by God, read him.
Block's approach is wonderfully iconoclastic. He takes the free market approach, i.e. the libertarian approach, to its mad-dog logical conclusion, in this boisterous and occasionally infuriating collection of essays.
He tackles drug-dealers, pimps, slum landlords, child labour, etc., with the sort of unapologetic glee that would make 99,9% of people squirm - and for good reason. People have taboos, and not all taboos are bad. But to think about issues logically - even if the validity of the logic of Austrian economics and libertarianism is not universally agreed upon - is a wonderful exercise in philosophical "what if". And if you read this book, you are bound to nod your head in agreement to many of the simple but powerful arguments that Block provides.
Now, I think that the empirical evidence of the "heroism" of pimps and landlords is ambiguous as best, and Block often fails to take into account of the dark side of these practices, but more often than not his approach succeeds. Taken alone, Block's arguments are very narrow and one-sided, but reflected against the prevailing morality and statist impulses prevalent in our society, they are best seen as vital antidote, or even a temporary cure, to our blind taboos.
You should not blindly agree with Block, or even take him too seriously, but you should, by God, read him.
September 9, 2020
I am a libertarian and I agree with most of conclusion however most arguments given to support these conclusion are downright awe-full. There are much better books which do a much better job than what Block does here.
He does not bother to addressee popular argument given for a things he oppose, he does not bother to cite evidence even of things whose evidence can easily be found. Most arguments are repetitive and thus the book gets boring and predictable.
And even when he does come up with interesting stuff they are usually not his own original ideas. For example he has one 'right based' defense of black mail, however it is a 'stolen' from Murry Rothbard in see Man, Economy and State.
The work is quite lazy in my opinion. This is not surprising considering Block is an professional economist not a professional philosopher.
There are a few exception here and there you can find some gems. I really enjoyed the chapter on the dishonest cop, the one on money laundering, and a few quotes here and there.
Still I think 'Markets without limits' by Jason Brennan and 'The problem of political authority' by Michael Huemer, 'Anarchy, state and Utopia' by Nozick work on similar arguments but arguments are a lot stronger and they address possible counter argument.
He does not bother to addressee popular argument given for a things he oppose, he does not bother to cite evidence even of things whose evidence can easily be found. Most arguments are repetitive and thus the book gets boring and predictable.
And even when he does come up with interesting stuff they are usually not his own original ideas. For example he has one 'right based' defense of black mail, however it is a 'stolen' from Murry Rothbard in see Man, Economy and State.
The work is quite lazy in my opinion. This is not surprising considering Block is an professional economist not a professional philosopher.
There are a few exception here and there you can find some gems. I really enjoyed the chapter on the dishonest cop, the one on money laundering, and a few quotes here and there.
Still I think 'Markets without limits' by Jason Brennan and 'The problem of political authority' by Michael Huemer, 'Anarchy, state and Utopia' by Nozick work on similar arguments but arguments are a lot stronger and they address possible counter argument.
August 13, 2021
Some of the undefendables are better argued than others, and sometimes they are a bit like clickbait, but overall it is a good read that gives you something to think about and that manages to sneak in many of the libertarian talking points. I don't like too much this kind of, one by one, books, but it works as a look-up on a specific group of people if needed. Some of the groups are definitely more obvious and easier to defend based on solid principles, but some come into this muddle zone where Block has to skew a bit and work the argument a bit extra in order to make it go through.
The offhand mention of abortion is a woman's right to have babies or not, that she is the master of her womb, does not consider the fact of the baby is an individual too and that she can do that choice before she got pregnant. However, I know where he comes from, and this is not that kind of book to go into all details, although I would have liked him not to go too easily into these things that people, and even libertarians, do not agree on.
The offhand mention of abortion is a woman's right to have babies or not, that she is the master of her womb, does not consider the fact of the baby is an individual too and that she can do that choice before she got pregnant. However, I know where he comes from, and this is not that kind of book to go into all details, although I would have liked him not to go too easily into these things that people, and even libertarians, do not agree on.
April 3, 2019
Secondo le stesse parole di Walter Block, «la vocazione di questo libro è il libertarismo. La premessa di questa filosofia è la seguente: è illegittimo intraprendere aggressioni contro dei non-aggressori».
Nel suo scritto, l’autore passa in rassegna alcuni “nemici dell’umanità” – dallo spacciatore al ricattatore, passando per la prostituta, il bagarino, il presta-denaro e tanti altri –, difendendo, con logica stringente, l’assioma di non aggressione alla base della filosofia libertaria.
Il lettore rimarrà spesso interdetto, penserà che Block esageri, ma sarà costretto a mettere in discussione i propri pregiudizi, soprattutto etici.
Le argomentazioni utilizzate risulteranno ancora più efficaci leggendo la postfazione, in cui lo stesso autore, a circa 15 anni di distanza dalla pubblicazione del libro, conferma la propria strenua difesa della libertà individuale, pur rivendicando la propria adesione alla cultura conservatrice.
Nel suo scritto, l’autore passa in rassegna alcuni “nemici dell’umanità” – dallo spacciatore al ricattatore, passando per la prostituta, il bagarino, il presta-denaro e tanti altri –, difendendo, con logica stringente, l’assioma di non aggressione alla base della filosofia libertaria.
Il lettore rimarrà spesso interdetto, penserà che Block esageri, ma sarà costretto a mettere in discussione i propri pregiudizi, soprattutto etici.
Le argomentazioni utilizzate risulteranno ancora più efficaci leggendo la postfazione, in cui lo stesso autore, a circa 15 anni di distanza dalla pubblicazione del libro, conferma la propria strenua difesa della libertà individuale, pur rivendicando la propria adesione alla cultura conservatrice.
July 15, 2023
Me gusto.
Existieron muchos casos en donde yo no tenía idea de que eran personas "indefendibles", y otros donde si que lo sabia pero no entendía del todo el porque.
Creo que estuve de acuerdo en absolutamente todo, a excepción del Cerdo Machista, tenían sentido sus puntos, pero ese no era el título correcto, quizás si lo hubiese mencionado como "El tipo que no apoya el salario igualitario" lo hubiese aceptado, pero la manera en que lo presento no estuvo bien además de que se salió por la tangente, a mi parecer.
Sobre el resto no tengo ningún pero, muchas de sus posturas yo ya las tenía así que no fue un "boom" a mi realidad, pero aún así me agrado leerlo.
Aunque es obvio que esos capitulos que eran más datos sobre economía que sobre la defensa de esas personas, no eran del todo agradables por lo tedioso pero si que enriquecieron un poco mis conocimientos (quiero pensar que si).
¿Me gusto? Si ¿Lo volvería a leer? No ¿Lo recomendaría? Claro que sí.
Existieron muchos casos en donde yo no tenía idea de que eran personas "indefendibles", y otros donde si que lo sabia pero no entendía del todo el porque.
Creo que estuve de acuerdo en absolutamente todo, a excepción del Cerdo Machista, tenían sentido sus puntos, pero ese no era el título correcto, quizás si lo hubiese mencionado como "El tipo que no apoya el salario igualitario" lo hubiese aceptado, pero la manera en que lo presento no estuvo bien además de que se salió por la tangente, a mi parecer.
Sobre el resto no tengo ningún pero, muchas de sus posturas yo ya las tenía así que no fue un "boom" a mi realidad, pero aún así me agrado leerlo.
Aunque es obvio que esos capitulos que eran más datos sobre economía que sobre la defensa de esas personas, no eran del todo agradables por lo tedioso pero si que enriquecieron un poco mis conocimientos (quiero pensar que si).
¿Me gusto? Si ¿Lo volvería a leer? No ¿Lo recomendaría? Claro que sí.
April 20, 2011
I listened to this via Mises Institute podcasts a few years ago. Give this book to someone if you want to make sure they never become a Libertarian. By and large, Block is right in his defense of these unpopular/politically incorrect roles. However, I get a bit of the vibe that he is being politically incorrect for the sake of being politically incorrect. Block is just such a provocateur, this is his shtick, you have to expect it out of him. Also, if you already have a passing familiarity with basic microeconomics, or austrian economics you can basically infer the content of each chapter from its title. It gets 3 stars for being mostly right, and having entertainment value if you dont take it very seriously. It loses points for being intentionally abrasive and repulsive to anyone who isnt already a diehard Libertarian.
April 12, 2011
This is a great little book that's easy to read and will challenge some widely held beliefs, particularly among common folk who don't think much on these kinds of issues and accept what conventional wisdom states.
While I agree with nearly all of his stances, a few of them I didn't feel he made the case sufficiently, or sometimes didn't adequately convey that he was defending an extreme based on his theory of rights rather than morality. I'm afraid people might, for example, read a portion of the book and say "What?! A sado-masochist movie theater? Preposterous!" and put the book down instead of exploring why he was putting forth that scenario.
All in all: well worth the read, many of the chapters are quite compelling.
While I agree with nearly all of his stances, a few of them I didn't feel he made the case sufficiently, or sometimes didn't adequately convey that he was defending an extreme based on his theory of rights rather than morality. I'm afraid people might, for example, read a portion of the book and say "What?! A sado-masochist movie theater? Preposterous!" and put the book down instead of exploring why he was putting forth that scenario.
All in all: well worth the read, many of the chapters are quite compelling.
December 16, 2009
This book makes your head spin (just like "The Ethics of Liberty"). It argues in favor of "all consentual transactions and against all unconsentual transactions".
For those trying to figure out where the proper role of government is and is not, and what the moral basis of a free society is, this is an important book to consider.
I can't say more than that because I am still thinking it about it.
For those trying to figure out where the proper role of government is and is not, and what the moral basis of a free society is, this is an important book to consider.
I can't say more than that because I am still thinking it about it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews