Last night, Walter Block debated (or “collaboratively discussed with”) Four Arrows on the common ground of their very disparate worldviews. The discussion was based on the book the two men co-authored: Differing Worldviews in Higher Education: Two Scholars Argue Cooperatively about Justice Education (PDF here), an argumentative yet cooperative discussion on a number of issues.
The debate was held at the St Louis University school of social work and the lion’s share of the audience were social work people. Obviously, they were both outraged, confused, and befuddled by Walter’s viewpoints and arguments. The Q&A made this very clear: most questions were directed only to Walter and most of them were quite confused about what he was actually saying. (For instance, a question about how Walter incorporated the culture of people in the mountainous country in his “Austrian economics.”) But overall the event was very respectful, and many should have learned that libertarianism is not as strange and evil as they used to believe.
As Walter noted after the event, this is probably the first time most of these people have heard a libertarian argument. In this sense, the event was a complete success – and more “outreach” of this type is very important for our movement to grow and in order to eventually change the world for the better.
The most surprising statement of the night was Four Arrows’ initial declaration that he is “a libertarian now,” thanks to Walter’s persuasive arguments. Way to go, Walter! But unfortunately we also learned that this perhaps was a little premature: Four Arrows later commented on the minimum wage and how voluntary exchanges below the minimum wage level somehow “extracts” money from employees and enriches employers. I’ll leave it to Walter to finish what he started.
The great take-home of the night, however, was the forcefulness and persuasiveness of the Blockian arguments – or should I say “paradigm”? – even to a social work crowd. Walter is undoubtedly a worthy recipient of the Gary G. Schlarbaum Prize for Lifetime Achievement in Liberty award.
Update: The organizers filmed the event and will, after editing, post the discussion on Youtube. I’ll post a link when it is available.
{ 13 comments }
Any chance that a video or transcripts of the event will be available?
Libertarianism is far more complex than Statism. It takes a lot more than an hour or two to explain the whole thing.
@Joel: I saw a video camera in the auditorium, but I am not sure whether it will be posted online. Let me check with the organizers.
@J.: Well, libertarianism is only complex if you have a statist mindset. One does not need to understand more than the distinction between voluntary and non-voluntary interaction to understand libertarianism. The state, however… But you are right – I do not think the event created any libertarians, but I am pretty sure Walter Block spurred both interest in and killed a few misconceptions about libertarianism.
Agreed, but at the end of the day, all a Statist has to say is, “I’ll do it for you.” Libertarianism can’t boil down its argument to such a level. The fact that the Statist argument is wrong doesn’t compute, it fits on a bumper sticker, that gives it a huge advantage over us. The Statist can just say, “Leave the thinking to us.”
I actually disagree with you, but I think it probably has more to do with the application on specific issues rather than understanding the basic philosophy. After all, libertarianism is “simply” non-aggression, whereas statism prescribes a complex structure of rule according to ever fluctuating principles (depending on who you ask). So at the very core, libertarianism is very easy to understand.
Of course, discussing specific issue it becomes very difficult to explain the “how” of libertarianism. It is much easier, as you say, to simply state that I (or government) will do it – and that’s that. For anyone who in his or her mind has already accepted government as a guarantee, this argument appears sufficient. Libertarianism applied on specific issues necessarily involves discussing incentives, individuals’ rights and values, and how people would probably act. There is a bunch of uncertainty here, and we cannot decisively say that we will see A or B. In this sense, and I think this is what you are referring to, libertarianism appears more complex.
But it is complex only because the person asking the question takes a specific problem (in contemporary statist society) and requests a clear-cut “solution.” But a solution must be implemented, yet libertarianism accepts no power to implement anything except through voluntary cooperation – and cooperation means active adoption, not passive subjection to an implementation.
In this sense, you are right. But the problem is due to the overall statist bias in society, not because libertarianism in itself is complex. So I think Walter was right in stressing non-violence as the principle and illustrating what is violence and what is not in a number of cases (such as minimum wage).
Statism is the outsourcing of intellect and action that Mises warned about in Human Action. World’s greatest human deprivations are perpetrated en masse by proxy. The moral hazard is magnified in proportion to centralization of power. In other words, you create the monster by handing over individual responsibilities to the supposed care of the State.
Statism is the outsourcing of intellect and action that Mises warned about in Human Ac
tion. World’s greatest human deprivations are perpetrated en masse by proxy. The moral hazard is magnified in proportion to centralization of power. In other words, you create the monster by handing over individual responsibilities to the supposed care of the State.
Those who don’t understand libertarianism are fond of taking problems – what about the roads? education? defense? – and inventing scenarios where the free market “can’t” solve the problem. What if parents don’t care about education? What if people are too lazy to build or maintain roads? If powerful Martians invade, will a militia armed with muzzle-loaders be able to defend America?
The statist answer is simple: the all-knowing, all-powerful State will take care of everything. You can go back to sleep.
The libertarian answer is: the State has nothing that is not taken from you; it can do nothing that you can not do; it is the least efficient method known of organizing resources; it can do only a pale shadow of what you and your neighbors can accomplish voluntarily, when you are left free to exchange goods, services, and ideas, and information to obtain the things which you really care about.
Was the video for this event ever posted? I enjoy watching Walter Block debate, so I’d like to see this video, if a link can be found.
Still patiently waiting for a video.
Me too
One more try…
Here’s a podcast debate between Walter Block and Four Arrows in three parts:
Part One – Academic Freedom
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sovereignstarr/2011/04/20/academic-freedom-with-walter-block-and-four-arrows
Part Two – Ecology
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sovereignstarr/2011/05/04/ecological-justice-with-walter-block-and-four-arrows
Part Three – Wealth Distribution
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sovereignstarr/2011/05/17/wealth-distribution-with-walter-block-and-four-arrows
Comments on this entry are closed.