Those who were stimulated by the ideas in the debate between Walter Block and Richard Epstein may also be interested in this review of Epstein’s latest book, Skepticism and Freedom, by Donald Boudreaux.
Though the review is largely favorable (and probably rightly so), Boudreaux quite rightly criticizes Epstein for his decidedly non-libertarian views on eminent domain. It’s good to see more economists challenging Epstein on this, even including those who consider him, rightly or wrongly, “the world’s leading living philosopher of freedom.”
{ 7 comments }
I just don’t see the “freedom” in having ones property stolen merely because of a majority opinion. Or worse, because of a small minority who are able to pretend they represent some majority.
It’s just another wording for, “Freeing the slaves will wreck the economy, causing famine and poverty. So they’re actually better off being slaves.”
Curt,
Your comment is right on target. Majority rule, i.e. democracy, is morally bankrupt, as this sacred cow contains no intrinsic protection of individual property rights, economic freedom, and civil liberties. Without strong protection of these rights, democracy is nothing but a tyranny of the majority.
…or, still worse, a tyranny of well-organized minorities against the unorganized majority.
“…or, still worse, a tyranny of well-organized minorities against the unorganized majority.”
I don’t think tyranny by a majority is any less bad than tyranny by a minority or by one.
Paul,
You are right, it is morally not “any less bad”. However the presumption that in a democracy, the majority usually “get it their way”, is an argument in favor of democracy often made by its unconditional defenders. My point is that even this is a myth. It is usually organized and influential minorities who impose their will.
Lawrence/Paul,
The main point I was trying to convey is that individuals have inherent and inalienable rights that no other individual or government may violate or compromise. It does not matter whether the government is controlled by an individual despot, a democratic majority, or a minority of well-connected groups, if an individual’s propert rights, economic freedom, and/or civil liberties are violated by the government, that government is unethical and illegitimate. From a natural rights perspective, a democracy is no more just than a one-man dictatorship, although some utilitarians may disagree on this point.
Dennis,
I may agree with you as long as you don’t mean to convey that the degree, extent and number of “natural rights” violations are irrelevant.
Consider the following actions (I have taken extreme examples to illustrate the point):
A: stealing $100 from one person
B: torturing 1 million people and starving them to death
Both are clearly natural rights violations but I would not characterize A as being “no more just” than B, and I wouldn’t call a government doing A and a government doing B “equally unjust”. Does that make me a “utilitarian”?
Although Austrian economics teaches that interpersonal comparisons of utilities is impossible, I don’t think it should stop one from using common sense or from making educated guesses in “ranking” certain “wrongs” (or negative utilities). In my opinion, sticking to the view that “wrong is wrong”, no matter how wrong, is deeply immoral.
Comments on this entry are closed.