A large group of students want me fired from my faculty position. The main charge they make against me is that I believe slavery is wrong for the wrong reasons—“because it goes against Libertarianism, not because it is morally wrong.”
This is the opening paragraph of Walter Block, “Some Students Want Me Fired for a Thought Experiment,” Wall Street Journal, July 15 (July 16 print edition.)
The students who want him fired, you might be surprised to learn, do not read carefully. Possibly they don’t read at all.
As Walter has made clear in much of his voluminous writing, his libertarianism is based on moral grounds. So to oppose slavery because it goes against libertarianism is to oppose it morally, at least in Walter’s value system.
Because of the Journal‘s copyright, I can’t quote the whole article, but I love Walter’s last paragraph. Anyone who knows Walter knows that he’s being totally honest and sincere here:
Although the students who signed the petition—none of whom, I believe, have ever taken one of my classes—want me fired, I bear them no ill will. They are young people, just starting out. My door is always open. I invite any and all of the signatories of the petition, some 650 of them so far, to engage in a dialogue with me about these issues. More than 4,500 people have signed a counterpetition saying I deserve a raise. I am very grateful to them.
By the way, his thought experiment about entering into voluntary slavery is a good one. Walter says that he believes one should be able to do it but that very few libertarian intellectuals agree with him. I am among those few. Indeed, I argued about this with Walter’s mentor, Murray Rothbard, at a Libertarian Scholars’ Conference in 1976 or 1977.
Six years ago, I defended Walter from the scurrilous and badly thought out charges from his big boss here. And Steven Landsburg did the same here.
READER COMMENTS
Michael Sandifer
Jul 17 2020 at 8:17pm
I’m personally not a fan of Block. I find many of his anarcho-capitalist ideas abusrd, but I don’t think he should be fired for the reasons given. Academic freedom is important, and I think diversity of thought is valuable in and of itself. I think he should be judged on the strength of his academic work and/or his effectiveness as an instructor.
If he were up to par professsionally, I wouldn’t mind having someone like him on a faculty, again due to the diversity he’d bring. I don’t know if he’s a good professor, because I’ve never read or heard anything from him to make me take him seriously.
This is not because I find all anarcho-capitalist thought absurd. David Friedman is an excellent thinker on that side of things, but his father was ultimately correct on the matter.
Mark Z
Jul 17 2020 at 11:59pm
I don’t agree with Block’s beliefs about slavery, and I don’t know how good a professor he is. I am pretty sure however that the average social science department at even prestigious universities contains a great many professors of weaker intellectual caliber, which is why I am skeptical of the rationale sometimes made for firing or not hiring professors in moments like this that ‘they’re not very good professors anyway.’ Let’s not pretend universities in general are overly burdened by considerations of intellectual quality in their hiring or tenure decisions these days (at least in the humanities and social sciences).
Egg0
Jul 18 2020 at 5:18pm
Do you suppose, Mr. Sandifer, that–assuming that hiring is done in anything like the regular manner of an academic department–any student is competent to judge the professional competence of any professor, even as a teacher? It would be extremely odd, unless you take the commercial view.
There are fundamentally only two ways to judge the competence of a teacher, relative to other teachers. One is to measure objectively how well the students have learned the material taught, averaged over a number of classes to which students are assigned randomly. That is the measure appropriate to a university as a culture-transmitting enterprise. The other is to measure the professor’s popularity among the students after grades, as by a survey. That–customer satisfaction–is the measure appropriate to a university as a commercial enterprise.
Julien Couvreur
Jul 17 2020 at 8:17pm
For those without a WSJ subscription (like me), I was able to read Prof. Block’s essay here: https://apkmetro.com/some-students-want-me-fired-for-a-thought-experiment/
Glen Whitman
Jul 17 2020 at 8:37pm
This version of the article has many errors in it. I suspect it must have been produced by taking a non-English version of the article and running it through Google Translate. For instance, the actual first sentence is, “A large group of students want me fired from my faculty position.” But this version says, “A big group of scholars want me fired from my school place.”
Pierre Lemieux
Jul 17 2020 at 8:53pm
Your letter to Wildes was devastating. What did he respond, if he did?
Mark Z
Jul 18 2020 at 12:04am
Isn’t… isn’t that why everyone opposes slavery? Isn’t this one area where libertarianism is pretty concordant with what everyone else believes – that slavery is wrong because it deprives one of autonomy, pretty much? That’s a nonsensical criticism in any case. To believe something goes against libertarianism implies believing it’s morally wrong, if you’re a libertarian. They think that in order to kosher, he has to oppose slavery for non-libertarian reasons? Is this any different from basically objecting to him being a libertarian?
Glenn Corey
Jul 19 2020 at 2:43pm
I’m not the only libertarian who’s had the experience of stating my views without calling myself a libertarian and receiving agreement, but as soon as I say I’m libertarian, the person insists they’re not libertarian. Somehow, the word “libertarian” has acquired negative connotations, but the core beliefs are ones shared by most people. Michael Huemer’s book The Problem of Political Authority drives this point home.
john hare
Jul 18 2020 at 5:28am
I have noticed an unfortunate number of people with beliefs that are basically, “If you don’t believe as I do, you’re wrong and evil”. That means engaging in a dialog with you is a waste of time as the answers are obvious to all right thinking people. I’ve been cut off in radio call in by both ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ stations. I have to avoid serious discussion with many people on religious matters to avoid making enemies. My most recent encounter was with one preaching at me with ‘facts’ that I am nearly certain are wrong, but I couldn’t explore the issue with one that believes no discussion is possible.
It took me too many decades to realize that arguing with the close minded is a no win scenario. And to be very careful about making sure that any deeper discussion is with people that can handle it. The main problem with this self censoring is that I am aware that I don’t have all the answers, and I can’t learn from those that believe they do. I can learn and adjust my opinions even with people I am in strong disagreement with if they are willing to actually discuss issues instead of lecture.
Egg0
Jul 18 2020 at 5:30pm
I recommend books, Mr. Hare. They never take offense. They are infinitely patient. They take as long as they need to make the points they want to make. They may not answer all your questions about the author’s position, but they typically answer all the questions that the author thought of and thought important, which tells you quite a lot. As with people, almost all are mostly foolish; but you will get to decide which are not, in which part, in what way.
Moreover, when an important (sometimes not-so-important) book leaves an important (sometimes not-so-important) question unresolved, there is often secondary literature about it, books and/or articles.
john hare
Jul 20 2020 at 4:38am
I do read extensively. That still doesn’t mean I have all the answers, and more to the point, I am aware that I can never have all the answers. If engaging with an individual, it is important to understand the position of that individual in fact while books tend to have one understanding in theory. The theory is important, but never complete.
Egg0
Jul 18 2020 at 5:04pm
(In the present climate I am for obvious reasons pseudonymous.)
The thought experiment about voluntarily entering into slavery is not entirely an exercise in imagination. Cases existed of freedmen who, for consideration, sold themselves back into slavery! I want to credit Fogel and Engerman, Time on the Cross, but I am not sure of the attribution and do not want them blamed if in that I am mistaken.
Mark Brady
Jul 19 2020 at 1:02am
David writes, “By the way, his thought experiment about entering into voluntary slavery is a good one. Walter says that he believes one should be able to do it but that very few libertarian intellectuals agree with him. I am among those few. Indeed, I argued about this with Walter’s mentor, Murray Rothbard, at a Libertarian Scholars’ Conference in 1976 or 1977.”
This thread may not be the place for you to defend your belief, but I’d be interested to read your argument.
john hare
Jul 19 2020 at 5:10am
I would also like to see the argument for voluntary slavery. Obviously there are diluted forms of the Simon Legree concept most of us associate with slavery. Military service, marriage, jobs, mortgages, and various contracts have some elements in common with coercive slavery.
MarkW
Jul 26 2020 at 8:09pm
Isn’t enlisting in the military a version of voluntary slavery? After all, you can’t quit whenever you like (the penalties for ‘desertion’ are quite severe) and terms of service are even subject to involuntary extensions.
Felix
Jul 19 2020 at 9:21pm
I have mixed feelings about voluntarily becoming a slave. I start by thinking it should be one’s right. Then I wonder how to prove it. What if the slave owner mistreats the slave, among other things by forbidding the slave from objecting to the (illegal) mistreatment?
Or more to the point, how can the public (who is the ultimate enforcer of all contracts and judicial verdicts) tell a real slave from a kidnap victim? How can one distinguish a slave falsely claiming to be a kidnap victim and a kidnapper falsely claiming ownership of his victim?
I long ago decided that while there might be theoretical ways to judge the validity of individual slavery claims, they were too susceptible to fraud and corruption for the small benefit possible.
Thomas Hutcheson
Jul 21 2020 at 7:57am
Too bad WSJ does not have a “free section” for opinion pieces that “its” readers are going to agree with anyway but need to be seen by others.
David Seltzer
Jul 21 2020 at 5:06pm
Entering into slavery voluntarily is a contract between bilaterally free and equally informed parties. The terms for release from slavery are predetermined in the contract and therefore enforceable. The person freely choosing slavery may also be a consequentialist libertarian trying to bring prosperity to him or his family.
Mark Z
Jul 21 2020 at 10:51pm
I think the issue (to me at least) is the alienability (or ‘self-alienability’) of fundamental personal rights. If a person consent to do something at a specific point in the future, but then at that point, if they changed their mind and are no longer willing to do it, is it no longer coercion to physically force them to do it?
I would say that if a person wants to sign a contract selling himself into slavery, sure, he can sign away and accept the money, but if he violates that contract and at some point decides to stop working for the buyer, the latter may sue for damages to get the money he paid returned to him for breach of contract. He’s not allowed to go to his erstwhile slave’s house and drag him to his factory to physically force him to work against his will based on his prior consent.
David Seltzer
Jul 22 2020 at 4:16pm
Mark, I agree with you. The slave holder will not be allowed to drag the slave from his house. It seems to me that would be spelled out in the terms of the contract. The slave holder is required to seek redress in court. I have seen exceptions in the case of tax sales of occupied homes. The residents were forcibly removed so that the person paying the delinquent taxes could take possession. Of course, it was the sheriff who removed them. Private bankers and landlords also use a local sheriff to forcibly remove tenants for nonpayment of rent or loans. Courts authorize the use of force, if necessary, to redress violations of contracts.
Prof Walter Block
Jul 25 2020 at 2:00pm
here is a bibliography on voluntary slavery:
Pro:
In the view of Boldrin and Levine (2008, 254): “Take the case of slavery. Why should people not be allowed to sign private contracts binding them to slavery? In fact economists have consistently argued against slavery – during the 19th century David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill engaged in a heated public debate with literary luminaries such as Charles Dickens, with the economists opposing slavery, and the literary giants arguing in favor.” For more on this rejection of inalienability see Andersson, 2007; Block, 1969, 1979, 1988, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007A, 2007B, 2009A, 2009B; Frederick, 2014; Kershnar, 2003; Lester, 2000; Mosquito, 2014, 2015; Nozick, 1974, pp. 58, 283, 331; Steiner, 1994, pp. 232; Thomson, 1990, pp. 283-84.
Andersson, Anna-Karin. 2007. “An alleged contradiction in Nozick’s entitlement theory.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, Fall: 43–63; http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_3.pdf
Block, Walter E. 1969. “Voluntary Slavery.” The Libertarian Connection, Vol. I, No. 3, April 13, pp. 9-11.
Block, Walter E. 1979. Book review of Nancy C. Baker, Baby Selling: the Scandal of Black Market Adoptions, New York: The Vanguard Press, 1978; in Libertarian Review, January, Vol. 7, No. 12, pp. 44-45.
Block, Walter E. 1988. “Rent-a-womb market,” Thunder Bay Ontario Daily; June 26.
Block, Walter E. 1999. “Market Inalienability Once Again: Reply to Radin,” Thomas Jefferson Law Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, Fall, pp. 37-88; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/market_inalienability.pdf
Block, Walter E. 2001. “Alienability, Inalienability, Paternalism and the Law: Reply to Kronman,” American Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 28, No. 3, Summer, pp. 351-371; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/reply_to_kronman.pdf
Block, Walter E. 2002. “A Libertarian Theory of Secession and Slavery,” June 10; http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block15.html; http://libertariantruth.wordpress.com/2006/12/08/a-libertarian-theory-of-secession-and-slavery/
Block, Walter E. 2003. “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Gordon, Smith, Kinsella and Epstein,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol.17, No. 2, Spring, pp. 39-85; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/17_2/17_2_3.pdf
Block, Walter E. 2004. “Are Alienability and the Apriori of Argument Logically Incompatible?” Dialogue, Vol. 1, No. 1. http://www.uni-svishtov.bg/dialog/2004/256gord6.pdf
Block, Walter E. 2005. “Ayn Rand and Austrian Economics: Two Peas in a Pod.” The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. Vol. 6, No. 2, Spring, pp. 259-269
Block, Walter E. 2006. “Epstein on alienation: a rejoinder” International Journal of Social Economics; Vol. 33, Nos. 3-4, pp. 241-260
Block, Walter E. 2007A. “Secession,” Dialogue. No. 4; pp. 1-14; http://www.uni-svishtov.bg/dialog/2007/4.07.WB.pdf
Block, Walter E. 2007B. “Alienability: Reply to Kuflik.” Humanomics Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 117-136; http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=0685BBB744173274A5E7CE3803132413?contentType=Article&contentId=1626605
Block, Walter E. 2009A. “Yes, Sell Rivers! And Make Legal Some Slave Contracts” The Tyee. July 25; http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/07/24/SellRivers/
Block, Walter E. 2009B. “Privatizing Rivers and Voluntary Slave Contracts” July 27; http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html
Boldrin, Michele and David K. Levine. 2008. Against Intellectual Monopoly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm; http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm; http://mises.org/store/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-P552.aspx
Frederick, Danny. 2014. “Voluntary Slavery,” Las Torres de Lucca 4: 115-37, http://www.lastorresdelucca.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=145:laesclavitud-voluntaria&Itemid=24&lang=en
Kershnar, Stephen. 2003. “A Liberal Argument for Slavery,” Journal of Social Philosophy, 34
(4): 510-36.
Lester, Jan Clifford. 2000. Escape from Leviathan. St. Martin’s Press. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312234163/qid%3D989845939/107-8070279-6411737
Mosquito, Bionic. 2014. “The Sanctity of Contract.” April 19;
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-sanctity-of-contract.html
Mosquito, Bionic. 2015. “Walter Block, Specific Performance Contracts, and Abortion.” July 12; http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2015/07/walter-block-specific-performance.html
Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia, New York: Basic Books, http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465097200
Steiner, Hillel. 1994. An Essay on Rights, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1990. The Realm of Rights, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press
Con: Barnett, 1986, 1988; Calabresi and Melamed, 1972; Epstein, 1985; Evers, 1977; Gordon, 1999; Kinsella, 1998-1999, 2003; Kronman, 1983; Kuflik, 1984, 1986; Long, 1994-1995; McConnell, 1984, 1996; Meyers, 1985; Radin, 1986, 1987; Reisman, 1996, pp. 455f., 634-636; Richman, 1978; Rothbard, 1998; Smith, 1996, 1997.
Barnett, Randy E. 1986. “Contract Remedies and Inalienable Rights” Social Philosophy & Policy Vol. 4, Issue 1, Autumn, pp. 179-202
Barnett, Randy E. 1988. The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press
Barnett, Randy E. 2007. “Libertarians and the War.”July 17;
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB118463507387568429
Calabresi, Guido and Melamed, Douglas. 1972. “Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 85, No. 6, April, pp. 1089-1128
Epstein, Richard. 1985. “Why Restrain Alienation,” Columbia Law Review, vol. 85, 970
Evers, Williamson. 1977. “Toward a Reformulation of the Law of Contracts,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, Winter, pp. 3-13; http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_2.pdf
Gordon, David. 1999. “Private Property’s Philosopher,” The Mises Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, Spring, pp. 1-7
Kinsella, N. Stephan. 1998-1999. “Reply to George Smith: A Victim’s Right to Punish,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter, pp. 79-93
Kinsella, N. Stephan. 1998-99. “Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith,” Winter, Journal of Libertarian Studies.
Kinsella N. Stephan. 2003. “A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring): 11-37
Kronman, Anthony. 1983. “Paternalism and the Law of Contracts,” 92 Yale Law Journal
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58459.html
Kuflik, Arthur. 1984. “The Inalienability of Autonomy,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 4, Fall, pp. 271-298
Kuflik, Arthur. 1986. “The Utilitarian Logic of Inalienable Rights,” Ethics, 97, Oct. 1986, pp. 75-87
Long, Roderick. 1994-1995. “Slavery Contracts and Inalienable Rights: A Formulation.” Formulations. Winter; http://libertariannation.org/a/f22l1.html
McConnell, Terrance. 1984. “The Nature and Basis of Inalienable Rights,” Law and Philosophy, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 25-59
McConnell, Terrance. 1996. “The Inalienable Right of Conscience: A Madisonian Argument,” Social Theory & Practice, Fall, Vol. 22, Issue 3, pp. 397-416
Meyers, Diana T. 1985.Inalienable Rights: A Defense. New York: Columbia University Press
Radin, Margaret Jane. 1986. “Time, Possession and Alienation,” 64 Washington University Law Quarterly, 739
Radin, Margaret Jane. 1987. “Market-Inalienability,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 100, No. 8, June, pp. 1849-1937
Reisman, George. 1996. Capitalism. Ottawa, Il.: Jameson Books
Kirzner, Israel M. 1999. “Report on a Treatise.” The Review of Austrian Economics. Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 81–94; https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007769511271;
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1007769511271
Richman, Sheldon. 1978. “Slaves contracts and the inalienable will.” The Libertarian Forum. July-August, pp. 4-5; http://mises.org/journals/lf/1978/1978_07-08.pdf
Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The Ethics of Liberty, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1998 [1982], pp. 40-41, 135-136; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp
Smith, George. 1996. “A Killer’s Right to Life,” Liberty, Vol. 10, No. 2, November, pp. 46-54
Smith, George. 1997. “Inalienable Rights?,” Liberty, Vol. 10, No. 6, July, p. 51
Comments are closed.