With Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner, I regard the government as a “band of murderers and thieves.” So, I oppose anything that benefits them. They seem to think that loan forgiveness benefits them, otherwise they wouldn’t do it, so I’m against this initiative of theirs if only for that reason.
This is from Walter Block, “Student Loan Forgiveness: The Libertarian Response?,” EconLog, September 14, 2022.
Notice the large implication of Walter’s statement: By his principle, he should oppose everything the government does. Think what that would mean for some past government actions:
2017 tax cut: OPPOSE.
1981 ending of price controls on oil and gasoline: OPPOSE.
1978-1980 deregulation of airlines: OPPOSE.
And the big one: 1973 ending of the military draft: OPPOSE.
Need I say more?
READER COMMENTS
Todd Kuipers
Sep 18 2022 at 10:51am
While there is an action in each of these to create the bill or statute, they are all for things the government stops doing.
Loan forgiveness is an action of distribution, not the removal of a regulation. It’s quite different than your examples.
David Henderson
Sep 18 2022 at 11:09am
But read his statement that I quoted. It’s not about loan forgiveness: it’s about opposition to anything the government does.
James
Sep 18 2022 at 9:44pm
You are reading Block in a way that makes his position incoherent. If you regard e.g. not drafting soldiers as something that the government does, that is a reading that I am sure you would not apply more broadly.
For example, you might ask me, “Did you do anything else while writing this comment?” I might reply “I was really multitasking with a long list of things such as not sitting in the other chair, not driving across town, not cooking, not folding paper airplanes, not fishing, no jumping rope, not petting the cat, not walking the dog, not eating pie, not drinking milk, etc.”
If you see the problem with me responding this way, you should see also that your reading of Block is just as mistaken.
Jon Murphy
Sep 18 2022 at 10:13pm
That’s because his position is incoherent. That’s David’s point.
Jon Murphy
Sep 18 2022 at 11:16am
On top of David’s point, Block’s statement is “I oppose anything that benefits [the government].” Block states that an action is at least intended to be beneficial to the one doing it “otherwise they wouldn’t do it.” So, if one opposes any action the government does because it is intended to benefit the government, one must oppose all actions the government does.
I add that one must consider government not as a single decision-maker, but multitude decision makers. Thus, any bill stands to benefit some in government (otherwise they wouldn’t propose it) and we must oppose not only things that get passed, but things that do not get passed. Obviously, this leads to numerous contradictions:
We must both support tax cuts and oppose tax cuts
We must both support war in Iraq and oppose war in Iraq
etc.
S. F. Griffin
Sep 18 2022 at 12:24pm
What if the government declares its unwavering support for Block and his ideals?
David Henderson
Sep 18 2022 at 1:43pm
Good one.
Ramagopal
Sep 19 2022 at 4:42am
More specifically, what if the government decides to drop the decision to cancel student loans because that would be good for the government , would Block oppose this policy also?
Walter Donway
Sep 18 2022 at 7:04pm
Block does not say he opposes anything they do. He says “I oppose anything that benefits them…” Aren’t they two different statements?
The examples that you list all reduce government control, government power. Perhaps block sees those as not benefiting “the murderers and thieves” (who always seek more power), as steps not supported by the “murderers and thieves” but steps either forced upon them or driven by those not “murderers and thieves”–e.g., Alan Greenspan as chairman of the commission on abolishing the draft.
Jon Murphy
Sep 19 2022 at 7:32am
Not the way Block judges benefits. Note the very next sentence is:
Any action the government takes is at least considered by the government to be beneficial to it. If one opposes anything beneficial to the government, one must oppose anything the government does
David Henderson
Sep 19 2022 at 3:40pm
Walter,
Basically, my answer is the same as Jon Murphy’s.
Let me lay it out a little more. Walter Block realizes that he needs to give a reason for opposing what government does. What is one of his reasons? The fact that the government is doing it. Why is that a reason? Because, according to Block, the government wouldn’t do it if it didn’t benefit the government.
So I am led to the conclusion that Block opposes anything the government does because it wouldn’t do anything unless it benefited from doing it.
QED.
David Henderson
Sep 19 2022 at 3:43pm
Oh, and, by the way, Alan Greenspan was NOT the chairman of the President’s Commission on the All-Volunteer Force. He was one of 15 members. The chairman was Thomas Gates, which is why it’s often called the Gates Commission.
John Flewelling
Sep 18 2022 at 9:22pm
As a long time libertarian I am not anti government…just in favor of the minimum nenecessary!
Matthias
Sep 19 2022 at 12:41am
Indeed, we can not reliably arrive at truth by negating everything a fool (or just someone we disagree with) says.
Compare also https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HitlerAteSugar
nobody.really
Sep 19 2022 at 12:14pm
Monty Python, “The Argument Clinic”
Mark Barbieri
Sep 19 2022 at 9:39am
I’m leery of the idea that the government has “desires.” It is composed of and influenced by people that each have their own individual desires. I think that the distinction is important.
David Henderson
Sep 19 2022 at 3:42pm
I agree. When I was at the Council of Economic Advisers, I could always find allies within the bureaucracy on a given issue, as well as opponents. On anything involving trade, for example, the allies were the State Department, the U.S. Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget.
David Seltzer
Sep 21 2022 at 5:52pm
2017 tax cut: OPPOSE.
1981 ending of price controls on oil and gasoline: OPPOSE.
1978-1980 deregulation of airlines: OPPOSE.
And the big one: 1973 ending of the military draft: OPPOSE.
Need I say more? Well, I don’t know. Tax cuts benefit taxpayers more than government. Ending price controls benefits consumers and NYC renters looking to rent apartments. Deregulating airlines means the cost of flying is lower and both the airline and the consumer enjoy increased consumption and supply surplus. Ending the draft benefits the otherwise conscripted citizen. It seems the individual citizen is benefited far more than the government.
David Henderson
Sep 21 2022 at 6:52pm
I think you’re missing my point.
Walter says that the fact that the government does something means it must benefit. (He doesn’t say that it benefits only the government.) He also says that he opposes anything that benefits the government. Follow the logic. It means that he must oppose anything the government does.
David Seltzer
Sep 21 2022 at 7:40pm
I see your point.
Comments are closed.