
Originally Posted by
curtd59
While it is possible to criticize Block's reasoning on a number of topics, this is not one of them. You fail to understand both the limits of classical liberalism and Block's attempt at innovation.
1) Block is attempting to create means by which we can create public goods without the need for government. That is the purpose of the Anarchic research program, in which he is a member. He has largely succeeded in doing so. And if you were to read his work on roads you would understand this.
2) Public goods (commons) in the Classical Liberal context, unlike shareholder rights in shareholder agreements, are neither calculable nor codified. They are not calculable because there is no means by which to measure usage, and there is no limit on the number of shareholders, nor means of transferring (selling) rights. They are not codified because they are not specifically written for each instance as a contract unmodifiable except by voluntary approval of the shareholders.
3) Public goods (commons) then, are by definition, acts of fraud because they allow for the involuntary transfer of property and in particular, the unequal transfer and consumption of that property. They are also demonstrably acts of fraud, since the government members use them to consistently buy themselves rights and powers with which they use consequently to deprive citizens of further property.
4) If classical liberalism 'worked' it would have protected our rights. However, it has demonstrably failed to. As the marxists have said, democratic elections are merely a slow road to communism. (Something which Hoppe has elucidated in Democracy, the God That Failed, demonstrating that it is a necessary outcome of the incentives of elected individuals which enforce high time preference.) So classical liberalism has logically, and demonstrably failed. It has failed because the members no longer have the property rights and therefore the incentives that existed under the english common law. It is this common law model that the anarchic program claims is superior to the classical liberal model.
The classical liberal model required the houses of government represent the classes of society. Instead of adding a house of low-commons for the proletariat, under universal democracy we have eliminated the houses as class distinctions and therefore set the classes to war at one another both inside and outside of the political institutions.
5) You are consistently using the term 'Classical Liberal' as an historical analogy or a sentimental expression, but not as a technical description of the institutions and how they function in order to support cooperation and conflict resolution. As such, it is difficult to distinguish between your understanding of these instituions as procedural systems and a 'religion' or the beliefs needed to be held by the population regardless of the function of the institutions. I mean this in the sense that religions consist of mythologies (allegorical concepts) that cannot be articulated as objective human actions. Given that almost all of western philosophy makes this mistake, and given that political philosophy does moreso, it is understandable. But we have moved beyond this level of understanding, and can articulate these institutional concepts.
6) Classical liberalism's institutions are limited by the technologies that were available at the time it was conceived of. We no longer need representatives, who are simply a vehicle behind which special interests can easily focus their efforts and funding. There is no need for politicians, or the corruption that results from having them. The entire western political model is based on an inability for individuals to understand issues and communicate their preferences in a timely fashion. This is clearly not the case any longer. And while we may need 'houses', or categories of voters as a construct by which the classes can be forced to cooperate, it is not clear that these votes need be equal, nor that we need representatives and bureaucracies to assist in the cooperation between the classes.
7) classical liberalism as it was implemented in the united states is a primitive technology that was suitable for resolving differences in the priority of investments between people who were homogenous in all material terms. ie: property owning, agrarian society, male protestants. But those institutions are insufficient for resolving conflicts between individuals in heterogeneous societies who have a multitude of competing and irreconcilable interests.
SUMMARY
it may not be clear that you're using a religious analogy that requires homogenous norms, and the anarchic program is attempting to create a technical solution devoid of bureaucracy and representation but still requires homogenous norms, and the new libertarian classical liberals like myself are trying to create institutions that tolerate heterogeneity of interests without bureaucracy and representation. (or perhaps with some limited variant of it.). But we are, all of us, talking about different kinds of institutions, given different assumptions about what norms and institutions that is possible to produce in a polity. Your argument, and the Anarchic argument suggest that humans can adopt a uniform set of intests. And they cannot. If only because the masculine and feminine reproductive strategies are in conflict, and therefore so are their moral instincts.
So I will criticize my friend Walter Block for applying insufficient jewish ethics of non-land holders to a political model that requires homogenity of belief and the ability to hold the land and create both the formal and informal institutions that lead to the high trust commercial society that libertarian ethics require. But his solution to roads is still an insight that has value for us, even if we choose not to employ it. And the classical liberalism you appear to advocate is both a demonstrable failure, and requires a homogeneity of population that does not and cannot exist. ie: it's not possible. It is not possible even more so if this form of classical liberalism is supposedly a norm, voluntarily held by the populace. Because it is against the interests of more than half of them.
Connect With Us