It will occasion not much surprise that for me, a follower of Murray N. Rothbard, libertarianism is predicated upon the non-aggression principle (NAP): it is a punishable crime to initiate or threaten violence against innocent people or their legitimately held property. You can imagine my dismay when I read an essay of David Boaz’s, which blatantly contradicts this thesis since he explicitly supports something highly problematic from a libertarian point of view: “… we bombed a lot of countries but didn’t put American troops at risk.”
I still find this not only totally incompatible with libertarianism, but very despicable even apart from that philosophy.
Source: Boaz, David. 2010. “We Miss You, Bubba.” Washington Times. January 11;
As a result, I penned the following article:
Block, Walter E. 2010. “David Boaz is no libertarian,” January 14;
This was my attempt to defend the NAP against what I saw as Boaz’s denigration of it.
The third part of this little saga was Tom Palmer’s critique of my rejection of the Boaz screed:
Palmer, Tom. 2010. “It must be difficult to go through life when one is so thick.” January 16; https://web.archive.org/web/20120328154346/http://tomgpalmer.com/2010/01/16/it-must-be-difficult-to-go-through-life-when-one-is-so-thick/
Palmer took me to task for misunderstanding Boaz. It would appear that either Boaz did not actually say, or did not really mean this direct quote from his article: “… we bombed a lot of countries but didn’t put American troops at risk.”
The present essay is my response to Palmer. In it I will once again revisit Boaz (2010), and defend Block (2010) against the criticism of it offered by Palmer (2010). I shall also respond to several of the comments on the blog in which Palmer (2010) appears. I am taking the unusual step of not contenting myself with merely offering the full cites to all three of these essays. Instead, or, rather, in addition, I am printing them all in their entirety, below. I do this because I had the devil’s own time in locating them all on the web. It took the valiant effort of Chris Rossini to locate them for me, for which I now thank him. I asked Boaz and Palmer for copies of their articles, but neither saw fit to respond to this request of mine.
Why do I broach this topic again, after a hiatus of almost five years? I do so for several reasons. One, both Boaz and Palmer are widely known as libertarians. Yet, in my view, they are guilty of seriously misunderstanding, even besmirching, this philosophy. It is important to set the record straight, even at this late date. Two, several of the commentators on the Palmer essay are also widely seen as high profile libertarians, Sheldon Richman and Gene Callahan foremost among them. If even they, and all those others, can be misled by Palmer and Boaz, it is all the more important to clarify the meaning of the freedom philosophy. I repeat the Palmer essay twice. Once at the very end of this writing, untouched by me. And, now, interspersed with my comments on it. My comments follow these hash marks (>>>) and appear in bold) so as to make for easier reading. Note that Mr. Palmer not only holds my offerings up to ridicule, but also those of my friend, colleague and many times co-author, Prof. Tom DiLorenzo (2010). I shall confine myself to responding to Palmer’s comments on my work.
It must be difficult to go through life when one is so thick
by Tom Palmer
Walter Block and Tom DiLorenzo, neither known for his subtlety, seem to think that “irony” is what you do to get the wrinkles out of your shirts. My colleague David Boaz wrote an essay for the Washington Times (“We miss you, Bubba“), in which he compared the last two administrations to the “good ol’ days” of the Clinton administration, using a well known device to highlight the horrible policies that have been pursued since. Poor Walter Block thought that Boaz was “supporting” Clinton’s policies, including his foreign policy, since David wrote that under Clinton “Government spending was growing only slowly, the bad ideas were mostly small, and we bombed a lot of countries but didn’t put American troops at risk.”
<< I really don’t understand how Palmer can defend this statement: “… we bombed a lot of countries but didn’t put American troops at risk.” Boaz said this, not I. How else are we to interpret this statement, other than that Boaz actually meant it? If this does not count as “‘supporting’ Clinton’s policies, including his foreign policy,” it is difficult to understand what would count as such support.
Thinking that Boaz was endorsing bombing a lot of countries, Walter Block jumped into action and denounced him as “no libertarian.” Just to emphasize that rhetorical devices other than the denunciation are not to be found in his repertoire, Block informed his readers
The executive vice president of the Cato Institute makes some good points (I’m being tongue in cheek here, for those whose sense of sarcasm is less well developed than my own).
<< What kind of “rhetorical device” are we talking about here? It is as if Boaz got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and Palmer is saying that Boaz’s hand really is nowhere near it. One need not be a Randian to realize that A=A. If your hand is in the cookie jar, your hand is in the cookie jar. If you say you are nostalgic for Clinton, and that “under Clinton … we bombed a lot of countries but didn’t put American troops at risk” then it follows, as night follows day, that you are nostalgic for the policy of “bomb(ing) a lot of countries (that) didn’t put American troops at risk.” How this can even slightly be reconciled with libertarianism is simply beyond me. I posit that either Palmer is outright lying, or has an IQ in double digits, or, perhaps, most charitably, has a very, very different conception of libertarianism than I do. If the latter, I go further: his (and Boaz’s) understanding of libertarianism is just plain wrong.
It is hard to imagine anyone whose “sense of sarcasm” (or, to be more precise, any form of indirect expression) is less developed than Walter Block’s, but he felt, nonetheless, compelled to warn any such who might have been reading. He concluded that he now feels “physically ill.” Poor man.
<<< Evidently, Palmer does not feel “physically ill” at the prospect of “bomb(ing) a lot of countries” as long as this does not “put American troops at risk,” and all in the name of libertarianism. I am envious of his cast iron stomach. One might as well say with Orwell that “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” Or, that, according to libertarianism, “bomb(ing) a lot of countries” is acceptable as long as this does not “put American troops at risk.” Has this man no shame?
The other dullard in the stable, Tom (“a travesty of historical method and documentation“) DiLorenzo, quickly jumped up and denounced David for apparently endorsing the Republicans, as well as the Democrats!
Now you don’t have to be very clever to understand David’s point, because he made it v-e-r-y s-i-m-p-l-e for everyone, even the irony-challenged, to understand: “Of course, what I’m really nostalgic for is divided government.” Economist William Niskanen (i.e., an actual economist), who was then Chairman of the Cato Institute, pointed out in 2003 that
The prospect of a major war is usually higher with a united government, and the current war makes that clear.
<<< This is an excellent point on the part of Palmer. What he is saying is that this statement of Boaz’s: “Of course, what I’m really nostalgic for is divided government”) negates this one: “bomb(ing) a lot of countries” is acceptable as long as this does not “put American troops at risk.” I think this is a very good attempt at resuscitating the unresuscitatable. However, try as I might, I cannot see my way clear to thinking that the latter substantially erases the former. I will go along with Palmer part of the way, and acknowledge that with a very sympathetic reading the latter does somewhat modify the former. But not all the way by any means; not even close. There is still, remaining, the bitter taste of saying “bomb(ing) a lot of countries” is acceptable as long as this does not “put American troops at risk.” As far as I know, Nickanen may well be correct. But this cannot, either, nullify the horrendous statement “bomb(ing) a lot of countries” is acceptable as long as this does not “put American troops at risk.” That is pretty much beyond the pale, at least for the libertarian.
Each of the four major American wars in the 20th century, for example, was initiated by a Democratic president with the approval of a Congress controlled by Democrats. The war in Iraq, initiated by a Republican president with the support of a Republican Congress, is consistent with this pattern and has already proved to be the only use of U.S. military force lasting more than a few days that was initiated by a Republican president in over a century.
DiLorenzo further displayed his skills as an analyst by denouncing the thesis of the superiority of divided government over unified government (formulated as a desire for “gridlock”) on the grounds that “Bush expanded the welfare state as much as any president with his prescription drug welfare legislaition [sic],” somehow missing the fact that the “Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act” was passed when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, thus being a rather weak counter-example to Boaz’s point about the relative virtues of divided government over unified, single-party, government.
But it’s been a long time since facts would have stopped Tom DiLorenzo from making a point. I realized that DiLorenzo had dropped off the deep end when he wrote a denunciation of David years ago for urging the voters of Mississippi to vote in a referendum to remove from the state flag a symbol that many people find, rather understandably, ugly and offensive. “Don’t Put Slavery in the Flag” was a temperate call for the voters to put the state’s history of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and lynchings behind them and to remove from the flag a symbol under which such evils had been carried out. But DiLorenzo accused him of “calling for the eradication of the Confederate battle flag from public places,” which was, of course, simply false. David encouraged voters to remove it from the the (sic) state flag, not from “public places,” an equivocal term that may mean “all places open to the public.”
But what’s a little confusion and misuse of language for Mr. DiLorenzo, compared to the masses of errors that characterize his recent works? Mr. DiLorenzo would have us think that the reason for the secession of the southern states was, oh, tariffs and such like. His sole evidence is the erection of a straw man: that Boaz and “a small band of Marxist historians” claim that “the war was caused by slavery alone.” Now note the rhetoric: Boaz claimed quite rightly that without slavery, there would have been no secession, not that “the war was caused by slavery alone,” which is a view few could hold, if for no other reason than that “the war” followed the secession and was not necessitated by it. To dispense with the canard that slavery was not the overriding reason for the secession, one need but read the “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union,” which makes it quite clear that the process was very, very, very much about keeping people in chains. I strongly encourage anyone who supports the secession of the southern states — which is quite different from the subsequent decision to wage war on them; either might or might not be justified, but they are very different acts — to read that document. They may not be made “physically ill,” but if they are decent human beings (and more so if they are serious libertarians) they will be repulsed by the sentiments that motivated those who took the south out of the union.
<<< As I said, I will leave it to my friend, colleague and many times co-author Tom DiLorenzo to respond to these unwarranted attacks upon him if he wishes to do so.
But back to the rhetorical and literary poverty of Block and DiLorenzo. I will write this very slooowwwlly and very clearly, just for them:
David Boaz was using the contrast with Clinton’s terrible policies to emphasize the enormity of the folly and criminality of the foreign policies that followed, not to endorse those of Clinton, which the language suggests were repulsive in their own right. If I did not know that Block and DiLorenzo have all the subtlety of a brick, I would suspect that the reason for the publication of their blog posts was to smear David.
<<< I am truly grateful for Palmer’s willingness to speak in a sloooowww and measured manner for my edification, although I think it would have been better on his part to confine himself to words of one syllable, lest he lose me with big words, given my limited intellectual capacities.
My purpose is not to “smear” anyone. My goal, rather, is to protect the name of the good ship libertarian from a “smear” against it. If saying “bomb(ing) a lot of countries” is acceptable as long as this does not “put American troops at risk” does not constitute a smear against libertarianism, then nothing does.
(P.S. A friend pointed out that I had placed a quotation mark in the wrong place ["all public places"--the quotation mark should have been around "public places" only], with the implication that the article to which I linked contained that phrase. It did not. It did necessarily imply it, however, as the phrase “the eradication of the Confederate battle flag from public places” contains the implicit quantifier “all,” rather than “some,” in the same way that the phrase “the eradication of life from oceans” implies “all life” and “all oceans,” rather than referring to, say, the killing of one fish, or of several fish, in the Pacific ocean. In order to avoid confusion among careless thinkers, I have moved the quote mark. The meaning remains unchanged.)
<<This ends Palmer’s upbraiding of me. What follows are a few comments that appeared on this blog; I shall now comment on some of them.
Tagged as: Bill Clinton, David Boaz and Bill Clinton, divided government, irony, Lew Rockwell, Tom DiLorenzo, utterly stupid blockheads, Walter Block, William Niskanen
January 30, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Good job, Dr. Palmer. But wouldn’t it be better to write that Block and DiLorenzo have all the subtlety of two bricks?
Hahaha! Good one. Despite differences, I’m a David Boaz fan. Glad to see this.
To MNR. Boaz needs all the fans he can get, so I’m glad for his sake you are one of them. I only wish that instead you were a libertarian. We, too, need all the adherents we can get.
Your response is a nice example of rhetoric by itself. And I say that in a very positive way!
But really, it’s a shame you had to write that. How dumb can those guys be?
Nicely done, Tom! Right on the mark.
Sheldon, you of all people, really should know better. We may disagree on thick libertarianism, but I cannot begin to understand how you could favor Palmer and Boaz in their support of U.S. imperialism. I thought you were lots better than that.
Now I know to read DiLorenzo’s books with a (big) grain of salt. I noticed during his lectures that he’s a pretty sloppy and inaccurate speaker, but somehow when it’s in print it looks more accurate. Thank you for the link to the review. I will remember it. And thank you for defending Mr. Boaz.
I read David Boaz’s piece the day it went online and I didn’t see in it what Block saw in it. And now that I’m re-reading it, I don’t think I would read it the way he did even if I was totally unfamiliar with Boaz’s writing. But I still think Block misread this paper.
I wouldn’t be as apologetic to the other post you link to however… and I don’t understand this double standard of being unlibertarian and ‘beltway’ to discuss reasonable second best options regarding divided government, while it would be acceptable and libertarian to discuss extreme second best options regarding monarchies, or regarding a constructivist immigration control scheme (it’s probably further down the hierarchy in this case… 7345699^10th best?).
<<< I have no objection to discussing second best options. I am myself on record as supporting Obama vis a vis McCain in 2008, and you can’t get more “second best” than that.
Block, Walter E. 2008. “Open Letter to Barack Obama,” May 16; http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block99.html
Nor do I oppose an analysis of “divided government.” That, too, is an important consideration for libertarian strategy. But, I insist, this has little or nothing to do with my great disappointment with Boaz. It is irrelevant to his horrendous claim that “bomb(ing) a lot of countries” is acceptable as long as this does not “put American troops at risk.” If this author wants to once again enter the lists of libertarians, he must withdraw this statement and apologize for it, in my humble opinion.
Hi Tom,
I really enjoyed this post and blogged about it at Distributed Republic (formerly Catallarchy). I also put it in context of Bryan Caplan’s foundational (to me, at least) essay, Purges and Schisms, and focused on some of the zero-sum marketing aspects of fighting over the libertarian “brand”.
It seems to me that Block would have no complaint if Boaz hadn’t suggested that bombing other countries isn’t so bad as long as you don’t put American troops in harm’s way. If that’s what Boaz meant, then it is as bad as Block suggests, because killing innocent people is the main thing (among many) that makes war bad in the first place.
Having said that, I don’t think Boaz thinks this because… why would he? He’s a libertarian. And unlike some people on both sides of this ongoing battle, I’m inclined to interpret my fellow libertarians charitably wherever possible.
If I were Block, and I were concerned about this, I would have asked Boaz for clarification rather than declare him to be “not a libertarian” based on a single sentence.
<<<This is a very good contribution to this discussion. I am glad you made that point about my complaint. The fact of the matter is that I am in opposition to Boaz on both elements. First, bombing other countries (that have not first attacked us, of course) is very, very bad. And, also, it seems cowardly to attack people who cannot fight back, and thus objectionable on that ground as well.
I see no need to ask Boaz for “clarification.” He is a very good writer. He writes clearly. Palmer to the contrary notwithstanding, what Boaz said was pellucidly clear. I ask for no clarification from Boaz. I ask him, instead, for an apology.
Now let us consider RG’s (I don’t know why people want to remain anonymous in matters of this sort) crucially important point about “interpret(ing) my fellow libertarians charitably wherever possible.” Let us see how charitably Boaz interprets “fellow libertarians.” Here is what Boaz has to say about one of the greatest contributors to our cause, a man whose libertarian credentials are impeccable, and beyond doubt:
States Boaz (2010B):
“I am particularly struck by libertarians … who celebrate the freedom of early America, and deplore our decline from those halcyon days, without bothering to mention the existence of slavery…
“Take a(n) … example, from a libertarian. Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation (who) writes about the decline of freedom in America:
“First of all, let’s talk about the economic system that existed in the United States from the inception of the nation to the latter part of the 19th century. The principles are simple to enumerate: No income taxation (except during the Civil War), Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, economic regulations, licensure laws, drug laws, immigration controls, or coercive transfer programs, such as farm subsidies and education grants.
“There was no federal department of labor, agriculture, commerce, education, energy, health and human services, or homeland security.
“Then he writes:
“Why did early Americans consider themselves free? The answer is rooted in the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. As Thomas Jefferson observed in that document, people have been endowed by their Creator with certain fundamental and inherent rights. These include, but are certainly not limited to, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
“But wait. Did ‘early Americans consider themselves free’? White Americans probably did. But what about black Americans, and especially the 90 percent of black Americans who were slaves? Slaves made up about 19 percent of the American population from 1790 to 1810, dropping to 14 percent by 1860. (In that period the number of slaves grew from 700,000 to about 4 million, but the rest of the population was growing even more rapidly.) Did Mr. Hornberger really forget that 4 million Americans were held in bondage when he waxed eloquent about how free America was until the late 19th century? I know he isn't indifferent to the crime of slavery. But too many of us who extol the Founders and deplore the growth of the American state forget that that state held millions of people in chains. (I note that I'm not concerned here with self-proclaimed libertarians who join neo-Confederate organizations or claim that southerners established a new country and fought a devastating war for some reason other than the slavery on which their social and economic system rested; I just want to address libertarians who hate slavery but seem to overlook its magnitude in their historical analysis.)
“If you had to choose, would you rather live in a country with a department of labor and even an income tax or a Dred Scott decision and a Fugitive Slave Act?
“I said that white Americans probably considered themselves free. But in retrospect, were they? They did not actually live in a free society. They were restricted in the relations they could have with millions of their—I started to say ‘their fellow citizens,’ but of course slaves weren't citizens—their neighbors. They lived under a despotic power. Liberalism seeks not just to liberate this or that person, but to create a rule of law exemplifying equal freedom. By that standard, even the plantation owners did not live in a free society, nor even did people in the ‘free’ states.”
This is not at all a “charitable interpretation.” Rather, this is pretty vicious: to excoriate a long-time stead-fast libertarian such as Bumper Hornberger for not “bothering to mention the existence of slavery…” is grotesque. Must slavery always be mentioned every time anyone discusses the early days of the United States? Could not Boaz realized, more charitably, that of course Hornberger opposes slavery? In his response to Boaz, Hornberger (2010) list, oh, 20 places where he explicitly states this:
“His (Boaz’s) point is valid and well taken. In the past, I have always made a point of mentioning that tragic exception when discussing the history of American freedom. (See, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)
“This time, however, I made a mistake and neglected to include the slavery exception in my article and then failed to catch the omission before the article went to press for The Future of Freedom Foundation’s journal, Freedom Daily.”
In my opinion, Hornberger was unduly apologetic to Boaz. The latter should have realized that it goes without saying that a libertarian of Hornberger’s stature would of course realize that slavery marred the freedom otherwise enjoyed by the people living in the US in the first three quarters of a century of its existence.
But if Boaz should have realized this, should I have not, similarly, in turn, understood that Boaz, also, was too much of a libertarian to ever seriously state that “bomb(ing) a lot of countries” is acceptable as long as this does not “put American troops at risk.” No. There are relevant differences in the two cases. First of all, Hornberger’s sin, if it was a sin at all, was one of omission; Boaz committed a sin of commission. Surely, this constitutes an important difference. Hornberger merely forgot, seemingly on one occasion, to mention this important and horrendous episode in our nation’s history. Boaz produced a statement completely incompatible with libertarianism. Second, who says that Boaz is a libertarian? There are plenty of people who make important contributions to libertarianism, as I readily acknowledge Boaz has done, who did not consider themselves libertarians, and were not so considered by others. For example, Ayn Rand, John Locke, John Stuart Mill. Is Boaz to be considered a libertarian merely because he works for the sometime libertarian Cato Institute? Hardly. Is it because he once wrote a book with the L word in its title (Boaz, David. 1997. Libertarianism: A Primer, New York: Free Press)? Tucker’s (1997) excellent and highly critical review of that publication calls this contention into question. Says Tucker (1997) about Boaz (1997):
“On health care, Social Security, education, and foreign policy, we don’t get principled theorizing so much as we get half-way and halfbaked policy plans for vouchers, Medical Savings Accounts …, the line-item veto, and revenue diversions of Social Security from bonds to stocks …. In short, Boaz presents libertarianism not as a radical and fundamental challenge to the socialist and social-democratic consensus that has dominated this century and erected the largest and most intrusive governments in human history.
“Sometimes, Boaz’s progressivism runs headlong into libertarian doctrine itself. He argues that the ‘progressive extension of dignity’ to ‘women, to people of different religions and different races’ is ‘one of the great libertarian triumphs of the Western world’ (p. 16), and he quotes proto-socialist Martin Luther King on civil rights (p. 229). Yet, as anyone who has tangled with the enforcement arm of the government’s anti-discrimination police knows, this ‘dignity’ has come at the expense of two fundamental rights: that of private property and that of association ….”
This does not sound very much like libertarianism to me. Certainly, not so much so as to automatically obviate or excuse Boaz for a blatantly anti libertarian statement as: “bomb(ing) a lot of countries” is acceptable as long as this does not “put American troops at risk.” Lookit, if Murray Rothbard said this, he would immediately apologize for it; he would claim it was a typographical error. He would immediately thank anyone who did so for pointing out this error so that he could retract it. He would not stand idly by as a friend or colleague of his, as Palmer is to Boaz, tried to defend such an indefensible statement. And the same goes for any other principled libertarian.
RG, it seems to me to be so obvious that Boaz meant the little wars Clinton fought were better than the big wars we fight now that I couldn’t imagine why anyone would have to ask him.
<< Boaz might well have meant to say precisely this. But, in the event, he did not say that. Rather, he said something very, very different. He wrote in support of the statement “… we bombed a lot of countries but didn’t put American troops at risk.” Since when do we speculate about what writers “meant” when it is clear as day as to what they actually wrote?
I am surprised and shocked, shocked, that Gene Callahan would say this. He is my several times co-author, and I expected better from him than this:
Block, Walter and Gene Callahan. 2003. "Is There A Right to Immigration? A Libertarian Perspective," Human Rights Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, October-December 2003, pp. 46-71; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-callahan_right-immigrate-2003.pdf
Block, Walter, William Barnett II and Gene Callahan. 2005. “The Paradox of Coase as a Defender of Free Markets,” NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1075-1095; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/barnett-block-callahan_paradox-coase-2005.pdf; Reprinted in Mario Rizzo, ed. 2011. Austrian Law and Economics; Edward Elgar
I’m a fan of Block and DiLorenzo, but on this rare occasion, I’d have to agree with Palmer. David’s point was very clear, and even upon my initial skimming of the article, I didn’t get the impression that he was actually endorsing big-government. Sure, I understand the need to take a principled stand on government excess, but to pick a fight over something like this is a bit disappointing.
In defense of Block and DiLorenzo, most Americans don’t read, and I could see how the title of the article could lead many to believe that libertarians support Clinton’s policies. If anything, the Auburn crowd does do a good job of trying to present libertarian ideas to the public, as opposed to those whose primary focus seems to be on other economists and academics.
Thanks for your compliment to me and the Auburn crowd, of which I consider myself a member in good standing. I never, ever accused Boaz of supporting “big-government,” at least not in this article. Rather, I blamed him for endorsing the U.S. bombing of innocent countries unable to defend themselves, something very different. Nor do I think or have I ever said that Boaz supported Clinton outright. I full well realized then, and do now, that he was comparing Clinton with Obama, to the expense of the latter.
Excellent post.
But let’s be a bit charitable. Keep in mind that DiLorenzo is the poor confused fellow who called Russia’s invasion of Georgia a “civil war:”
Keep in mind that Walter Block is the sadly addled anarchist who believes in the sanctity of national borders:
It’s not to be expected that people so severely “intellectually challenged” would get Boaz’s point.
That article of mine supports national borders? I suggest you reread it. I just did. It says no such thing. Your misreading of my endorsement for national borders is on a par with your misunderstanding of my views on Boaz and Palmer.
Conclusion:
Did I overgeneralize? It might be thought that I should not have said “David Boaz is no libertarian.” Instead, I might better have written “David Boaz is no libertarian on this issue,” or perhaps “David Boaz is no libertarian on these several issues.” Such a contention is strengthened by the fact that I fully acknowledge that on many, many issues, not only does Mr. Boaz take a libertarian position, but has made important contributions to our philosophy. However, it is simply incompatible with the freedom philosophy to aver: “bomb(ing) a lot of countries” is acceptable as long as this does not “put American troops at risk.” And not only that. It is one of the very paradigm cases of this viewpoint that such a statement is anathema.
Suppose a mathematician were conversant with calculus, linear algebra, and other esoteric elements of this science, and even made original contributions to it, but nevertheless insisted upon the claim that 2+2=5, and denied vociferously that 2+2=4. What would we say about such a scholar? We would be hard pressed, I contend, to accept the notion that he was a mathematician at all, despite his other accomplishments, so integral is the claim that 2+2=4 to that science. In that vein, I insist, that unless Boaz changes his mind on this contention of his, that he is not really a libertarian. And the same goes for Tom Palmer, Sheldon Richman, Gene Callahan, and all those other commentators who defend Boaz on this matter. I call upon all of these gentlemen to publicly apologize for their statements on this issue. Hey, we all make mistakes. Why not retract them, and once again attain your good reputations?
Consider the following. According to war-monger Michael Ledeen: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small, crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” (source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/205187/baghdad-delenda-est-part-two/jonah-goldberg). This statement was met with a fire-storm of protest, at least from libertarians. Please tell me, David Boaz, Tom Palmer, and all you others who support these two: in what way does Ledeen’s statement differ from Boaz’s? If we are to reject Ledeen as the non libertarian war-monger that he is, how can we in good conscience treat Boaz any differently? Or, do you people think that Ledeen, too, is a libertarian?
References (four letters in their entirety):
Letter 1:
Boaz, David. 2010. “We Miss You, Bubba.” Washington Times. January 11;
COMMENTARY
We Miss You, Bubba
By David Boaz
President Clinton doesn’t seem so bad
Suddenly, I find myself nostalgic for Bill Clinton. It comes as a shock. Back in 1996, I denounced his “breathtaking view of the ability and obligation of government to plan the economy” and his “profoundly anti-individualist ideas.”
But now I have a hazy memory of the Clinton years as a sort of Golden Age. Government spending was growing only slowly, the bad ideas were mostly small, and we bombed a lot of countries but didn’t put American troops at risk.
Of course, what I’m really nostalgic for is divided government. In his first two years, with a Democratic Congress, Mr. Clinton supported a health care takeover, an economic stimulus bill, an energy tax, an income-tax increase, a gasoline-tax increase, and even a retroactive tax increase on income earned before he was president. Though most of that never made it to his signing desk, it was still a bigger-government agenda than voters had expected from a guy who called himself “a new kind of Democrat.”
“Come back, Bill, all is forgiven.”
So voters kicked the Democrats out of Congress. President Clinton grudgingly proclaimed that “the era of big government is over.” And you could almost believe he meant it, especially compared to President Obama’s rallying cry, “Government must lead the way,” and his program based on that vision.
Spending. Federal spending rose by 32 percent during the eight years of the Clinton administration, compared with 83 percent under President George W. Bush. Mr. Obama, in the face of a deficit racing past a trillion dollars, declared Mr. Bush a skinflint and called for an $800 billion “stimulus” bill, a $410 billion omnibus spending bill with 9,000 earmarks, a $30 billion Afghanistan surge, and, of course, a health care bill he claims will cost “only” a trillion dollars (more likely $2.5 trillion) over 10 years.
Adjusted for inflation, expenditures rose only 1.5 percent a year under Mr. Clinton. Thanks to robust economic growth, federal spending as a share of GDP fell from 21.4 percent in 1993 to 18.5 percent in 2001, and a $255 billion deficit turned into a $128 billion surplus.
During the years of divided government, the Republican Congress managed to cut Mr. Clinton’s domestic spending requests by an average of $9 billion each year. By contrast, a Republican Congress passed non-defense budgets that were an average of $16 billion more than President Bush proposed each year. And so far this year, Mr. Obama and the Democratic Congress have competed to see who could spend more, apparently unconcerned about a national debt that may soon exceed 100 percent of GDP.
Free Trade. Mr. Clinton famously supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), even though most Democrats in Congress opposed it. He backed the Uruguay Round Agreements that created the World Trade Organization, and he expanded free trade with Africa and China. Dan Griswold, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, says that “Clinton refrained from engaging even in petty protectionism. He resisted steel tariffs, and less tangibly, he exercised real leadership for trade expansion.”
Candidate Obama promised to rewrite NAFTA, jeopardizing relations with Canada and Mexico. President Obama has criticized protectionism when asked, but imposed a 35 percent tariff on imports of tires from China and has ignored pending opportunities to expand trade with Panama, Colombia and South Korea.
Regulation. Mr. Clinton did plenty of regulating, but also worked to modernize regulation in light of changing technology and economic conditions. He worked with Republicans to repeal the New Deal restrictions on interstate banking and the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, thus promoting financial innovation, greater international competitiveness and cheaper and more convenient financial services. He lifted legal barriers to using electronic technology to create contracts and send legal notices. He signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a deregulatory bill that allowed more competition in the telephone, cable television and broadcasting industries.
Mr. Obama, to say the least, has shown no interest in deregulation. He blames Clinton-era deregulation for the financial crisis. Clueless about the real cause of the housing price collapse, he is trying to mandate yet more risky lending by banks. He wants a massive new financial regulatory system, in the naive hope that yet more regulators would anticipate, identify and prevent the problems that current regulatory agencies missed. And his regulators are crafting new rules for everything from the Internet to the light bulbs in your home.
Welfare. Mr. Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice, but he did eventually sign a landmark reform bill in 1996. He signed a bill to ratchet down farm subsidies. There were even hints that he might support partial privatization of Social Security, until he ran into scandal trouble in 1998.
Mr. Obama reversed part of Mr. Clinton’s reform in his first major piece of legislation, the stimulus bill, which contained $3 billion to help states pay for added welfare recipients, thus discouraging states from getting people off welfare rolls and into jobs. The stimulus also dramatically expanded the number of Americans eligible for Medicaid. More than 36 million people are now on food stamps — one in eight Americans — and the Obama administration is pressuring states to sign up more.
Come back, Bill, all is forgiven. Or most, anyway. As long as you bring a Republican Congress with you.
Letter 2:
Block, Walter E. 2010. “David Boaz is no libertarian,” January 14;
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
David Boaz Is No Libertarian
David Boaz has written an extraordinary column in Canada’s Financial Post of 1/12/10. It is entitled “Save America — Bring back Bill,” and subtitled: “Now I have a hazy memory of the Clinton years as a sort of Golden Age.”
The executive vice president of the Cato Institute makes some good points (I’m being tongue in cheek here, for those whose sense of sarcasm is less well developed than my own). Boaz calls for less government spending (well, not exactly less spending; rather, a slower increase in government expenditures). He supports free trade (well, not free trade, exactly; rather, that customs union scheme widely known as NAFTA). Boaz, forthright “libertarian” that he is, opposes government regulation (well, he doesn’t exactly call for massively fewer government regulations; rather, for a more modernized type of regulation “in light of changing technology and economic conditions.”). This beltway “libertarian” also calls our welfare system into question (needless to say, Boaz does not advocate the entire elimination of this pernicious program; rather, he favors “welfare reform.”)
All this is bad enough. Had Boaz just wanted to say that Obama is worse in many ways than was Clinton, ok, I’ll buy into that. But, it is unconscionable for a libertarian to support Clinton’s policies outright. (In my assessment, the Clinton administration would have been far worse but for Clinton’s happy involvement with Monica Lewinski. The socialists once mentioned placing a bust of Mises in their central planning offices; I think that libertarians, in like manner, should show similar appreciation for Monica.)
However, I’m ready to let all of the above pass. A good (libertarian) editor would have urged this author to rewrite the piece, so as to not support Clinton at all, merely confining Boaz to making the reasonable case that Obama is worse. What the heck, a sympathetic reading of this column, a very sympathetic reading, would see that thesis in between the lines.
The really despicable part of Boaz’s essay is this:
“Suddenly, I find myself nostalgic for Bill Clinton. Back in 1996, I denounced his ‘breathtaking view of the ability and obligation of government to plan the economy’ and his ‘profoundly anti-individualist ideas.’
“But now I have a hazy memory of the Clinton years as a sort of Golden Age. Government spending was growing only slowly, the bad ideas were mostly small and we bombed a lot of countries but didn’t put American troops at risk.”
It is ok that we “bombed a lot of countries,” forsooth? Countries that never first attacked us, that never in a million years could have done so? And that we bombed them? And this is good? This is something to feel “nostalgic” about?
If these words had been penned by a neocon, they would have been unremarkable. But, when uttered by a self-styled libertarian, by the author of a book called Libertarianism: A Primer, I feel physically ill. I feel besmirched. I am not about to give up on the word “libertarian,” but I appeal to Boaz to do so. Try as I might, pulling my “sympathetic hat” firmly down around my ears as far as I can, I just do not see how support for “we bombed a lot of countries” can be reconciled with the libertarian philosophy.
3:35 pm on January 14, 2010 Email Walter E. Block
Letter 3:
It must be difficult to go through life when one is so thick
by Tom Palmer
Walter Block and Tom DiLorenzo, neither known for his subtlety, seem to think that “irony” is what you do to get the wrinkles out of your shirts. My colleague David Boaz wrote an essay for the Washington Times (“We miss you, Bubba“), in which he compared the last two administrations to the “good ol’ days” of the Clinton administration, using a well known device to highlight the horrible policies that have been pursued since. Poor Walter Block thought that Boaz was “supporting” Clinton’s policies, including his foreign policy, since David wrote that under Clinton “Government spending was growing only slowly, the bad ideas were mostly small, and we bombed a lot of countries but didn’t put American troops at risk.” Thinking that Boaz was endorsing bombing a lot of countries, Walter Block jumped into action and denounced him as “no libertarian.” Just to emphasize that rhetorical devices other than the denunciation are not to be found in his repertoire, Block informed his readers
The executive vice president of the Cato Institute makes some good points (I’m being tongue in cheek here, for those whose sense of sarcasm is less well developed than my own).
It is hard to imagine anyone whose “sense of sarcasm” (or, to be more precise, any form of indirect expression) is less developed than Walter Block’s, but he felt, nonetheless, compelled to warn any such who might have been reading. He concluded that he now feels “physically ill.” Poor man.
The other dullard in the stable, Tom (“a travesty of historical method and documentation“) DiLorenzo, quickly jumped up and denounced David for apparently endorsing the Republicans, as well as the Democrats!
Now you don’t have to be very clever to understand David’s point, because he made it v-e-r-y s-i-m-p-l-e for everyone, even the irony-challenged, to understand: “Of course, what I’m really nostalgic for is divided government.” Economist William Niskanen (i.e., an actual economist), who was then Chairman of the Cato Institute, pointed out in 2003 that
The prospect of a major war is usually higher with a united government, and the current war makes that clear.
Each of the four major American wars in the 20th century, for example, was initiated by a Democratic president with the approval of a Congress controlled by Democrats. The war in Iraq, initiated by a Republican president with the support of a Republican Congress, is consistent with this pattern and has already proved to be the only use of U.S. military force lasting more than a few days that was initiated by a Republican president in over a century.
DiLorenzo further displayed his skills as an analyst by denouncing the thesis of the superiority of divided government over unified government (formulated as a desire for “gridlock”) on the grounds that “Bush expanded the welfare state as much as any president with his prescription drug welfare legislaition [sic],” somehow missing the fact that the “Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act” was passed when the GOP controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, thus being a rather weak counter-example to Boaz’s point about the relative virtues of divided government over unified, single-party, government.
But it’s been a long time since facts would have stopped Tom DiLorenzo from making a point. I realized that DiLorenzo had dropped off the deep end when he wrote a denunciation of David years ago for urging the voters of Mississippi to vote in a referendum to remove from the state flag a symbol that many people find, rather understandably, ugly and offensive. “Don’t Put Slavery in the Flag” was a temperate call for the voters to put the state’s history of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, and lynchings behind them and to remove from the flag a symbol under which such evils had been carried out. But DiLorenzo accused him of “calling for the eradication of the Confederate battle flag from public places,” which was, of course, simply false. David encouraged voters to remove it from the the state flag, not from “public places,” an equivocal term that may mean “all places open to the public.”
But what’s a little confusion and misuse of language for Mr. DiLorenzo, compared to the masses of errors that characterize his recent works? Mr. DiLorenzo would have us think that the reason for the secession of the southern states was, oh, tariffs and such like. His sole evidence is the erection of a straw man: that Boaz and “a small band of Marxist historians” claim that “the war was caused by slavery alone.” Now note the rhetoric: Boaz claimed quite rightly that without slavery, there would have been no secession, not that “the war was caused by slavery alone,” which is a view few could hold, if for no other reason than that “the war” followed the secession and was not necessitated by it. To dispense with the canard that slavery was not the overriding reason for the secession, one need but read the “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union,” which makes it quite clear that the process was very, very, very much about keeping people in chains. I strongly encourage anyone who supports the secession of the southern states — which is quite different from the subsequent decision to wage war on them; either might or might not be justified, but they are very different acts — to read that document. They may not be made “physically ill,” but if they are decent human beings (and more so if they are serious libertarians) they will be repulsed by the sentiments that motivated those who took the south out of the union.
But back to the rhetorical and literary poverty of Block and DiLorenzo. I will write this very slooowwwlly and very clearly, just for them:
David Boaz was using the contrast with Clinton’s terrible policies to emphasize the enormity of the folly and criminality of the foreign policies that followed, not to endorse those of Clinton, which the language suggests were repulsive in their own right. If I did not know that Block and DiLorenzo have all the subtlety of a brick, I would suspect that the reason for the publication of their blog posts was to smear David.
(P.S. A friend pointed out that I had placed a quotation mark in the wrong place ["all public places"--the quotation mark should have been around "public places" only], with the implication that the article to which I linked contained that phrase. It did not. It did necessarily imply it, however, as the phrase “the eradication of the Confederate battle flag from public places” contains the implicit quantifier “all,” rather than “some,” in the same way that the phrase “the eradication of life from oceans” implies “all life” and “all oceans,” rather than referring to, say, the killing of one fish, or of several fish, in the Pacific ocean. In order to avoid confusion among careless thinkers, I have moved the quote mark. The meaning remains unchanged.)
Tagged as: Bill Clinton, David Boaz and Bill Clinton, divided government, irony, Lew Rockwell, Tom DiLorenzo, utterly stupid blockheads, Walter Block, William Niskanen
{ 1 trackback }
January 30, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Good job, Dr. Palmer. But wouldn’t it be better to write that Block and DiLorenzo have all the subtlety of two bricks?
Hahaha! Good one. Despite differences, I’m a David Boaz fan. Glad to see this.
Your response is a nice example of rhetoric by itself. And I say that in a very positive way!
But really, it’s a shame you had to write that. How dumb can those guys be?
Nicely done, Tom! Right on the mark.
Now I know to read DiLorenzo’s books with a (big) grain of salt. I noticed during his lectures that he’s a pretty sloppy and inaccurate speaker, but somehow when it’s in print it looks more accurate. Thank you for the link to the review. I will remember it. And thank you for defending Mr. Boaz.
I read David Boaz’s piece the day it went online and I didn’t see in it what Block saw in it. And now that I’m re-reading it, I don’t think I would read it the way he did even if I was totally unfamiliar with Boaz’s writing. But I still think Block misread this paper.
I wouldn’t be as apologetic to the other post you link to however… and I don’t understand this double standard of being unlibertarian and ‘beltway’ to discuss reasonable second best options regarding divided government, while it would be acceptable and libertarian to discuss extreme second best options regarding monarchies, or regarding a constructivist immigration control scheme (it’s probably further down the hierarchy in this case… 7345699^10th best?).
Hi Tom,
I really enjoyed this post and blogged about it at Distributed Republic (formerly Catallarchy). I also put it in context of Bryan Caplan’s foundational (to me, at least) essay, Purges and Schisms, and focused on some of the zero-sum marketing aspects of fighting over the libertarian “brand”.
It seems to me that Block would have no complaint if Boaz hadn’t suggested that bombing other countries isn’t so bad as long as you don’t put American troops in harm’s way. If that’s what Boaz meant, then it is as bad as Block suggests, because killing innocent people is the main thing (among many) that makes war bad in the first place.
Having said that, I don’t think Boaz thinks this because… why would he? He’s a libertarian. And unlike some people on both sides of this ongoing battle, I’m inclined to interpret my fellow libertarians charitably wherever possible.
If I were Block, and I were concerned about this, I would have asked Boaz for clarification rather than declare him to be “not a libertarian” based on a single sentence.
RG, it seems to me to be so obvious that Boaz meant the little wars Clinton fought were better than the big wars we fight now that I couldn’t imagine why anyone would have to ask him.
I’m a fan of Block and DiLorenzo, but on this rare occasion, I’d have to agree with Palmer. David’s point was very clear, and even upon my initial skimming of the article, I didn’t get the impression that he was actually endorsing big-government. Sure, I understand the need to take a principled stand on government excess, but to pick a fight over something like this is a bit disappointing.
In defense of Block and DiLorenzo, most Americans don’t read, and I could see how the title of the article could lead many to believe that libertarians support Clinton’s policies. If anything, the Auburn crowd does do a good job of trying to present libertarian ideas to the public, as opposed to those whose primary focus seems to be on other economists and academics.
Excellent post.
But let’s be a bit charitable. Keep in mind that DiLorenzo is the poor confused fellow who called Russia’s invasion of Georgia a “civil war:”
Keep in mind that Walter Block is the sadly addled anarchist who believes in the sanctity of national borders:
It’s not to be expected that people so severely “intellectually challenged” would get Boaz’s point.
I hate to pile on, but …. it’s too inviting. How could anyone be such a blockhead? The Dilorenzo mistake was precious, and symptomatic of the care with which he makes his arguments.
None of these got me anything.
It must be difficult to go through life when one is so thick
January 30, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Good job, Dr. Palmer. But wouldn’t it be better to write that Block and DiLorenzo have all the subtlety of two bricks?
Hahaha! Good one. Despite differences, I’m a David Boaz fan. Glad to see this.
Your response is a nice example of rhetoric by itself. And I say that in a very positive way!
But really, it’s a shame you had to write that. How dumb can those guys be?
Nicely done, Tom! Right on the mark.
Now I know to read DiLorenzo’s books with a (big) grain of salt. I noticed during his lectures that he’s a pretty sloppy and inaccurate speaker, but somehow when it’s in print it looks more accurate. Thank you for the link to the review. I will remember it. And thank you for defending Mr. Boaz.
I read David Boaz’s piece the day it went online and I didn’t see in it what Block saw in it. And now that I’m re-reading it, I don’t think I would read it the way he did even if I was totally unfamiliar with Boaz’s writing. But I still think Block misread this paper.
I wouldn’t be as apologetic to the other post you link to however… and I don’t understand this double standard of being unlibertarian and ‘beltway’ to discuss reasonable second best options regarding divided government, while it would be acceptable and libertarian to discuss extreme second best options regarding monarchies, or regarding a constructivist immigration control scheme (it’s probably further down the hierarchy in this case… 7345699^10th best?).
Hi Tom,
I really enjoyed this post and blogged about it at Distributed Republic (formerly Catallarchy). I also put it in context of Bryan Caplan’s foundational (to me, at least) essay, Purges and Schisms, and focused on some of the zero-sum marketing aspects of fighting over the libertarian “brand”.
It seems to me that Block would have no complaint if Boaz hadn’t suggested that bombing other countries isn’t so bad as long as you don’t put American troops in harm’s way. If that’s what Boaz meant, then it is as bad as Block suggests, because killing innocent people is the main thing (among many) that makes war bad in the first place.
Having said that, I don’t think Boaz thinks this because… why would he? He’s a libertarian. And unlike some people on both sides of this ongoing battle, I’m inclined to interpret my fellow libertarians charitably wherever possible.
If I were Block, and I were concerned about this, I would have asked Boaz for clarification rather than declare him to be “not a libertarian” based on a single sentence.
RG, it seems to me to be so obvious that Boaz meant the little wars Clinton fought were better than the big wars we fight now that I couldn’t imagine why anyone would have to ask him.
I’m a fan of Block and DiLorenzo, but on this rare occasion, I’d have to agree with Palmer. David’s point was very clear, and even upon my initial skimming of the article, I didn’t get the impression that he was actually endorsing big-government. Sure, I understand the need to take a principled stand on government excess, but to pick a fight over something like this is a bit disappointing.
In defense of Block and DiLorenzo, most Americans don’t read, and I could see how the title of the article could lead many to believe that libertarians support Clinton’s policies. If anything, the Auburn crowd does do a good job of trying to present libertarian ideas to the public, as opposed to those whose primary focus seems to be on other economists and academics.
Excellent post.
But let’s be a bit charitable. Keep in mind that DiLorenzo is the poor confused fellow who called Russia’s invasion of Georgia a “civil war:”
Keep in mind that Walter Block is the sadly addled anarchist who believes in the sanctity of national borders:
It’s not to be expected that people so severely “intellectually challenged” would get Boaz’s point.
I hate to pile on, but …. it’s too inviting. How could anyone be such a blockhead? The Dilorenzo mistake was precious, and symptomatic of the care with which he makes his arguments.
Letter 4:
Walter, in his last sentence Boaz says it would be great to have Bill Clinton back in the White House -- as long as there's a Republican Congress -- apparently thinking he'd end with a burst of cleverness. Yeah, the party of Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Dick Cheney, Dub-Yuh, and the rest, the party that spent more domestically in the first Bush term than LBJ did, the party that got us involved in two unnecessary wars (apparently forever), the party that created the Fatherland Security bureaucracy, the party that cheered Greenspan as he created the housing bubble, the party of secret wiretapping, torture, and myriad other civil liberty outrages, would be a real strike for "freedom," Beltway "libertarian" style.
More bibliography:
Boaz, David. 2010B. “Up from Slavery: There's no such thing as a golden age of lost liberty.”
Hornberger, Jacob. 2010. “Up from Serfdom: How to restore lost liberties while building on the positive strides America has made since 1776.”http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/09/up-from-serfdom
Tucker, Jeffrey. 1997. Book review of Libertarianism—A Primer. By David Boaz. New York: The Free Press, 1997; Libertarianism: A Reader. David Boaz, ed. New York: The Free Press, 1997; What It Means to Be A Libertarian. By Charles Murray. New York: Broadway Books, 1997. Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 109-120;
http://mises.org/journals/jls/13_1/13_1_6.pdf
Walter Block earned his PhD in Economics at Columbia University. He is an author, editor, and co-editor of many books which include Defending the Undefendable; Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms; The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors; The Case for Discrimination.
Walter Block earned his PhD in Economics at Columbia University. He is an author, editor, and co-editor of many books which include Defending the Undefendable; Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms; The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors; The Case for Discrimination.
No comments:
Post a Comment