Dr. Block gives his view in the following email exchange:
Subject: Question on Where do Rights Come From
Hi Professor Block,
I believe you are an atheist who obviously believes in natural rights. Please pardon me if I have the wrong idea. My question is where do atheists believe their natural rights come from? Bastiat says they come from God. An atheist cannot say this. Is it rooted in the objectivist self interest approach?
I googled for a paper from you addressing this but I could not find it. I'm sure you have written something on it as you have written on just about everything under and above the sun. I am asking for a friend who asked me this question just last night.
Thanks,
---
Dear xxx:
Murray Rothbard, too, was a (Jewish) atheist like me, and he staunchly defended natural rights. See the beginning of his book, The Ethics of Liberty.
As for me, it is my belief that the non aggression principle of natural rights is to political economy, analogously as is the law of non contradiction is to logic. You can't have one without the other. What I'm saying, is that I start with the NAP or natural rights, and don't spend much time justifying it. However, I think a splendid justification of it, the best justification of it, is Hans Hoppes' argument from argument, or argumentation ethics.
I expect that Bob Wenzel will blog this, and he'll keep you guys both anonymous. Thanks for this important question.
Best regards,
Walter
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
wblock@loyno.edu
Help me understand why Walter "I support Rand" Block is getting so much press on this site?
ReplyDeleteSince the death of Murray -- Block and Hoppe have continued the vein more than any other libertarians -- perhaps with the exception of David Gordon and Robert W. -- Block is really enthusiastic -- engaging -- and accessible -- this site and the movement is stronger due to his real time involvement.
DeleteBlock has it right when he says: "What I'm saying, is that I start with the NAP or natural rights, and don't spend much time justifying it."
ReplyDeleteNatural rights cannot be justified a priori. They must be taken as a starting axiom. Anyone that tries to justify natural rights starting with descriptive statements can, at best, come up with some kind of consequentialist proof based on inductive reasoning. He cannot arrive at a deductive proof. The is-ought problem, as first formulated by Hume, cannot be overcome deductively. This is basic philosophy.
Yet, for some reason, libertarians keep trying. Ayn Rand tried and failed. Rothbard tried and failed. Stephan Molyneux tried and failed. Hoppe tried and failed. Hoppe's argumentation ethics argument is not just bad. It is laughably bad. Block would be better off not relying on it. For the classic debunking of Hoppe, see here:
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/20_2_3.pdf
For a good critique of Rothbard's argument, see here:
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/10/reading-the-ethics-of-liberty-part-4-rothbards-second-argument-for-self-ownership/
For a critique of Molyneux, see here:
https://mises.org/library/molyneux-problem
Any objective theory of morals is, at the very least, incompatible with the subjective theory of value that is so central to Austrian economics. It's a simple syllogism:
1. All values are subjective.
2. All morals are values.
3. Therefore, all moral values are subjective.
This does not mean that all is lost, or that we should abandon natural rights. It just means that we must take natural rights as an axiom and argue from there. Or, we can argue for natural rights using inductive reasoning.
I just wanted to state that I like your post.
DeleteSo you post the link to the Murphy Callahan critique of Hoppe without acknowledging Block's rejoinder -- weak.
DeleteSuperb. RW should repost as article.
DeleteArgumentation ethics claims that when a statist debates with an anarchist to prove that statism is better, the statist doesn't engage in statist/violent actions to make his point, but instead his actions are consistent with property rights and non-aggression -- therefore the statist is contradicting himself.
ReplyDelete"Rights" make a lot more sense in the context of government. If the government says people have a right to healthcare, it means they will use the compulsive apparatus of the state to give people healthcare. Nature doesn't care about life or property. Laws are man-made.
ReplyDeleteAbout a year ago, I exchanged a couple of emails with Dr. Block on the subject of animal cruelty after he had posted some comments on the Rockwell blog. Here is some of that exchange:
ReplyDeleteBlock replying to someone: “I regard this as the biggest and perhaps the only flaw in libertarianism. I share your sentiments fully. I can't for the life of me figure out a way to make animal torture a crime, compatible with the libertarian non aggression principle.”
I replied in part: May I suggest you are starting in the wrong place? The Bible answers this question for us:
“A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.” Proverbs 12:10
There are quite a few verses in scripture that relate to the question, but I’ll mention only a few to minimize my intrusion on your time.
There are many other verses I could refer you to. A google search on the Bible and animal cruelty will yield many articles that provide both verses and principles (being good stewards of what God has created, e.g.) that address the issue.
Ultimately, we are addressing morality here. But the NAP is not sufficient. We need an authority outside of our self; otherwise it’s just an opinion. How do we “impose” (I know that’s a contradiction) the NAP on someone who doesn’t start there? Someone who doesn’t believe in the same morality we do? The Hitlers, Stalins, Bushes, Clintons and Obamas of the world?
As wonderful as your arguments are on many subjects (I don’t agree with you about everything), they ultimately boil down to being an argument for morality. E.g., you believe it is wrong to steal – so do I. It violates the concept of personal property and is often done violently. But again, how do you answer the person who doesn’t believe that it’s wrong? (You know, like Congress.) If there are no absolutes, what do you do with the person who simply says your opinions about morality, ethics, the NAP, statism, anarchism, etc, are just that – opinion? The result of random collisions of atoms in your brain. Remember the old Goldwater slogan – “In your heart you know he’s right?” How much more true is that when it comes to God? There is a reason we all know the difference between right and wrong even if we don't act that way. The NAP is not enough, as your frustration at not being able to provide a suitable answer to your correspondent shows.
Now back to today - I contend the same answer above answers the question about where our rights come from. If there is no God, there's no source for our existence, let alone morality, logic, our rights, etc. As David told us,
"The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God.""
My post was made before yours was approved and, therefore, visible.
DeleteSome hair splitting.
Wife beating may be a custom and accepted behavior, moral, in some cultures. Same with animal abuse.
Mores/morality is are "the customs, values, and behaviors that are accepted by a particular group, culture, etc." (merriam-webster). Ethics/ethical are "rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad" (merriam-webster)
We are really talking about ethics but I understand that moral/morality is being use to mean ethic/ethical these days.
What is different in man that NAP is discoverable but non-existent in the other animals? Can tgd term creatures even be used? NAP, I guess, is just an accidental, random result of chemical processes that act in accordance to rules/laws that accidentally and randomly came to be. Therefore, NAP is just a random expression of random processes. And this is not called faith?
ReplyDeleteNAP is discoverable in animals by means of biological evolution, just as intraspecies aggression, pair bonding, dominance/submission and social hierarchies, and reciprocity were discovered by it. Every such discovery improves resource allocation by reducing conflict and thus costs of the conflict.
DeleteHowever, memetic evolution is MUCH faster, and it happened to discover the conflict-free strategy for resource allocation - the free market (aka the natural rights, aka NAP), leading to dominance of human populations in which dominant memeplex includes this strategy.
Unfortunately we also have the other, collectivist, memes which are surviving because they match the hard-wired biological strategy better (i.e. socialism is what monkeys have in a tribe).
And, no, there's nothing random about the resource allocation algorithms - they themselves are logical constructs (if you prefer Platonist view of mathematics, they are immanent objects, a part of reality; if you're of formalist persuasion, then these are formally correct expressions satisfying the search conditions). What is random is the search process (aka evolution) which eventually discovers them, and the circumstances of the on-going evolutionary tug of war between the biological programs and the memetic/cultural ones.
How did the rules/laws (behavior?) come from or developed? How did the law, for example, that opposite attract come to be?
DeleteI do not think that there is such "tug of war between the biological programs and the memetic/cultural ones" but only, what, lack of knowledge of all variables in the processes? And if the laws that limit how stuff "behave" are the result of some random outcome, how can we discuss anything, acquire knowledge, anything, since it is all meaningless accidents. Including any and all attempts at communicating. Not to mention the attempt at making sense of something like the NAP is futile.
@averros Evolution has never happened. Ever.
DeleteAcceptance of natural rights is a matter of self-preservation first of all. I grant that all humans have the right to life, liberty, and property because I desire to live, and to live in peace, and not in perpetual conflict. It also stems from the observation (natural laws, like the laws of physics, are discovered, not created) that humans tend to be social creatures, and so living in peace with other autonomous beings takes some effort.
ReplyDelete