Does libertarianism promote the dignity of the poor?

Economics Political Theory
1

Download http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf
Read chapter 18 (“THE NONCONTRIBUTOR TO CHARITY”).

The author (Walter Block) explicitly discourages people from donating to
charity because it interferes with Darwinian evolution. He says:
“[…] there are dangers in charity, and compelling reasons for refusing
to contribute to it. In addition, there are serious flaws in the moral
philosophy upon which charity is based. One of the great evils of
charity, and one of the most cogent reasons for refusing to contribute
to it, is that it interferes with the survival of the human species.
[…] if the Darwinian laws are allowed to work themselves out, […]
negative traits will tend to disappear. But if charity is extended,
these harmful traits will be carried over to the next generation. While
charity of this type is undeniably harmful, when it is private, it is
limited in scope […]”

Later he devotes a section to criticizing the whole concept of altruism,
and ends the chapter saying “In addition, the moral theory upon which
charity rests is riddled with contradictions and makes hypocrites of
those who are pressured by it.”

And on page 14 the author defends abortion.

That book starts with a foreword by Murray N. Rothbard and a commentary
by F.A. Hayek. They both praise the book, and it is inconceivable they
weren’t aware of how controversial chapter 18 would be. They knew very
well that their endorsement for the book would be interpreted as an
endorsement for chapter 18.

von Mises did not contribute to that book, but this is expected since he
had already passed away at the time the book was published.

So we have Walter Block, Rothbard and Hayek endorsing a book that
defends the application of “survival of the fittest” to humans.

To Hayek’s credit, he did say

now I am occasionally at first incredulous and feel that “this is
going too far,” but usually find in the end that you are right.

Notice the “usually”. So possibly he disagreed with parts of the
book. Still, I blame him for not making himself clear.

[EDIT]
As Smiling Dave posted below, it is possible that Rothbard
and Hayek were just being nice to a friend. However, I have
just listened to a talk with Walter Block and he says that
the only chapter which elicited controversy in the Libertarian
community was chapter 14 - “THE (NONGOVERNMENT) COUNTERFEITER”.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCr0c-q_Gd8
From 35:50 to 36:36

“Many of these chapters have been under great criticism from people on
the Left, […] the counterfeiting […] chapter is the only one who
has had serious Libertarian criticism […] so this chapter is perhaps
the most controversial in the Libertarian community”

This has significantly worsened the Libertarian reputation before my
eyes.

Regards

2

Not all offspring of the poor become poor. There are many rich men that came from poor families.

3

According to the Darwinian

principle of the “survival of the fittest,” those organisms most

able to exist in a given environment will be “naturally selected”

(by showing a greater propensity to live until the age of procreation,

and thus be more likely to leave offspring). One result, in

the long run, is a species whose members have a greater ability

to survive. This does not imply that the strong “kill off ” the

weak, as has been alleged. It merely suggests that the strong will

be more successful than the weak in the procreation of the

species. Thus the ablest perpetuate themselves and the species

thrives.

Among a plethora of other things one can point out in Block’s insane line of reasoning, is that this would essentially take vaccines, antibiotics, etc off the shelf. Not only that, arbitriarily so, by no authority other than by some subsidized ethic and over concern about “breeding”.

“The principles of Darwin” is simply a non starter

I am a bit surprised to find Hayek in agreement with Block, at least in regards to this hyper rationalistic approach and outre scientism

4

Random thoughts:

  1. Note that Block clearly states in that chapter that a person has every right to do what he wishes with his money, including giving it to charity.

Also note that he does not say all charity is bad, only very specific cases.

  1. That said, his arguments in that chapter are so full of holes they make a Swiss cheese look like solid rock in comparison. What was he thinking? David Gordon might have fun doing a Molyneux on it.

  2. As for endorsements to a book, unless explicitly stated otherwise, they generally mean only that the author is a friend, or that he’s a good guy, or that at least one page of his book is worth reading, possibly two or more. They are not wholesale approvals of every single line in the book.

For example, Bertrand Russell wrote that all great books have boring parts. Does that mean he would never recommend any book?

5

As for libertarianism or even the market mentality “promoting the dignity of the poor”:

No I don’t really think it really does, it is “neutral”. What it does do however, is help keep intellectual classes / Platonic Universalists at bay from flat out abusing the poor with insane schemes and ideals that would help send civilization to a vast wasteland, which would be undesirable for lmost all but the upper class leftists who used the poor to achieve their arbitrary schemes.

6

On Block:

Don’t assume him to be the representative of libertarianism. I take it, from the thread title, you assume that to be so.

On the thread title:

Libertarianism doesn’t promote pictures in the way that other ideologies do. It does support the institutions of minarchy/anarchy, which are vastly more productive to the consumer than institutions other ideologies promote, which invariably seek to enrich one group at the expense of another. Its great champions are not aesthetists, but economists. It’s proposal is the disassembly via gravity of the market kind of the many cathedrals other ideologies construct. So no, it does not ‘promote the dignity of the poor’ in the sense of a focused encouraging message, but it allow the market to materially provide for anyone who would work. One might say it’s less dignified for the poor to be cheered on like greyhounds and should they fail, be coddled. If promoting dignity of the poor means making them not poor, then yes.

7

the strong will be more successful than the weak in the procreation of the species.

I see. That’s why poorer countried have fewer children per-capita than rich countries. Got it.

/sarcasm

8
  1. As for endorsements to a book, unless explicitly stated otherwise, they generally mean only that the author is a friend, or that he’s a good guy, or that at least one page of his book is worth reading, possibly two or more. They are not wholesale approvals of every single line in the book.

Hum, yes. Maybe I overreacted to the fact that the book is endorsed
by Rothbard and Hayek. Maybe they were just being nice to a friend.

Regards

9

How does taxism, interventionism, regulationism, statism or despotism promote the dignity of the poor?

10

“How does taxism, interventionism, regulationism, statism or despotism promote the dignity of the poor?”

Well, I am not saying that I advocate Marxism. Marxism is an inhuman
ideology of hate.

But we could implement a third way. Some tremendous Catholic
intellectuals (such as Hilaire Belloc, G. K. Chesterton and
Gustavo Corção) have advocated something called distributism.

I have no knowledge of it so I can’t comment. I will read on it in the
future.

But I do know that any political system must respect the principle of
subsidiarity. This means that international governance should
be fiercely opposed, and that, at the national level, we must respect
state’s rights. States, then, have to respect city’s rights, and the city
must respect family’s rights.

In short, decisions should preferably be made at the level closest to the people affected
that has the means to act effectively.

11

Why is that, exactly?

12

Smiling Dave wrote:

Also note that he does not say all charity is bad, only very specific cases.

Hum, I have read that chapter for the third time, and Block clearly
opposes charity in general. He of course supports the right to donate
to charity (or else he would not be Libertarian) but he says that

“[…] there are dangers in charity, and compelling reasons for refusing
to contribute to it. In addition, there are serious flaws in the moral
philosophy upon which charity is based. One of the great evils of
charity, and one of the most cogent reasons for refusing to contribute
to it, is that it interferes with the survival of the human species.
[…] if the Darwinian laws are allowed to work themselves out, […]
negative traits will tend to disappear. But if charity is extended,
these harmful traits will be carried over to the next generation. While
charity of this type is undeniably harmful, when it is private, it is
limited in scope […]”

Later he devotes a section to criticizing the whole concept of altruism,
and ends the chapter saying “In addition, the moral theory upon which
charity rests is riddled with contradictions and makes hypocrites of
those who are pressured by it.”

But, in fact, his argumentation is not only morally unacceptable but has
serious logical holes (as yourself pointed).

  1. As for endorsements to a book, unless explicitly stated otherwise, they generally mean only that the author is a friend, or that he’s a good guy, or that at least one page of his book is worth reading, possibly two or more. They are not wholesale approvals of every single line in the book.

I have taken your point into consideration and edited the original post.

Regards

13

I think charity is good, but it’s not altruistic.

Altruism is impossible in terms of praxeology. If all humans actions are to ease the actor’s discomfort, then human altruism doesn’t exist.

For example, a person feels guilt, which precipitates an act of kindness, which alleviates their own guilt, which is a form of discomfort.

Using religious metaphors, every good act helps ensure one’s own salvation or place in heaven, therefore no good act can be selfless.

14

Autolykos replied on Sun, Jul 15 2012 12:12 PM

This has significantly worsened the Libertarian reputation before my eyes.

Why is that, exactly?

Why, because one Libertarian wrote a book with morally unnaceptable ideas,
including the application of “survival of the fittest” to humans, and
two very prominent Libertarians (Rothbard and Hayek) endorsed that book.
Then, the author said that the most controversial chapter of that book
within the Libertarian community, and the only one who received serious
criticism, is the chapter that defends money counterfeiting!

This makes it seem that the Libertarian community don’t care if poor
people suffer.

Regards

15

gamma_rat replied on Sun, Jul 15 2012 12:43 PM

I think charity is good, but it’s not altruistic.

Altruism is impossible in terms of praxeology. If all humans actions are to ease the actor’s discomfort, then human altruism doesn’t exist.

For example, a person feels guilt, which precipitates an act of kindness, which alleviates their own guilt, which is a form of discomfort.

But people can choose to bury that guilt on a dark corner of their mind
or they can choose to act on it and correct their errors.

Using religious metaphors, every good act helps ensure one’s own
salvation or place in heaven, therefore no good act can be selfless.

But people who want to act evil can choose to bury their faith and
forget about the consequences.

I think that God makes Himself so “hidden” for a purpose: there are some
signs that God exists, but it is also reasonable to believe He doesn’t
exists. Therefore, Faith is a choice.

I imagine that this theory about human nature is why Mises’ book has been
disrecommended:

http://www.almudi.org/Libro/tabid/442/ctl/Detalle/mid/1030/pid/77317/ppid/0/Default.aspx

Regards

16

vive la insurrection replied on Sun, Jul 15 2012 2:41 AM

As for libertarianism or even the market mentality “promoting the dignity of the poor”:

No I don’t really think it really does, it is “neutral”. What it does do however, is help keep intellectual classes / Platonic Universalists at bay from flat out abusing the poor with insane schemes and ideals that would help send civilization to a vast wasteland, which would be undesirable for lmost all but the upper class leftists who used the poor to achieve their arbitrary schemes.

On one thing we can agree: Marxists don’t respect the poor. They use
poor people as pawns to build their engineered, materialist,
totalitarian society. Marxism is an inhuman ideology of hate and
destruction.

Regards

17

Altruism is impossible in terms of praxeology. If all humans actions are to ease the actor’s discomfort, then human altruism doesn’t exist.

In that case we may have spot a problem with praxeology. Easing discomfort can be one motivation for action. But I don’t think it’s the only one. That’s why I prefer to talk about action to be motivated by realizing a mentally specified goal. Which can include easing present discomfort, but can include other motivations as well. An example here woudl be to support a worthy cause, but other positive motivated actions are possible as well.

18

In short, decisions should preferably be made at the level closest to the people affected
that has the means to act effectively.

Politically speaking, I think this should be the over-arching concern. In this regars there are certain subsets of conservatism, liberalism,leftism, and libertarianism that are very much compatible, if they can make this the chief overarching concern.

But even here I would hold most of my reservations on leftism because it is most likely to be a “top down” intellectual class (“philosopher kings”) managment system -that would ultimately be very destructive and ugly.

The best libertarians in this tradition you may find interesting usually approach it from a British naturalist respect, such as Hayek. The big “British naturalist” name would probably be Edmund Burke

19

Social Darwinism, as Vive has hinted at above, is a nonsensical sociological viewpoint because it is willfully oblivious to the fact that organisms (in this case, humans) can maximize their biological fitness through cooperation and its corollary, societal organization. Moreover, “Darwinism” selects for different traits in different situations; while in the wild ruthlessness, violence, and strength were selected for, in the context of civilization intelligence, empathy, and charisma become much more relevant. Block is also committing the naturalist fallacy by assuming that something is morally acceptable or proper simply because it occurs in nature.

So yeah, I really have no idea what he was going for in that chapter.

20

vive la insurrection replied on Sun, Jul 15 2012 1:58 PM

In short, decisions should preferably be made at the level closest to
the people affected that has the means to act effectively.

Politically speaking, I think this should be the over-arching concern. In this regars there are certain subsets of conservatism, liberalism,leftism, and libertarianism that are very much compatible, if they can make this the chief overarching concern.

But even here I would hold most of my reservations on leftism because it is most likely to be a “top down” intellectual class (“philosopher kings”) managment system -that would ultimately be very destructive and ugly.

The problem with Marxism is that it isn’t just a philosophy of
government, it is a complete philosophy of human nature, history,
society, economy, religion and culture. And Marx got many things very
wrong. A person who is contaminated by Marxism becomes horribly
alienated and possessed with hate. And since Marxism states that
everything in the world is moved by class struggle, that everyone
either fights for the oppressed or fights for the oppressor, and that
there is no universal truth or logic (every “truth” is relative to class
interests) then it is impossible to communicate with a hardened
Marxist. You could use rigorous logic to prove that Marxism is wrong,
but the Marxist guy will say that “this is bourgeois logic”, “you are
defending the oppressor”, and will verbally abuse you (or worse).

Marxism is one of the greatest disgraces in human history.

The best libertarians in this tradition you may find interesting usually approach it from a British naturalist respect, such as Hayek. The big “British naturalist” name would probably be Edmund Burke

Thank you for those recommendations, I may read them when I finish the
books I started.