Murray Rothbard on the scapegoats of American society defended by Walter Block

All right, some readers might concede, we grant that these people [the pimp, prostitute, scab, slumlord, etc.] are performing valuable economic services.  Why is the pimp or the medical quack any more "heroic," and therefore in a sense more moral, than other, more respectable producers: the grocers, clothiers, steel manufacturers, etc."?  The explanation is precisely wrapped up in the extreme lack of respectability of Professor Black's scapegoats.  For the grocer, the steel producer, and the others are generally allowed to go about their business unmolested, and indeed earn respect and prestige from the fellow members of the community.  Not so these scapegoats; for not only are their economic services unrecognized, but they face the universal bile, scorn and wrath of virtually every member of society, plus the additional restrictions and prohibitions that governments have almost universally placed upon their activities.  Scorned and condemned unmercifully by society and state alike, social outcasts and state-proclaimed outlaws, Professor Block's collection of scapegoats go about their business nevertheless; heroically proceeding to confer their economic services in the teeth of universal scorn and outlawry.  They are heroes indeed; made so by their unjust treatment at the hands of society and of the state apparatus.

Heroes yes, but not necessarily saints.  When the author confers the moral stature of hero on the scab, the usurer, the pimp, and so on, he does not mean to imply that these activities are intrinsically more moral than any other.  In a free market, and in a society that treats the usurer, slumlord, and sweat shop employer precisely the same just way as it treats other occupations, they would no longer be heroes, and they would certainly be no more moral than anyone else.  Their heroic status, for Professor Block, is solely a function of the unjust restrictions that other men have been placing upon them.  It is the happy paradox of this book that if its implicit advice is followed, and the men and women described in these pages are no longer treated to scorn and legal coercion, then and only then will they no longer be heroes.  If you don't like the idea of a usurer or a slumlord being a hero, then the only way to deprive him of this stature is to remove the shackles that misguided people have placed upon him.

~ Murray N. Rothbard, forward to Defending the Undefendable (1976)

Walter Block on morality vs. the marketplace

This book does not claim that the marketplace is a moral economic institution.  True, the profit and loss business system has brought mankind a plethora of consumer goods and services unkown in the entire history of the world.  These benefits are the envy of all peoples not fortunate enough to live under its banner.  Given the tastes, desires, preferences of the ultimate consumer, the market is the best means known to man for providing for his satisfaction.

But the marketplace also produces goods and services – such as gambling, prostitution, pornography, drugs (heroin, cocaine, etc.) alcohol, cigarettes, swinger’s clubs, suicide abetment – whose moral status is, to say the least, highly questionable and in many cases highly immoral. The free enterprise system, thus, cannot be considered a moral one. Rather, as a means of consumer satisfaction, it can only be as moral as are the goals of the market participants themselves. Since these vary widely, all the way from the completely depraved and immoral to the entirely legitimate, the market must be seen as amoral – neither moral nor immoral.

The market in other words is like fire, or a gun, or a knife or a typewriter: a splendidly efficient means towards both good and bad ends.  Through free enterprise we are capable of achieving virtuous actions, but also their very opposite as well.

How, then, can we defend the immoral activitys of some market actors?  This stems from the philosophy of libertarianism, which is limited to analyzing one single problem.  It asks, under what conditions is violence justified?  And it answers, violence is justified only for purposes of defense, or in response to prior aggression, or in retaliation against it.  This means, among other things, that government is not justified in fining, punishing, incarcerating, imposing death penalties on people who act in an immoral manner - as long as they refrain from threatening or initiating physical violence on the persons or property of others.  Libertarianism, then, is not a philosophy of life.  It does not presume to indicate how mankind may best live.  It does not set out the boundaries between the good and the bad, between the moral and the immoral, between propriety and impropriety.

The defense of such as the prostitute, pornographer, etc., is thus a very limited one.  It consists solely of the claim that they do not initiate physical violence against non-aggressors.  Hence, according to libertarian principles, none should be visited upon them.  This means only that theses activities should not be punished by jail sentences or other forms of violence.  It decidedly does not mean that these activities are moral, proper or good.

~ Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable, introduction

Friedrich Hayek on Walter Block's libertarian classic

Looking through Defending the Undefendable made me feel that I was once more exposed to the shock therapy by which, more than 50 years ago, the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position.  Even 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.  Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good, even if they hate it.  A real understanding of economics demands that one disabuses onself of many dear prejudices and illusions.  Popular fallacies in economics frequently express themselves in unfounded prejudices against other occupations and, in showing the falsity of these stereotypes, you are doing a real service, although you will not make yourself more popular with the majority.

~ Friedrich Hayek, commentary about Defending the Undefendable, 1991 edition

Walter Block on charity vs. welfare

[T]here are those who view charity as a blessed state, and consider contributions a moral obligation. Such people would make charity compulsory, if they could. If, however, an act is made compulsory, it is not charity, for charity is defined as voluntary giving. If an individual is forced to give, he is not a contributor to charity, he is the victim of a robbery.

~ Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable, p. 124