• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
L
IBERTARIAN
P
 APERS
V 
OL
.
 
1,
 
 A
RT
.
 
N
O
.
 
17
 
(2009)
 1
L
IBERTARIAN
P
UNISHMENT
 T
HEORY 
: W 
ORKING FOR 
,
AND
D
ONATING TO
,
THE
S
 TATE
 
 W 
 ALTER 
E.
 
B
LOCK 
*
I. Introduction
 This paper is an attempt to apply a libertarian analysis of punishment tostatist and state-like activities. It assumes, and is predicated upon, broadagreement with libertarianism in general (Bergland, 1986; Friedman, 1989;Hoppe, 1993; Murray, 1997; Nozick, 1973; Rothbard, 1973, 1978, 1982; Woolridge, 1970), and its punishment theory in particular (Kinsella, 1996,1997; Rothbard, 1977, Whitehead and Block, 2003).
1
 In this view, it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for guilt(e.g., a violation of libertarian principles) and thus justification for

*Walter Block (www.WalterBlock.com; wblock@loyno.edu) is Harold E. WirthEminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Prof. of Economics, College of Business, LoyolaUniversity New Orleans and a Senior Fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.C
ITE THIS ARTICLE AS
: Walter Block, “Libertarian Punishment Theory: Working for,and Donating to, the State,”
Libertarian Papers 
1, 17 (2009). O
NLINE AT
:libertarianpapers.org . T
HIS ARTICLE IS
subject to
 
a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0License ( creativecommons.org/licenses ).
1
States Rothbard (1998, p. 88, ft. 6): “It should be evident that our theory of proportional punishment—that people may be punished by losing their rights to theextent that they have invaded the rights of others—is frankly a
retributive 
theory of punishment, a “tooth (or two teeth) for a tooth” theory. Retribution is in bad reputeamong philosophers, who generally dismiss the concept quickly as ‘primitive’ or ‘barbaric’and then race on to a discussion of the two other major theories of punishment:deterrence and rehabilitation. But simply to dismiss a concept as ‘barbaric’ can hardly suffice; after all, it is possible that in this case, the ‘barbarians’ hit on a concept that wassuperior to the more modern creeds.” For more on “two teeth for a tooth,” see Block,1999, 2002-2003, 2003, 2004A, 2004C, 2006, forthcoming B; Block, Barnett and Callahan,2005; Gregory and Block, 2007; Olson, 1979; Rothbard, 1998, 88; Whitehead and Block,2003.
 
2 L
IBERTARIAN
P
 APERS
1,
 
17
 
(2009)punishment by the libertarian Nuremberg trials (Alston and Block, 2007;Block, 2001, 2002A, 2003, 2004A, 2004B; Copley, 1999; Rockler, 1998–1999; Whitehead, Gould and Block, 2004), that a person be a state official.However, there is a
 presumption 
that all government employees
2
areindeed guilty of a crime against humanity. This presumption can of course berebutted in any number of ways, but, given that the unjust government is anorganized institutional machine of aggression and initiatory violence,
3
there isno doubt that any serious libertarian analysis ought to start out with thispresumption as its basic premise.
4
 In section II we attempt to lay out the doctrine of criminal statism. Wediscuss a number of cases, and acts, that either fall on this side of that line oron the other. Section III is devoted to a listing of, and responses to, a seriesof objections to our thesis. We conclude in section IV.
II. Criminal statism
State employment is not a sufficient condition to establish criminality since there are many ways to work for government, and still be able to rebutthis presumption. For example, take the position of professor at a state-sponsored university working to promote liberty in the classroom, while stillteaching the subject matter.Nor need one labor in an institution that is not intrinsically evil, such asa university, which would of course exist in a free society. One could eventake a job in a division of government which is per se contrary tolibertarianism, and would not come into being under a regime of liberty. Forexample, consider the Fed. Alan Greenspan headed up that organization formany years. Thus, we establish the presumption of guilt on his part. Whatcould he have done to rebut that premise? Simple. Had he strived mightily to
end 
the Fed, the libertarian Nuremberg jurors would have no choice but tofree him from the onus of guilt that would otherwise fall upon him.Greenspan could have acquitted himself in this regard in two ways:

2
This only applies to unjust governments, such as those I will never visit or reside in. As to the ones I will live in, or tour, I consider them all justified, for purposes of thispaper.
3
See Rothbard (1973, 57); Hoppe, 2008.
4
However, so as to not run afoul of the law, I am confining the scope of this paperto governments that by all accounts are illegitimate, such as those of North Korea, Cuba,Nazi Germany and the USSR. When specific Americans are named in the text, such as Alan Greenspan, Barbra Streisand, this must be interpreted as applying, only, to membersof the aforesaid countries, e.g., to their equivalents in those nations.
 
L
IBERTARIAN
P
UNISHMENT
 T
HEORY 
:
 
 W 
ORKING FOR 
…
THE
S
 TATE
3surreptitiously, or in an open and above board manner.
5
In the latter case he would have testified before congress, given public speeches, published booksand articles as Chairman of the Fed, attesting to its illegality, immorality,inefficacy, and advocated, instead, the use of gold as money, and 100%reserve banking. In the former, he would have worked behind the scenes tothrow a monkey wrench into the inner workings of the Fed; he would havefunction as a soldier behind enemy lines, metaphorically blowing up (e.g.,financial) bridges, tearing down (monetary) telephone lines, etc.Let us go even further. It is even possible to take a job as aconcentration camp guard, charged with torturing and then murdering theinmates. How could a person guilty of such crimes come out of a libertarianNuremberg trial relatively unscathed?
6
Simple. All he need do is prove
7
thathe functioned as a sort of Schindler: he saved more people than wouldotherwise have escaped.
8
 

5
In so doing, he would have acted compatibly with his earlier writings on thesubject; see Greenspan, 1967.
6
But not fully unscathed. Our actor in this regard is still responsible for theunjustified murder of those he was forced to kill, in order to maintain his “cover.” Whileit is to be hoped that the heirs of such people might forgive him, and thus he would gofree, when the context in which he operated in was clarified, this need not necessarily bethe case. Thus, such a person is
doubly 
heroic. First, he must brave the wrath of the Nazis;second, he must risk the ire of those who have a right to punish him for histransgressions against their principals. Suppose the Martians beam down a message to usearthlings: “Kill innocent person Joe, or we blow up the entire earth.” (Stipulate that they have the power to do this, and we are unable to stop them.) One would hope that a hero would arise to murder Joe, so as to save the planet. We would then hold a ticker tapeparade in his honor. Afterwards, the heirs of Joe would have the right to exact fullpunishment against our hero. (But suppose the Martians then beamed down anothermessage to the effect that if anyone touches hide or hair of our hero, then will renew theirthreat to pulverize the third planet. Then, and only then they will have established a clearbreak between libertarian theory on the one hand, and utilitarianism on the other. But allthis establishes is that clever people can come up with theoretical examples todemonstrate such a bifurcation, in such an artificial manner. I owe this objection toMatthew Block.)
7
The burden of proof would rest with him. He would be found guilty 
unless 
he couldestablish his innocence. That is what a presumption of guilt means.
8
In the television miniseries
Roots 
there was a white overseer who was actually on theside of the black slaves. He was forced, in order to keep his “cover,” to whip some of theslaves. Was he guilty of assault and battery? Certainly not if the black “victim” was willing to take the beating from this fake overseer, on the ground that he and his fellow slaves would certainly be treated better in this way. But suppose the given victim had a very hightime preference and was not willing to take this beating, even though he full well knew that only in this way could he ward off a much worse beating, later, and, also, save hisfellow slaves from such mistreatment. Then, is the fake overseer guilty of a rights
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...