Are Libertarians Suffering from Israel Derangement Syndrome?

Murray Rothbard (pro-choice) and Ron Paul (pro-life) disagreed on abortion.

Murray Rothbard (pro-choice) and Ron Paul (pro-life) disagreed on abortion. This is a very important issue. It is one of macro libertarianism, not the micro version thereof. Yet, no one else, let alone either of these two leaders of the libertarian movement, ever so much as hinted that the freedom philosophy credential of either of them was therefore in danger. Although both of them could hardly be correct (since they contradicted one another), no venom was ever heard, at least not within the libertarian movement, against either of them on this issue. No one ever tried to kick either of them out of the libertarian movement. There was no hostility from any member thereof against either of those two over this controversy. The very idea of cancelling either one of these legends would have been considered preposterous.

I am convinced that both Rothbard and Paul were wrong on this issue and that my evictionist theory is the only correct libertarian analysis. Mine is a compromise between the other two. In this perspective, the pregnant mother may evict at any time, but never kill, her pre-born baby. During the first two trimesters the results are akin to the pro-choice position; the baby will die outside of the womb. However, in the third trimester, the infant is viable on its own, so the pro-life results ensue. But this is an entirely different matter.

Neither Hoppe nor anyone else has ever tried to kick Hornberger out of the libertarian movement.

Jacob Hornberger adamantly favors fully open borders. Hans Herman Hoppe strongly maintains that proper libertarian theory implies heavily controlled, regulated (not closed) borders. This too is an important libertarian issue. Both scholars are highly credentialed libertarians. Yet, neither Hoppe nor anyone else has ever tried to kick Hornberger out of the libertarian movement. Nor has the latter ever taken such a position vis-a-vis the former. Even Rothbard, in his maturity, had changed his mind on this complex issue. In my view, the open borders position, coupled with privatization of every square inch of the country, including parks, roads, bodies of water, etc., and holding those who invite immigrants onto their property responsible for crimes committed by them, is the only correct view.

By the way, most people think that babies emanate from sexual intercourse. Nonsense. Actually, they come from the foreign country called Storkovia, from which the stork brings babies to our country. So, if a libertarian wants to regulate immigration, he has to approve of regulating births too; maybe the Chinese policy of limiting one baby to a couple is the libertarian position? QED1 on regulating borders and regulating immigration. But, as before, this is beside the present point.

There are a whole bunch of good, no, excellent libertarians, who are not anarcho-capitalists.

There are a whole bunch of good, no, excellent libertarians, who are not anarcho-capitalists: Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Friedrich Hayek, Ron Paul, Richard Epstein, Harry Browne, John Hospers, Milton Friedman, just to name a few. These folks take the position that libertarian theory and very strictly limited government are compatible. No one denies that they are members in good standing of the libertarian movement. (Though Ayn Rand would turn over in her grave for being referred to as a libertarian, in good standing or otherwise.2)

There are even disputes amongst adherents of the freedom philosophy over the military draft.

Believe it or not, there are even disputes amongst adherents of the freedom philosophy over the military draft. This, too, is a life and death issue. Virtually every libertarian adamantly rejects this stance. Yet, Mises himself takes the opposite point of view, and no one can gainsay his libertarianism. He states:

“He who wants to remain free, must fight unto death those who are intent upon depriving him of his freedom. As isolated attempts on the part of each individual to resist are doomed to failure, the only workable way is to organize resistance by the government. The essential task of government is defense of the social system not only against domestic gangsters but also against external foes. He who in our age opposes armaments and conscription is, perhaps unbeknown to himself, an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all.”³

Has Mises been cancelled? To ask this is to answer it: certainly not by anyone calling himself a member of the free enterprise movement. And yet, it cannot be denied that in taking this position one of the fathers of the Austrian School of economics has placed himself widely apart from many of his followers and supporters.

To be sure, there are also relatively minor disagreements in this community. Should we vote for the Libertarian Party candidate or sit out this coming election? What is the best way to promote liberty? Think tanks? Academia? The Free State Project? Politics? But if the more serious disagreements mentioned above have no chance of rendering our movement asunder, these disputes certainly have no probability of tearing it apart.

However, matters are entirely different when it comes to Israel versus Hamas. Widespread acquiescence is given to the notion that the latter crossed the line on October 7, 2023 (we are not, after all, student organizations at Harvard), but that is about it. As to whether either side—and if so, which—is guilty of war crimes, genocide, targeting civilians, killing babies, there is no agreement at all. Nor are the discrepancies between the two sides—both with allegiance to the non-aggression principle and the sanctity of private property rights based upon homesteading—even civil, let alone polite. There is little disagreement without being disagreeable.

Why is it that only on the issue of Israel is there such animosity? My only explanation is Israel Derangement Syndrome (IDS).

Why is it that only on the issue of Israel is there such animosity? My only explanation is Israel Derangement Syndrome (IDS). I know, I know, this is no explanation at all. It merely places a label on this phenomenon. My only serious explanation is You Know What, but I adamantly reject this for anyone associated with the libertarian movement. I am Jewish and have been active in this movement since 1963. Never, before taking a pro-Israel stance, have I experienced even a whiff of anti-Semitism, and my Jewdar is as good as that of any of my co-religionists, better than some. Further, many of our leading lights are Jewish—Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand,4 Richard Epstein, Milton and David Friedman, David Gordon amongst them.

My own stance on this matter is fully and completely pro-Israeli. My only “criticism” of that country is that it has been far too indulgent, easy-going, forgiving, and soft in defending itself. See on this my co-authored book on the subject: Walter E. Block and Alan Futerman. 2021, The Classical Liberal Case for Israel, with commentary by Benjamin Netanyahu (Springer Publishing Company).

Is there a more sanguine explanation than IDS? If so, I would like to hear it.

For those who prefer a briefer summary of my views, see the two videos: In Defense of Israel Part I: Walter Block and Alan Futerman, and In Defense of Israel: Part II, or the transcriptions of the two videos, linked here: Part I and Part II.

The nastiness and vituperation remain a mystery. Is there a more sanguine explanation than IDS? If so, I would like to hear it.

¹ QED is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase “quod erat demonstrandum” (that which was to be demonstrated). It’s used to say that the proof or argument is complete.

² Rand proclaimed: “Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to ‘do something.’ By ‘ideological’ (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the ‘libertarian’ hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.)” “What Can One Do?” Philosophy: Who Needs It, (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1982), p. 202.

³ Mises supported conscription. See Human Action, 3^rd ed. (Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1966), p. 282. Note: The passage quoted above is not in the 1949 edition.

⁴ Ayn Rand was born into a Jewish family, but the adult Rand was vigorously anti-faith.

Related Posts:

1. Is It Possible for Humans to Flourish If They Don’t Live Good Lives?
2. Who Is Responsible for the Death of Innocent Gazans? Hamas or the IDF?
3. Who Qualifies as an Objectivist?

   

About the Author: Walter Block

Walter Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair in Economics at Loyola University, senior fellow of the Mises Institute, and regular columnist for LewRockwell.com.