Rape, Limited Government, and Israel

In all of my publications concerning Israel, preeminently Block and Futerman, 2021, I take the limited-government libertarian position, or classical liberalism, even though my own views are staunchly anarcho-capitalist.

Why do I do so? I approach this issue from that perspective in response to a very important essay written in 1967 by my friend, mentor, and guide: Mr. Libertarian, Murray N. Rothbard. It was called “War Guilt in the Middle East.” This brilliant author warns against a trap set for libertarian anarchists such as myself: sectarianism. Here, the analyst measures all governments against the an-cap ideal and finds them all very seriously wanting. He throws up his hands against them and condemns them all equally.

Murray [Rothbard] properly warns all followers of the one true political philosophy, that this hardly exhausts our job as analysts. We must go deeper, far deeper.

However, Murray properly warns all followers of the one true political philosophy, that this hardly exhausts our job as analysts. We must go deeper, far deeper. If we want to compare governments with each other, it makes no sense to condemn them, merely, for being states, and thus all of them equally per se in violation of rights. We must determine which of them deviates further than the others from the libertarian ideal of the non-aggression principle, private property rights based on initial homestead and voluntary interaction thereafter, free association, and all the rest.

In so doing, I leave a long paper trail establishing that when it comes to Israel versus its neighbors, such as Hamas, the former is much closer to the libertarian ideal than is the latter. And not just by a “country mile” either. The gap is as between night and day, between almost perfect virtue and pure evil.

But now comes a criticism of this entire enterprise. The claim is that what all governments do, Israel, Hamas, and all the rest, is akin to rape, and this assault upon the person is an unmitigated crime. Thus, this entire enterprise I have just adumbrated is dead from the neck up, morally speaking. Avoiding sectarianism in this manner cannot succeed.

Here is how one critic puts the matter: “Limited governments are like rapists; the anarcho-capitalist who wishes to avoid sectarianism to such a degree that he will embrace the state ends up supporting rapists.”

However, there is surely a disanalogy, and a strong one, between rape and limited government. Rape is per se a vicious evil act and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever (apart from benefit to the rapist, which all decent men will regard as a negative, not a positive).

Limited government, minarchism, classical liberalism are not, a similarly pure unmitigated evil.

In sharp contrast, limited government, minarchism, classical liberalism are not, a similarly pure unmitigated evil. The situation is far more complex than rape. Here are several pro-liberty people who hold such positions: Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, David Hume, John Stuart Mill. This critic is now on record as in effect accusing all of these thinkers of being no better than supporters of rape. Yes, the governments of Lichtenstein, Monaco, Hong Kong (when it was on its own), Switzerland, etc., are all gangsters from a pure anarcho-capitalism point of view. Does the critic really want to say that there is nothing good about any of them at all?

If so, he is then taking the position that the post-war (WWII) West Germany was no better than East Germany. That South Korea is in no way to be preferred to North Korea. That Nazi Germany, Stalin’s USSR, Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia are on an equal moral footing with the “gangsters” of Lichtenstein, Monaco, Hong Kong (when it was on its own), and Switzerland. Does he really want to defend such a position—that there is full moral equivalence between the two sets of states?

Yes, from the anarcho-capitalism perspective, the leaders of both Israel and Hamas are gangsters. However, we must note that while both violate the NAP of anarcho-capitalism, there are tremendous differences between them, something missing from this critical point of view.

I totally reject this criticism. I do not know how the critic could have painted himself into such an awkward corner. I suspect he is suffering from Israel Derangement Syndrome.

The surrender of Hamas and the release of all its hostages would have been brought about far sooner, with fewer casualties on both sides and far more cheaply under anarcho-capitalism.

Would a private defense agency under anarcho-capitalism, which was contractually obligated to defend the Israeli people against Hamas act any differently than their present government? Yes indeed, there would have been differences, stark ones.

The private police force would be funded with voluntary payments, not taxes, and would be based upon a voluntary military, not a draft. Also, it would not have put itself in a position in which it relied upon an outside source, in this case the U.S., for its armaments. As well, it would have pursued its enemy with greater alacrity and ferociousness. Private enterprise works better, cheaper, more efficiently than government. There is no reason to believe that this virtual economic law would not operate in the present context as it does in all others.

Under full free enterprise, the war would have been over long before the IDF will manage to bring it to a conclusion. The surrender of Hamas and the release of all its hostages would have been brought about far sooner, with fewer casualties on both sides and far more cheaply under anarcho-capitalism.

Regarding rape—when Hamas terrorists rape Israeli women, they are rewarded for it. God forbid, if any member of the IDF were to perpetuate such an atrocity, he would be punished for it. Ditto for murder of civilians. And world opinion (ask the pro-Palestinian protestors at Columbia, Harvard, about this) has it that the Israelis are guilty of genocide. Oy vey.

References:

Block, Walter E. and Alan Futerman. 2021. The Classical Liberal Case for Israel. With commentary by Benjamin Netanyahu. Springer Publishing Company; https://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-16-3953-1

Futerman, Alan G. and Walter E. Block. 2024. “Irrationally anti-Israel. How is a rational person to deal with someone under the influence of Israel Derangement Syndrome? One possibility: Don’t waste your time with such a person.” June 4; https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/irrationally-anti-israel/

Rothbard, Murray N. 1967. “War guilt in the Middle East. Left and Right.” Spring-Autumn; http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_4.pdf; http://original.antiwar.com/rothbard/2010/03/02/war-guilt-in-the-middle-east/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+antiwar-original+%28Antiwar.com+Original+Articles%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Related Posts:

1. Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions Must Be Stopped!
2. Transcript: Ayn Rand, Immanuel Kant, and Real-World Ethics
3. The Case for a “Natural-Law” Humanism

   

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.