Quite the tour de force! In its discussion comparing and contrasting Rothbard, Hoppe and Block, the article clarifies not only each thinker’s ideas but also how they have been carried forward and/or taken to extremes or even caricatures of their original meanings. The article correctly observes how Block has made a life’s work of trying carefully to hew to the essentials of the libertarian fundamentals: (1) the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP); and, (2) respect for voluntary exchange. I appreciate especially how the article traces the title of “Defending the Undefendable” from book cover to extreme applications that stray far from the two fundamentals when, arguably, Block’s book did not.
The article states eloquently an issue that I and more importantly, Marc Victor, founder of the Live and Let Live Movement, observed: “libertarianism” has morphed to become “anti-government” to the exclusion of most any other value. That, by the way, is why I don’t identify as a libertarian anymore. I’m a classical liberal, meaning I grant that there must be third-party institution that renders judgments, protects life and liberty by using force against aggressors, and does not permit each individual human to define the laws and be the judge in his own case.
The story of Block’s eviction from the Mises Institute informed me of details that I didn’t previously know. I did observe many communications about that action, and found the attacks on Block weak, disingenuous and sometimes hysterical.
The article nicely articulates Block’s logic, with which I agree: A society, such as Israel, is wholly within its rights and legitimate powers to respond to combat aggression and to eliminate the aggressive threat. Indeed, the government of Israel would abdicate its chief reason for existing if it failed to protect the citizenry from a repeat of October 7.
The only portion that marred the article was the latter sections that summarize the views of Marx, Nietzsche, Marcuse, Trotsky, etc., in a paragraph or two, describe the “distortion” of these thinkers’ ideas by ostensible followers, and then attempt to rehabilitate each of these thinkers by asking a hypothetical question, e.g., “Would Marx Agree?” Setting aside the uncertainty in the hypothetical, I don’t actually care if these fellows would agree with how their ideas were later deployed or distorted. Take the mindsets, the bodies of work, the ideas as they distilled, and see where they lead – that’s the test. Limited in length, of course, the article could not do that kind of wholesale analysis.
I still recall a law school friend of mine who suggested, “Marxism wasn’t bad in theory, it was just bad in practice.” He was surprised by my non-acquiescence to the platitude, which was: “No, Marxism was bad in theory.” And in a few sentences, I sketched its defects in theory. The article here had so powerfully made its point, I think the added portion wasn’t needed and in some ways weakened the piece.
On the whole, this article very nicely describes the schism in what some of us thought libertarianism was supposed to be – and how Dr. Block was a victim of a pernicious mindset that couldn’t survive thoughtful debate. Well done!
Thank you so much for reading the article and for your generous and thoughtful response. I’m truly honored you took the time—and even more so that it held your interest through to the end.
You’re absolutely right to point out that the section near the end—where I touch on Marx, Nietzsche, Marcuse, and others—may have opened a door too wide, too late in the piece. That wasn’t lost on me. In fact, I’ll admit: I may have bitten off more than I could chew.
That portion was meant as a gesture toward a deeper question, not a full treatment. I now see that a more appropriate approach might be to spin it off into a separate article. As you noted, summarizing these complex thinkers so briefly risks distortion—and perhaps does them (and the reader) a disservice.
That said, I still think the core question is worth raising: Would these thinkers agree with the ways their ideas have been used or misused?
It’s not just an abstract concern. In the case of Prof. Block, I argue something very similar happened—his work was taken in directions he neither intended nor endorsed. That parallel felt important, not just in theory but as a way of humanizing and contextualizing the schism within the libertarian world.
I couldn’t help but recall Hayek’s famous account of a conversation he had with Keynes shortly before his sudden death. Hayek asked him whether he was concerned about how his followers were applying the economic foundations of his work—pushing excessive government intervention, fueling inflation, and abandoning restraint. Keynes replied: “Don’t worry, Friedrich. If I see it getting out of hand, I’ll change public opinion myself.” But as Hayek pointed out, Keynes died six weeks later and never had the chance.
As for the Marx section, I wasn’t trying to rehabilitate or excuse the ideology. I was simply putting Block in the company of towering figures—posing a modest question: “Isn’t it the same dynamic at work?”
Thanks again for your close reading and thoughtful engagement. It helps sharpen the work—and that’s all I could ask for.
I reposted the link to your article in one of my comments on X and have some libertarian bloggers (@jackvlloyd, @AP4Liberty) asking if you have an X account. Do you? They are probably interested in inviting you to their podcasts.
Quite the tour de force! In its discussion comparing and contrasting Rothbard, Hoppe and Block, the article clarifies not only each thinker’s ideas but also how they have been carried forward and/or taken to extremes or even caricatures of their original meanings. The article correctly observes how Block has made a life’s work of trying carefully to hew to the essentials of the libertarian fundamentals: (1) the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP); and, (2) respect for voluntary exchange. I appreciate especially how the article traces the title of “Defending the Undefendable” from book cover to extreme applications that stray far from the two fundamentals when, arguably, Block’s book did not.
The article states eloquently an issue that I and more importantly, Marc Victor, founder of the Live and Let Live Movement, observed: “libertarianism” has morphed to become “anti-government” to the exclusion of most any other value. That, by the way, is why I don’t identify as a libertarian anymore. I’m a classical liberal, meaning I grant that there must be third-party institution that renders judgments, protects life and liberty by using force against aggressors, and does not permit each individual human to define the laws and be the judge in his own case.
The story of Block’s eviction from the Mises Institute informed me of details that I didn’t previously know. I did observe many communications about that action, and found the attacks on Block weak, disingenuous and sometimes hysterical.
The article nicely articulates Block’s logic, with which I agree: A society, such as Israel, is wholly within its rights and legitimate powers to respond to combat aggression and to eliminate the aggressive threat. Indeed, the government of Israel would abdicate its chief reason for existing if it failed to protect the citizenry from a repeat of October 7.
The only portion that marred the article was the latter sections that summarize the views of Marx, Nietzsche, Marcuse, Trotsky, etc., in a paragraph or two, describe the “distortion” of these thinkers’ ideas by ostensible followers, and then attempt to rehabilitate each of these thinkers by asking a hypothetical question, e.g., “Would Marx Agree?” Setting aside the uncertainty in the hypothetical, I don’t actually care if these fellows would agree with how their ideas were later deployed or distorted. Take the mindsets, the bodies of work, the ideas as they distilled, and see where they lead – that’s the test. Limited in length, of course, the article could not do that kind of wholesale analysis.
I still recall a law school friend of mine who suggested, “Marxism wasn’t bad in theory, it was just bad in practice.” He was surprised by my non-acquiescence to the platitude, which was: “No, Marxism was bad in theory.” And in a few sentences, I sketched its defects in theory. The article here had so powerfully made its point, I think the added portion wasn’t needed and in some ways weakened the piece.
On the whole, this article very nicely describes the schism in what some of us thought libertarianism was supposed to be – and how Dr. Block was a victim of a pernicious mindset that couldn’t survive thoughtful debate. Well done!
Dear Richard,
Thank you so much for reading the article and for your generous and thoughtful response. I’m truly honored you took the time—and even more so that it held your interest through to the end.
You’re absolutely right to point out that the section near the end—where I touch on Marx, Nietzsche, Marcuse, and others—may have opened a door too wide, too late in the piece. That wasn’t lost on me. In fact, I’ll admit: I may have bitten off more than I could chew.
That portion was meant as a gesture toward a deeper question, not a full treatment. I now see that a more appropriate approach might be to spin it off into a separate article. As you noted, summarizing these complex thinkers so briefly risks distortion—and perhaps does them (and the reader) a disservice.
That said, I still think the core question is worth raising: Would these thinkers agree with the ways their ideas have been used or misused?
It’s not just an abstract concern. In the case of Prof. Block, I argue something very similar happened—his work was taken in directions he neither intended nor endorsed. That parallel felt important, not just in theory but as a way of humanizing and contextualizing the schism within the libertarian world.
I couldn’t help but recall Hayek’s famous account of a conversation he had with Keynes shortly before his sudden death. Hayek asked him whether he was concerned about how his followers were applying the economic foundations of his work—pushing excessive government intervention, fueling inflation, and abandoning restraint. Keynes replied: “Don’t worry, Friedrich. If I see it getting out of hand, I’ll change public opinion myself.” But as Hayek pointed out, Keynes died six weeks later and never had the chance.
As for the Marx section, I wasn’t trying to rehabilitate or excuse the ideology. I was simply putting Block in the company of towering figures—posing a modest question: “Isn’t it the same dynamic at work?”
Thanks again for your close reading and thoughtful engagement. It helps sharpen the work—and that’s all I could ask for.
Warm regards,
Oded (Jacob)
Good read. Thank you!
Thank you, Alexander.
I reposted the link to your article in one of my comments on X and have some libertarian bloggers (@jackvlloyd, @AP4Liberty) asking if you have an X account. Do you? They are probably interested in inviting you to their podcasts.
I do. @Jacob4savage