Have I gone AWOL?

Kevin Duffy (2023) accuses me of having gone AWOL (absent without leave). That is, he maintains that with regard to the present October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and the latter’s response against the former, my views are contrary to those of libertarian principle. His evidence for this criticism of me? He cites a quote from Murray N. Rothbard which seems, no, is, contrary to my own assessment.

Before I respond substantively, let me start off with my appreciation for this person’s criticism of me. He says that I am Murray N. Rothbard’s “protégé, and that I am “one of (his) libertarian heroes. Let me just say that Murray was indeed my mentor and friend and certainly my own hero. I regard him, Mr. Libertarian as he is commonly known, as the preeminent economist and libertarian theorist not merely of the previous century, but ever. And to think that I am at least a pale carbon copy (if you don’t know what this is, look it up; hint: it is from the last century) of Murray as Mr. Duffy would have it brings me great joy.

Now to the substance of the issue that divides me and my own protégé, Mr. Duffy, if I can put matters thus.

Duffy can do no better than the quote Rothbard in his critique of my views to show a chasm between us. If I diverge from the latter, that is good evidence indeed that I have gone AWOL. But it is not definitive.

Why, then, do I reject this conclusion? First of all, it is because Murray contradicts himself on this matter. Duffy’s quote from Murray ends with these words: “because inter-State wars inevitably involve both mass murder and an increase in tax-coercion, the libertarian opposes war. Period.”

But Murray does not at all oppose, war, period. There are, instead, some wars he favored. For example, the Southern side of the war of secession of 1861 and the secession of the thirteen colonies against Britain in 1776. I cannot know for sure but I speculate that if the Basques went to war to separate from Spain, or the Quebec province did so via Canada, that Murray would support them too. Ditto for Taiwan staying free of China.

Secondly, although to criticize Murray it to be overwhelmingly often incompatible with libertarianism (also from Austrian economics) it is not always the case. Has

Joe Salerno gone AWOL for writing this? Block, Walter E., William Barnett II and Joseph Salerno. 2006. “Relationship between wealth or income and time preference is empirical, not apodictic: critique of Rothbard and Hoppe,” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 69-80; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11138-006-6094-8; http://www.gmu.edu/rae/archives/VOL19_1_2006/4-Block_Barnett_Salerno.pdf. I think not.

Has Peter Klein gone AWOL for authoring this: Block, Walter E., Peter Klein and Per Henrik Hansen. 2007. “The Division of Labor under Homogeneity: A Critique of Mises and Rothbard.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, April, Vol. 66, Issue 2, pp. 457-464; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/The-Division-of-Labor-under-Homogeneity-A-Critique-of-Mises-and-Rothbard.pdf. I think not.

Has Hans Hoppe gone AWOL for substituting his argument from argument in numerous publications for Murray’s natural law justification of the entire libertarian enterprise? I think not.

Has Murray himself gone AWOL for criticizing Mises’ view of monopoly and anti-trust in chapter 10 of his Man, Economy and State? I think not.

No, this entire idea of going AWOL merely for disagreeing with the world’s leading Austro-libertarian is highly problematic. Let me change that: it is suggestive, but not definitive.

Do you know in what realm of discourse it is indeed definitive? For the Randroids. If you disagree with Ayn Rand on any issue, no matter how minor, you are tossed out on your ear from their movement. Thus, it is not an intellectual movement. Rather, it is a cult

Austro-libertarianism is not at all a cult. Murray was the least cultish person I ever knew. For him, truth was all that mattered, and it didn’t matter in the slightest which person took which view. I disagreed with Murray, personally, and in the literature, on all sort of issues, ranging from voluntary slavery to abortion to immigration to the optimal amount of money. And never, ever, did I hear a word from him to the effect that I was betraying him, or betraying Austrian economics or betraying libertarianism. There was one case that I’m aware of that a different leader of our movement would not speak to a very distinguished student of his for years over an intellectual disagreement. Murray was not like that at all.

This AWOL business seems to me to be all too similar to the fallacious argumentum ad hominem. It reeks of Randianism.

Here is Duffy’s AWOL criticism of my views of Israel v. Hamas

Duffy, Kevin. 2023. “Invasion of Gaza - Rothbard vs. Block.” November 6; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/11/kevin-duffy/invasion-of-gaza-rothbard-vs-block/

Here are some of my publications on this issue:

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;

Block, Walter E. and Alan G. Futerman. 2023. “The Moral Duty to Destroy Hamas. Israel is entitled to do whatever it takes to uproot this evil, depraved culture that resides next to it.” Wall Street Journal. October 12; https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-moral-duty-to-destroy-hamas-ba626a41?st=ct5qarwgxr637az&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink; https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-moral-duty-to-destroy-hamas-ba626a41?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Fischer, Dov and Walter E. Block. 2021. “Launching Missiles; What if Liechtenstein or Monaco played Gaza and sent bombs into Germany or France?” The American Spectator; October 12; https://spectator.org/launching-missiles/