History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Hat tip Matthew Barganier.
This coming from someone who associates with the Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell? Cry me a river.
You don't want me to pull out every bit of anti-c.l. nonsense posted on lewrockwell's blog, do you?
Borders' wording was more than "bad public relations." It was appalling regardless of context and strikes against the grain of every liberal tradition I understand and respect. It also shows a certain callousness and insentivity which represents a dangerous, but increasingly important, strain among some "Team America" libertarians and many, many conservatives post 9-11.
I fully agree with Mark Brady that the quotation (in whatever context) is dangerously anti-cosmopolitan and dare I say jingoistic or, at the very least, encourages attitudes of that type. Many of us, including Mark, were first attracted to this movement in great part because of universalism and rspect for the dignity of the individual wherever they lived.
As to Bill's broader point, I do not think I ripped the quotation unfairly out of context (though I provided the necessary link so others could read all of Borders' comments). The fact that he made it at all shows a certain caviliar attitude which invites criticism.
Bill interprets Borders' view as a "contractarian notion that those who reject respecting the rights of some persons, have no rights that the person whose rights they reject is obligated to respect. And there seems to be some notion that those who live in communities where the rights of some persons are not enforced what no rights that the persons whose rights are not enforced have an obligation."
I do share this specific contractarian notion (nor particularly fathom who it entails) but let me address both of those points.
As to the first, there are thousands of criminals and people in American prisons who "reject respecting the rights of some persons." That is why they are in prison in the first place. Since they do not respect my rights, does this mean it is legitimate to boil them alive? If we lived in a society which allowed boling them alive, it would certainly not be a liberal one in any recognizable sense.
Perhaps, as the second section of this quotation indicates, Borders' believes that it is only potentially legitimate to boil people alive who are in "communities where the rights of some persons are not enforced."
Let me point out first, of course, that *no* society on earth (certainly not ours) fully enforces the rights of all individuals. The thousands of Americans who have lost their property to build shopping malls or have thrown in jail for using or selling drugs are proof enough of that. Therefore, we have already flunked the test. To be sure, we are better than most societies but....that still leaves remarkably far from approximating the ideal.
Leaving aside morality, making it open season on foreign rights violators who do not live in societies which respect rights does not seem like a very effective way to promote pro-liberty ideas in the world. If we do not lead by example, why should anyone bother to take our ideas seriously?
To this day, for example, the United States has still not lived down the black mark of intentionally murdering "boiling alive" thousands of non-combatants (including infants) at Hiroshima.
I don't agree with Borders. Also,
Borders' remark here was bad public
relations for IHS, especially because
of its focus on outreach to young
scholars.
Still, Barganier is wrong to spread
this out of context quote and Beito
does wrong to repeat it.
Borders appears to use the term "immoral"
to mean "violation of rights." Many
libertarians take the view that there
are many moral rules whose violation
would be immoral even though they
don't rise to the level of a violation
of rights. A few of us even believe
that some of the most immoral actions
aren't violations of anyone's rights.
(Christian libertarians, for example,
would see failue to love God with all
one's heart to be more immoral than
even murder, but still believe that
murder should be punished while atheists
have a right to their immoral views.)
So, translating Borders' view to a
way most libertarians would describe
it, boiling some foreigner in oil would
be immoral, but it wouldn't violate
his rights.
So, what's up with that? Well,
Borders' takes the position that
foreigners have no rights.
From his article, it appears that
he combines contractarian and positivist
views of rights. We have the rights
that are actually enforced.
I presume he believes it is sensible
to agree to and enforce libertarian
rules protecting life, liberty, and
property.
It seems to me to be promoting the
plausible contractarian notion that
those who reject respecting the rights
of some persons, have no rights that
the person whose rights they reject
is obligated to respect. And there
seems to be some notion that those
who live in communities where the
rights of some persons are not enforced
have no rights that the persons whose
rights are not enforced have an obligation
to respect.
However, there are some passages where
Borders appears to require a formal
agreement between the different
communities to enforce the rights
of members of the other community to
result in everyone having rights that
must be respected.
It is an interesting position. When
someone points out that this position
implies that boiling foreigners in oil
isn't immoral, it isn't wise to write
a complete sentence that states that
no, it isn't.
Borders did write that boiling foreigners
in oil is disgusting and a bad policy.
To summarize, his view is that it
isn't immoral because only a violation
of rights is immoral. And foreigners
have no rights to claim against Americans
because they live in communities that
haven't agreed to respect the rights of
Americans. Rights are the sorts of things
that only exist when there is some sort of
agreement for mutual respect (and enforcement.)
I don't agree with his view, but I don't
believe it is beyond the pale. If this
view was determined to be correct, there would
be a lot more to say about our sentiments
regarding treatment of these people who have
no rights. (My disgust at your boiling foreigners
in oil would seem to be a bit different than your
disgust at the prospect our your eating oysters.)
I would draw the attention of readers to the U.S.-centric perspective that is implicit in Max Borders' statement. It's an example of how so much commentary by self-identified American libertarians begins and ends with what is right for U.S. citizens. So often the cosmopolitan character of classical liberalism gets forgotten. I suggest that a partial explanation lies in how those same people are preoccupied with formulating public policy for implementation by the U.S.
David--This isn't the IHS we knew and loved so well.
The piece in question is fraught with confusions. It's quite wrong on several levels (not to mention spiced liberally with ad hominems). Sorry to pull a Fermat here, but it's Saturday and I'm occupied with far more enjoyable family matters. If no one has posted pulverizing rebuttal by Monday, I'll take the bait. But meanwhile... Roderick? Chris? Go for it.