ȃȂȅ Partʺʺ: Politics and Philosophy(ȀȈȇȁ, pp.ȁȂ–ȁȃ; Block and GordonȀȈȇȄ, pp.ȃȆ,ȄȂ; BlockȀȈȇȅ, p.ȆȂ). To
say that I have a right to exempt a mugger from prosecution is not at all to
say that I should do so. To say that it should not be illegal for a scoundrel to
extort money from me by threatening to spread scurrilous stories, whether
false or true, is not to deny that he is indeed a scoundrel. On the view of
Rothbard and Block, apparently, two categories coincide—the violation
of rights and what should be illegal. Immorality is a separate question.
Rothbard and Block apparently believe they can hold to their distinctive
theories of rights and law while holding fairly standard ethical views and
waxing just as indignant as any of the rest of us over the forgiving of mug-
gers, extortion accomplished by threats of verbal as well as physical action,
blackmail, and default on contractual promises.
I wonder if their theories can be rescued so easily. Ļe trouble is too
deep-seated: it stems from trying to deduce all sorts of specific policy posi-
tions from the two axioms about property, with no more than incidental
attention to the consequences of alternative rules and policies.
I see a closer relation between ethics and law than Rothbard and Block
do. (MisesȀȈȁȁ/ȀȈȄȀ, pp.ȂȈȆ–ȂȈȈ, makes sensible comments on this rela-
tion, as does HazlittȀȈȅȃ, chap.Ȉ.) A long process of evolution and selec-
tion has yielded ethical precepts that, by and large, praise or condemn
kinds of behavior and traits of character according as they tend to serve
or subvert human survival, social cooperation, and happiness. By a simi-
lar process of evolution, which in some cultures involves the accretion of
precedents set in court decisions, law has come to reinforce the observance
and penalize the violation of ethical precepts in the relatively most clear-
cut cases. Ļis evolved law has been codified and modified by legislatures.
Ideally, these strands of law proscribe acts that are “wrong in themselves.”
Other strands establish acts that are “wrong because they are prohibited.”
Ideally, their purpose is to improve each person’s opportunities to pre-
dict other people’s actions and so to mesh his own actions with theirs.
Traffic laws are the standard example (driving on the left side of the road
is wrong not intrinsically but because the law prohibits it and because the
violation would now infringe the warranted expectations and the rights
of other people and endanger their lives). Technicalities of real-estate
and inheritance law also provide examples of law intended to improve
coordination.
Here, though, we are emphasizing the relation between law and
ethics. Why shouldn’t reinforcement be total, with the law prohibiting
and punishing absolutely all immoral behavior? Imagining such a state