Take a photo of a barcode or cover
bollu's review against another edition
3.0
Hardly the undefendable. It collects sensible rebuttals that defend the sometimes maligned classes such as academics, landlords, and so forth.
skylarh's review against another edition
2.0
I’ve heard all of the economic arguments made in this book before, and I have in fact heard even better ones. The only thing new is the author’s sensationalist approach to the topics. I have often said that I “lean libertarian,” but this book reminded me of why I don’t fall over. It certainly didn’t lean me farther over into the libertarian camp, and, if anything, it straightened me up a little.
While I can buy many of the economic and political arguments made in this book, I cannot buy most of the moral ones. The author seems not to recognize that one can, with good reason and justification, find an act morally reprehensible and worthy of verbal condemnation without, at the same time, insisting it be illegal. Instead of merely defending the right to engage in certain behaviors, or showing how the benefits of allowing them outweigh the harms of prohibiting them, the author tries to argue that the harm doesn’t exist, or at least not to anyone but the individual, who has a right to harm himself. But this is absurd, this idea that any man is an island, and that what he does with regard to drugs or prostitution or gambling or the like affect no one in the world but him. Had the author kept his arguments in the political and economic realm, and not gone about calling drug dealers and pimps "heroes," or saying “the institution of child labor is an honorable one, with a long and glorious history of good works,” I might have been more inclined to be persuaded. You may tell me that it is better that the poor child in India be legally free to work for a few cents an hour in a factory than that she suffer the alternatives of starvation or prostitution that would likely result from a prohibition of child labor, but please do not feed me this nonsense. You may tell me that crime and societal costs, in the overall, will be reduced by the legalization of drugs, but please do not tell me the addict harms no one but himself or that addiction does no real damage.
The author’s arguments often leave many questions and objections unanswered and have holes one could step through. When arguing against the prohibition on child labor, for instance, he refers to Murray N. Rothbard’s homesteading theory to establish that child labor is in fact voluntary, but he completely fails to address the fact that this picture does not reflect the majority of cases of child labor, that child laborers are not in fact leaving home and becoming able to support themselves but are instead remaining at home and kicking back a share of their income to their parents. What of these (majority) cases? Part of his argument for child labor also inolves an argument against the existence of parental responsibility, and this argument in turn hinges on an obscure point involving rape and consent to conceive that is completely overturned by the current easy and legal availabilty of abortion, which makes any birth a choice. His arguments regarding slander, libel, and many other issues are equally thin in places. It's as if he builds his arguments with precariously stacked Jenga blocks - remove one and the whole structure will topple.
This book reminds me of how truly lost in the realm of pure ideology the libertarian is. This is what divides the pure libertarian and the libertarian-leaning conservative, I suppose: the libertarian thinks you can take a single idea, make it your standard, and everywhere apply it with merciless consistency and thereby achieve objectively good results. In the libertarian’s case, the standard is (and Walter Block encapsulates this in this book) that the ONLY wrong is the initiation of violence against person or property, and the initiation of violence against person or property is ALWAYS wrong. That’s it. Libertarianism in a nutshell. Now apply that one thought to every human, moral, political, and economic interaction. It’s a single mindedness and consistency that is at once impressive and a little frightening. Just do this one thing, ever and always, and all shall be well and all manner of things shall be well. Yet this ideology, pure and consistent though it may be, does not comport with reality as conservatives (or liberals for that matter, but I talk of conservatives here) know it. Reality, as conservatives know it, involves constant trade-offs. And these trade-offs are not between that which is “good” (as all the “undefendable” actions in this book are defended as being) and that which is “bad,” but rather between that which is “bad” and that which is “worse.” You may perhaps convince the conservative that by prohibiting the “undefendable,” he is making matters worse, but do not try to convince him that the undefendable is, in and of itself, a good. I think the same thing may be said of the liberal, but I am not sure, because the liberal perspective does not so much involve this bad/worse trade-off view of the world. Still, I think you’d have a better chance convincing the liberal, for instance, that profiteering is “better” than the alternative than convincing him that profiteering is “good.”
While I can buy many of the economic and political arguments made in this book, I cannot buy most of the moral ones. The author seems not to recognize that one can, with good reason and justification, find an act morally reprehensible and worthy of verbal condemnation without, at the same time, insisting it be illegal. Instead of merely defending the right to engage in certain behaviors, or showing how the benefits of allowing them outweigh the harms of prohibiting them, the author tries to argue that the harm doesn’t exist, or at least not to anyone but the individual, who has a right to harm himself. But this is absurd, this idea that any man is an island, and that what he does with regard to drugs or prostitution or gambling or the like affect no one in the world but him. Had the author kept his arguments in the political and economic realm, and not gone about calling drug dealers and pimps "heroes," or saying “the institution of child labor is an honorable one, with a long and glorious history of good works,” I might have been more inclined to be persuaded. You may tell me that it is better that the poor child in India be legally free to work for a few cents an hour in a factory than that she suffer the alternatives of starvation or prostitution that would likely result from a prohibition of child labor, but please do not feed me this nonsense. You may tell me that crime and societal costs, in the overall, will be reduced by the legalization of drugs, but please do not tell me the addict harms no one but himself or that addiction does no real damage.
The author’s arguments often leave many questions and objections unanswered and have holes one could step through. When arguing against the prohibition on child labor, for instance, he refers to Murray N. Rothbard’s homesteading theory to establish that child labor is in fact voluntary, but he completely fails to address the fact that this picture does not reflect the majority of cases of child labor, that child laborers are not in fact leaving home and becoming able to support themselves but are instead remaining at home and kicking back a share of their income to their parents. What of these (majority) cases? Part of his argument for child labor also inolves an argument against the existence of parental responsibility, and this argument in turn hinges on an obscure point involving rape and consent to conceive that is completely overturned by the current easy and legal availabilty of abortion, which makes any birth a choice. His arguments regarding slander, libel, and many other issues are equally thin in places. It's as if he builds his arguments with precariously stacked Jenga blocks - remove one and the whole structure will topple.
This book reminds me of how truly lost in the realm of pure ideology the libertarian is. This is what divides the pure libertarian and the libertarian-leaning conservative, I suppose: the libertarian thinks you can take a single idea, make it your standard, and everywhere apply it with merciless consistency and thereby achieve objectively good results. In the libertarian’s case, the standard is (and Walter Block encapsulates this in this book) that the ONLY wrong is the initiation of violence against person or property, and the initiation of violence against person or property is ALWAYS wrong. That’s it. Libertarianism in a nutshell. Now apply that one thought to every human, moral, political, and economic interaction. It’s a single mindedness and consistency that is at once impressive and a little frightening. Just do this one thing, ever and always, and all shall be well and all manner of things shall be well. Yet this ideology, pure and consistent though it may be, does not comport with reality as conservatives (or liberals for that matter, but I talk of conservatives here) know it. Reality, as conservatives know it, involves constant trade-offs. And these trade-offs are not between that which is “good” (as all the “undefendable” actions in this book are defended as being) and that which is “bad,” but rather between that which is “bad” and that which is “worse.” You may perhaps convince the conservative that by prohibiting the “undefendable,” he is making matters worse, but do not try to convince him that the undefendable is, in and of itself, a good. I think the same thing may be said of the liberal, but I am not sure, because the liberal perspective does not so much involve this bad/worse trade-off view of the world. Still, I think you’d have a better chance convincing the liberal, for instance, that profiteering is “better” than the alternative than convincing him that profiteering is “good.”
longanlon's review against another edition
3.0
Сводник, проститутка, клеветник, лихвар, спекулант – все презрени от обществото, и в много случаи незаконни професии, обект на непрестанно заклеймяване от страна на медии, политици, общественици. Приликата между тях? Те не вредят на никого, а дори напротив – помагат на обществото…
Човешките права произхождат от английското обичайно право (common law) и най-просто могат да се сведат до това, че човек сам притежава себе си, собственото си тяло и мисъл, както и плодовете на своя труд, и е свободен в действията си докато не вреди на други хора. Тези индивидуални човешки права са основа на съвременното право и законност.
Тази концепция обаче бавно и трудно си е пробивала път през вековете на кралска, религиозна, комунистическа, фашистка и всякаква друга тирания, под която е живяло човечеството – дотолкова трудно, че дори сега не е напълно изчистена нито в законодателството, нито в разбиранията на хората. Пример за това са споменатите от Уолтър Блок хора и професии в книгата му „Defending the Undefendable: The pimp, prostitute, scab, slumlord, libeler, moneylender and other scapegoats in the rogue’s gallery of American society„. За много хора може да изглежда парадоксално, но всъщност никоя от споменатите в книгата низвергнати професии не е нито вредна, нито неморална.
Сексът е легален, търговията е легална… защо търговията със секс (при условие че й продавачът и купувачът са съгласни възрастни) да е противозаконна? На какво основание? Проститутката има право да разполага със собственото си тяло както намери за добре и ако е решила да го дава под наем на някой… това си е само нейна работа по същия начин, по който аз давам под наем мозъка и пръстите на ръцете си по 8 часа на ден и получавам заплата за това
Спекулантът? Какво изобщо означава понятието „спекула“, което тъпоглавият ни земеделски министър размахва последните седмици? Да купуваш евтино и да продаваш скъпо? Че тогава всеки търговец е „спекулант“… Понятието „спекула“ няма никакъв научен икономически смисъл – то е само популистки и заблуждаващ термин, използван от хора които нямат понятие от това какво е цена и как тя се образува (а именно – от доброволното споразумение между продавач и купувач чрез акта на покупката).
Лихвар? Човек който дава пари на заем срещу лихва на който иска да вземе? И после иска да му се върнат? Какво коварство от негова страна, как не го е срам… Такова е и положението с множеството други професии описани в книгата – ненавиждани, но съвсем естествно продължение на основното човешко право да разполагаш със собственото си тяло и собствеността си както намериш за добре, да ги продаваш на когото пожелаеш на каквато цена двамата се съгласите.
За съжаление, авторът е можел и по-добре да се справи със задачата да обясни защо тия професии не са вредни и неморални. Аргументите му на места издишат, а е пропуснал много важни и необорими. Свободата, която е основата на самопритежанието и човешките права, не присъства никъде… Все пак, книгата дава интересен поглед върху идейните възгледи през 70-те години – когато левите идеи властват дотолкова, че ще предизвикат осемдесетарския политически backlash и възраждането на дясното, олицетворено от Рейгън и Тачър.
Човешките права произхождат от английското обичайно право (common law) и най-просто могат да се сведат до това, че човек сам притежава себе си, собственото си тяло и мисъл, както и плодовете на своя труд, и е свободен в действията си докато не вреди на други хора. Тези индивидуални човешки права са основа на съвременното право и законност.
Тази концепция обаче бавно и трудно си е пробивала път през вековете на кралска, религиозна, комунистическа, фашистка и всякаква друга тирания, под която е живяло човечеството – дотолкова трудно, че дори сега не е напълно изчистена нито в законодателството, нито в разбиранията на хората. Пример за това са споменатите от Уолтър Блок хора и професии в книгата му „Defending the Undefendable: The pimp, prostitute, scab, slumlord, libeler, moneylender and other scapegoats in the rogue’s gallery of American society„. За много хора може да изглежда парадоксално, но всъщност никоя от споменатите в книгата низвергнати професии не е нито вредна, нито неморална.
Сексът е легален, търговията е легална… защо търговията със секс (при условие че й продавачът и купувачът са съгласни възрастни) да е противозаконна? На какво основание? Проститутката има право да разполага със собственото си тяло както намери за добре и ако е решила да го дава под наем на някой… това си е само нейна работа по същия начин, по който аз давам под наем мозъка и пръстите на ръцете си по 8 часа на ден и получавам заплата за това
Спекулантът? Какво изобщо означава понятието „спекула“, което тъпоглавият ни земеделски министър размахва последните седмици? Да купуваш евтино и да продаваш скъпо? Че тогава всеки търговец е „спекулант“… Понятието „спекула“ няма никакъв научен икономически смисъл – то е само популистки и заблуждаващ термин, използван от хора които нямат понятие от това какво е цена и как тя се образува (а именно – от доброволното споразумение между продавач и купувач чрез акта на покупката).
Лихвар? Човек който дава пари на заем срещу лихва на който иска да вземе? И после иска да му се върнат? Какво коварство от негова страна, как не го е срам… Такова е и положението с множеството други професии описани в книгата – ненавиждани, но съвсем естествно продължение на основното човешко право да разполагаш със собственото си тяло и собствеността си както намериш за добре, да ги продаваш на когото пожелаеш на каквато цена двамата се съгласите.
За съжаление, авторът е можел и по-добре да се справи със задачата да обясни защо тия професии не са вредни и неморални. Аргументите му на места издишат, а е пропуснал много важни и необорими. Свободата, която е основата на самопритежанието и човешките права, не присъства никъде… Все пак, книгата дава интересен поглед върху идейните възгледи през 70-те години – когато левите идеи властват дотолкова, че ще предизвикат осемдесетарския политически backlash и възраждането на дясното, олицетворено от Рейгън и Тачър.
rotorguy64's review against another edition
3.0
In Defending the Undefendable, Walter Block takes on the laudable task of defending libertarianism from moral panic and sentimentalism. Arguments like: Without the state, who will kick prostitutes off the streets? What about loan sharks or evil landlords? That kind of thing. Blocks counter-argumentation in this book, as per the title, is to show the good sides of things like loan sharking and blackmail. Sometimes, he's very compelling, as when he says that the reason why loan sharks demand such high interest rates is because they give loans to high-risk clients. Always, his perspectives are at least worth taking in, whether you ultimately find them convincing or not. The very least he does is stop people in their tracks who want to condemn business practices on a moral whim.
That said, I don't always find him convincing, and I don't agree with all his conclusions. His argument for blackmail, namely that it is better than gossipping in that it gives the prospective victim the choice to prevent the embarassing truth from spreading, does not hold if you look at the finality of both actions. Say you blackmail someone with the fact of him having a homosexual affair. What this usually demonstrates is that you are willing to harm a homosexual with outing him, but that you don't believe homosexuals ought to be outed. There is a clear normative contradiction in this, and actions that you cannot take without entering a normative contradiction cannot be morally right. Whether these should be prohibited is another question, but at the very least it means libertarians should portray them as an evil to be tolerated, not a morally positive action.
It is the same with prostitution, drug dealing, and other such evils. People are repulsed by them for a reason. That we cannot prohibit these things effectively does not mean we should defend them. I think most libertarians these days know this. Conceeding that libertarianism won't solve every ill there is in society will make it less attractive if you're in the habit of comparing political blueprints, but not when you have grown to accept the facts that people are imperfect, that the world is imperfect, and that we have no other choice but to tolerate this state of affairs. Knowing that I won't be forced to subsidize or engage in immorality is enough to make libertarianism attractive to me.
This book, then, is definitely worth picking up, but it should neither be your first nor your last step on your libertarian journey.
That said, I don't always find him convincing, and I don't agree with all his conclusions. His argument for blackmail, namely that it is better than gossipping in that it gives the prospective victim the choice to prevent the embarassing truth from spreading, does not hold if you look at the finality of both actions. Say you blackmail someone with the fact of him having a homosexual affair. What this usually demonstrates is that you are willing to harm a homosexual with outing him, but that you don't believe homosexuals ought to be outed. There is a clear normative contradiction in this, and actions that you cannot take without entering a normative contradiction cannot be morally right. Whether these should be prohibited is another question, but at the very least it means libertarians should portray them as an evil to be tolerated, not a morally positive action.
It is the same with prostitution, drug dealing, and other such evils. People are repulsed by them for a reason. That we cannot prohibit these things effectively does not mean we should defend them. I think most libertarians these days know this. Conceeding that libertarianism won't solve every ill there is in society will make it less attractive if you're in the habit of comparing political blueprints, but not when you have grown to accept the facts that people are imperfect, that the world is imperfect, and that we have no other choice but to tolerate this state of affairs. Knowing that I won't be forced to subsidize or engage in immorality is enough to make libertarianism attractive to me.
This book, then, is definitely worth picking up, but it should neither be your first nor your last step on your libertarian journey.
citlaly's review against another edition
4.0
Me gusto.
Existieron muchos casos en donde yo no tenía idea de que eran personas "indefendibles", y otros donde si que lo sabia pero no entendía del todo el porque.
Creo que estuve de acuerdo en absolutamente todo, a excepción del Cerdo Machista, tenían sentido sus puntos, pero ese no era el título correcto, quizás si lo hubiese mencionado como "El tipo que no apoya el salario igualitario" lo hubiese aceptado, pero la manera en que lo presento no estuvo bien además de que se salió por la tangente, a mi parecer.
Sobre el resto no tengo ningún pero, muchas de sus posturas yo ya las tenía así que no fue un "boom" a mi realidad, pero aún así me agrado leerlo.
Aunque es obvio que esos capitulos que eran más datos sobre economía que sobre la defensa de esas personas, no eran del todo agradables por lo tedioso pero si que enriquecieron un poco mis conocimientos (quiero pensar que si).
¿Me gusto? Si ¿Lo volvería a leer? No ¿Lo recomendaría? Claro que sí.
Existieron muchos casos en donde yo no tenía idea de que eran personas "indefendibles", y otros donde si que lo sabia pero no entendía del todo el porque.
Creo que estuve de acuerdo en absolutamente todo, a excepción del Cerdo Machista, tenían sentido sus puntos, pero ese no era el título correcto, quizás si lo hubiese mencionado como "El tipo que no apoya el salario igualitario" lo hubiese aceptado, pero la manera en que lo presento no estuvo bien además de que se salió por la tangente, a mi parecer.
Sobre el resto no tengo ningún pero, muchas de sus posturas yo ya las tenía así que no fue un "boom" a mi realidad, pero aún así me agrado leerlo.
Aunque es obvio que esos capitulos que eran más datos sobre economía que sobre la defensa de esas personas, no eran del todo agradables por lo tedioso pero si que enriquecieron un poco mis conocimientos (quiero pensar que si).
¿Me gusto? Si ¿Lo volvería a leer? No ¿Lo recomendaría? Claro que sí.