Natural Rights, Human Rights, and Libertarianism

• Published date: 01 January 2015
• Author: Walter E. Block
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12086
• Date: 01 January 2015

Natural Rights, Human Rights,

and Libertarianism

By WALTER E. BLOCK*

ABSTRACT. The present article is devoted to developing a libertarian

understanding of whether natural rights may or may not underpin

human rights and, if so, how. Libertarianism is first defined in terms

of the nonaggression principle (NAP), in answer to the question

“What is the proper use of force?” This provides a basis for the

libertarian positions on property rights, taxation, and many other

issues, including human rights. Various philosophical rationales for

the NAP are explored, including utilitarianism, religion, and natural

rights. The basis of human rights is then examined. Every ethical

tradition supports the nonaggression principle, which makes it an

ideal candidate for the fundamental basis of human rights. Unfor-

tunately, other traditions expand upon human rights by adding

“positive” rights that ultimately violate the NAP. The conclusion

takes up the application of libertarian principles to three issues,

which could be viewed as human rights questions: discrimination,

abortion, and the “trolley problem.” The last one involves taking

one life to save many others.

***

What relationship do natural rights and human rights have with one

another?1And what would a libertarian analysis of this question

involve? In my attempt to wrestle with this challenge, I shall start off

by defining terms. First we consider libertarianism (section 1), then

natural rights (section 2), and third human rights (section 3). We

conclude in section 4 with a discussion of how libertarianism impacts

discrimination, the trolley problem, and abortion.

*The author is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of

Economics Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business, Loyola University, New Orleans.

Email: wblock@loyno.edu; Web: <http://www.walterblock.com/>

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 74, No. 1 (January, 2015).

DOI: 10.1111/ajes.12086

© 2015 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc.

1. Libertarianism

Libertarianism is a very narrow political philosophy. It is exceedingly

narrow, or “thin.” It asks but one question, and gives only one answer.

The rest of this viewpoint consists of implications of its basic premise,

and applications of it to real-world issues and problems. What is the

one question? It is: “What is the proper use of force?” That is, on what

occasions would it be justified for a person to use violence against

another or his legitimately owned property? And the one proper

response? It is this: it is justified only in retaliation against initiatory

aggression, or in response to it, or in defense against it.

Of course, property rights play an important role in the libertarian

philosophy. Without them, we could not determine whether initiatory

violence had occurred or not. For example, we see A removing a

television from B’s house. Is A a thief, and thus guilty of violating the

libertarian nonaggression principle (NAP)? It all depends upon who is

the rightful owner of this electronic device.

For the libertarian, justice in property titles is based on homestead-

ing. According to terms developed by John Locke, Murray Rothbard,

and Hans-Hermann Hoppe,2homesteading constitutes mixing our

labor with previously unowned goods or resources. We start with the

human person: we mix our labor with ourselves, in effect, so we are

self-owners. Thus, murder, rape, slavery, kidnapping, assault, and

battery are crimes against the person, and thus violate our ownership

over ourselves. We also homestead virgin territory, and thus come to

own it, too. We can further trace legitimate property titles to any

voluntary exchange, such as buying, selling, gambling, making gifts,

and bartering. As a result, theft, fraud, and so on are also incompatible

with our ownership of animals and inanimate objects we may own.

Libertarianism does not say anything to the effect: “Thou shall not

violate the NAP.” It only avers that if you do so, you have committed

an illicit act. This is important, and obviates objections against liber-

tarianism that have been launched against it in cases such as pushing

someone out of the way of an onrushing truck, or grabbing someone

about to jump off a bridge to his death. Both cases are NAP violations.

This philosophy does not mandate that people do not engage in such

acts. It only states that such acts are impermissible, and punishable

30 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

(if the victims or their heirs insist). These are “good” NAP violations,

in that they are intended to save lives, and the perpetrator of them is

obligated to pay a penalty for engaging in them. In stark contrast,

there are other well-intended actions, such as Social Security, the

welfare system, the minimum wage law, and other social policies that

some people think have good effects. The difference is that advocates

of these laws would not accept the notion that they are acting in an

illicit manner or that justice requires they be punished for such acts.

Another distinction is that punching someone in order to save him

from drowning is uncontroversial; no one opposes such acts. Those

legislative acts, in contrast, are highly controversial.

As stated so far, it is the rare person who would object to libertari-

anism. After all, this is the essence of a civilized order. Everyone may

do anything he wants to do, provided he does not threaten, or initiate,

violence against innocent people. The opposite is surely barbaric.

(Having mentioned “good” NAP violations above, we will assume

them away for the remainder of this article.) The average person

would not dream of raping his neighbor, stealing from anyone,

assaulting someone; for him, slavery and kidnapping are totally abhor-

rent, and murder of innocent people is, if anything, even worse. Such

violations of the nonaggression principle, apart from a small percent-

age of criminals who engage in them, are universally condemned, and

virtually all of us refrain from such despicable deeds.

Why, then, is not everyone a libertarian? Why did Ron Paul not

become president of the United States by an overwhelming majority?

Why is it that the Libertarian Party typically garners less than 5 percent

of the vote? One explanation is that this nonaggression principle,

while applied whole-heartedly to our friends, neighbors, relatives, to

anyone on a personal basis, is widely seen as not applicable to

government. When the state is involved, seemingly, all bets are off. No

decent person would even dream of stealing property from other

people in their capacity as individuals. Nor would he join them if a

group of his neighbors agreed to do so. This would be the tyranny of

the majority, and he would reject any such course of action with

alacrity and disgust. But, yet, let the government orchestrate the

identical plan, to tax Peter and give (some of) the proceeds to Paul,

not a peep to the contrary will be heard from our typical “decent”

Natural Rights, Human Rights, and Libertarianism 31