Ep. 402 Against Heinlein: Peace, Not Violence, Settles Issues
Bob responds to a Heinlein quotation (from Starship Troopers) that claimed violence had settled more issues in history than any other factor. Bob relies on Mises and Jesus to argue the contrary.
Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
- Jeremy Kauffman’s tweet that prompted this episode.
- Bob on why the AI won’t wipe us out.
- The link for Monetary-Metals.com.
- Help support the Bob Murphy Show.
About the author, Robert
Christian and economist, Chief Economist at infineo, and Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute.
Whether violence has resolved more issues quantitatively than any other factor is beside the point. A better way to say it is that violence is the last argument of sovereigns. If the person one is in conflict with is dead, then the conflict is settled. This is not at all in conflict with libertarianism which says all people should be sovereign by being able to defend their rights. I do not understand why you did not address the matter of defensive violence. The quote itself refers to the need to defend life and freedom. I know you are a pacifist, but you have put that to the side for the sake of discussion before.
I do not mean to shill my ramblings, but please read what I have been writing at https://quineopele.substack.com/
I try to show a starting place for applying the principles and logic of libertarianism without repeating the platitudes people no longer find compelling. I also explain science-fiction ideas for exploring what would be the ultimate conclusion of evolving towards mutually beneficial interaction instead of violence.
violence solved most of my issues with my now estranged kids
Hi Bob,
Have you noticed that your argument — that violence is rarely the sole solution to conflict, and that negotiation is often a better tool — sounds very similar to Hoppe and Kinsella’s argumentation ethics?
Just as you argue that even violent individuals, through their actions, reveal that negotiation tends to maximize their utility (thus showing that violence alone is insufficient), argumentation ethics similarly holds that when A engages in argumentation (i.e., negotiation), A implicitly acknowledges B’s self-ownership — because, otherwise, A would simply resort to violence rather than debate.
In other words, the fact that human beings — except in cases of full-fledged slavery, slaughter, or genocide — do not resort to total violence proves both: (1) your thesis about negotiation prevailing over violence, and (2) that, *when engaging in argumentation*, people acknowledge the other’s self-ownership — unlike how they would treat a tree (which one chops down rather than debating).