Book review- ,,Defending the Undefendable’’ by Walter Block ,,Defending the Undefendable” is a challenging book written by a liberal economist with strong ideas and the courage of violently analyzing the market and government interventions in the free market. It is a book that forces its reader to think and it should be read with an open mind because the topics and the arguments presented here are highly debatable. I consider that ,,Defending the Undefendable” is more than an economic analysis of the governments intervention in the free market . I think that it is a book that highlights society`s preconceptions and helps its readers to better understand the political influence in the market. The point of view offered in this book is the one of a liberal, who considers that it is illegitimate to engage in aggression against nonaggressors. Every chapter tackles a certain occupation or a typology that often have bad social reputations and strict laws against them. Block explains why in virtually every case, they actually benefit society and if we prohibit their activities, we do so at our own loss. In the first chapter, ,,Sexual”, prostitution is described as a voluntary trade between two consenting adults that benefit from one another. Following the same principle, all human relationships are trades, including friendship and marriage. Block presents prostitution in comparison with the traditional family. The man is responsible for the financial aspect and the wife is in charge of the household and pleasing her husband in every way. From this point of view, the prohibition of prostitution is not justified , as it should be seen as just one kind of interaction in which all human beings participate. Some consider that pimps use coercion and threats of violence to gather and keep prostitutes on their payrolls. And some are right, this being one of the reasons that this profession is illegal. The author explains that these ,,singular” cases can not define the entire field of activity. Thus, a pimp should be consider just a facilitator between the client and the prostitute. In the next subchapter about the discrimination of women, it is presented that only the state and not private discrimination violate the rights of women. When a private individual discriminates, he (or she) does so with his (or her) own resources, in his (or her) own name. But when the state discriminates, it does so with resources taken from its citizenry and in the name of all. In the private sector, business owners have the win-loss incentive and they try to reduce these type of cases in order not to lose employees or clients. Walter Block divides the discrimination of women into two categories: coercive and noncoercive. The most popular form of coercive assault against women is rape. In the majority of cases, this happens at night and on the streets, parks or even public institutions. In the public domain there is almost no incentive to deal with the problem. There is no one who automatically loses anything when a woman is pinched or otherwise harassed. The police, who should take care of this type of incidents, function without benefit of the automatic profit-and-loss incentive system. Their salaries which are paid for by taxation, are not related to performance. The point made when talking about noncoercive discrimination such as sexual assault is that this type of action can not legitimately be outlawed. The solution in this cases is a compensating differential, a higher income. But the increase in wages is not paid by the boss of a government or government-supported enterprise. It is paid by the taxpayer’s money and it is collected by coercion. The conclusion is that if taxes would be paid voluntary, than there would be a better reason for abstinence. I do not consider that this argument is totally invalid but I strongly believe that the core of this problem is education and a lot of flaws in the legal system. The chapter ,,Medical” presents multiple reasons against the prohibition of drugs. This subject has been debated over and over again by politicians, doctors or economists, all having a different opinion on the topic. In this book, it is said that the evils commonly blamed on heroin addiction are in reality the fault of the prohibition of drugs and not of the addiction itself. The access to heroin is restricted and dealers have to pay more in order to buy drugs and the price increases. Older adults with stable jobs can afford to maintain their addiction. The problem is that younger addicts need money to buy the drugs whenever they need a new dose. In the absence of cash, the addict must commit a crime whenever he needs a “fix,” and these times usually occur when his reactions are dulled by his drug deprivation. The non-addict criminal can select the most opportune time and place for a robbery. As a result, the criminal rate can increase. Another argument given by the author is that adults who chose to consume drugs are aware of the effect on their health. What I believe that this theory does not take into account is that teenagers often do not have the same power of distinction as adults do, especially under social pressure. Another argument against drug addiction is the claim that users become totally nonproductive and thus, as a group, lower the GNP (Gross National Product). But an increase in leisure for any reason will have the same effect (e.g. vacations). The most convincing argument given is that the danger of overdosing would be reduced. In countries where some drugs are legal, so are drug tests. Even if a person decides to consume these substances, he/she/they would have access to more information about what they consume. The next chapter revolves around the right of free speech. A first infringement of this right, in Block`s conception, is the prohibition of blackmail. He defines blackmail as an offer of trade, trading money for silence. He explains that the action of disposing a secret is not illegitimate and that is just a slight difference between gossip and blackmail. Legalization would undoubtedly result in an increase in blackmail. It is sometimes said that what diminishes crime is not the penalty attached to the crime but the certainty of being caught. Legalizing blackmail would thus allow anticrime units to take advantage of two basic crime fighting concepts : “divide and conquer,” and “lack of honor among thieves.” In other words, Block sais to increase the crime rate in order to diminish more ,, dangerous ” crimes. This argument is absurd and extremely violent, in my opinion. Better ways can be found to improve crime rates nowadays. Since this book was written, the world changed and so did society. The liberal economist attacks the government for the laws against libelers and slanderers. He thinks that, if the free public would have access to false information (phenomenon that happens in today`s society and it is actually a major problem of the ,,virtual era”) , people will learn how to filter the information. The sad truth is that, even with these laws, people still seem to have a problem with recognizing false information. Luckily, concepts like critical thinking and soft skills became a part of our vocabulary and teens tend to acquire this kind of skills in order to satisfy the new requirements of the market. It is claimed that advertising entices people, forcing them to buy products they would otherwise not buy. It preys on the fears and psychological weaknesses of people. Advertising attempts to persuade people , perhaps in ways some members of the community find immoral . Advertising, by giving a comparative advantage to newcomers, encourages competition and the good functioning of the free market. In this spirit, legislation against motivational advertising it`s justified unless the publicity is not in accord with the community guidelines. The informational advertising made by the government is found problematic by Block. He argues that this kind of publicity is mandatory and is funded from people`s money, from taxes. In this chapter, ,,Outlaw”, Walter Block explains that because of the government control of taxi rates, cab drivers have no option of increasing the price for high- risk drives in dangerous ghettos where poor or black people live. As an effect, they have neither access to this service, nor the opportunity to poses a license because the number is limited and the cost is really high. This is how ,,gipsy” taxis appeared on the market, being nothing more that old cars transformed into cabs that tax less than licensed taxis. They spread outside the ghettos and a conflict began between licensed cabs and illegitimate ones that stole clients due the reduced fees. A solution to this problem would be a free market for taxis but some objections arised such as a decrease in supply caused by the idea that the market would not be as profitable and the unfairness to the drivers who invested a lot of money in their permits. In taking a closer look at the positive function fulfilled by the ticket scalper, it has been shown that when tickets are priced below the equilibrium level, there are more customers than tickets. Firstly, Block says that tickets scalpers benefit the middle class because their opportunity cost of staying in line compared to earning extra money is higher than someone`s who is richer. Secondly , this system can benefit the rich by ensuring them an easy way to purchase tickets even at a higher price that others can not afford. The degree to which we do not permit money to ration goods, the degree to which we do not allow the rich to obtain a greater share of the goods of society in proportion to their monetary spending, is the degree to which we allow the monetary system to deteriorate even if it might be unfair. Walter Block considers that the government itself counterfeited ,,real money” – gold and silverfor their own currency in order to take control over the market under the guise that the free market could not be trusted. The government enacted legislation against counterfeit so that their system would remain valuable and in control. In Block`s perception, our inflationary monetary system is suppressing and ill. If the counterfeit would be legalized the value of the money would fall and ,as a result, the government control over the market would diminish. He considers that nongovernmental counterfeit can not be considered fraud because the money are not passed as genuine compared to the government system. In the next subchapter, ,,The miser”, it is argued that similar to saving money or keeping value in high –interest assets such as investments ,hoarding is beneficial to our economy. Keeping money out of the business cycle lowers prices and Block explains that this action is not the cause of a depression. Far from being harmful to society, the miser is a benefactor, increasing our buying power each time he engages in hoarding. A government`s possible initiative in to promote a more equal distribution of money is described in this chapter as an 100% tax on inheritance. Block argues that if we consider the financial aspect of equality within society, we should also consider the non-financial one. I strongly agree with his idea and I consider that in a society will never be a perfect equality between people and this type of government intervention is just one step closer to an economic planned system that human history knows as a failure. A moneylender may be defined as someone who loans out his own money or the money of others. In the latter case his function is that of intermediary between the lender and borrower. The reason why moneylenders act illegal in the first place is the government prohibition of lending money at high interest rates, and violence or murder are rarely a reason. When a moneylender is forced to reduce interest rates in order to protect the poor, the effect is opposite because it makes it impossible for the poor to have access to this service. An incapacity to pay asks for a higher interest rate due to high-risk. Another example of the wrong interference of the government in the free-market is the negative effect behind government ,,charities”( unemployment subsidies or different compensations in order to help the ones less fortunate). Using the absurd argument of absolute income equality, the government aims to help ,but, the reality is that it is a suppressing measure used for masses manipulation and government control. Despite the extreme argument of these initiatives being against the natural selection law given by the author, I agree with this point of view. I do know the USA policies or tendencies but I know what has been happening with Romanian economy for the last 30 years . It became a real problem and more and more people are aware of this phenomenon. As I studied microeconomics this semester, I learnt that one situation in which the government intervention is needed is equality among the citizens. One relevant example is protecting the people with reduced income with different prohibitions and legislation against the increase of prices. In the case of the ghetto merchant who sells products on higher prices due to the higher risk, the government`s intervention to protect the poor would just make it impossible for some to have access to merchandise. By forcing the seller to not increase the prices over a given number ( price floor) , the result is that he does not make profit and closes the store. Society criticizes the so called ,,slumber housing “ because these landlords ask for high prices from people who can not afford it. Analyzing from an economic point of view, this type of landlords increase their prices because they can afford to do so. In more developed areas, landlords try to keep the rent low trying to prevent a shortage. But the intervention of the government with rent control causes the exact same outcome because the market price is no longer dictated by demand and supply. As a result, landlords have to lower their prices even more in order to rent their apartments or houses. When we talk about the ghettoes, the tenants of slums usually can not afford another alternative. The result is that tenants have fewer choices, and the choices they have are of low quality. If landlords cannot make as much profit in supplying housing to the poor as they can in other domains, they will leave the field. Another idea argued in this book is that imports may create unemployment. Clearly, such a view is absurd. Our civilization rests upon mutual support, cooperation, and trade between people. Trade lets each participant to specialize in what they do best, in what they have comparative advantage and, therefore, makes everyone better off. Another significant reason for rejecting the argument is that it fails to take exports into account, for every job lost in a domestic industry because of competition with imports, a job can be gained in an export industry. In the chapter ,,Ecology”, it is suggested that strip mining (the earth is stripped layer by layer) would be safer and healthier for the people working in this field and argued that is not bad for the environment, unlike popular opinion. Reading this chapter, I found that the points made by Walter Block are not convincing and not valid when talking about long-term sustainability. He describes that the mud resulting from strip mining is usually thrown in the water and better laws regarding trespassing would make the minors more accountable for their actions and reduce the pollution. Relying on human guilt and government prohibitions that can easily be ignored and hardly punishable does not imply that the damage made to the planet disappears by no means. The author also describes how the free-market has the power to adjust itself in order to be more eco-friendly as consumers perceptions and demands change over time, producers will follow. The necessary condition for this to happen is that it does not function in a ,,wasteful” way. Block considers that it is wasteful for people to be forced to buy low-quality products at standard prices. Cartels are a good example and their appearance and maintenance is strongly influenced by the government. By forcing legislation on the market entrance, competition is discouraged and an industry can be monopolized by a cartel with an agreement to lower the quality of production. In the chapter ,,Labor” , the most important subject that is debated is the minimum wage law, which is, on the face of it, not an employment law but an unemployment law. If the labor market consists of many suppliers (employees) and many demanders (employers), then the wage rate will tend to be set in accordance with the “marginal productivity of labor.” The marginal productivity of labor is the extra amount of receipts an employer would have if he employs a given worker. This government interference in the free-market aims to help the poor and reduce the rate of unemployment. When the minimum wage increases, unskilled workers are those who get paid more for the same productivity and the effect is the tendency of employers either to fire more unskilled workers, either to hire more skilled ones. The result is a surplus in the labor market because demand exceeds supply and the unemployment rate increases. In conclusion, ,,Defending the Undefendable” was a challenging lecture that provided me with information about the free-market and how the government participates in our economy . Reading the book, I found myself in a position where I was invited to think and analyze some concepts and ideas without the natural preconceptions that I had before.
