“Defend the indefensible”by the American economist Walter Blockis the book that the president Javier Milei He chose to give a gift to his ministers as a symbolic and doctrinal gesture of the ideological approach he wants to inculcate in his management. The decision was not a coincidence: it is one of them most provocative texts of classical libertarian thought.
First published in 1976The book ultimately became a central reference work for radical liberalism. His suggestion is deliberately uncomfortable: Analyze the economy through socially rejected activities and characterswith the aim of questioning the limits of state intervention and separating personal morality from economic and legal analysis.
What is the controversial book that Javier Milei gave to his ministers about?
This is Block’s central thesis all voluntary activities between adultsprovided this does not involve aggression against third parties, should not be banned by the stateeven if it is ethically questionable or socially unpopular. Under this logic, the author examines cases such as prostitution, drug trafficking, usury and extortion, which usually generate a consensus for their prohibition.
Throughout the text, Block uses basic tools of economic theory—supply and demand, incentives, pricing, and hidden costs—to argue this point Government regulations tend to exacerbate the problems they attempt to solve. According to his analysis The ban pushes these activities underground, increases risks, distorts prices and has unforeseen consequences..
The book that Javier Milei gave to his ministers
The conceptual axis of the book is Non-aggression principlea cornerstone of libertarianism that holds that no one has the right to use violence against another person or their property. In this framework, the author criticizes laws and regulations that, in his opinion, are based on moral judgments imposed by the state rather than on criteria of individual freedom or economic efficiency.
Mileis’ choice of this book has been interpreted in the political sphere as Direct message his own cabinet: the unreserved defense of freedom, even when it is inconvenient or unpopular; the reduction of the role of the state; and the primacy of the market over state paternalism.
Who is the author of the book and what do the most controversial chapters say?
Walter Block, American economist and leader of libertarian thought, was educated in a historical context marked by intense debates about the limits of the state and individual freedom. His work was read as a conscious attempt in both academic and political circles Separate moral judgment from economic analysis and legalitya limit that, according to the author, is often confused in public regulations.
To develop his thesis, Block analyzed a number of figures and activities that are on the edge of social acceptance: Prostitutes, drug traffickers, money lenders accused of being usurers, extortionists, slanderers and other actors which are usually almost unanimously condemned by the judiciary, the media and public opinion.
In the book’s prologue, the author makes clear the central goal of his proposal: to demonstrate this If an activity is voluntary and does not involve aggression towards third parties, it should not be sanctioned by the state. There he states that there is an essential difference between inciting violence and other behaviors that may be unpleasant or morally unpleasant but do not violate the rights of others. In this sense, he argues that only violent aggression justifies the coercive intervention of the state, while the other behaviors should remain outside the scope of legal punishment.
Throughout the book, Block goes through case after case designed to elicit instant rejection. One of the most controversial chapters is devoted to the economic and legal defense of the United States prostitution. The author points out that the activity continues despite pressure from regulations, religious groups and moral campaigns because there is real demand. For block, This fact shows that the ban does not eliminate the phenomenonbut rather pushes it underground, increasing risks, violence and insecurity for those participating in the exchange.
The same reasoning applies to the analysis of drug trafficking. Block devotes extensive passages to him Heroin dealeran extreme example chosen intentionally. There he argues that the ban not only harms buyers and sellers, but also has much broader side effects: increased crime, police corruption and worsening public order. In their view, much of the violence associated with drugs is due not to the use itself, but to the illegal framework that surrounds their marketing.
Another chapter focuses on the figure of Lenderhistorically associated with usury and abuse. Block reminds us that these actors have been the subject of persecution and social contempt since biblical times. However, it suggests that they serve a specific economic function: to provide credit where the formal financial system cannot reach. For the author, Banning or restricting this type of financing does not eliminate the need for credit, but rather limits the options available to the most vulnerable sectors.
The book also deals with the character blackmailerone of the most controversial examples. Block asks an uncomfortable question: If someone offers to keep quiet about a true fact in exchange for money, and no physical violence is involved, what justifies the state prohibiting the transaction? The aim of the proposal is not to morally justify the practice, but rather to question the legal basis for its criminalization.
Using the same logic, the author analyzes the workers who do not take part in strikes, the owners of precarious housing and the merchants who operate in marginal neighborhoods. Regarding the latter, he argues that, despite constant criticism, they play a positive economic role by guaranteeing access to goods and services in areas where costs and risks are higher. In their view, the continued existence of these merchants in adverse circumstances is more a sign of economic rationality than exploitation.
On the whole, “Defending the indefensible“ proposes an uncomfortable intellectual exercise: extending the principle of non-aggression to its ultimate consequence, forcing the reader to distinguish between what he considers immoral and what should be illegal. This conceptual radicalism explains why, even decades after its publication, the book remains one of the most discussed works of libertarian ideology and is today regaining central importance in Argentina’s political debate.
About The Author
