In his Ethics of Liberty, libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard makes short work of popularly employed “lifeboat situations.” Devising untenable situations to trip up ideologues is a common tactic of debaters (admittedly, I am prone to the same behavior from time to time). Rothbard will have none of it. He attacks far-fetched hypotheticals for tainting the search for an ethic exclusive to man. Ethical and moral theories should be logical and consistent. But that doesn’t mean emergency situations somehow prove the governing theory wrong. As Rothbard writes, “problems of a moral theory in such an extreme situation do not invalidate a theory for normal situations.”
Parsing out proper behavior among a myriad of options is necessary to envision how individuals should behave in a free society. Deference should be given to “normal” behavior, in normal situations specifically. This is the basis of examining and contemplating nature. As Rothbard puts it, ethics should pertain primarily to how “the way life usually is” or what is called “normal nature.” There will always be extreme circumstances that challenge any view. It’s healthy to devote some thinking to them, but it’s rare for unorthodox situations to disprove entire ethical theories.
In what could be considered another “lifeboat situation,” a homeless man in New York City was recently baked to death in a jail cell. Yes; when I write “bake” I mean it literally: he lost his life in an overheated prison cage. The autopsy isn’t in, but dehydration or heat stroke are the likely culprits for the death. The worst part about this tragedy is that it was all totally preventable.
Last February, Jerome Murdough was looking for a warm place to rest. He chose an enclosure under the stairwell of a public housing project in Harlem. This action constituted trespassing, and Murdough was carted off to jail by the police. To escalate matters, the former Marine was considered “mentally ill” by basic societal standards. He was on anti-psychotic and anti-seizure medication. His illness explains why he neglected to open the air vent in his cell where the heat proceeded to bake him to death. Cool air was cut off from his room, the effect of which proved deadly.
Does this sad situation somehow disprove the theory behind a free society? Did Murdough’s lack of suitable sleeping options somehow prove libertarian political philosophy wrong? Weren’t “property rights’ the prime cause of his death? It’s not hard to imagine progressives latching onto this situation and bashing libertarianism for cruel-heartedness.
Libertarianism is supposed to be the philosophy of “live and let live.” It should be asked: would it have been so bad to let Mr. Murdough be? He wasn’t hurting anyone. He was minding his own business, except for the part of stepping onto “public” property. He was clearly down on his luck.
Suppose the public property on which Mr. Murdough rested his head was private. Suppose that he was truly trespassing on property. And suppose there weren’t many other options in the area that shielded him from the elements.
Would the owner of the housing project be justified in tossing Murdough out on his behind? Of course; but that doesn’t necessary mean it would happen. There is always room for discretion in situations such as this. If the property owner is feeling generous, he could offer transient individuals a warm bed to sleep in. Or at least, he could let him sleep on the grounds for the night. Law already dictates that the decision is his; the rest is up to his conscience.
Libertarians are often criticized for a heartless disregard of the plight of the poor. It’s a nonsense accusation since libertarianism is a political philosophy that deals with the proper use of force in society. It says nothing about the dignity of the destitute other than don’t lay a finger on their property without permission. Being good to your fellow man is a moral rule that accompanies a peaceful political philosophy but doesn’t define it.
It’s interesting to think what the progressive solution for Mr. Murdough’s dilemma would be. I ask, because we already know the answer. The “public” property upon which he sought refuge was established for the public’s supposed use. Instead, when one member of the citizenry attempted to make use of it, albeit in an unorthodox manner, he was detained and shipped off to prison. In another government-owned and operated facility, Murdough was ensconced in an uninhabitable room that ultimately became his grave. He was killed on the public’s dime.
This is the definition of government’s attempt to fine-tune society. First, a housing project was constructed to provide suitable shelter for the less-fortunate. Second, when someone who, by all means, qualified as less-fortunate attempted to use the facility in a manner that barely disturbed its normal functions, he was kept out. Third, he was forcefully removed from the premises only to be housed in a literal deathtrap. And fourth, there is no doubt the government-badged brutes who escorted Murdough to his cage thought they were doing society a service.
This was government at its best; an untrampled violator of rights and liberty. In a free society, it’s unlikely that an unfit man lacking a home would be treated so callously. He wouldn’t have a silver platter full of warm food put before him, but he wouldn’t be left to die behind bars either.
Any situation can seem dire if you assume the worst of people. The state maintains legitimacy in the eyes of much of the public precisely because mankind is thought to be untrustworthy. That assumption is a blatant fallacy. If man can’t be trusted to keep his mitts to himself, the last thing he should get is the keys to a large, belligerent government.
If this was the government’s opportunity to prove its worth, chalk it up as a failure. A man lost his life for no justifiable reason. The thugs who picked him off the street will face no criminal charges. The operators of the prison cell that became his grave will see no justice. Jerome Murdough was the victim of paternalistic government; his being was stripped of the dignity it deserved.
In a libertarian society it is very well possible Murdough could have suffered the same fate. But it’s doubtful he would have succumbed to such a degrading practice. This was liberal democracy at work. If anything is unconvincing about this scenario, it should be the benevolence of government. Murdough asked for a lifeboat when he needed it most. He was given a death sentence. By all means, this was “the way life usually is” for government – not a society based on vivre et laisser vivre. If that isn’t proof positive enough of the state’s inherent deadliness, I don’t know what it is.