7. Natural Rights

Ludwig von Mises was the greatest economist of all time. But he never convinced me that it

is metaphysical nonsense to link together the “slippery” and vague notion of liberty and the unchangeable absolute laws of cosmic order. Thus the fundamental idea of liberalism [that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights] is unmasked as a fallacy. . . . There is no room left in the framework of an experimental observation of natural phenomena for such a concept of natural rights.¹²

Mises also wrote:

The Utilitarians do not combat arbitrary government and privileges because they are against natural law but because they are detrimental to prosperity. They recommend equality under the civil law not because men are equal but because such a policy is beneficial to the commonweal. In rejecting the illusory notions of natural law and human equality modern biology only repeated what the utilitarian champions of liberalism and democracy long before had taught in a much more persuasive way. It is obvious that no biological doctrine can invalidate what utilitarian philosophy says about the social utility of democratic government, private property, freedom and equality under the law.¹³

Though Mises states that the “idea of natural law is quite arbitrary,” I might suggest that so are the interpretations of utility. Inflation is very “useful” to those in power. Only a concept of natural rights can condemn the “perceived” utility of interventionism. In an effort to refute those who cautioned about policy consequences “in the long run,” Keynes relied upon utilitarianism by replying that “in the long run, we are all dead.” Every argument I have ever heard on the House floor is presented as utilitarian and—for the pressure groups represented—the proposals certainly are “utilitarian.” These arguments are never based on the moral principles of people’s natural right to run their own lives. Santa Claus wins the “utilitarian” argument until it’s too late to do anything about it.

The interventionist’s reliance on the appeal of Santa Claus, “utilitarianism,” and an ostensibly high-minded concern for the downtrodden can only be countered by a more truly utilitarian defense of the free market and the concept of natural rights—which allows the non-interventionists to take the true moral high ground. In the absence of a natural rights argument, a moral vacuum exists, into which the socialists rush, winning every time. They have won throughout the 20th century, while the concept of God-given rights has been almost obliterated. Austerity for the benefit of the next generation won’t get enough votes in a democratic political system. Combine it with a moral argument for natural rights, and the chances of success are greatly enhanced.

Mises’s rejection of natural rights allowed him to be “utilitarian” on the conscription issue:

The essential task of government is defense of the social system not only against domestic gangsters but also against external foes. He who in our age opposes armaments and conscription is, perhaps unbeknown to himself, an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all.¹⁴

Conscription challenges the idea of the truly free society. But ironically, an in-depth study of the draft reveals that it is not practical or efficient but eminently dangerous. The utilitarian argument for conscription is an “arbitrary” argument. A natural rights philosophy is not arbitrary on the issue of the draft, which is especially dangerous in an age when economic interventionism has set the stage for war. Conscription under these conditions provides the actors.

Yes, interventionism leads to militant nationalism and economic isolationism. The wars that usually follow foolish economic policy depend on a fiat monetary system for financing and on conscription for the participants. A truly defensive war by a free society must be fought with volunteers. Only by combining a free-market economy based on a natural rights philosophy can we expect to minimize the likelihood of war.