PAF
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 13,559
by Jacob G. Hornberger
September 19, 2025
Noted libertarian Austrian economist Walter Block, who is one of the most ardent supporters of the Israeli government and its military operations in Gaza, recently challenged me to a debate on libertarianism and Israel. I accepted his debate challenge.
The debate was held online this past Wednesday, September 17. It was hosted by noted libertarian Tom Woods, who served as the debate moderator. The debate was one hour long. It was recorded and will be posted on September 24 on Tom’s popular podcast The Tom Woods Show. We will also be linking to the debate in our FFF Daily.
The following is a non-verbatim transcript of my Opening Statement in the debate:
Walter, it will be my contention in this debate that your repugnant policies with respect to the Israeli government have greatly damaged the brands of principled libertarianism and Austrian economics and that you are 100 percent responsible for the social ostracism that you are now experiencing in both of these movements.
As you know, for many years now you have been describing yourself as an “anarcho-capitalist.” You have appeared at numerous conferences telling audiences, including impressionable young libertarians, that anarchy and capitalism are the solutions to the woes of the world.
To be sure, you want to abolish the entire U.S. government — the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the presidency. You also want to abolish all state and local governments. You want anarchy all across America. Indeed, you want anarchy in every country all over the world.
With one exception: the Israeli government, which you claim has a “right to exist.”
But you are wrong. The Israeli government does not have a “right to exist.” That’s because governments don’t have rights. Only individuals have rights.
Moreover, as Jefferson suggested in the Declaration of Independence, whenever any government becomes tyrannical — destructive of liberty — it is the right and even duty of people to alter or even abolish that government.
It is indisputable that the Israeli government is a tyrannical regime. For example, it has conscription. Imagine: It forces young people against their will to serve the Israeli state by killing people in Gaza on orders. It’s hard to imagine anything more tyrannical than that.
As a libertarian, you favor the fundamental right of freedom of speech. Yet, you defend a regime that puts people into jail for five years for denying the Holocaust. How do you reconcile such a policy with libertarian principles?
Moreover, Israel is a national-security state, which means it is an omnipotent government — one that wields omnipotent powers, such as the power of assassination, which, as you know, it exercises widely. Imagine: Snuffing out a person’s life without any semblance of due process of law and trial by jury. It’s ironic that you are an Austrian economist because Ludwig von Mises wrote a book entitled Omnipotent Government, which condemned omnipotent government. Yet, here you are defending omnipotent government.
You say that you favor free markets and you quote Milton Friedman and Mises. Yet the Israeli government that you defend is riddled with socialism. A socialist retirement program, a fully socialized healthcare system, and a socialized educational system — one that has its own system of conscription with mandatory-attendance laws, which ensure that Israeli children receive indoctrination from the state to ensure that they accept whatever the state tells them. A government-owned transport system. A government-owned arms industry. Indeed, the Israeli government, either directly or indirectly, owns or controls 93 percent of the land in Israel. How do you reconcile that with your commitment to a private-property order and a free-market economic system?
You have long called yourself an “open-borders” libertarian. You condemn the domestic highway checkpoints in the American Southwest. You condemn the immigration police state along the U.S.-Mexico border. You condemn President Trump’s Berlin Wall. And all rightly so.
But what about all those obstructions that the Israeli government has placed on roads in Gaza, which require people to spend seven hours to make what is ordinarily a one-hour trip. Why don’t you condemn those obstructions for violating your principle of open borders? What about those Israeli ships that prevent people from bringing food, water, and supplies by boat to the people of Gaza? Aren’t those border controls as well?
Indeed, why do you never call for the right of the people in Gaza and the West Bank to freely cross the Israeli border and buy housing or start a business inside Israel? Isn’t that what the genuine concept of open borders is all about?
Of course, starting a business would be problematic given that the Israeli government discriminates in favor of Jews in the granting of licenses, permits, and other such things. How do you reconcile the Israeli state’s discrimination on the basis of religion with the principles of a civilized government? Doesn’t justice necessarily entail equal treatment under the law for all?
You maintain that you are “anti-genocide.” But in fact you are being disingenuous because if we carefully analyze your policy, it is easy to see that the logical outcome is the extermination of every single Palestinian in Gaza. You say that since Hamas fighters ensconce themselves within the civilian population, it is entirely moral and legal for Israeli soldiers to kill innocent civilians in the process of trying to kill a Hamas fighter who is ensconced within them. Under your warped concept of “self defense,” you say that the Israeli soldiers who fire the bullets or drop the bombs that kill all those innocent people are not really responsible for the deaths of the people they are killing. You say that it is the Hamas fighters who are responsible for those killings. I’ve seen you demonstrate this point in podcasts, where you hold two little figurines in front of your chest and say that that’s what the Hamas fighters do when they ensconce themselves within the civilian population. Therefore, you say, it is perfectly acceptable for Israeli soldiers to kill those little figurines in the process of firing bullets at the Hamas fighter.
But notice the natural consequence of your policy. In order to kill every Hamas fighter, which is what you want done, you necessarily have to kill everyone because the Hamas fighters are ensconced within the civilian population. Once they’ve killed, say, 2 million Palestinians and almost all of the Hamas fighters, we can imagine Israeli military officials coming to you and saying, “Walter, we’ve killed them all except for 100 people within whom there is one Hamas fighter ensconced. Can we let them live? Since you have criticized the Israeli government for “pussyfooting” (your term), notwithstanding the fact that it has killed somewhere around 60,000 – 70,000 Palestinians, there is no doubt what your response would be: “Stop pussyfooting around. You’ve got to kill that last Hamas soldier. You will not be morally or legally responsible for the people you kill. Kill them all!”
With one exception: If those 100 people were Jews, I guarantee that you would sing a different tune.
And where do those Israeli soldiers get the weapons to carry out their massive killing campaign in Gaza? Well, of course they get their weaponry from the U.S. government. When you wrote your op-ed that was published in the Wall Street Journal about the need to support Israel, you could have included one single sentence stating, “As an American libertarian, I want to make it clear that I oppose all U.S. governmental aid to Israel. That should be immediately terminated.” You didn’t do that. Instead, you wrote that the West should continue providing aid to Israel.
Yet, as an American libertarian, you know full well that the money to purchase that weaponry is coming from the income of Americans that has been seized by the IRS as part of America’s income-tax system, which is one of the most tyrannical and anti-libertarian parts of America’s governmental structure. As an American libertarian, you should be screaming to the rooftops about the evil and immorality of the income tax and the IRS and the evil and immorality of forcing people to fund a foreign regime and a foreign killing operation to which they might object.
At the outset of the Israeli killing campaign in Gaza, if you had said to libertarians, “Look, I fully understand that my policies toward the Israeli government violate libertarian principles and Austrian economics principles, but since I’m Jewish, I want to be loyal to the Israeli government,” I think many libertarians would have been more accepting, tolerant, and forgiving. But for you to misrepresent to people that your policies with respect to Israel are consistent with libertarian principles is absolutely repugnant and has, I believe, caused immeasurable damage to the brand of principled libertarianism as well as the brand of Austrian economics. I think you would be wise to take a good hard look at yourself in the mirror and engage in some serious soul-searching, in which case I believe that you will begin to understand why you are experiencing social ostracism within both the libertarian and Austrian economics movements.
September 19, 2025
Noted libertarian Austrian economist Walter Block, who is one of the most ardent supporters of the Israeli government and its military operations in Gaza, recently challenged me to a debate on libertarianism and Israel. I accepted his debate challenge.
The debate was held online this past Wednesday, September 17. It was hosted by noted libertarian Tom Woods, who served as the debate moderator. The debate was one hour long. It was recorded and will be posted on September 24 on Tom’s popular podcast The Tom Woods Show. We will also be linking to the debate in our FFF Daily.
The following is a non-verbatim transcript of my Opening Statement in the debate:
Debate Opening Statement
by Jacob Hornberger
Walter, it will be my contention in this debate that your repugnant policies with respect to the Israeli government have greatly damaged the brands of principled libertarianism and Austrian economics and that you are 100 percent responsible for the social ostracism that you are now experiencing in both of these movements.
As you know, for many years now you have been describing yourself as an “anarcho-capitalist.” You have appeared at numerous conferences telling audiences, including impressionable young libertarians, that anarchy and capitalism are the solutions to the woes of the world.
To be sure, you want to abolish the entire U.S. government — the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the presidency. You also want to abolish all state and local governments. You want anarchy all across America. Indeed, you want anarchy in every country all over the world.
With one exception: the Israeli government, which you claim has a “right to exist.”
But you are wrong. The Israeli government does not have a “right to exist.” That’s because governments don’t have rights. Only individuals have rights.
Moreover, as Jefferson suggested in the Declaration of Independence, whenever any government becomes tyrannical — destructive of liberty — it is the right and even duty of people to alter or even abolish that government.
It is indisputable that the Israeli government is a tyrannical regime. For example, it has conscription. Imagine: It forces young people against their will to serve the Israeli state by killing people in Gaza on orders. It’s hard to imagine anything more tyrannical than that.
As a libertarian, you favor the fundamental right of freedom of speech. Yet, you defend a regime that puts people into jail for five years for denying the Holocaust. How do you reconcile such a policy with libertarian principles?
Moreover, Israel is a national-security state, which means it is an omnipotent government — one that wields omnipotent powers, such as the power of assassination, which, as you know, it exercises widely. Imagine: Snuffing out a person’s life without any semblance of due process of law and trial by jury. It’s ironic that you are an Austrian economist because Ludwig von Mises wrote a book entitled Omnipotent Government, which condemned omnipotent government. Yet, here you are defending omnipotent government.
You say that you favor free markets and you quote Milton Friedman and Mises. Yet the Israeli government that you defend is riddled with socialism. A socialist retirement program, a fully socialized healthcare system, and a socialized educational system — one that has its own system of conscription with mandatory-attendance laws, which ensure that Israeli children receive indoctrination from the state to ensure that they accept whatever the state tells them. A government-owned transport system. A government-owned arms industry. Indeed, the Israeli government, either directly or indirectly, owns or controls 93 percent of the land in Israel. How do you reconcile that with your commitment to a private-property order and a free-market economic system?
You have long called yourself an “open-borders” libertarian. You condemn the domestic highway checkpoints in the American Southwest. You condemn the immigration police state along the U.S.-Mexico border. You condemn President Trump’s Berlin Wall. And all rightly so.
But what about all those obstructions that the Israeli government has placed on roads in Gaza, which require people to spend seven hours to make what is ordinarily a one-hour trip. Why don’t you condemn those obstructions for violating your principle of open borders? What about those Israeli ships that prevent people from bringing food, water, and supplies by boat to the people of Gaza? Aren’t those border controls as well?
Indeed, why do you never call for the right of the people in Gaza and the West Bank to freely cross the Israeli border and buy housing or start a business inside Israel? Isn’t that what the genuine concept of open borders is all about?
Of course, starting a business would be problematic given that the Israeli government discriminates in favor of Jews in the granting of licenses, permits, and other such things. How do you reconcile the Israeli state’s discrimination on the basis of religion with the principles of a civilized government? Doesn’t justice necessarily entail equal treatment under the law for all?
You maintain that you are “anti-genocide.” But in fact you are being disingenuous because if we carefully analyze your policy, it is easy to see that the logical outcome is the extermination of every single Palestinian in Gaza. You say that since Hamas fighters ensconce themselves within the civilian population, it is entirely moral and legal for Israeli soldiers to kill innocent civilians in the process of trying to kill a Hamas fighter who is ensconced within them. Under your warped concept of “self defense,” you say that the Israeli soldiers who fire the bullets or drop the bombs that kill all those innocent people are not really responsible for the deaths of the people they are killing. You say that it is the Hamas fighters who are responsible for those killings. I’ve seen you demonstrate this point in podcasts, where you hold two little figurines in front of your chest and say that that’s what the Hamas fighters do when they ensconce themselves within the civilian population. Therefore, you say, it is perfectly acceptable for Israeli soldiers to kill those little figurines in the process of firing bullets at the Hamas fighter.
But notice the natural consequence of your policy. In order to kill every Hamas fighter, which is what you want done, you necessarily have to kill everyone because the Hamas fighters are ensconced within the civilian population. Once they’ve killed, say, 2 million Palestinians and almost all of the Hamas fighters, we can imagine Israeli military officials coming to you and saying, “Walter, we’ve killed them all except for 100 people within whom there is one Hamas fighter ensconced. Can we let them live? Since you have criticized the Israeli government for “pussyfooting” (your term), notwithstanding the fact that it has killed somewhere around 60,000 – 70,000 Palestinians, there is no doubt what your response would be: “Stop pussyfooting around. You’ve got to kill that last Hamas soldier. You will not be morally or legally responsible for the people you kill. Kill them all!”
With one exception: If those 100 people were Jews, I guarantee that you would sing a different tune.
And where do those Israeli soldiers get the weapons to carry out their massive killing campaign in Gaza? Well, of course they get their weaponry from the U.S. government. When you wrote your op-ed that was published in the Wall Street Journal about the need to support Israel, you could have included one single sentence stating, “As an American libertarian, I want to make it clear that I oppose all U.S. governmental aid to Israel. That should be immediately terminated.” You didn’t do that. Instead, you wrote that the West should continue providing aid to Israel.
Yet, as an American libertarian, you know full well that the money to purchase that weaponry is coming from the income of Americans that has been seized by the IRS as part of America’s income-tax system, which is one of the most tyrannical and anti-libertarian parts of America’s governmental structure. As an American libertarian, you should be screaming to the rooftops about the evil and immorality of the income tax and the IRS and the evil and immorality of forcing people to fund a foreign regime and a foreign killing operation to which they might object.
At the outset of the Israeli killing campaign in Gaza, if you had said to libertarians, “Look, I fully understand that my policies toward the Israeli government violate libertarian principles and Austrian economics principles, but since I’m Jewish, I want to be loyal to the Israeli government,” I think many libertarians would have been more accepting, tolerant, and forgiving. But for you to misrepresent to people that your policies with respect to Israel are consistent with libertarian principles is absolutely repugnant and has, I believe, caused immeasurable damage to the brand of principled libertarianism as well as the brand of Austrian economics. I think you would be wise to take a good hard look at yourself in the mirror and engage in some serious soul-searching, in which case I believe that you will begin to understand why you are experiencing social ostracism within both the libertarian and Austrian economics movements.
