To highlight his defenses, I am reproducing them here as a separate post:
Block, Walter E. 2014. “Sue New York Times for libel?!?!” February 1;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/sue-new-york-times-for-libel/;http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/will-walter-block-be-on-firm.html
Block, Walter E. 2014. “A Libertarian Analysis of Suing for Libel.” February 9;
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/walter-block-case-for-suing-new-york.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29;
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/is-new-york-times-agent-of-government.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/sue-new-york-times-for-libel/;http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/will-walter-block-be-on-firm.html
Block, Walter E. 2014. “A Libertarian Analysis of Suing for Libel.” February 9;
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/walter-block-case-for-suing-new-york.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29;
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/is-new-york-times-agent-of-government.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29
COMMENT 2
I don't say that Fr. Wildes, SJ is an agent of the state. Nor, do I say that about the other 18 Loyola faculty members who trashed my reputation. I say, only, that they are members of the ruling class, and thus fair game for a libel lawsuit. On libertarian ruling class theory, see:
Block, 2006; Domhoff, 1967, 1971, 1998; Donaldson and Poynting, 2007 ; Hoppe, 1990; Hughes, 1977; Kolko, 1963; Mises, 1978; Oppenheimer, 1975; Raico, 1977; Rockwell, 2001
Block, Walter E. 2006. “Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Part II” Reason Papers, Vol. 28, Spring, pp. 85-109;http://www.walterblock.com/
Domhoff, G. William. 1967. Who Rules America? Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Domhoff, G. William. 1971. The Higher Circles: The Governing Class in America. New York: Vintage Books
Domhoff, G. William. 1998. Who Rules America? Power and Politics in the Year 2000, Third Edition, Santa Cruz: University of California
Donaldson, Mike and Scott Poynting. 2007. Ruling Class Men: Money, Sex, Power. Peter Lang.
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1990. "Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis," The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, Fall, pp. 79-94; http://mises.org/journals/jls/
Hughes, Jonathan R.T. 1977. The Governmental Habit: Economic Controls from Colonial Times to the Present. New York: Basic Books,
also shows US ain’t laissez faire in 19th cent)
Kolko, Gabriel. 1963. Triumph of Conservatism, Chicago: Quadrangle Books
Mises, Ludwig von. 1978. The Clash of Group Interests and Other Essays. New York: Center for Libertarian Studies. http://www.mises.org/etexts/
Oppenheimer, Franz. [1914] 1975. The State, New York: Free Life Editions
Raico, Ralph. 1977. "Classical Liberal exploitation theory: a comment on Professor Liggio's paper," The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 3, Summer, pp. 179-184;http://mises.org/daily/4567/; http://mises.org/document/
Rockwell, Jr. Llewellyn H. 2001. “Liberty and the Common Good” December 31;
Class analysis:
Burris, Charles A. 2012. “Who Rules America: Power Elite Analysis and American History.” January 18; http://archive.lewrockwell.
Libertarian Class Analysis (also called Power Elite Analysis or Establishment Studies) is a theme I have repeatedly stressed in my articles at LRC. Knowledge is power. Empower yourself by learning about Libertarian Class Analysis and how it impacts specifically upon the welfare-warfare state and the parasitical elites which benefit from this leviathan within our midst. Here are several items with which the discerning LRC reader may begin:
“Libertarian Class Analysis,” by Sheldon Richman
“Our Establishment Church,” by Charles A. Burris
“Hidden History: Where Organized Crime and Government Meet,” by Charles A. Burris
“Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy,” by Murray N. Rothbard
“The Anatomy of the State,” by Murray N. Rothbard
“Origins of the Federal Reserve,” by Murray N. Rothbard
“Our Interests and Their Interests,” by Murray N. Rothbard
“The Clash of Group Interests,” by Ludwig von Mises
“Toward a Theory of State Capitalism: Ultimate Decision Making and Class Structure,” by Walter E. Grinder and John Hagel III
“Classical Liberal Roots of Marxist Class Analysis,” by Ralph Raico (audio lecture)
“Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis,” by Hans-Herman Hoppe (audio lecture)
“America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution,” by Angelo M. Codevilla
“A Glimpse Behind the Curtain,” by Charles A. Burris
Libertarian Class Analysis — an Amazon.com book list
The Elite Is Neat, The Masses are Asses — an Amazon.com book list
Power Brokers, Fixers, and Elite Insiders — an Amazon.com book list
Establishment Studies — an Amazon.com book list
Block: "I don't say that Fr. Wildes, SJ is an agent of the state. Nor, do I say that about the other 18 Loyola faculty members who trashed my reputation. I say, only, that they are members of the ruling class, and thus fair game for a libel lawsuit."
ReplyDeleteQ1: What is the criteria for being a member of the ruling class?
Q2: Demonstrate how members of the ruling class violate the NAP, either directly or by aiding and abetting.
Q3: If answers to Q1 and Q2 are satisfactory, explain why a libel lawsuit is self defense, if you claim that no one has a property right in their reputation, and that therefore libel does not violate the NAP.
We are going around in circles, Mr. Anonymous poster. Statists like the head of the school are living by the state, so they should die by the state. Even they cannot deny that in principle.
ReplyDeleteI think a reasonable person, given the environment on campus (an environment that has long been encouraged by the libeler, btw, who is head of the university), would know that the libel would lead to these kinds of threats.
Let us look at a different example. Let us say that you live in Salem, and someone has libeled you as being a witch. Some might say, well, no NAP violation here! But hold on. The libeler would have known that you would have a lynch mob appearing at your door with torches and pitchforks.
In this sense the libel is very similar to giving an order. A mob boss might say "I don't like that guy". No order order, only the mob boss using his free speech right? But the guy the mob boss doesn't like is going to get whacked anyway. During the cultural revolution in China there were newspaper articles about so-and-so being a deviationist or a capitalist-roader. Just free speech, right? Wrong. Because it took place in the context of suspected deviationists and capitalist-roaders being lynched at the time.
Given that one can read the libel by the school president as an OK to harass and threaten Dr. Block. Not free speech, but an invitation or an order.
Someone like October 31, 2014 at 6:15 PM would make libertarians pacifist collaborators with the state. No way, I say. The university libeler is a state agent, and an aggressor that has initiated force against Dr. Block.
Let us also keep in mind that Dr. Block is collateral damage, and it is his libertarian ideas that are being targeted. When other people see Dr. Block persecuted for his libertarian ideas, people being what they are will be less likely to cleave to libertarianism. Therefore it is not merely about Dr. Block, and he should NOT turn the other cheek.
Walter Block wrote a book: "Defending the Undefendable". On page 47 is a chapter entitled "The Slanderer and the Libeler". In this chapter Block explains why libel is not a crime according to libertarian code and according to his belief.
DeleteThis phony game of calling anyone you dislike a "state agent" or a member of the "ruling class" ain't getting no traction with me or any other consistent libertarian.
Using your logic, you can justify the minimum wage as self defense against the crony capitalist employer who is a state agent. Take any liberal/progressive agenda coming out of Elizabeth Warren's mouth and you can justify it using your and Block's anti-libertarian logic.
From Defending the Undefendable -
Delete"Finally, paradoxical though it may be, reputations would probably be more secure without the laws which prohibit libelous speech! With the present laws prohibiting libelous false hoods, there is a natural tendency to believe any publicized slur on someone’s character. “It would not be printed if it were not true,” reasons the gullible public. If libel and slander were allowed, however, the public would not be so easily deceived. Attacks would come so thick and fast that they would have to be substantiated before they could have any impact. Agencies simi large to Consumers Union or the Better Business Bureau might be organized to meet the public’s demand for accurate scurrilous information.
The public would soon learn to digest and evaluate the state ments of libelers and let slanderers—if the latter were allowed free
rein. No longer would a libeler or slanderer have the automatic power to ruin a person’s reputation"
Further you have ignored all of what I have written. Your example of a minimum wage against a crony capitalist employer is a strawman because you are adding crony capitalism to crony capitalism (the crony capitalist might be a minimum wage supporter because it keeps out competitors).
If I had a violent friend that I knew seeks my approval and I comment to him "I wish that someone would beat some sense into anonymous" and then he proceeded to beat you half to with with a club he calls 'the libeler', it is just him being bad, and nothing to do with me, right?
Or let's put it another way. Lets say my friend instead is a hater of pedophiles, and has even killed pedophiles in the past. I mention to my friend that anonymous is a paedophile, and has been getting away with diddling kids for decades. My friend proceeds to beat you to death. Just NAP violation here right? Just my free speech.
In a miracle of modern medicine somehow you survive the attack. I go and visit you in hospital to laugh at you and tell you how I set you up with my libel. Don't you dare retaliate, though. That would violate the NAP.
Ordering someone to attack another person is not libel. When Wilde said that Block supports slavery, Wilde did not ask anyone to initiate force against block -- all he did was damage his reputation, and libertarians know that you don't own your reputation.
Delete"If I had a violent friend that I knew seeks my approval and I comment to him "I wish that someone would beat some sense into anonymous" and then he proceeded to beat you half to with with a club he calls 'the libeler', it is just him being bad, and nothing to do with me, right?
DeleteOr let's put it another way. Lets say my friend instead is a hater of pedophiles, and has even killed pedophiles in the past. I mention to my friend that anonymous is a paedophile, and has been getting away with diddling kids for decades. My friend proceeds to beat you to death. Just NAP violation here right? Just my free speech."
Rothbard answers your question here:
"But there are areas in which even the most ardent civil libertarians have been unfortunately fuzzy. What, for example, of “incitement to riot,” in which the speaker is held guilty of a crime for whipping up a mob, which then riots and commits various actions and crimes against person and property? In our view, “incitement” can only be considered a crime if we deny every man’s freedom of will and of choice, and assume
that if A tells B and C: “You and him go ahead and riot!” that somehow B and C are then helplessly determined to proceed and commit the wrongful act. But the libertarian, who believes in freedom of the will, must insist that while it might be immoral or unfortunate for A to advocate a riot, that this is strictly in the realm of advocacy and should not be subject to legal penalty." (For a New Liberty pg.116)
Also, Block warns of the precariousness of the freedom of speech in Defending the Undefendable here:
"Freedom of speech is at best a weak reed. It is always in danger of being suppressed. Our hold on it is sometimes very tenuous indeed. Therefore, anything which tends to weaken it even further must be opposed. There is hardly a scare tactic better designed to destroy freedom of speech than the creation of a false conflict between the right to speak freely and other rights held in vastly higher esteem...If “exceptions” to the right of free speech are granted, our tenuous hold on the right of free speech is weakened. There are no legitimate exceptions to the right of free speech. There are no cases in which the right of free speech is in conflict with any other right we hold dear." (pg. 72)
Rick Miller, I guess that we have to re-evaluate the record of libertarian free speech heroes Hitler and Stalin then. Surely they have been defamed by historians.
DeleteMatt,
Delete"Rick Miller, I guess that we have to re-evaluate the record of libertarian free speech heroes Hitler and Stalin then. Surely they have been defamed by historians."
How does that follow?
All those guys had freedom of choice. Hitler and Stalin were just expressing opinions.
DeleteMatt,
DeleteI agree that "all those guys had freedom of choice." Do you contend otherwise?
I do not contend it. What I contend is the idea that Hitler and Stalin are absolved of complicity.
Delete@ Matt
DeleteI like your point Matt. There is an undefined/subjective area in the NAP when it comes to words that maliciously cause harm.(which I view as a crime)
I haven't quite figured it out myself yet either and I'm trying to think about a consistent application/philosophy.
I'm not sure yet where the line should or should not be drawn.
For example, if I tell a mentally ill person that they should go kill someone I dislike because that person is "Satan" or something equally upsetting to them and they do it, that is not considered a "NAP" violation here by some....there is something wrong with that philosophically. (and it really doesn't change much if said killer isn't mentally ill if the intent is the same by the one egging the other on)
It smacks of the whole "shouting "fire" in a crowded theater" issue.
On the other hand, I can see a difference when Lefty "libertarians" claim that racism/bigotry is a NAP violation because they claim harm via "not receiving" money, value/property. This smacks of the pro-IP argument against judgement on someone against future income...and in that regard I agree with them except that the Lefty never owned said property in question to begin with...which is a HUGE distinction. (and why the smart ones, like John Howard, stick to the idea that IP/Value doesn't exist and "can't be owned"...if they give that up the argument is effectively over)
I definitely believe that people should be held accountable for speech that causes harm in a criminal fashion. (like fraud, libel,egging on people to kill one another,etc.)
It strikes me as odd when people draw a distinction between "harm" & "aggression" without regard to intent. It's seem to me that intent should be very important consideration when it comes to the NAP. (even though intent can be subjective)
Matt,
DeleteWho is "absolving" Hitler and Stalin? They are both NAP violators par excellence!
The primary (and crucial) difference between "A" in Rothbard's example above and these two is the coercive aspect of their behavior. Namely, "A" did not say "You and him go riot, and if you don't, I will send you to the gulag." The NAP violation is not the advocacy, it is the coercion.
This is similar to Block's qualm with slavery. The problem isn't the slave owner saying, "You eat your gruel"- it is the "or you will be punished" (the threat) which is the NAP violation.
Rick,
DeleteIt simply isn't the case that every single person committing atrocities on behalf of those dictators were put in a position of do this or go to the gulag.
Nick B. above gave a good example about telling a mentally ill person so and so is Satan. If the mentally ill person had a history of violence I could easily see that as sharing the same characteristics as an 'order'. What kind of free will this mentally ill person has is also questionable given that he is subject to delusions.
What about a gunman. He comes up to your an informs you that he is shooting everyone with red hair that he can find because they are the spawn of Beelzebub. He asks if you the locations of any redheads.
You say sure my good fellow here are the GPS coordinates of a half dozen redheads. No NAP violation here?
What about sharing Dr. Blocks address on certain 'anti-racist' websites that have been known to lie in wait to ambush and assault 'racists' like Dr. Block? Still no NAP violation?
Guys,
DeleteThe question you are posing is, does advocating violence violate the NAP? Here is the NAP:
"The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else."
(Rothbard, For a New Liberty pg. 27)
How does A violate the NAP by (non-coercively) advocating B to kill C?
Furthermore, taking the position that advocacy absent the threat of force (persuasion) is coercive and then proceeding to engage in arguments intended to persuade is a performative contradiction. Are you (and I) not violating the NAP by your own logic?
"Furthermore, taking the position that advocacy absent the threat of force (persuasion) is coercive and then proceeding to engage in arguments intended to persuade is a performative contradiction. Are you (and I) not violating the NAP by your own logic?"
DeleteI would say no, it's not a performative contradiction, because the nature of our conversation isn't the advocacy of hurting people in an aggressive manner, versus self defense. (NAP/IPSO FACTO on "defense")
"How does A violate the NAP by (non-coercively) advocating B to kill C?"
I actually haven't deeply thought much beyond the immorality of the act itself(assuming that A isn't advocating it in self defense), so let's call this a discussion instead of a debate because I'm not really sure myself.
"1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel."
I find the word "pressure" interesting in this defintion. Here's why:
In my mentally ill example above, if A tell B that C is "Satan" knowing they will really believe it and kill "C" out of fear...I would call that "pressure" generated from fraud.
You can apply that example to Block's case. You have the NYT's quoting him out of context(fraud) to the point that people now are thinking about harming him.
Rick, note that in the above examples that I gave there was no advocacy of violence.
DeleteMatt,
Delete"note that in the above examples that I gave there was no advocacy of violence."
By all means, explain where the NAP violation is in your examples! Make your case!
Nick,
"1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel."
I find the word "pressure" interesting in this defintion. Here's why:
In my mentally ill example above, if A tell B that C is "Satan" knowing they will really believe it and kill "C" out of fear...I would call that "pressure" generated from fraud."
I disagree. Person A has applied zero force to B in your example. Further, if you would like to take that position that advocacy is force, you must reject advocacy yourself to avoid violating the NAP.
"I actually haven't deeply thought much beyond the immorality of the act itself(assuming that A isn't advocating it in self defense), so let's call this a discussion instead of a debate because I'm not really sure myself."
I am reminded of Tomas Sowell's statement: "The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling."
The libertarian qua libertarian cannot solve many "problems" (bigotry, bad breath, blowsyness)- and that's perfectly okay! Moreover, a libertarian can feel someone's actions are abhorrent, distasteful, rude, nasty, vile, vicious- that's fine, too! However, if the offensive act is not a violation of the NAP, it is outside the bounds of libertarian analysis. The NAP is declarative on the proper use of force, and that is it. An attempt by the libertarian qua libertarian to expand the applicability of the NAP beyond the proper use of force is libwappery!
See: EPJ Research Room definition of "libwaps":
http://researchroom.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/libwaps.html
How about what is going on now in Pakistan, then. In Pakistan 'blasphemy' is a crime, and people are accused of it all the time, often minorities.
DeleteIn Pakistan there are large numbers of deranged religious fanatics, and the Pakistani government has withdrawn protection from people accused of being blasphemers, heretics, or apostates. Despite hundreds or even thousands of people being killed openly, not one person has been prosecuted for these murders.
Given the presence of these fanatics, their willingness to act against minority populations and commit mayhem and murder, are you sure that accusing someone of being a blasphemer in this context is not a violation of the NAP?
I can imagine situations where an accusation of blasphemy is not a violation of the NAP. In a country where you do not get murdered for blasphemy, for example.
If this kind of behavior is not a violation of the NAP then there are whole swaths of situations in which state agents would have to be considered innocent of their crimes.
@ Rick
Delete"The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling."
You know, that's a bit unfair a label to try to pin on me because I clearly separated the immorality of the act from the philosophy surrounding it. Are we attending the Kinsella school of debate now? :)
"Further, if you would like to take that position that advocacy is force, you must reject advocacy yourself to avoid violating the NAP."
I'm not equating "advocacy" with "force", that's you. I view them as two separate things that can interact with each other.(or not)
"The NAP is declarative on the proper use of force, and that is it. An attempt by the libertarian qua libertarian to expand the applicability of the NAP beyond the proper use of force is libwappery!"
That's an interesting statement and once again it seems you are labeling me....incorrectly, but let's address it:
If someone tells you that you are buying a diamond, but it's zirconium, they have committed fraud, which we consider a NAP violation, but have they used 'force'?
RW just published this statement from Walter Block on the NAP today in his "Democracy explained" post:
"The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another."
Who would not consider the act of someone trying to convince another to kill them a "threat"? Is that you Rick? You would not see such a person as a threat?
Threat, by definition, means no "force"(your term) has been used yet. Here's a definition:
"a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done."
Matt,
Delete"Given the presence of these fanatics, their willingness to act against minority populations and commit mayhem and murder, are you sure that accusing someone of being a blasphemer in this context is not a violation of the NAP?"
Yes, I am sure. This is very similar to the scenario Rothbard pictures above. Simply changing a few words will demonstrate:
Given the presence of these fanatics, their willingness to act against area businesses and commit mayhem and destroy property, are you sure that inciting to riot in this context is not a violation of the NAP?
I am interested in your thoughts here:
"If this kind of behavior is not a violation of the NAP then there are whole swaths of situations in which state agents would have to be considered innocent of their crimes. "
Can you elaborate?
Sure, Rick.
DeleteHow about if a person with a position with the state is among those spreading the calumny about blasphemy, or are participants in the lynch mob? Are then only agents of the state guilty of violating the NAP?
Put it another way. If someone said to me "I am going to tell everyone that you are a blasphemer". Now my friend Ahmed was killed last week by a lynch mob after this particular fellow told people that Ahmed was a blasphemer.
I fear for my life. I am not a pacifist. I am certain that I will be killed. I have a gun. Therefore I make the decision to blow this guys brains out in self defense. Because his 'free speech' is a lethal threat to my very existence, and under the NAP I have a right to protect my body and my property.
Nick,
Delete"You know, that's a bit unfair a label to try to pin on me because I clearly separated the immorality of the act from the philosophy surrounding it."
Morality is not a libertarian concern. I think prostitution is immoral, ignorant, and unwise- but it is not an NAP violation, so I cannot render a judgement of it qua libertarian. This is the entire point of Defending the Undefendable!
"Who would not consider the act of someone trying to convince another to kill them a 'threat'? Is that you Rick? You would not see such a person as a threat?"
Person C's perception, the environment they are in, who the person is- these are all irrelevant concerns! The question is: does X action violate the NAP? We agree (I think?) that incitement is not an NAP violation, so what else is there to discuss?
"Morality is not a libertarian concern."
DeleteI agree, but my point is I never suggested it should be at the outset.
"We agree (I think?) that incitement is not an NAP violation, so what else is there to discuss?"
Actually, I don't think we agree because I just made a case where if you think something is a threat it constitutes a NAP violation by Block's definition. (in this case, someone trying to incite violence against you by convincing a mentally ill person to kill you)
You have argued that "Person C's perception, the environment they are in, who the person is- these are all irrelevant concerns! ", but I don't understand how you eliminate subjectivity from what you consider a threat...so I don't think I agree with your statement.
Just for my own perspective, could you answer the question I asked above?
"Who would not consider the act of someone trying to convince another to kill them a "threat"? Is that you Rick? You would not see such a person as a threat?"
If you wouldn't consider that circumstance a threat, I'd like to know that you really sincerely feel that way.
Matt,
Delete"How about if a person with a position with the state is among those spreading the calumny about blasphemy, or are participants in the lynch mob? Are then only agents of the state guilty of violating the NAP?"
A state agent slandering "person C" is not, at that point violating the NAP. Aggressive lynching (I am unsure as to how it could be defensive!) is a violation of the NAP.
"Put it another way. If someone said to me 'I am going to tell everyone that you are a blasphemer'. Now my friend Ahmed was killed last week by a lynch mob after this particular fellow told people that Ahmed was a blasphemer.
I fear for my life. I am not a pacifist. I am certain that I will be killed. I have a gun. Therefore I make the decision to blow this guys brains out in self defense. Because his 'free speech' is a lethal threat to my very existence, and under the NAP I have a right to protect my body and my property."
Your friend did not aggress upon you, so you are unjustified in killing him. In dealing with the mob that so inevitably comes, though- you indeed do "under the NAP...have a right to protect my body and my property."
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ Rick
Delete"Does the man steal a drink, or die at the foot of the sign? (I am curious- what would you do, Nick?)*"
To me, I take the drink too, knowing I have to beg for forgiveness and hope I don't get shot, etc. It's really not that tough a question to me....
"It is easy to eliminate subjectivity from consideration when you consider the words "person or property" in the NAP. Person A has not, as of yet, aggressed on the person or property of C. It doesn't even appear that Person A has said a word to C, let alone threatened C."
Yea, I don't see it that way, I agree with Block even if what a "threat" is has subjectivity. I just don't think you made the case that's it's "easy" to eliminate subjectivity. All I have to do is to further the argument is say, "Let's say C overheard what A is saying to B."
"Frankly, I don't know. I (along with most people) have never experienced such a situation!"
I'm going to disagree there, before Hilter codified his persecution of the Jews, they all got to listen to the threatening rhetoric from him before actually experiencing it, especially in the context of him exhorting non-Jewish Germans to do all sorts of harm to German Jews . I think this situation is VERY common in the context of human history.
I don't think I'd have told a German Jew that somehow managed to kill Hitler before the violence occurred that Hilter didn't deserve it because he didn't violate the NAP(he did!)...lol
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me."- The words may never harm you, but that's not the argument I made nor Block makes.
The argument is that the words constitute a threat that is a NAP violation and that no one is obligated to wait until said harm(or force in your parlance) occurs to stop it from happening.
Nick,
Delete"Actually, I don't think we agree because I just made a case where if you think something is a threat it constitutes a NAP violation by Block's definition. (in this case, someone trying to incite violence against you by convincing a mentally ill person to kill you)
You have argued that 'Person C's perception, the environment they are in, who the person is- these are all irrelevant concerns! ', but I don't understand how you eliminate subjectivity from what you consider a threat...so I don't think I agree with your statement."
It is easy to eliminate subjectivity from consideration when you consider the words "person or property" in the NAP. Person A has not, as of yet, aggressed on the person or property of C. It doesn't even appear that Person A has said a word to C, let alone threatened C.
This brings us back to the performative contradiction. Either advocacy is an NAP violation, or it isn't. Theft, rape, murder- these aren't things that are sometimes violations of the NAP, but under the right circumstances, they are not! They are always violations of the NAP- there is no subjectivity to it. If you are going to contend advocacy in this case is an NAP violation, you must contend that it is always an NAP violation.
"Just for my own perspective, could you answer the question I asked above?
'Who would not consider the act of someone trying to convince another to kill them a 'threat'? Is that you Rick? You would not see such a person as a threat?'
If you wouldn't consider that circumstance a threat, I'd like to know that you really sincerely feel that way."
Frankly, I don't know. I (along with most people) have never experienced such a situation! This is similar to the libertarian man dying of thirst who finds a well which displays a prominent sign reading, "Private Property- No Trespassing". Does the man steal a drink, or die at the foot of the sign? (I am curious- what would you do, Nick?)* This question is perceived as an "a ha" against libertarianism per se, for if the advocate does not act out his philosophy in practice (in the most dire of circumstances, nonetheless) he invalidates it.
However, no matter what the libertarian man answers, he must affirm that taking a drink is theft, and is a violation of the NAP. Therefore, defensive action against the person or property of the advocate cannot be justified.
*I would take a drink.
lol...I'm not sure what happened there, but I noticed your comment was deleted and reappeared...let me know if it changed from my response to the one deleted (I'm a bit busy right now) and I'll respond if needed.
DeleteFor clarification, flip-flop the above two posts from Nick and I...reply forthcoming!
DeleteNick,
DeleteSorry for the delay- I've been under the weather lately...I have conjured up the strength to give it another go!
"I don't see it that way, I agree with Block even if what a "threat" is has subjectivity. I just don't think you made the case that's it's "easy" to eliminate subjectivity."
I think the Block quote is being taken out of context. (This never happens, right? :) ) The whole article can be found here: ( http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html ) Just look at the what follows the sentence you have highlighted : "That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. Thus, there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc."
The statement "...there would be no victimless crimes..." is of particular relevancy.
If A tells B, "I'd like you to kill C", who is the victim?
If you say C is the victim- how has the person or property of C been violated, and what is owed to him from A to make C whole?
"'Let's say C overheard what A is saying to B.'"
This is irrelevant! What if C did not overhear the conversation- does that mean no crime has been committed because C is unaware, and therefore cannot feel threatened?
"I don't think I'd have told a German Jew that somehow managed to kill Hitler before the violence occurred that Hilter didn't deserve it because he didn't violate the NAP(he did!)...lol"
This means "hate speech" would be prohibited under your interpretation of the NAP, right?
Question: how did Hitler violate the NAP "before Hilter codified his persecution of the Jews, (and) they all got to listen to the threatening rhetoric from him before actually experiencing it, especially in the context of him exhorting non-Jewish Germans to do all sorts of harm to German Jews"?
And, finally, how do you answer this point?
"This brings us back to the performative contradiction. Either advocacy is an NAP violation, or it isn't. Theft, rape, murder- these aren't things that are sometimes violations of the NAP, but under the right circumstances, they are not! They are always violations of the NAP- there is no subjectivity to it. If you are going to contend advocacy in this case is an NAP violation, you must contend that it is always an NAP violation."
"If A tells B, "I'd like you to kill C", who is the victim?
DeleteIf you say C is the victim- how has the person or property of C been violated, and what is owed to him from A to make C whole?"
But that is Block's whole point, it's not out of context IMO.
"provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. "
Block's very clear in the word "threaten", we've defined it, it presupposes no force having taken place. You have come close to conceding(via non denial) that you, yourself would perhaps feel threatened under a scenario in which "A" is trying to convince a mentally ill "B" to try to kill you.
Let me tell you Rick, I count you as sane if you just go ahead and admit it-lol
There's nothing wrong with that, though subjective, a good majority would agree with you- Just like you and I agree on the drinking water example you posed.
"This means "hate speech" would be prohibited under your interpretation of the NAP, right?"
That is incorrect. I don't care if the Klan wants to tell everyone how much they hate blacks.
I'm only saying that being a NAP follower myself, if the Klan tells a black family that they are going to lynch them and the black father believes it and mows them down with an assault rifle that it was the Klan's fault because they "threatened violence" in accordance with Block's definition of the NAP.
I really hope you agree with my above point or at least come around to it after thinking about it.
"how did Hitler violate the NAP"
Can I just skip this for now instead of having to go back through a mad man's speeches to illustrate the point? If you insist, I'll think about doing it I suppose...in the big picture I'm not sure it matters in our debate...but if it's really important I might do it for you when I have time.(not today)
"This brings us back to the performative contradiction. Either advocacy is an NAP violation, or it isn't. "
I disagree. It's not an either/or proposition with "advocacy", it's the nature of the advocacy itself. Is it violent, or is it just someone calling me a "doo doo head" to use the common Blockian(word? lol) argument. (I acknowledge this can be subjective)
Nick,
Delete"'If A tells B, "I'd like you to kill C", who is the victim?
If you say C is the victim- how has the person or property of C been violated, and what is owed to him from A to make C whole?'
But that is Block's whole point, it's not out of context IMO."
In other words, you are comfortable with your characterization, lol? I don't think you should be, as your analysis does not jive with what Block says two sentences later- "there would be no victimless crimes prohibitions..."
The questions remain unanswered:
If A tells B, "I'd like you to kill C", who is the victim?
If you say C is the victim- how has the person or property of C been violated, and what is owed to him from A to make C whole?
These should be extremely easy questions to answer.
"I don't care if the Klan wants to tell everyone how much they hate blacks"
It isn't about you! According to your logic, if "blacks" or a particular black person feels threatened by the Klan's hate speech, they are justified in using force in "defense" of such speech. If someone "feeling threatened" is your measure, this means hate speech (or any speech for that matter) can be considered an NAP violation, based on how such speech makes the "victim" feel.
"I'm only saying that being a NAP follower myself, if the Klan tells a black family that they are going to lynch them and the black father believes it and mows them down with an assault rifle that it was the Klan's fault because they "threatened violence" in accordance with Block's definition of the NAP."
This is a different scenario. You are now saying A tells C they are going to lynch them. B has suddenly disappeared. This is the Blockian scenario, while the Badalamentarian scenario we are discussing supposes A tells B to kill C.
"'how did Hitler violate the NAP'
Can I just skip this for now instead of having to go back through a mad man's speeches to illustrate the point? If you insist, I'll think about doing it I suppose...in the big picture I'm not sure it matters in our debate...but if it's really important I might do it for you when I have time.(not today)"
One would think I had tossed a great big fat one over the plate which you would knock out of the park, right? "How did Hitler violate the NAP?"
Don't waste your time going over Hitler's speeches to find the NAP violation- advocacy is not an NAP violation.
"I disagree. It's not an either/or proposition with "advocacy", it's the nature of the advocacy itself. Is it violent, or is it just someone calling me a "doo doo head" to use the common Blockian(word? lol) argument. (I acknowledge this can be subjective)"
How can advocacy in and of itself constitute physical force?
In what scenario is the nature of a rape a non-aggressive act? How about theft?
"In other words, you are comfortable with your characterization, lol? I don't think you should be,"
DeleteTell ya what, I'm going to send Dr. Block an e-mail for a clarification on his viewpoint for clarity.
Sound reasonable? I'd like to copy you on the email, can you send it to me when you get a moment?
"Don't waste your time going over Hitler's speeches to find the NAP violation- advocacy is not an NAP violation."
I'm glad you're not making me "research" the obvious(the Hitler thing), as for your opinion on advocacy for violence directed on another not being a NAP violation, let's see what Dr. Block's viewpoint is on the matter and his reasoning so we can see if we can discern the truth.
"How can advocacy in and of itself constitute physical force?"
It doesn't, I already explained this above. My interpretation of Block's statement is that "force" is not a requirement for the breaking of the NAP, via the "threat":
"provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. "
It seems very clear to me. But in fairness to you, maybe I have misunderstood so I'll e-mail Dr. Block.
Nick,
DeleteEmail sent--how are you going to pose the question to Block? Will there be two actors (A and C) or will there be three (A, B, and C)?
Regarding the scenario we are discussing, if Person A tells person B, "I would like you to kill Person C"? These two questions still need to be answered!
If A tells B, "I'd like you to kill C", who is the victim?
If you say C is the victim- how has the person or property of C been violated, and what is owed to him from A to make C whole?
Because you think A's advocacy is an NAP violation, do you have an idea as to how to resolve the conflict via the two above questions? Does Block's answer have any bearing on how you would answer these questions?
"...as for your opinion on advocacy for violence directed on another not being a NAP violation, let's see what Dr. Block's viewpoint is on the matter and his reasoning so we can see if we can discern the truth."
Remember, it is not only my opinion, it is also the scenario Rothbard presents in For a New Liberty (quoted above) regarding rioters. Are you disagreeing with Rothbard's analysis here? Further, Block has an entire section of chapters under the heading "Free Speech" in Defending the Undefendable. The chapters are: The Blackmailer, The Slanderer and the Libeler, The Denier of Academic Freedom, The Advertiser, The Person Who yells "Fire!" in a Crowded Theater. I wonder how he will react to the idea of limiting of A's speech?
I have asked you this several times:
"In what scenario is the nature of a rape a non-aggressive act? How about theft?"
Do you have an opinion on this?
Oops! I guess I need your email...
DeleteI had already sent my question to him by your next e-mail, send me yours and I will send it to you. "toolexnick at gmail"
DeleteIf you could send me your question to him as well I'd appreciate it.
"In what scenario is the nature of a rape a non-aggressive act? How about theft?"
That would be no scenario, but I'm not following why that question is important to you.
"Because you think A's advocacy is an NAP violation, do you have an idea as to how to resolve the conflict via the two above questions?"
Yes, it's the equivalent of a "cease and desist letter", verbal, whatever...but if the damage is already done it may be more extreme if I understand Block's commentary on the NAP properly.(that a threat is a NAP violation)
" Does Block's answer have any bearing on how you would answer these questions?"
Of course. I see that someone threatening violence upon me, even if using a proxy(like hiring an assassin even!), as a clear and present danger. If Block tells me that I didn't understand the meaning of the word "threat" as he used it and explains to me why hiring an assassin or simply trying to convince someone to kill someone else(that is an innocent, not a NAP violator) isn't a NAP violation then I might change my mind...I think the odds are long...but I must remain open.
First and foremost though, you've claimed I misunderstand Block so we must clear that up.
Nick,
Delete"'In what scenario is the nature of a rape a non-aggressive act? How about theft?'
That would be no scenario, but I'm not following why that question is important to you."
This question is important because it distinguishes NAP violations as objective person or property crimes. There are no special or "emergency" situations where it's "ok" to do those things, as you have acknowledged. Furthermore, the Rothbardian scenario quoted above supposes the rioters are off to damage person or (more likely) property, but absolves the person who incites the riot of wrongdoing. The advocacy is not a per se NAP violation, even if person or property are damaged and destroyed!
The claim that advocacy in certain circumstances do violate the NAP while in others do not do so relies on the subjective opinion of Person C. In the Rothbard scenario, A would have violated the NAP at the point at which he said, "You and him go ahead and riot!', because the opinion of C is the measuring rod in the Badalamentarian analysis. If C feels threatened by A's advocacy, Person C would be justified in using force as a defensive measure.
So, what force can person C utilize in defense of A's advocacy? This is the important restitution phase of the scenario, and you say C can send "the equivalent of a 'cease and desist letter', verbal, whatever..." Is this the way Person C is to respond to "a clear and present danger"? Why can't C kill A, in your analysis, as a response to A's advocacy?
Furthermore, you have correctly indicated that "hate speech" is not an NAP violation. But, hate speech can easily be construed as a threat by the hated. Thus, according to your analysis, hate speech must be considered an NAP violation.
Block's analysis above is clearly an A to C scenario, whereas we are discussing a scenario where A tells B to kill C. Block is using the word "threaten" as a verb (A threatens C). To say C feels threatened by A because of what A said to B is different, "threatened" being a past participle. There is a clear distinction between these two standards. Therefore, I maintain that you are taking the Block quote out of context.
We are taking for granted in much of our analysis that C is the victim, but you still haven't directly answered the question:
If A tells B, "I'd like you to kill C", who is the victim?
or
Is A's advocacy a "victimless crime", which Block says would not exist via the NAP?
Rick, you're just repeating yourself right now, no offense.
DeleteI fully understand your argument(with the exception of the one statement above you did address), but our stumbling block(Block?) remains the same:
"This question is important because it distinguishes NAP violations as objective person or property crimes."
The use of the word "threat" suggests you can't eliminate subjectivity, I understand you want it objective...but that doesn't seem to reflect reality.
I do not believe that I have taken Block's statement on the NAP out of context. A "threat", by definition is PRIOR TO FORCE. You are mistaken that force is required for a NAP violation if I'm correct in my interpretation of Block's statement.(and I may not be, which is why I asked him)
Second, as just a side statement, if we take your "advocacy of violence is never a NAP violation" to it's logical extent, that means someone hiring an assassin to kill another person would not be guilty of the NAP(and therefore a crime) until that act is carried out.
I'm sorry Rick, that notion is completely ridiculous to me. But before we can move forward, I think we both agree that an answer from Block would help us both.
edit: * "not be guilty of a NAP violation (and therefore a crime)"
DeleteRick, I felt compelled to add one thing in light of your statement here:
Delete"Remember, it is not only my opinion, it is also the scenario Rothbard presents in For a New Liberty (quoted above) regarding rioters. Are you disagreeing with Rothbard's analysis here?"
I just took a moment to read Rothbard's commentary "For a New Liberty" that you referenced.
I'm really sad to say that at this point in time, I do disagree with Rothbard's analysis. In fact, he opens a hole himself in his argument that advocacy can't be a crime, BY MAKING AN EXCEPTION. (that of the head of a criminal enterprise) Once again suggesting subjectivity.(similar to Block's exception on Loyola)
Interestingly, his "shouting fire in a crowded theater" argument is based on property rights...which if you take Bastiat's view of property being something of value, impact his argument quite dramatically in other controversial areas.
Given that Dr. Block is Rothbard's protege, I don't know if Block has ever taken a substantially different viewpoint/disagreement on Rothbard's arguments, so it will be interesting to hear back from him on his intention on using the word "threat" in consideration of the NAP.
I am appreciative of you referring to Rothbard's argument, I wasn't aware of it before now and always appreciate being informed on such things.
Nick,
DeleteResponse forthcoming...I just wanted you to know that nobody has taken a "hit" out on me (as far as I know)...
lmao!
DeleteThat's good Rick!
I haven't heard back from Dr. Block. You'll be the first to know when I do.
Nick,
Delete"I fully understand your argument(with the exception of the one statement above you did address), but our stumbling block(Block?) remains the same:
'This question is important because it distinguishes NAP violations as objective person or property crimes.'
The use of the word 'threat' suggests you can't eliminate subjectivity, I understand you want it objective...but that doesn't seem to reflect reality."
I like the pun in there! Rothbard elaborates a bit on what activities the NAP condemns throughout For a New Liberty:
“we have seen that the central thrust of the libertarian is to oppose all aggression against the rights of person and property…” (pg. 47)
“real criminals, the aggressors against person and property” (pg. 114)
“frankly criminal activities: the mugger, the rapist, the bank robber…” (pg.229)
As you can see, person and/or property are paramount to deducing the criminality of an action via the NAP. Since neither are damaged or destroyed by advocacy; advocacy is not a per se NAP violation. At the point where A tells (or pays) B to kill C, nothing has, in this act, happened to C.
"I do not believe that I have taken Block's statement on the NAP out of context. A "threat", by definition is PRIOR TO FORCE. You are mistaken that force is required for a NAP violation if I'm correct in my interpretation of Block's statement.(and I may not be, which is why I asked him)"
Even if Block agrees with the analysis above, you have taken him out of context. Block uses "threaten" as a verb; you are using it as a past participle. Block's scenario is A threatening C, yours is C feeling threatened by A's request of B.
The lack of force is an interesting issue to me, as well. We’ll see what Block has to say about this.
"...if we take your "advocacy of violence is never a NAP violation" to it's logical extent, that means someone hiring an assassin to kill another person would not be guilty of the NAP(and therefore a crime) until that act is carried out.
DeleteI'm sorry Rick, that notion is completely ridiculous to me. But before we can move forward, I think we both agree that an answer from Block would help us both."
Actually, my analysis indicates that hiring an assassin would not be a crime at all, whether or not "that act is carried out." Person and/or property are not aggressed upon by A’s hiring of B in and of itself. You are correct in saying Rothbard (seemingly) contradicts himself promptly after showing how advocacy is not an NAP violation when he condemns the head of a criminal enterprise (is he referring to the State? :) ) for ordering henchmen to rob a bank. The question is, are the henchmen "helplessly determined to proceed and commit the wrongful act", similar to the rioters just two sentences before? It must be concluded that the henchmen are not without free will, and must be held fully responsible for their actions. Instead of calling the notion ridiculous, I would ask that you provide a compelling case to the contrary.
I know this analysis makes you uncomfortable, but remember the paradigm you are advancing (taken to its full extent) effectively bans advocacy if it could be considered threatening. Thus, hate speech would be disallowed if someone feels it is a threat- but where does it end? Perhaps simply musing on ugly subjects such as assassination would make someone feel threatened, therefore disallowing advocacy regarding “controversial” topics. There can be no limiting principle as to what advocacy is allowed or disallowed if the criminality of speech is determined on a whim. This is actually worse than the status quo which does not consider hate speech and other forms of controversial speech to be a crime.
In pursuance of only objectively determinable forms of aggression against person and/or property, the NAP does, indeed, eliminate the possibility for retribution for actions that most people would consider "bad" things (halitosis, hate speech, and ugly hair-dos)- any actions which do not have a victim. While it would nice to be free of such things, the NAP simply does not conclude that these actions are crimes. It is heartening, though, to remember that the State- the most dangerous and deadly criminal gang in human history- does not exist in either of our paradigms (I think). In light of the atrocities the State has wrought, we are arguing over minutia.
My analysis above concludes that A has not aggressed against C for advocating (or even paying) B to kill C. I am willing to stop repeating myself, and conclude that we are not going to make progress on this point. If you have any fresh insights, I am happy to hear them.
However, I am going to put a post below this one that assumes your conclusion that A has, indeed, aggressed upon C. At that point, we must consider retribution.
Presuming that A has indeed aggressed upon C in our scenario, it is time to provide analysis as to C’s proper responses to such an “aggression”. What can Person C do via the NAP to A? You have indicated that A is a “clear and present” threat to C, but have only offered the remedy (so far) of a cease and desist letter- a very weak response to a supposedly imminent threat.
DeleteArguendo, we must assume that C was not killed, even though A did hire B to murder A. If you think it is important that C has been killed, let me know. But, for the most part, we have forgotten about B entirely, anyway! Let’s presume C filed a complaint with the Rothbardian libertarian court.
A libertarian legal system, argues Rothbard, would focus on restitution of the victim:
“in the system of criminal punishment in the libertarian world, the emphasis would never be, as it is now, on ‘society’s’ jailing the criminal; the emphasis would necessarily be on compelling the criminal to make restitution to the victim of his crime.” (pg. 40)
Rothbard discusses this later in his analysis of the legal system of Ireland prior to the Seventeenth century:
“…this system applied to all offences, aggressions and assaults as well as commercial contracts; in short, it applied to all cases of what we would call ‘civil’ and ‘criminal’ law. All criminals were considered to be ‘debtors’ who owed restitution and compensation to their victims, who thus became their ‘creditors.’” (pg. 288)
So, what is the proper restitution for C? This is very difficult to determine because A’s act did not damage the person or property of C. In fact, nothing at all has happened to C! How does one deduce the proper restitution under the circumstance that A is found guilty?
"The lack of force is an interesting issue to me, as well. We’ll see what Block has to say about this."
DeletePrecisely, it remains a key issue and I'm not as quick as you to dismiss it, especially because I think it's a valid point that Block makes.(and I'll show why later in my response)
"Instead of calling the notion ridiculous, I would ask that you provide a compelling case to the contrary."
lol....I thought that your non-denial in the scenario where party A is trying to convince party B to kill you was enough! :)
Regardless, to one of your points earlier about this not occurring much in society, as you know, I disagree. Aside from my guilt in succumbing to Godwin's law, we do hear about disgruntled husbands/wives getting caught in trying to contract a killer and they end up doing jail time.
"It is heartening, though, to remember that the State- the most dangerous and deadly criminal gang in human history- does not exist in either of our paradigms (I think)."
Yes, I/we agree.
"I know this analysis makes you uncomfortable, but remember the paradigm you are advancing (taken to its full extent) effectively bans advocacy if it could be considered threatening."
Just so you understand, it's not the "analysis" that makes me uncomfortable, it's the conclusion that I'm drawing from the principle that "advocacy of violence is not a crime".
"I am willing to stop repeating myself, and conclude that we are not going to make progress on this point. If you have any fresh insights, I am happy to hear them."
Well, I'm going to do just one "repeat" just to make sure you didn't miss the following point, then we'll let it drop for a bit(until Block responds):
"Thus, hate speech would be disallowed if someone feels it is a threat- but where does it end? Perhaps simply musing on ugly subjects such as assassination would make someone feel threatened, therefore disallowing advocacy regarding “controversial” topics. "
I think Block very deliberately used these words in describing the NAP:
"provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence"
And that, Rick would be the metric that is used to determine if a threat is a NAP violation or not(violence threatening). Discussing the circumstances around hiring an assassin is clearly different than the act of doing so. Telling someone that you hate them because they are black is clearly different from threatening to lynch them.
It is along those lines that RW was trying to make a point with his "kill the kid that stole an apple from my orchard" in one regard by eliminating subjectivity. But we all witnessed the backlash(rightfully so IMO) from his positing such a scenario.
I understand the push for us as libertarians to eliminate subjectivity because it strengthens our arguments. BUT, even Rothbard in his "advocacy" argument had to bend to it as you acknowledged and there is a problem in that it seems to me that trying to eliminate subjectivity is truly impossible in every situation. (and even then, if we suggest subjectivity is "bad", what does that say of Mises and his theory's on value?)
Along those lines, and answer on "punishment" along those lines are also subjective. It seems to me that us as libertarians driving to eliminate subjectivity 100% are actually going to make our cause more difficult because "Average Joe" instinctively knows that it goes against natural law to kill a kid over stealing an apple.
(and now I can understand how Bastiat must have felt when he tried to blend both utilitarian and philosophical argument in Economic Harmonies....BUT I AGREE WITH HIM! lol)
"Instead of calling the notion ridiculous, I would ask that you provide a compelling case to the contrary."
Deletelol....I thought that your non-denial in the scenario where party A is trying to convince party B to kill you was enough! :)
I made it pretty clear that my "feelings" about such an act by A are not relevant, then further showed how dangerous it is to set such a standard. That's a little different than acquiescence!
"The question is, are the henchmen 'helplessly determined to proceed and commit the wrongful act', similar to the rioters just two sentences before? It must be concluded that the henchmen are not without free will, and must be held fully responsible for their actions."
Do you disagree?
"Regardless, to one of your points earlier about this not occurring much in society, as you know, I disagree. Aside from my guilt in succumbing to Godwin's law, we do hear about disgruntled husbands/wives getting caught in trying to contract a killer and they end up doing jail time."
Why worry about "society"? What about individual rights? What about the ability to do any gosh darn thing you want, as long as you do not affect another person's rights in their property or person? Rothbard refers to this idea in the above quote, but here it is again:
"“in the system of criminal punishment in the libertarian world, the emphasis would never be, as it is now, on ‘society’s’ jailing the criminal; the emphasis would necessarily be on compelling the criminal to make restitution to the victim of his crime.” (pg. 40)
In our scenario, the person or property of C remains untouched. (Perhaps you can show what has been taken from C?) Therefore, the only "victim" left is society. The Rothbardian court does not consider "society" as a possible "creditor".
It remains to be seen what has been taken from C, and the only remedy for C in the heat of the moment (i.e. when he "overheard" A's vulgar request) is apparently a letter of cease and desist! I figure, if you have concluded that A is a "threat" to C, then C has the right to kill A in "defense". What do you think?
"I understand the push for us as libertarians to eliminate subjectivity because it strengthens our arguments...It seems to me that us as libertarians driving to eliminate subjectivity 100% are actually going to make our cause more difficult because "Average Joe" instinctively knows that it goes against natural law to kill a kid over stealing an apple."
The inverse of this is that including (embracing?) subjectivity weakens our arguments. Is our case made weaker by bending a bit on some of the more radical implications of the NAP, in your opinion?
If utilitarian concerns like the difficulty of persuading Joe are important, do you think Joe, in the long run, is going to be more convinced by a coherent, thoroughgoing philosophy or one which is bendable based on subjective whims?
"if we suggest subjectivity is 'bad', what does that say of Mises and his theory's on value?"
I think it bolsters it- especially in light of our disagreement about it!
Also,
DeleteIt is funny, Dr. Block was trying to reach "Average Joe" with a principled discussion regarding slavery. The problem was that the conduit was filtered so as to eliminate the essence of his point! The lesson is that the Rockwellian approach is most appropriate- send them away!
"I made it pretty clear that my "feelings" about such an act by A are not relevant."
DeleteI reject your claim about your own feelings being irrelevant. They are relevant, because they reflect the reality of the situation, ergo natural law comes into play.
I haven't thought about this enough, but it seems evident to me(at this time) that where attempts at philosophical objectivity fail, like this or the idea that a performative contradiction is in play in the drinking water scenario, that we have to fall back on natural law.
"Do you disagree?"
I do agree with that statement about the henchmen, the difference lies in that I also hold the advocate of said violence as responsible as well.
"What about the ability to do any gosh darn thing you want, as long as you do not affect another person's rights in their property or person?"
Because if I take the meaning of the 'NAP' at it's face value, I agree with Block's additive about the "threat of violence" as aggression.
Aggression:
"hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront."
Further, I posit your feelings are relevant as a demonstration of natural law.
"The inverse of this is that including (embracing?) subjectivity weakens our arguments. Is our case made weaker by bending a bit on some of the more radical implications of the NAP, in your opinion?"
I don't think subjectivity should be considered "inverse" in arguments where objectivity might be impossible, I think it should be viewed as complementary to an argument as a whole.
"If utilitarian concerns like the difficulty of persuading Joe are important, do you think Joe, in the long run, is going to be more convinced by a coherent, thoroughgoing philosophy or one which is bendable based on subjective whims?"
I think if a philosophy that is cognizant of it's shortfalls, that it recognizes them, then uses subjectivity as a backstop is far more palatable to the Average Joe than the position that it's not a crime to hire an assassin for example. Or, that the subjective notion of proportionality via natural law might have something to say about shooting a kid stealing an apple from an orchard as punishment for a NAP violation.
I really do believe that.
"I think it bolsters it"
I don't understand this argument re Mises/subjectivity, please explain.
As far as the Block situation & the NYT's/Loyola, my heart goes out to him. I agree with you that his message was relayed in a fraudulent manner. Of course, I see that as actionable because it's "aggression".... :)
I'm beginning to think it may be the reason we haven't heard back from him yet....I touched base with him back when I sent him a check the other month in support of his NYT suit and he indicated he was out of the office and would be for some time. I hope he is ok.
Rick,
DeleteI received a reply from Dr. Block:
"Dear Nick:
I think that if A tells an impressionable, childlike B to go and murder C, that constitutes a threat, and A should be punished under libertarian law."
He also made clear he felt it didn't apply to libel:
"I don’t see what this has to do with me suing people for libel."
To which I agree with him, it has nothing to do with suing people for libel as our question was on his view about threats & the NAP.
Nick,
Delete...if A tells an (un) impressionable, (mature) B to go and murder C, that (does not) constitute a threat, and A should (not) be punished under libertarian law.
Is that also true, then?
What about other crimes B might commit? Is B exempt from libertarian law? If B steals a candy bar from the convenience store, is B the store owner's debtor? If not, who is?
Also, do you consider Average Joe to be impressionable, childlike?
"To which I agree with him, it has nothing to do with suing people for libel as our question was on his view about threats & the NAP.:
I am not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain?
"Is that also true, then? "
DeleteNot in my opinion, I was focusing on the original issue in our discussion as to whether only "force" can be considered as a NAP violation. Obviously in Block's opinion, that's not the case and I have not misunderstood him as you originally claimed.
"What about other crimes B might commit? Is B exempt from libertarian law? If B steals a candy bar from the convenience store, is B the store owner's debtor? If not, who is?
I've never claimed "B" is exempt. (see my response earlier)
Also, do you consider Average Joe to be impressionable, childlike? "
No, but our purpose was to determine if force was a requirement logically for a NAP violation.
Once the issue of "force" as a requirement has been dispensed with, the issue of subjectivity/natural law comes into play when determining what a "threat" constitutes.
"I am not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain?"
Only that libel is not relevant to our discussion on what constitutes a violation of the NAP at this point in time.
Here is Walter Block from:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf
“What is the dividing line between universities in the ruling class and those apart from it? A first approximation is that all public institutions of higher learning are illegitimate. This follows directly from the fact that education is not a proper role for the state. But what of private colleges? Some are, some are not; Hillsdale College, Grove City College, and Bob Jones University clearly fall outside of the realm of ruling class institutions. None of them accepts any government money whatsoever, not even scholarships directed at students. In that way, they are not subject to onerous rules such as those mandating affirmative action.28
But ruling class status does not depend upon the amount of money received from the government, for, as we shall see below when we discuss Ragnar Danneskjold, it is licit for non- ruling class members to relieve the government of its ill-gotten gains. The criterion ,then, must be something else, similar to that used to separate the business sheep from the business goats: principles espoused in speeches and publications on the part of the owners, boards of trustees, presidents, and other high officers of the establishment.
Thus, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and other Ivy Leaguers are members of the ruling class in good standing not because they accept (scads of) government money, but rather, because they are diploma mills for the government. They weave apologetics for its rule; they are safe houses for out-of-work politicians; they provide vast armadas of professorial talent to the government29 for programs not compatible with libertarianism.” (pg. 95)
Here is more from:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf
“University professors also furnish an interesting example with which to flesh out our theory. Those working at non-ruling class (non-public, and non-private but non-ruling class) institutions may profess on their own time and with their own private property anything they wish without falling afoul of libertarian sensibilities. The right of free speech, after all, protects them from violence no matter what they say. They can advocate the complete takeover of private initiatives if they wish, and libertarianism stands foursquare behind their right to mouth such platitudes.
However, the presumption of innocence vanishes when one enters the halls of a ruling class institution. Now, a bit more care needs to be taken. Publications and speeches no longer need be interpreted purely as a matter of free speech. In this venue the professor is part of an apparatus that is engaged in a massive enterprise of rights violations. He indulges in his free speech only at his own risk. It is the difference between a Nazi scribbler on his own and as part of the public relations apparatus of the German regime. The role of "court historian" is a pivotal one, potentially a dangerous one.30
What is proper behavior in the modern mixed economy? In a word, it is to act in such a way as not to invite the negative attention of the future libertarian Nuremberg tribunal.
If you want to go ‘behind enemy lines,’ so to speak, and become a bureaucrat, an advisor, a judge, a politician, or a general in the army, then clear it with at least one libertarian who stays "out" of the closet. Do this, or risk becoming indistinguishable from real anti-libertarians.31
Don't do anything evil per se. If you join the FBI, then don't shoot or fire-bomb innocent people at places like Waco or Ruby Ridge. Don't become a murderous bastard. Don't violate libertarian law in any way. If you are a prosecuting attorney, then don't take on drug cases. If you are a cop, then don't arrest prostitutes (or Johns). If you are a faculty member in a ruling class institution, then don't profess statism, unless it is on your own time, separate from any organized criminal behavior such as occurs at all state universities and most "private" ones (e.g., the ones that are part of the ruling class). In the free society, there will of course be policemen, prosecuting attorneys, and professors, but not ones who act incompatibly with the
libertarian strictures of non-aggression.” (pgs. 95-96)
Loyola is a private college.
DeleteBlock takes that into consideration above. I presume his rationale would be that Loyola does not meet the requirements (namely, to be anti-state) to exempt itself from libertarian scrutiny.
DeleteUsing Block's new logic, anyone can justify many anti-libertarian laws by claiming self defense and crying "state agent!" or "ruling class member!".
ReplyDeleteExample: Doctors enjoy the state privilege of medical licensing which creates barriers to entry for others and therefore gives the doctors a huge advantage in the health market. Therefore I will vote for any candidate who forces doctors to perform 50% of their services for free. This will not be an initiatory attack on the doctors -- it's self defense against those evil ruling class members!
Block's logic encourages libertarians to vote for progressive/liberal statist scum, as a way to rebalance all the unfair advantages those state agents/crony capitalists enjoy. Block's logic = Occupy Wall Street on steroids.
I agree with you Anon. Subjectivity is becoming a problem for Block in that it makes his theories surrounding reputation, libel, etc. seem to have exceptions.
DeleteMaybe it's more clear that the NYT's is a state agent, but the Loyola situation is not as clear and you are correct in pointing out that the criteria for declaring someone a ""state agent!" or "ruling class member!"" seems very subjective in nature.