Walter Block vs. Kathy Shaidle on Picking Cotton

Photo via the UK fashion magazine Drapers.

The below email exchange took place between Professor Walter Block and author Kathy Shaidle, following her essay,Humor is Truth. which appeared at Taki Magazine.



 Dear Kathy:
> > >
> > > Thanks for writing this article in part about me. However, I wasn't at
> > > all joking.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Walter
> > >
> > > Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
> > > Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of
> Economics
> > > Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business

> > > Loyola University New Orleans

---

From: Kathy Shaidle [mailto:kshaidle@rogers.com]
> > Sent: Wed 5/27/2015 2:09 PM
> > To: wblock@loyno.edu
> > Subject: Re: FW: request
> >
> > If you weren't joking, that's actually "worse."

> >
> > If slavery "wasn't that bad," would you give up your life as it is now
> > to take it up?
> >
> > "Getting" to "pick cotton" doesn't seem like much of a prize, yet that's
> > what your word "get" clearly implies.
> >
> > Is there something particularly pleasurable about picking cotton I'm
> > unfamiliar with, being a lowly Canadian and all?
> >
> > If you'd said "Getting to work outdoors" you'd have been onto something.
> > A corny line, it's true, but still superior.
> >
> > There is also by definition no such thing as "nice gruel." Had you said
> > "hot" or "fresh" even, that would've worked better. But "nice" is not
> > the best possible word choice here. It's lazy and empty, besides being
> > inapt. It's like saying "nice vomit."
> >
> > I stand by my assertion that you marred an otherwise laudable essay with
> > a gratuitous, snotty and maladroit throwaway line that drew much needed
> > attention away from a message many people need(ed) to read.
> >
> > --
> > Kathy Shaidle
> > Writer & Editor for Print & Web

> > http://www.KathyShaidle.com

---

, Walter Block wrote:
> > RE: FW: request
> >
> > Dear Kathy:
> >
> > I'm assuming you're interested in rationally discussing this, not just
> > venting.
> >
> > If so, please read this, and then, perhaps, respond:
> >
> > I am and always have been, well, at least since I became a libertarian
> > in 1963, a bitter opponent of slavery. But precisely WHY is this
> > "curious institution" an abomination? Is it because the slaves picked
> > cotton? No; lots of people pick cotton voluntarily. Is it because the
> > slave ate gruel, lived in shacks, sang songs. No, lots of people do
> > these things voluntarily. Is it, even, because the slaves were
> > whipped? No, again. Sadists beat masochists with the consent of the
> > latter, so that cannot either pinpoint the particular evil of slavery.
> >
> > What then is the EXACT PRECISE REASON why slavery is disgusting and
> > evil and malicious? It is because the slaves were FORCED into this
> > situation. In order to prove this, in my interview with the NYTimes, I
> > proposed a hypothetical situation: suppose, just suppose, work with me
> > here, that, somehow, for some weird reason, people VOLUNTARILY agreed
> > to engage in a situation just like the one that actual slaves were
> > FORCED to undertake. That is, they were whipped (remember the
> > masochist), ate gruel, sang songs, picked cotton, lived in shacks,
> > etc. Would this be so bad? Would this even remotely approach the
> > situation of slavery? OF COURSE NOT. Why not? Because these people did
> > so VOLUNTARILY. Would this be a bit weird? Well, yes, of course. But
> > would it be a horror, compared to slavery. No. It would be, in the
> > words I  used in my interview, "not so bad." I go further: it would
> > constitute an interaction between consenting adults, and, at least
> > under the libertarian law, would not be considered criminal.
> >
> > Let me try another one on with you.
> >
> > Why are the Nazis quintessentially evil? Is it because they have the
> > swastika, do the goose step, move their arms in the hiel Hitler
> > salute, wear black leather boots, come from Germany? NO, no, no, no,
> > no and no. These are only the superficial accoutrements of Nazism. The
> > real reason the Nazis were an abomination, the only reason the Nazis
> > were an abomination, was because they violated the libertarian
> > principle of non initiation of violence. That is, the initiated
> > violence against innocent  people. Now, suppose, work with me again on
> > this, please, there were a group that featured the swastika, the goose
> > step, the hiel Hitler salute, black leather boots, came from Germany,
> > etc. But these people never, ever, not once, initiated violence
> > against innocent people. I would of course find this group obnoxious
> > (only because of association in my mind with real Nazis), but,
> > compared to real Nazis, I would find this group "not so bad." Again, I
> > go further. While I supported the Nuremberg trials which condemned
> > actual Nazis to death, would these "Nazis" be engaging in criminal
> > acts. No. Of course not. Hey, shouldn't a civilized society have room
> > for weirdos?
> >
> > If you disagree with this, which is all I told the NYTimes in my
> > interview with them, I would be glad to hear your reasons.
> >
> > Also, back to the slavery issue. As evidence that I abhor slavery, I
> > have a paper trail of publications favoring reparations for slavery,
> > from the great grandchildren of slave owners, to the great
> > grandchildren of slaves. I could hardly have written this if I
> > thought that actual slavery (not the hypothetical variety mentioned
> > above) was "not so bad."
> >
> > Alston and Block, 2007; Block, 1993, 2001, 2002; Block and Yeatts,
> > 1999-2000
> >
> > Alston, Wilton D. and Walter E. Block. 2007. "Reparations, Once
> > Again." Human Rights Review, Vol. 9, No. 3, September, pp. 379-392;
> > http://tinyurl.com/2b75fl
> >
> > Block, Walter E. 1993. "Malcolm X," Fraser Forum, January, pp. 18-19;
> > http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5361.aspx
> >
> > Block, Walter E. 2001. "The Moral Dimensions of Poverty, Entitlements
> > and Theft," The Journal of Markets and Morality, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.
> > 83-93; http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2001_spring/block.html;
> > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=922087;
> >
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketsandmorality.com%2Findex.php%2Fmandm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F587%2F577&ei=lBn9UuLIOtDOkQe1toHwBw&usg=AFQjCNF2MZ5XoFKKMF5UcOfOT5Kv-HQgZA&sig2=VVYWZhyl0ZmAWRAKXtkxWw
> >
> > Block, Walter E. 2002. "On Reparations to Blacks for Slavery," Human
> > Rights Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, July-September, pp. 53-73;
> >
> http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/reparations_slavery.pdf
> >
> > Block, Walter E. and Guillermo Yeatts. 1999-2000. "The Economics and
> > Ethics of Land Reform: A Critique of the Pontifical Council for
> > Justice and Peace's 'Toward a Better Distribution of Land: The
> > Challenge of Agrarian Reform,'" Journal of Natural Resources and
> > Environmental Law, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 37-69;
> > http://www.walterblock.com/publications/ethics_land_reform.pdf
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Walter

----

 From: Kathy Shaidle [mailto:kshaidle@rogers.com]
> Sent: Wed 5/27/2015 6:34 PM
> To: Walter Block
> Subject: Re: FW: request
>
> "Venting"? And here I thought our respective prose styles were rather
> similar :-)
>
> We're arguing at cross purposes because I'm not talking about what you
> might have said to the NYT after the fact, but about your initial
> remarks at LewRockwell.com.
>
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/02/walter-e-block/chris-selley-is-a-pussy-libertarian-imnot/
>
> Here's the paragraph:>

> > Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial.> > Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could> > not quit. They were forced to "associate" with their masters when they> > would have vastly preferred not to do so. *Otherwise, slavery wasn't> > so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc.*> > The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It> > violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves' private> > property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964,> > then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the> > owners of establishments like Woolworths.

> And I am merely arguing the I-wouldn't-thought-particularly-radical
> viewpoint that "picking cotton" and "being fed gruel" (even of the
> mythological "nice" variety" "wasn't so bad." Other than the singing of
> songs, the work as you described it in that single sentence sounds "bad"
> indeed to me. I doubt I'm alone.
>
> While you may think that "the /only/ real problem was that this
> relationship was compulsory" I'd humbling counter that other "real
> problems" with the work as you described it was that it was painful
> stoop labor occasionally interrupted by mediocre food.
>
> As I said before, otherwise I agree with and applaud pretty much
> everything else in your essay. My (unpopular) sympathies on these
> matters can be easily discerned via most of my other Taki's columns.
>
> (And I bow to no one in my dislike of Chris Selley, who is such a
> "pussy" that, weirdly, refuses to spell out my name even when forced to
> write about me in his column, such are my "white supremacist" cooties...)
>
> So I hope you will allow us to agree to disagree that "slavery wasn't so
> bad" as per your particular description.
>
> KS

----

On 2015-05-27 9:03 PM, Walter Block wrote:
> RE: FW: request
>
> Dear Kathy:
>
> Now that we're speaking nicely to one another, let me try to convince
> you that "painful stoop labor" is not so bad assuming that it is
> entirely voluntary. Not so bad compared to what you might ask.
> Compared to the other options available. This is necessarily true,
> since if it weren't "not so bad" the person involved would be doing
> this other thing that is available to him. For example, he could be
> working at McDonalds for far lower wages. He chooses "painful stoop
> labor" as in the case of a plumber, or a coal miner as the lesser of
> two evils, or, the better job, all things considered.
>
> Or consider professional boxing, or football or some other even more
> dangerous occupation than one involving "painful stoop labor." These
> pro athletes are paid big salaries. They compete hard to get those
> jobs. They'd give their eye teeth to get those jobs. Yes, sometimes,
> rarely, they are injured or even killed on the job. But, they go into
> them, presumably, with they eyes wide open. They are "not so bad" in
> their eyes, compared to other jobs available to them, such as asking
> people if they "want fries with that."
>
> I plan on blogging this. Shall I use your name, eddress, or make you
> anonymous?
>
> Best regards,
>

> Walter

---

From: Kathy Shaidle [mailto:kshaidle@rogers.com]
Sent: Wed 5/27/2015 8:55 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: FW: request

I wasn't aware that "speaking nicely" was a prerequisite. I /know/ you
can't be just another one of those Taki's readers who's startled when
uppity females write like men.

And I don't know the meaning of the word "anonymity." Blog away. If you
don't mind your readers wondering why you are ever so touchy about
receiving such a mild criticism from a comparative nobody, that is. :-)


KS