Thursday, November 26, 2015

Was It Immoral to Vote for Ron Paul?

The following email exchange took place between Walter Block and Nathan Fryzek,  a high school senior.
 Nathan Fryzek - I had a question when it comes to
> politics, I know your belief is that there is
>  nothing wrong with voting for a
> representative that commits less aggression.
>  However, do you consider politicians who
>  vote for aggression to be immoral, or do you
>  only consider the police who enforce the law
> s to be immoral. If you consider politicians
>  to be immoral wouldn't anyone who voted for
>  politicians be immoral too (even if one step
>  removed). In that case wouldn't voting for
> Ron Paul be immoral even if it's practical
> for reducing aggression? Would a Ron Paul
> supporter be like the corrupt Nazi who lets
> a few prisoners go? They would be heros but
> also would be immoral by the standards of the
>  non-aggression principle. Thanks for your
> time as always, Nathan Fryzek.
Walter Block -> site=&source=hp&q=%22overseer+goodie%22&oq> =%22overseer+goodie%22&gs_l=hp.12...1919.> 8410.0.10268.> j1j1.14.0.ckpsrh...0...1.1.64.hp..11.9.20> 03.0.FjEYZVKLuRI
Nathan Fryzek - I have heard you talk about
> overseer goodie before, but in that scenario
>  you are voting for the police, not the
>  politicians who make decisions pertaining to
>  the police. If you consider statist
>  politicians immoral then you must consider a
> ll who vote for them to be immoral since they
>  are simply one step removed. Do you consider
>  that statist politicians aren't violating
> the non-aggression principle? If they are the
> n whoever is voting for them is as well.
Walter Block - I don't see any relevant difference
>  between "voting for the police, (and) the
> politicians who make decisions pertaining to
>  the police."
Nathan Fryzek - If a politician is immoral then
> whoever votes for him is immoral since voters
>  are simply one step removed. I'm asking you
>  whether only the police are evil or if
> politicians are also. All politicians do is
>  vote for policies, the same as the average
>  voter.


Walter Block  - You say: "If a politician is immoral
>  then whoever votes for him is immoral." By
>  your logic, the slaves who vote for overseer
>  goody are immoral. Do you really believe
>  that?

> How's about, if you support the state in any

>  way, apart from voting, you're a bad guy.
> For example, using US$, using the roads,
> eating food (since the govt supports farming)
> . Are you a bad guy?
Nathan Fryzek - Hmm, all I am trying to explain is
>  that voters are no more or less immoral then
>  politicians. Politicians don't initiate
> aggression themselves. In your example voters
>  choose the police, in my example voters
> choose voters who choose the police. To put
>  it in the context of your example, would you
>  consider a slave immoral if he votes for
> more beatings? Obviously the master is
> immoral, but if you vote for a worse master a
> re you immoral as well?
Walter Block   - I finally see your point. Sorry.
> Yes, I agree with you. Not only are police
> guilty, say, of jailing victimless criminals,
>  but so are legislators who prohibited these
>  actions, and so are people who voted for the
> se politicians.
Nathan Fryzek - If you consider politicians to be
> violators of the NAP then do you consider
>  voters to be violators as well? Politicians
>  vote to pay police, and voters vote for
>  politicians to vote to pay police.
Walter Block - Not all politicians are guilty. Ron
>  Paul for one.
> But yes, I consider voters who support evil
>  politicians to be evil too unless they are
>  just voting for overseer goodie.
> What are your views on all of this?
Nathan Fryzek - I have a historical question for you
> , do you think the Confederacy or the Union
> had the moral high ground in the civil war?
> Both violated the N.A.P. some would argue
> that slavery is much worse then not allowing
>  states to secede, while others say that the
>  Union was in fact enslaved every Confederate
>  by not allowing them free association.
> About voting, how does voting for a statist
>  violate the N.A.P? Paying the police
> voluntarily violates it, but how exactly
> would voting? I know you standard position of
>  overseer goodie, but you do believe voting
>  for a statist is immoral, wouldn't voting
>  for a overseer be immoral?
> I'm not totally sure about view on overseer
>  goodie. The problem is that you can always
>  vote for someone better, you could write in
>  yourself for instance. In a way you are
> never voting for overseer goodie.
Walter Block - When and if you become my student, I
> 'll answer all your questions, both in my
> office and via e mail. But, I get about 100
> emails per day, and I can't answer all of you
> r very brilliant and important questions and
>  challenges. I usually cut people off at one,
>  but, since you're my agent, I've done, so
>  far,, about a half dozen. How's about
> limiting this to say no more than one per
>  month.
> The south. Both sides had slavery. Read Tom
>  DiLorenzo on Lincoln, who only wanted to
>  preserve the union, not end slavery.
Nathan Fryzek- Absolutely, I will send one a month
> I am back with another question, I watched on
> e of your videos about children homesteading
>  their bodies as they grow up so a parent
>  doesn't need the consent of their baby to
>  kiss him/her. I also heard you say that
>  pedophilia should be stay illegal because
>  the child cannot consent to the activity. I
>  was wondering why sex should be treated any
>  differently then kissing or hugging when it
>  comes to babies, the baby wouldn't object,
>  and if he/she did you could stop. You also
>  have stated in the past that parental
>  guardians have a responsibility to care for
>  their child, if that is so and a family is
>  poor wouldn't it be fine for them to
>  prostitute their baby as long as the baby do
> esn't feel any pain or discomfort?
>Walter Block  -> blog/libertarian-baby-theory/
Nathan Fryzek- - How is the baby being abused if
> he/she is done no harm? Just because it is
> gross and repulsive doesn't mean the baby is
>  being abused.
>Walter Block - hey, next month
> I get about 100 e mails a day, and it's hard
>  for me to keep up.
Nathan Fryzek - A period joke, please forgive me.
> Anyways I read you thoughts on Rand Paul and
>  how we should support him because he is over
> seer goodie. Why then have you also
> criticized Milton Friedman for making
> government more efficient? It seems to me
>  that in order to be consistent with you
> criticism of Milton Friedman you should also
>  support Bernie Sanders since he would make
>  the government extremely inefficient.
>Walter Block  - An economist was asked, "How is your
>  wife?" The answer: "Compared to what?"
> Rand Paul is great, compared to Donald Trump,
>  Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Hillary, Bernie, etc.
> Milton Friedman is lousy, compared to
>  Rothbard, Mises. Compared to Donald Trump,
>  Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Hillary, Bernie, etc.,
>  he's great. I usually compare him, though,
>  to Rothbard and Mises, fellow scholars.
Nathan Fryzek - I was wondering about inflation and
>  its relationship to the monetary base, we
>  had a lot of inflation around 1980-1981
> even though the US monetary base had been
> fairly steady for a long time before that.
> Ron Paul recently put out this television ad,
> Monetary_base.png
> The second link is to a graph of the US
> monetary base,
> Do you see hyper-inflation in the near future
>  or is Ron Paul just selling out?
> Thank you for your time as always.
>Walter Block - In my understanding of Austrian
> economics, all we say is that if there is
> inflation in, an increase in, the stock of
>  money, the rate of price rises will be
>  higher than it otherwise would have been.
> But, there is no necessary connection between
>  a rise in the money supply and increased
>  prices (although this is the usual result).
>  For example, the demand to hold money might
>  have also risen during the quantitative
> easing, which would dampen, or even reverse,
>  the price boosts that would otherwise occur.
Nathan Fryzek - Hi Walter, if I steal a dollar from
>  you I must pay you back 1 dollar, plus 1
> dollar in retaliation, plus the costs of
> apprehending me. I believe that is the
> libertarian theory of justice. I think that
>  I may have found a way that involuntary
>  democracy can be valid. Imagine I pinch
>  you, you then get to pinch me twice and
> make me pay the costs of my apprehension.
> Imagine though, that a few hundred people
> all hate you, and they all stab you with a
> toothpick, once each, until you eventually
>  die. Wouldn't each person involved in the
>  murder be punished by being stabbed twice
>  with a toothpick? People would be more than
>  willing to suffer a few pokes if it meant
>  killing someone they hated. It wouldn't be
>  proportional to execute hundreds or even
>  thousands of people for the murder of one,
>  how would this problem be solved in a free
>  society?
>Walter Block  - Nice try. But, your objection fails
>  because there is one more element to
> libertarian punishment theory you forgot:
> all criminals must play Russian Roulette
> with themselves with the number of bullets
>  and chanbers proportionate to the severity
>  of the criminal offense. For a bibliography
>  on this, see below. True, there will be
>  few bullets and many chambers for toothpick
> sticking, but that ought to put paid to the
>  incentive for anyone to commit this sort
>  of assault and battery on me. But we don't
>  even need this radical defense of
>  libertarianism against your challenge.
> There is an aphorism in law: "you take your
>  victim as you find him." Well, the first
>  few toothpick stickers are in no great
>  danger of being convicted of murder, but
>  the last few, when I am in a weakened
> condition and one more poke may kill me,
>  certainly are in this danger.
Nathan Fryzek - (Message Lost)
>Walter Block - Dyke, Jeremiah and Walter E.
> Block. 2011. "Explorations in Property
> Rights: Conjoined Twins." Libertarian
> Papers, Vol. 3, Art. 38;
> 2011/lp-3-38.pdf
Nathan Fryzek - I heard in a radio show you were in
>  that you have a list of Defending the
>  Undefendable suggestions from fans. I was
>  wondering if you still have it.
>Walter Block - Eugenicist; no govt compulsion
> Euthanasiaist
> The hater
> Gold and silver rule denier
> Polygamy, group marriage (Heinlein)
> Gay (straight) conversion therapist
> The porn addict
> The materialist
> The individual racist (possibly as long as government doesn't do it)
> Murder memorabilia seller
> The alcoholic (because you defended the drug pusher and drug addict)
> Predatory lender
> Derivatives Trader
Nathan Fryzek  -  When it comes to the subject of
>  pedophilia, however, no one has been able
>  to give me a answer that I deem
> satisfactory. Could you write a short list
>  of why you think pedophilia violates the
> NAP? So far I have heard the following,
> No ability to consent
> Not in the child's best interest
>Walter Block - I think pedohilia (unless it is
> needed to save a child's life) is child
> abuse. So is verbal abuse child abuse. I
> think both should be crimes. I think
> children are different to adults. If you
>  have (voluntary) sex with an adult, or
>  verbally abuse her, that's no crime. But
> it is for a kid, in my view. Why do you
> disagree?
Nathan Fryzek - I would say pedophilia itself is
> not inherently harmful. Just because someone
>  has sex at a very young age doesn't mean
>  they will necessarily be mentally scarred.
>  The media only covers pedophilia when it
> is harmful and horrible, not when it is
>  mutually beneficial. In ancient Sparta
> and Rome it was said that the best companion
>  for a young boy was a older man. If you
>  believe that pedophilia violates the NAP
>  because it is harmful I think you are
> absolutely incorrect. It may be harmful
> in some circumstances, but not most.
>Walter Block - I agree with you it is not
> "inherently" harmful. I'm an economist,
> not a psychologist, so I don't know for
> sure, I've not done any research on this,
> but my belief is that it would not be
> harmful for, oh, 1% or fewer of kids.
> What evidence can you supply that
> demonstrates I'm wildly off in this
>  statistical assessment of mine?
> I'm glad my kids were not brought up
> in ancient Rome or Sparta
Nathan Fryzek  - I will do research and then email
> you later
>Walter Block- Ok
Nathan Fryzek - With your argument with private
> roads that you could build over a holdout,
> what if they are using the sun for crops or
>  solar panels? Can you still build over them
>  and block their sunlight?
>Walter Block-> ontent/uploads/publications/block_roads> -bridges-sunlight-reply-tullock-1998.pdf
Nathan Fryzek - This is similar to the toothpick
> murder question.
> When someone is executed six people must
> press a button to poison the person to
>  death. In the case that an innocent person
>  is kidnapped and killed in this manner who
>  should be held responsible?
> Another thing I thought up.
> Murder is in essence the theft of years of
>  life. So if we stipulate that every person
>  lives to exactly 75, if I kill a 70 year
>  old I should be punished for "stealing"
> 5 years and should lose 10 years myself,
>  so I should be executed at age 65 or
> enslaved for 10 years now. Doesn't it make
> sense that the punishment be different for
>  killing someone that is about to die in 10
>  minutes versus a child who has many decades
>  to live? Shouldn't we treat each murder
>  trial by determining about how many years
> the victim had left and punishing the
>  criminal accordingly?
> Should a business owner be punished for
>  selling cigarettes to a child? Isn't it the
>  guardian(s) responsibility to have control
> of their child not the owner of the business?
>  How is selling something to a minor an act
> of aggression?
Nathan Fryzek just watched a documentary in which a Amazonian tribe puts fire ants
> >> all over their male children when they turn 10 for religious reasons.
> >> Doesn't the government or dispute resolution company have to either be
> >> officially atheist or religious? If they are atheists they would say it
> >> isn't in the best interest of the child and therefore is child abuse
> where
> >> the religious group would say it isn't since pleasing God to get into
> >> heaven in the after life is in the child's best interest.
> >>
> >> What is your opinion on religious matters such as this? If you think it
> >> is okay wouldn't you also have to say child use of tobacco is okay as
> well
> >> if their parents think it is in their best interest?
> >>
> >> Thanks for your time as always!
>Walter Block In my view, all of this is child abuse. Certainly, fire ants qualify as
> child abuse. Tobacco too, although less so. I have the same view on the
> Jehovah's Witnesses who won't allow blood transfusions to their kids. I
> think those children should be taken away from their parents since they are
> horrid guardians. Here are my views on circumcision:
> Testa, Pat and Walter E. Block. 2014. “Libertarianism and circumcision”
> International Journal of Health Policy and Management; Article 8, Volume 3,
> Issue 1, June, Page 33-40;; in Press;;;;


  1. We should encourage classical liberals like Ron Paul to run for office and we should be voting for them. This "leaderless society" idea is absurd.

    1. It's a "ruler-less" society, not a leaderless one. Why should anyone else have a say in whom you choose to follow?

  2. For aggression to occur there has to be causal linkage between an act and an event that takes place. This is vital to the meaning of aggression and is relevant in many issues. There’s no causal linkage between the vote one casts for a politician and what the state does. This also means voting is just a placebo for the voter, little more. Elections are never decided by one vote, so they never make a difference in the election outcome.

  3. The individual votes add up though.

  4. Another typically tedious Walter Block email exchange. This is his signature, BTW. Block is the least interesting writer in the entire liberty movement to me.

  5. Politics is not the solution to any problem. Anyone who votes is sanctioning what the State does, which is to lie, cheat, steal and kill.