Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Walter Block responds to My "Not Cutting Him Any Slack"

Dr. Walter Block emails in response to my post, Walter Block Says Cut Trump Slack When He Calls for the Killing of Families of Terrorists:

Dear Bob:

I think you should cut me some slack on this article of mine:

Block, Walter E. 2016. “Cut Trump Some Slack: Threats; and Donald Trump.” July 12;

I did say, in it, this:

"It also transpires that the police (hopefully private..."

Surely, this "mad bomber" is a terrorist. In the context of the article, this terrorist was not created by government. I am as firm a supporter as you are of Ron Paul's "blowback" theory. Yes, the US government created many terrorists with its overseas adventures. But not every short op ed piece can cover every issue. You are criticizing me in your response to this op ed of mine not for what I said, but for what I didn't say. That's unfair, I think. By the way, in your critique of this short essay of mine, and in many, many excellent publications of yours, you neglected to opposed the slavery that existed until 1865. Nor did you mention the horrors perpetrated by Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin. You also overlooked the negative effects of cancer, MS, heart disease. Would it be proper of me to criticize you for not always mentioning these episodes and many, many others? Of course not. But, you did something similar with me.

Best regards,


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


  1. What if the terrorist calls your bluff? Will you then as a libertarian feel justified in killing his innocent family? If you adhere to the NAP what have you accomplished aside from proving to the terrorist that you're full of hot air?

    Trump being no libertarian, shouldn't he be taken at his word? And if so why cut him some slack?

  2. Walter Block justifies threatening family members of “terrorists” using a hypothetical of police telling a bomber, who’s said he will sets off an atomic bomb located in mid-Manhattan in an hour, that his 3 year son who’s in their custody and out of harm’s way will be killed if he sets of the bomb. He also says it would be wrong to follow through on the threat, so it’s a bluff.

    What’s wrong with this analogy is the 3 years old son is totally unaware of the threat on his life, while the family members of the “terrorists” would not be kept in the dark about the threat.