A Reply to Walter Block on Anarcho-Capitalism

Dr. Walter Block has responded (SEE: Walter Block Responds to My Charge That He is Not an Anarcho-Capitalist) to an earlier post of mine (SEE: Has Walter Block Left the World of Anarcho-Capitalist Advocacy?).

His response in my view continues to place him in the limited government camp rather than the anarcho-capitalist camp. I do not see how Dr. Block can be in the anarcho-capitalist camp, which I define as a respect for private property but no over-ruling body that can force rules on a person's private property. if he continues to insist that a property owner must put up certain signs on his property:

 I don’t think that my views about warning signs are incompatible with AnCap. Surely, private defense agencies, courts, can make these rulings.

What is Dr. Block saying here? That private defense agencies can set requirements for a property owner that has no interest in listening to the defense agency and is not violating NAP? How is that not interference with a private property owner who has not violated NAP?

The same goes for Dr. Block calling on a court to resolve such issues. If he believes a court can interfere on the private property of an individual who has not violated NAP, he is not an anarcho-capitalist, since he for sure sees some kind of body over-ruling a person who is minding his own business on his own property.

Dr. Block then goes on to move the discussion over to the world of  the doctrine of ad coelum. But my example has nothing to do with a question of property ownership. I am discussing a situation where the ownership is clear. My question remains, if the ownership of a property is clear, in an anarcho-capitalist world how can one have over-ruling bodies that decide what rules must apply on properties? To have any such rules requires a central planning body, call it whatever you choose, but if there is a private property and you are attempting to make rules of any kind that apply to the property, this is not anarchism in any form, It is government---yes that beast that tends to expand into an organism that in the past has killed hundreds of millions on this planet, Do we really want to advocate, for the sake of demanding signs on a property owner's land, the seeds of such a beast?

Dr. Block continues:

When a friend of mine who really should know better heard this, he accused me of being a G man (a government man); a non anarchist. A minarchist. He was making the same error as you are Bob, in thinking that law is a total monopoly of the state. No, it is not. Law precedes government. The state continually violates libertarian law. But, how could this be if, as you and this friend of mine think,  the government is the source of law, and whenever anyone such as myself proposes a law (signage for attack dogs; requirements that slant drillers not interfere with neighbor’s property rights) he is accused of violating AnCap?

I fear Dr. Block has created a strawman here and set it on fire.

I have never denied that laws can emerge without government, Religions, for example, have created laws, see: Catholic Canon Law and Islamic Sharia law. Private communities have set rules/laws for their communities.

But does Dr. Block believe that any of these laws must overrule activities of an individual on his own property if he is not violating NAP? Does he believe that Islamic Sharia law must overrule private property owner desires in parts of the world?

How does Dr. Block determine that his non-government law is the "true" law?

A private property society advocate would simply say. "Fine, if you want to recognize and enforce  Catholic Canon Law, Islamic Sharia law or  the Jewish Halakha, or any other laws on your property go for it, but the PPS advocate would recoil in horror at the idea that a set of laws, irrespective of how they developed, must apply to all properties."

Such a society with outside laws applying everywhere would not be an anarcho-capitalist system, It would be pretty much what we have now, people budding into the actions of those who are minding their own business on their own property, Some will demand warning signs from barking dogs, some will demand signs and safe rooms from speaking individuals. Where does it stop?

-RW

Walter Block Responds to My Charge That He is Not an Anarcho-Capitalist

Walter Block emails in response to my post, Has Walter Block Left the World of Anarcho-Capitalist Advocacy?

Dear Bob:

Please run this response to your criticism of me today.

Bob, you are correct. I have indeed given up on anarcho capitalism. I am now a minarchist. I see two legitimate roles for government. First, to force, compel, require, that everyone read Human Action and Man, Economy and State. Second, pass a law requiring all publishers, when they reprint a book, to maintain the same pagination as the older verions. I’m sick and tired of running seminars for these two books, and others too, and there are 3-4 versions of the book, each with a given statement on a different page. I favor HEAVY taxes in order to finance these two initiatives. Sorry, Murray Rothbard. I tried to be true to anarcho-capitalism, but these are seious two market failures that I can no longer abide.

On a more serious note, I don’t think that my views about warning signs are incompatible with AnCap. Surely, private defense agencies, courts, can make these rulings. Let’s consider a different example, very far removed from this case. I oppose the doctrine of ad coelum. This is the view that if you own an acre of land on the surface of the earth, you also own terrain, downward, to the center of the planet, in a decreasing cone shaped format (you also own the space in an increasing cone shaped format up to the heavens; this would play havoc with air travel, of course, but is irrelevant to my present point). I oppose this because I favor, instead, the doctrine of homesteading, and the person who owns an acre of land never homesteaded any territory miles, or tens of miles, or hundreds of miles beneath the surface. Now, consider slant drilling. This is the practice of drilling below your own land, and then making a detour under the land of your neighbor; that is, accessing what would be his property under the ad coelum doctrine. But, this is licit under homesteading since you were the first to drill below his property. But, how low do you have to go for this to be legitimate? In my understanding of libertarianism, the slant driller must go so low so as to not interfere with his neighbor’s property rights; he may not collapse his buildings, may not interfere with his crops, etc. So, how far down does the drilling have to be? This depends, to a great degree if not entirely, on the type terrain were are considering. If in Manhattan, which is perched on a solid rock, then the slant driller can come under his neighbor’s property pretty closely, since there is little danger of interference. However, if in New Orleans, which is perched on a swamp, either there will be no slant drilling allowed at all, or, the slant driller will have to place his drill very far beneath the earth.

When a friend of mine who really should know better heard this, he accused me of being a G man (a government man); a non anarchist. A minarchist. He was making the same error as you are Bob, in thinking that law is a total monopoly of the state. No, it is not. Law precedes government. The state continually violates libertarian law. But, how could this be if, as you and this friend of mine think,  the government is the source of law, and whenever anyone such as myself proposes a law (signage for attack dogs; requirements that slant drillers not interfere with neighbor’s property rights) he is accused of violating AnCap?

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

Has Walter Block Left the World of Anarcho-Capitalist Advocacy?

By Robert Wenzel

In an email  Rick Miller has posed an important question of what is required of a farmer who has attack dogs on his property (SEE: Walter Block: Thoughts on the Farmer Dilemma),

Prof. Walter Block has responded with this claim:

My claim is that yes, the owner should be able to have attack dogs roaming his property, but, if so, he must place fences with barbed wire around his territory, along with signs, large ones, warning of this danger.

But at another time Prof. Block has written  (June 1 1969, Libertarian Forum):

 Any threat or initiation of violence against a man or his property is in violation of man's rights and hence inimical to liberty.

These two positions seem to be in conflict. One may argue that rules/laws must be required to protect children, but the advocacy of such must cause one to leave the world of anarcho-capitalism.

The first question that can be asked to illustrate this point is Who is making this rule? Suddenly, there is some sort of ruler over private property. A second question: Where does this stop? Should a swimming pool owner also be required to have "fences with barbed wire around his territory, along with signs, large ones, warning of this danger"? What about a child that is being fed "too much sugar"? Should society intervene to stop this if responsibility doesn't stop with the parents?

And finally, we must ask, what is to be done to a private individual who simply ignores outside regulations? How are these regulations to be enforced if not by some violation of an individuals right to be left alone.

There are many who now call themselves anarcho-capitalists, who fail in fully advocating  an anarcho-capitalist society. They are actually limited government advocates. You can call a group that overrides private property rights by many names, but in the end it is some sort of over-ruling body, that is, some type of government. It may be advocacy for an extremely limited government but it is still an advocacy for some sort of over-ruling body. People who believe such an over-ruling body is necessary should realize this. They are not anarcho-capitalists, if anarcho-capitalism means respect for private property and no government.

I happen to hold the view that the fears that most hold about an anarcho-capitalist society, what I prefer to call a Private Property Society, are unjustified. The significance should be recognized that we, even  now, despite the supposed protection of government, for the most part protect ourselves and our children by staying away from danger. It is a myth that government protects us from danger. If government was the key driver of protection of person and property, locks on doors wouldn't exist, nor babysitters. We protect ourselves.

Anyone who demands an over-ruling dictate that requires certain things be done on a private property, regardless of the property owner's desires, can't possibly believe that we protect ourselves. They, to at least a minor degree, buy into the idea that government protects. It is an extremely dangerous notion, since one can think of many, many rules that can be made to "protect children" and, say, the low IQ, the handicapped.

I would further argue that contra to Dr. Block, the farmer dilemma is not a "very difficult case for libertarians." It is at the core of libertariansim that each person and his property should be  be left alone as long as he is not violating NAP. The entire concept of libertariansim is based on the idea that people are quite capable of taking care of themselves (and their children) and that there is no need for over-ruling bodies. It is the observation that the actions of over-ruling bodies, despite possibly initial good intentions, turn evil. The danger with creating a central power is that it creates a focal point that can be corrupted. For the desire to protect some theoretical child, who theoretically climbs on to the private  land of a theoretical child-molesting killer as theoretical parents ignore the child, a very real central power is created that the worst in mankind can focus on and capture. This is the great danger that has resulted in hundreds of millions of deaths on this planet, the capture of central power by the evil ones. It has been repeated in history time after time.

The message of libertarians to the world should be that central powers are extremely dangerous and that Lord Acton was very right when he warned power corrupts. It should be emphasized that government protection now is largely a myth that we protect ourselves and that creating any central power is creating a seed that has always led to great death.

Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics

Walter Block: Thoughts on the Farmer Dilemma

The following email exchange took place between Rick Miller and Prof. Walter Block:

From: Rick Miller
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 10:28 AM
To: Walter Block; rw@economicpolicyjournal.com
Subject: Thoughts on the Farmer Delimma

Fellows,

It has been a very invigorating discussion so far!  Here are a few thoughts:

Any theory forwarded that does not address the primary issue of the child’s trespassing is atopical, and fails to reach the heart of the matter.  It is important to remember that the child in the scenario we are considering has committedtwo NAP violations- the initial and much more important one being trespassing.

To illustrate this, imagine the farmer has trained attack dogs to protect his orchard.  If one of the dogs were to escape, the owner would be responsible for any damages the dogs inflicted while outside the owner’s property.  However, if the child trespasses and is eaten by the guard dogs inside the property, the owner is not responsible and owes no restitution for the event that occurred.  This should illustrate properly the primacy of trespassing over all other considerations.

Dr. Block has discussed the way libertarians should view the owner who defends his property with deadly force:

“It is an illicit question to ask a libertarian, qua libertarian, if he would continue to hang on to or let go of the flagpole. Remember, libertarianism is a very limited political philosophy. Essentially, it asks only one question and gives only one answer. The question: under what conditions is the use of or threat of physical force justified? The answer: only in response or in reaction to the prior use of such force. The only germane question raised by this scenario is what to do with the homeowner if he shoots the flagpole sitter, or, forces him to drop to his death under the threat of the gun. 3. Looked at in this way, the answer is clear. The owner of the flagpole is totally within his rights to defend his property, both the flagpole and his apartment. It might be nice if he allowed the person in this precarious position to scurry back to safety, but he is by no means required to do so under the libertarian law code.”

Source: http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/radical_privatization.pdf (Pg. 14-16)

In a private property society (PPS), the Castle Doctrine would be the rule- the owner would not be prohibited from acting with deadly force in protection of his property.  This upsets some, who in the words of Robert Wenzel, “…do not truly understand the logical road such a view leads to and I am sure that many recoil… to the punch in the gut as to the true nature of PPS.”  Discussions of proportionality answer the wrong question.

--

Rick

My Blog-- Liberty Study

----

Dear Rick:

My response is that this is a very difficult case for libertarians. Why? Because it pits two elements of the NAP seemingly against each other. On the one hand we have the sanctity, the inviolability, or private property rights. Yes, the owner should be able to use deadly force to protect his person and property. But, on the other hand, and, yes, there is another hand, we also incorporate the insight that children are different than adults, and have diminished responsibility. How do I reconcile these seemingly irreconcilable elements of our philosophy? My claim is that yes, the owner should be able to have attack dogs roaming his property, but, if so, he must place fences with barbed wire around his territory, along with signs, large ones, warning of this danger. My analysis of booby trapping empty cabins in the woods is the same. This is allowed, but clear signage indicating the danger is also required. This allows us to have both our deontological and utilitarian cakes and eat them both, too. Private property is protected, and so are children. For that matter, so are accidental trespassers. They don’t call me Walter Moderate Block for nothing. For the importance of warning children and trespassers who lack mens rea, see my publications on “murder parks.”

Whitehead, Roy and Walter E. Block. 2002. “Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A Property Rights Perspective,” University of Utah Journal of Law and Family Studies, Vol. 4, pp.226-263; 

http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jlfst4&div=24&g_sent=1&collection=journals#243

Block, Walter E. 2002. “Radical Privatization and other Libertarian Conundrums,” The International Journal of Politics and Ethics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 165-175; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/radical_privatization.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2007. "Alienability: Reply to Kuflik.” Humanomics Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 117-136;http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=0685BBB744173274A5E7CE3803132413?contentType=Article&contentId=1626605

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

Walter Block Asks for Apology From the President of Loyola University-New Orleans

The below email was sent by Professor Walter Block  to  Rev. Kevin Wm. Wildes, S.J., Ph.D., president of Loyola University New Orleans. 


Dear Fr. Wildes, SJ:

In the last few minutes of your speech on Friday, 1/22/16 at the convocation, you said something to the effect that (in my paraphrase) you would “strive mightily to always interpret other people’s statements in the most positive way possible and reasonable; you would give a sympathetic interpretation of what others say or write.” I applaud you for this statement. I always try to do this in my own writings and speeches, and, often, I even succeed. I also greatly regret it when I do not. I think this principle you have today articulated is one all scholars should follow. Again, in my paraphrase, “Do not attack straw men.” When you criticize others, do so for their views in their most compelling versions, not their weakest.  I think you have been “channeling” some of  the words of a hero of mine, John Stuart Mill (from his “On Liberty), who said: “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

As you can see, this statement of yours moved me.

In view of this perspective of yours that you recently articulated, would you please consider making a public apology to me for publishing in the Maroon a statement to the effect that I favored slavery (based on hearsay “evidence” from the NYTimes); you did so without even first asking me about this.

I intend to share this letter, and any response you might give me, or none, with others.

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
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318    
New Orleans, LA 70118

(-RW note: For more on the controversy see:  Distorting A Champion of Liberty: The Walter Block Controversy)

Walter Block Advice to Bernie Sanders: Offer VP Spot to Michelle Obama

Prof Walter Block emails:

Dear Bob:

Good report on Bernie and Barack: http://www.targetliberty.com/2016/01/obama-meets-with-bernie-sanders.html

My advice to Bernie if he wants to get the Democratic nomition is to offer to Michelle Obama the Vice Presidency. This would help him in two ways vis a vis Hillary. One, Barack would then support Bernie. Two, Bernie would then shift the black Democratic vote (his major weakness amongst Democratic supporters) from Hillary to the Bernie-Michelle ticket.

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

Bernie Sanders Signed Walter Block's Yearbook

They both attended James Madison High School. Says Walter,

Check out the short Sanders bio, he was a power freak even back then. Captain Track Team, Captain Cross Country Team and Class president!

(ht Travis Holte)

Writing Advice From Walter Block

The following email exchange took place with Dr. Walter Block:

Hi Walter,

You're one of the most prolific writers in academia. Do you have any advice for increasing writing output?

---

Dear XXX:

Thanks for the compliment. Much appreciated.

Yes. Watch out for the perfectionist hangup. When I first started writing, I felt that the eyes of History were looking down at what I was writing, and frowning. That stopped the creative juices cold. So I concocted a short saying that I posted on the wall near my typewriter (no personal computers in the 1960s). It stated “The next essay I write will be perfect; this one, I’ll just write. Imperfectly.” Of course, this statement applied to all the “next” articles. I’ve never written anything perfectly. But, at least I write. I can only do so to the best of my very imperfect ability.

I’m gonna blog this with my friend Bob Wenzel. He’ll keep you anonymous.

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
wblock@loyno.edu

EXPOSED Bernie Sanders' Character and View on Rights

 Thanks to Walter Block and Rev. Larry Beane. The video was part of this exchange:

From: larrybeane
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 1:39 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Bernie Sanders on the NAP

in case you've not seen this...

http://youtu.be/tBIKP4W50-I

----


Dear Larry:

This is MAGNIFICENT. Helfeld is GREAT. Poor Bernie; he comes off as an idiot. Here, Helfeld takes an anarchist position. Here, he attacks it:

May 11, 2014. Walter Block debates Jan Helfeld on anarchism versus minimal government; Jan Helfeld <janhelfeld@gmail.com>; Daniel Rothschild daniel.y.rothschild@gmail.com; http://youtu.be/58-YSENYuVM. http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/walter-block-debates-anarcho-capitalism-vs-limited-government/; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/walter-block-vs-jan-helfeld-on-anarchy.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29; Analysis of the Anarchy debate with Block

I hope and trust you don’t mind I share this with others.

Best regards,

Walter

---

Dear Walter:

By all means!  I "enjoyed" Bernie's attempt to intimidate once he thought the cameras stopped. Congressthugs are living the dream. As the kids might say: Marxists gonna Marx...

Pax et Libertas!

Larry

---

Yes, Jan’s funding is highly relevant to this (J). Jan also did a magnificent job on Pelosi on the minimum wage. Too bad Bernie turned him down on that one.

OMG Rand Drops to Zero in Walter Block's Teaching State

Rand Paul supporter Walter Block, Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics, Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business, Loyola University New Orleans, is not creating much enthusiaism for Rand in the Bug Easy.

WWLTV in New Orleans has Rand polling at 0%/

New Progress Hating HBO Documentary, By Nancy Pelosi's Daughter, Is Out

I haven't had a chance to see the film yet, but judging by the trailer and the synopsis, it's typical progress hating, gentrification hating cluelessness.

From the synopsis:

In SAN FRANCISCO 2.0, Alexandra Pelosi (HBO’s Emmy®-winning “Journeys with George”) returns to her hometown to document what the tech boom has in store for this historically progressive city, talking to various industry representatives, politicians and longtime residents hoping to maintain their place and not be left behind. Directed, produced and filmed by Pelosi, this insightful film looks at the price of progress, and the challenges of holding onto a collective past....

The city’s tech boom was born out of Silicon Valley’s tech influx, which found companies shuttling young, newly affluent employees between suburban offices and desirable residential neighborhoods of San Francisco. Mayor Ed Lee jumped at the opportunity to move companies from the Valley into the city, offering tax breaks and incentives to those relocating to the run-down neighborhood of the Tenderloin. Angel investor Ron Conway touts the city’s “progress,” but acknowledges that housing affordability is becoming a problem.

This change has been felt most acutely in places like the Mission District, where the immigrant community that’s lived there for decades is being uprooted. “The heart and soul of San Francisco is being ripped out from the city,” says activist Roberto Hernandez, who points out that the neighborhood’s historic murals are being painted over by new businesses. The number of no-fault evictions has spiked, and developers are squeezing out local businesses. SAN FRANCISCO 2.0 leaves Pelosi pondering the price of change, and wondering what “the growing divide between rich and poor [will] do to the fabric of America.” If any place can work through these problems and forge a solution, however, she believes it is San Francisco: a city rich in progressive history, which Pelosi hopes will “not leave its heart and soul behind.”

My suspicion is that nowhere in the film is Walter Block interviewed on rent controls and how they are a major contributor to the "housing crisis." Instead, it is all about hating progress.

The trailer. Note well: The last person you hear on this trailer is Berkely lefty economist Robert Reich, who has advocated pretty much every policy that has caused many, many to struggle just to pay rent. From being an advocate of rent controls to high minimum wages, this guy is bad news.

  -RW

A Response to Walter Block on Rand Paul

In a letter at the post I have titled, Walter Block: Trump is Better on Drug Legalization Than Rand, Professor Block claims I have pulled a switcheroo.

I am glad Dr. Block brings up the point of switcheroos, since the only switcheroo going on in our debate over Rand Paul  is the one conducted by Dr. Block, when he has steadfastly refused to answer my simple question, "Dr.Block based on what positions are you endorsing Rand Paul and urging people to vote for him and send money to him?"

Dr. Block has consistently gone into switcheroo mode and has asked me to compare Rand against all the other candidates, when the question was what specific Rand positions drove Dr. Block to take the step of proclaiming Rand most libertarian and deserving of an endorsement?

I have simply said, when I look at Rand's positions compared to others they don't seem different and am asking just where Dr. Block sees such differences, given he has proclaimed such differences exist. Not answering that question and suggesting some kind of laborious task for me, when it seems Rand is about the same on most issues and worse on taxes, is a perfect example of a switcheroo.

As for the comment I made where Dr. Block has accused me of pulling a switcheroo, it relates to an email sent to me by Dr. Edelstein where he quotes Rand from the debate and says:

My point in not that he’s libertarian or even near libertarian. Rather, he’s better than the other criminals on this issue. 

I pointed to further Rand comment which amplifies on what Dr. Edelstein quoted, which makes it clearer as to what Rand's position is on drugs. I then point to other candidates that hold the same position, That is not a switcheroo, it is an amplification seeking truth to Dr. Edelstein's question; Is Rand more libertarian than the others when it comes to drugs.

Note: I did not give Dr. Edelstein any tasks. I did not refuse to answer Dr. Edelstein's  question on how other candidates matched up against Rand when it came to drugs. I answered the question posed to me.

 -RW

Walter Block: Trump is Better on Drug Legalization Than Rand

Walter Block emails with regard to my post, Is Rand Paul "More Libertarian" On Drug Policy Than the Other Republican Candidates? 

Dear Bob:

There are two things Rand said, X and Y.

X = “I personally think that this is a crime for which the only victim is the individual, and I think that America has to take a different attitude.”

To your specific quote, actually, Rand continued during that part of the debate and said:

Y = I’m a fan of the drug courts which try to direct you back towards work and less time in jail.

Michael quotes X and asks you to match other candidates on X. You pull a switheroo on him, and instead of matching X, you match Y. Not fair.

The only single candidate who matches Rand’s X is Donald Trump who also calls for legalization. Here, Trump is better than Rand, in that he more explicitly calls for legalization.  The others you cite are irrelevant to X; they are only relevant to Y. That is, they are irrelevant to Michael’s point.

Michael

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
wblock@loyno.edu

Note: As per my agreement with Walter, I will not respond for at least 24 hours. But I will respond. I have a lot to say in response.

-RW

The Pope, The Poor, And Jesus

By Victor J. Ward

Have you heard? The Pope is in town.

In short, he hates capitalism and the free market.

I am Christian, not Catholic. So, maybe I am missing something in my analysis of the Pope. But, I believe that he is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ. The reasoning seems to be: "We don't have the physical Christ, but we do have the Pope. The Pope can speak where Christ has not."

Jesus, however, has spoken about the poor, and he didn't say that much.

Block vs. Wenzel: An Exchange on Rand Paul

Dr. Block emails:

Dear Bob:

“Paul, who has fallen to the back of the pack in Republican polls, addressed the conference on Saturday, telling those gathered that the nation had been too interventionist in its approach to foreign policy and declaring that he wanted to restore “common sense” to America’s international posture.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/republican-2016-straw-poll-mackinac-island-213856#ixzz3mKEUzydW

No other GOP candidate is as good on foreign policy as this.

Yes, Rand isn’t as good as Ron. He isn’t as good as the 3 of us. He isn’t good when compared to pure libertiaranism. But compared to the other GOPers? Name one who is as good as him!!!

Bob, you compare Rand to Rothbard, or you or me or Michael or Ron and find him wanting. Fair enough. He’s pretty bad when compared to people like that. But, you never ever compare him to the other GOP people. If you did, you’d see that he stands head and shoulders above all of them. Why don’t you ever make that comparison?

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
wblock@loyno.edu

My Response,

Hi Walter,

I have no idea why there is something special about Rand saying that we need to restore “common sense to America’s international posture.”

Is this the best you can do in terms of finding a Rand quote to defend your view that he should be supported and money sent to his campaign?

Are you saying that the other Republican candidates wouldn't say they are in favor of "common sense" when it comes to America’s international posture?

Did Reason get this wrong about what Rand means (my highlight)?:

Paul stood by the comments he made in "Containment and Radical Islam," a February 2013 speech at the Heritage Foundation. That speech argues that a realist foreign policy is neither "imperialistic not isolationist" and seeks to engage the world through a variety of measures, including trade, cultural exchange, political pressure, and military action. In it, Paul called for a fuller understanding of Cold War theorist George F. Kennan's "containment" theory, which has often been reduced to simply confronting enemies via military action.

 I agree with such keen observers as former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts who wrote after watching the debate:

There is not a peaceful person among the Republican candidates....If any of the Republicans are elected, or for that matter any of the Democrats, war will be the result. 

 I will grant you that Rand's answers are less clear than those of the other candidates,

But, where there is clarity, he is worse.

As I have already pointed out,  for someone who has relatives in Ukraine, the fact that Donald Trump thinks he can negotiate with Russian President Putin  may mean for that person that Trump is a plus over Rand who said we should give "no free pass to Russia or China," Especially since some think that a Trump Administration would restrain the Empire overseas.

And I state once again, Rand IS the absolute worst on taxes with his value added tax proposal.

Why, why, given that you are such an important figure in the modern day libertarian movement would you stick your neck out, indeed call for others to send money to the Rand campaign, when he has not said one libertarian thing and his obfuscating manner of answering questions makes it impossible to know where he stands on anything?

Best,

Bob

---

Robert Wenzel

Editor & Publisher

EconomicPolicyJournal.com

San Francisco, CA

Walter Block's Perspective on Individual Ownership of Total Destruction Weapons

Dr. Walter Block replied to the following email:

Dr. Block,

Suppose technology advances to the point that an individual, or even a country, could construct a device capable of destroying the entire world. Libertarian philosophy, as I understand it, would not allow that individual or country to be stopped until “button” was pushed. At that point, however, it would be too late for all of us.

As an engineer, I realize this situation assumes many things, such as how that much energetic material to power the device could be gathered up, the costs involved in such an endeavor, etc. Let’s make it simple and suppose a very smart scientist or engineer discovered a simple, inexpensive way to create a black-hole that would devour the earth.

Clearly, if the intent of the individual or country was to destroy the world and this intent was made public, then self-defense from aggression would apply. This is similar to the fact that one doesn’t have to wait to be stabbed or shot to initiate self-defense. But, let’s say the individual or country is very psychotic or a good liar and hides the true purpose of the device.

It seems to me there must be some form of “for the ultimate good” that this individual or country could be legally stopped on libertarian principles.

Regards,

Dr Block's response:

Dear ....

I have written about this:

Block, Walter and Matthew Block. 2000. “Toward a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun (Weapon) Control,” Ethics, Place and Environment, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 289-298;
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/theory_gun_control.pdf; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228127780_Toward_a_Universal_Libertarian_Theory_of_Gun_(Weapon)_Control_A_Spatial_and_Georgraphical_Analysis?ev=prf_pub

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
wblock@loyno.edu

Walter Block Wants More on Rand

Walter Block wants more from me on Rand. I believe his email refers to these two posts by me: A Response to Walter Block: On Rand Paul and Yes, Rand Paul Did Win the Debate.

Dear Bob:

I wasn’t clear in my questioning of you on this. What I really wanted from you was a COMPARISON of Rand with the other 10 candidates on all the relevant issues. You gave a comparison alright, but not the one I’m interested in. You in effect compared him with your own views, or with mine, or with any pure libertarian, such as Murray Rothbard (I agree with every jot and tittle of your analysis of Rand’s performance – given that the comparison is with pure libertarianism).

So, let me be more clear. I would like you, if you would, if you have enough time and interest to do so, to compare Rand not on the basis of pure libertarianism, but with the other 10 candidates. Which of them was the MOST libertarian on these issues. If you did this, I’m sure you would agree with me and Michael that Rand was the most libertarian out of these eleven.

When Michael said that Rand “did quite well last evening for a Republican” this, I take it, is what he was getting at too. Which of the 11 Republicans was the most libertarian? In order to answer that question, it is insufficient to say as you did, quite correctly, that Rand deviated from libertarianism on various issues. The question is, did Rand deviate from libertarianism MORE OR LESS than the others? Clearly, Michael and I both think Rand was closer to libertarianism than any of the other 10. How stand you on THAT issue?

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
wblock@loyno.edu

My response:

Dear Walter,

I continue to be confused by your request. I believe I have pointed out that Rand does not hold any positions that could be considered libertarian (outside of net neutrality). I did this especially in my post, An Examination of How Rand Paul Did in the Debate.

The only way I can evaluate Rand in objective fashion is from an objective foundation. I used the non-aggression principle and found that he failed on all issues (except net neutrality). My guess is that all the other candidates would fail on all the issues as well.

Since they all fail, across the board, what else is there to compare objectively?  What is this "to compare Rand not on the basis of pure libertarianism, but with the other 10 candidates."?

It is a keystone of Austrian economics that we can not measure valuation rankings across people. Thus, once we go beyond the measure of failure of an objective fact, there is no way we can measure who is best for society. Rand is terrible on taxes, given his call for a value added tax. Since taxes are a big deal for me. this is a big issue for me. For someone else who has relatives in Ukraine, the fact that Donald Trump thinks he can negotiate with Russian President Putin  may mean for that person that Trump is a plus over Rand who said we should give "no free pass to Russia or China," Especially since some think that a Trump Administration would restrain the Empire overseas.

Should my view and the person with Ukrainian relatives not be counted, when all candidates have failed NAP, if we think other candidates are better than Rand?

Rand is not non-interventionist but appears a bit less totalitarian when it comes to marijuana smoking, but for me, given that I don't smoke weed, it is way down the totem poll as far as an issue. For a weed smoker, this issue could rank much higher, perhaps the top issue. But for a weed smoker who wants total weed freedom, he may see no plus in Rand's NAP weed violations--or he may see Rand's "drug courts" as a worse option.

I repeat, once the objective non-aggression principle test is made, there is not much to say about these NAP violators, from an objective ranking perspective. It is all subjective/

To be sure, if one of them held a particularly horrific position (say kill all Jews) or a particular heroic position (say cut taxes by 90%) perhaps  we could state, hesitatingly, that this person would be worst/best for society (and know we couldn't technically justify that this is 100% correct), but when we have them all bunched together on their views, and all failing the objective NAP test. I do not feel bold or comfortable enough to do some kind of cross candidate comparisons.

So I turn these questions back to you, Walter: 

Does everyone in society just get one util to place on a candidate in your ranking system when we consider who the best NAP violator is? Do we dismiss the person who thinks Marco Rubio is handsome and will vote for him, based on that?  Remember, you have eliminated libertarianism as the ruling factor, so what is this ranking based on?

Put simply, just what type of formula should I be using to rank these NAP violating candidates once it is clear they are all  NAP violators?

Have you figured out a new way to measure valuations across individuals?

 Best,

Bob

 -RW

An Examination of How Rand Paul Did in the Debate

In an email exchange with Dr. Walter Block and Dr. Michael Edelstein, I was asked by Dr. Block what my take was on Rand's performance during this past week's Republican presidential debate.

The email exchange started with this email by Dr. Edelstein stating:

Walter, Your main man did quite well last evening for a Republican

 My view was quite different.

I see Rand as a government mechanic, By that I mean that he never ever objects to government but merely sees himself as the tweeker that would tweek government interventions both here and abroad.

I took extensive notes during the debate and will point to specifics in the debate where Rand displayed himself as a government mechanic rather than one who is opposed to  government interferences.

The first question that came up was on China. Rand said that "We don't need to be rash," when dealing with China. He said that we need "to engage" China and Russia. He then added that the US, though, should give "no free pass to Russia or China."

From a libertarian perspective, this raises the question, just what exactly are we not supposed to give Russia and China a free pass about? As far as I can tell, and I am right here on the West Coast shore, neither China nor Russia are invading the country?

What should we be concerned about with regard to these two countries that we make sure we don't give them "a free pass."  This is simply talk about government to government nonsense that only starts trouble between countries. It should be rejected by every serious libertarian.

Rand was, as per usual, against wars that have passed but said that in the future "wisdom on when we should intervene" must be applied. Again, why, from a libertarian perspective, should the US ever intervene overseas?

Rand then went on to talk about taxes. Not about cutting them but his tax plan, which he did not make clear during the debate, includes a value added tax.

When the discussion turned to drugs, Rand did not call for government to get out of the affairs of individuals. He said he was "a fan of the drug court." Jut why, from a libertarian perspective, do we need any type of court for drugs?

He also shifted the discussion to medical marijuana and away from a discussion of legalizing all marijuana use, never mind legalization of all drugs,

The debate turned to war again and Rand did not take the opportunity to make clear that the US, becasue of its geography and wealth, was extremely unlikely to be attacked, He said that war "was a last resort." And that he would "fight reluctantly" But that he would "fight all out," when he did fight.

He never made clear what the conditions were for a fight, nor who he thought it might be necessary to fight.

He  was also asked what woman he would like to see on the $10 bill. I have already discussed his horrific choice here.

Bottom line: There was not one area where Rand objected to a government role. He simply assumed a role for government and stated the way mechanic Rand would act in the government enforcement role.

In other words, he took no libertarian positions. As for the specifics of his postions, some were absolutely terrible. His value added tax is horrific. His comments on engaging with Russia and China were so broad that it is unclear how belligerent he would get with those countries or for what possible reasons. His hinting that there is potential for war somewhere, also suggests an Empire mentality.

There is simply nothing here for  a libertarian to hang his hat on and say, "Yes, Rand is great on this issue far better than the others." Rand is worse on taxes and in no way has ruled out war in what seem to be situations that the US has no reason to be interfering in the first place.

I see absolutely no reason to support him and saw nothing in the debate that suggested it would cause curious individuals to want to learn more about libertarianism. If anything, since Rand advocated positions that violate the non-aggression principle, in issue after issue, he will likely result in muddying what libertarianism is, since he is often identified as a libertarian. I would be much more pleased if he was identified as a government mechanic.

-RW

Walter Block on Libertarians versus Donald Trump

Dr. Walter Block has responded to a libertarian emailed press release:

From: Libertarian Party [mailto:info@lp.org]
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 5:03 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Libertarians versus Donald Trump

No hair jokes, just issues. For immediate release September 16, 2015 Libertarians versus Donald Trump Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee issued the following statement: Libertarianism is the idea that you have the right to pursue happiness in any way you wish as long as it doesn't hurt people or take their stuff. We support the fundamental rights of all people, all of the time. We do not denigrate or disparage any group. We respect the humanity of all people. Unfortunately, the only policy position addressed on Mr. Trump's official campaign webpage is immigration. Thus, we are limited to piecing together Mr. Trump's positions on policy issues based on recent quotes in the news media. Let's compare and contrast Donald Trump's views with those of the Libertarian Party: National Security Mr. Trump likes tough talk and seems to think that wars are an effective solution to many of our problems. Libertarians think that wars often create more problems than they solve, are bankrupting our nation, and that violence is only justified when used for defense. Foreign Policy Mr. Trump advocates more sanctions on Iran, more support for Israel, and being tough all around. Libertarians think the United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. Trade Mr. Trump thinks that foreign countries are getting the better end of trade deals and says that he would negotiate more favorable deals. Libertarians support free trade and think that U.S. citizens and businesses should be allowed to negotiate the deals that they find favorable without the interference of the U.S. government and government officials. Healthcare Fifteen years ago Mr. Trump claimed he was for a government run single-payer Canadian-style healthcare system. Mr. Trump now says Obamacare is ineffective and should be repealed and replaced, but he's not specific. Libertarians have always opposed government run healthcare, and support a free market. Immigration Mr. Trump advocates building a wall along our Southern border and has said disparaging things about immigrants. Libertarians believe that people should be able to travel peacefully across borders to work, trade, or live. Eminent Domain Mr. Trump has taken advantage of eminent domain laws to build his real-estate empire. Libertarians think that eminent domain is often exploited by the wealthy at the cost of average Americans and is a violation of our most basic rights. War on Drugs Mr. Trump has, in the past, advocated ending the “war on drugs” because it is ineffective and wasteful. Lately, he seems to be adjusting his stance and claiming that it's an issue for states to decide. Libertarians also think that the “war on drugs” is ineffective and wasteful. In addition, we think the “war on drugs” is one of the biggest violations of Americans' civil liberties as it has been used to put hundreds of thousands on non-violent people in prison. Gay Marriage Mr. Trump also has said that he thinks that gay marriage is an issue for the states. Libertarians think that the government has no business regulating anyone's marriage. Justice System Mr. Trump says he would be tough on crime via anti-crime policies. Libertarians also want to decrease crime but likely disagree with Mr. Trump on the nature of “crime.” Libertarians are careful to differentiate between violent crimes and non-violent crimes, and also between crimes which involve a victim and those that do not. Currently, a huge percentage of our prison population is imprisoned for non-violent, victimless crimes such as marijuana use. Libertarians think that this is unjust to everyone: the taxpayer, the incarcerated, and society more broadly. Prison should be reserved for violent criminals. Education Mr. Trump has stated that he is against Common Core and supports school-choice. Most Libertarians would agree. Libertarians think that the federal government should not have the authority to dictate to Americans how we should educate our children. 2nd Amendment Mr. Trump has said that he is against limits on Americans' 2nd Amendment Rights, but has supported the ban on so-called assault weapons and longer waiting periods to buy guns. Libertarians oppose all laws at any level of government that attempt to restrict, register, or monitor the ownership, manufacture, or transfer of firearms or ammunition. In the first debate, Trump said, “Our leaders are stupid. Our politicians are stupid.” Libertarians think big government policies are the problem, and smarter politicians with the same policies won't help. America needs new policies and a new perspective focusing on smaller government, more liberty, and peace. ### Visit LP.org to share this release Please donate to the Libertarian Party today. Shrink Big Government — advance liberty.

Dr Block's response:

From: Walter Block
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 5:14 PM
To: 'info@lp.org'
Subject: RE: Libertarians versus Donald Trump

Dear Nickolas:

You say: “Libertarianism is the idea that you have the right to pursue happiness in any way you wish as long as it doesn't hurt people or take their stuff.”

I suggest you change this to: “Libertarianism is the idea that you have the right to pursue happiness in any way you wish as long as it doesn't violate people’s rights or take their stuff.”

Why the change? Because, in libertarian theory, you are allowed to “hurt” people (but not violate their rights). For example, I open up a grocery store near yours, and compete away half your customers, or, you date a girl I’m interested in. We may “hurt” each other in a myriad of such ways without violating libertarian principle.

I think “hurt” is a good first approximation, but “rights violation” is more accurate. I hope and trust you take this in the spirit I mean it: an attempt to correct what I see as a sort of typographical error.

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 Orleans0

wblock@loyno.edu

Rand Paul's Horrific Choice to Replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10 Bill

During Wednesday's Republican presidential debate, the candidates were asked what portrait they would like to see on the $10 bill, given that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has announced that the portrait of Alexander Hamilton will be replaced on the bill by a woman.

Rand Paul was given the opportunity to respond first. I thought he missed a golden opportunity to respond by saying that it wasn't who was on the bills of the country but whether or not the currency was backed by gold that was important, and moving back to such a gold-backed currency should be a focus, not who is pictured on the currency.

And, he should have continued, "Let's have an independent audit of Fort Knox so we can see how much gold the Treasury actually owns."

As a second option, I wondered, and I am sure may other libertarians wondered, if he would have the balls to name Ayn Rand, or perhaps the less controversial, Rose Wilder Lane.  But, typical Rand , he didn't.

Instead, he went with the horrific Susan B, Anthony. There is one type of person I truly can't stand and that is someone who is an activist in favor of somehow expanding the state for "the common good."

Some people have problems with blacks, or Jews, or gays or Muslims or Hispanics. I don't have problems with any of these groups, but show me an activist group that hates those advocating any expansion of the state and I am in.

Susan B. Anthony fits into this category. She is most well known for her advocacy of women's suffrage, which is an expansion of those who vote in government elections.

In a recent comment. Walter Block explains why this was a bad idea.

 Yes, blacks and women should not have been given the right to vote, and, now that they have it, it should be taken away from them (I’m sure if the NYTimes sees this, they’ll stop their quote right there, and ignore what follows). But the same applies to whites and men. No one should “vote” in the fully free society, which I define as anarchistic, in which case “democracy” would not be in operation. Your reasoning for taking away voting rights is impeccable. It should apply to everyone, not any one particular subset of the population.

What most don't know is that Anthony's advocacy for expansion of the state went far beyond her camapign for women's suffrage.

 In 1853 Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton founded the Women's State Temperance Society with the goal of petitioning the State legislature to pass a law limiting the sale of liquor.

She also held the Neanderthal anti-trade position and promoted a policy of purchasing American-made goods.

She was also one of the first "equal pay" activists.

Here's Dr. Block, once again, this time on the problems with equal pay advocacy:

 

Bottom line: Rand went with a politically correct choice that turns out, from a libertarian perspective, to be absolutely horrific. Maybe he should be looking more carefully into the politically correct positions he adopts, and be reading a little more Walter Block.

 -RW