Sent: Wed 8/16/2017 7:11 AM
Dear Dr. Block: I’m a great fan. I very much enjoyed your “Blind Spot” article. I am, however, at a disadvantage when it comes to your position on evictionism. I am Catholic, so please bear with me for a moment and perhaps you can clarify it for me. Assume you discharge a gun in celebration into the air. The bullet, unknowingly, kills a father a mile away. Upon discovering the person responsible for the man’s death, would that individual, who acted recklessly, not be held responsible? Could a suit not be brought against him for the support of the family left without the father? …and my point, of course, would be when two humans interact knowing their actions could result in a particular outcome, be it life or death, should there not be some responsibility on the part of the actors to not destroy an innocent bystander who, unwittingly, was brought into the scenario not of their choosing? While I do understand your point about someone being forced to maintain a life for the 9 months of pregnancy, could this not be equated to the person firing the gun, being held responsible, say, for the payment of the education of the child of the accidental shooting in my example? It seems that your evictionism theory ignores any actions taken place prior to conception. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, J
Dear J: I have written so much about this that I am about to come out with a book on this subject. So, please excuse me if I do not respond to your specific point, and instead offer you my publications on this subject. Please read a goodly bit of them, since this is such an important issue. And, if you find I have not answered your objection, I have, I have, then get back to me on it.7:50 pm on August 16, 2017 Email Walter E. Block
Among the many crusades of America’s Social Justice Bolsheviks over the past several years has been one supposedly against bullying. Billions of tax dollars have been spent to create a whole new anti-bullying bureaucracy. At the same time, America’s Social Justice Bolsheviks are the world’s biggest bullies! Let a well-known conservative or libertarian speaker show up at one of their universities and he will be shouted down, screamed at with F-bombs, shoved around, libeled as a racist/sexist/homophobe, terrorized with cars and buildings set on fire as in Berkeley, or just plain dis-invited. A conservative student was recently assaulted by a mob of black-clad, hooded Bolshevik goons at Ithaca College for merely wearing a Young America’s Foundation ball cap. Conservative and libertarian college students mostly remain quiet for fear of being bullied by social justice Bolsheviks among the student body and the university administration. Whenever they do speak up in an entirely civilized and scholarly way, they risk being accused of “bullying” with their “insensitive” remarks and threatened with university sanctions. Safe rooms are set up in dozens of universities to allow the social justice Bolsheviks to hide their empty heads in the sand should a diverse viewpoint ever be uttered on their campuses.1:28 pm on August 16, 2017 Email Thomas DiLorenzo
“Combative and insistent, President Donald Trump declared anew Tuesday ‘there is blame on both sides’ for the deadly violence last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, appearing to once again equate the actions of white supremacist groups and those protesting them.”
Good for him! How invigorating to see a man stand firm against bullies and thought-police! The fact that he’s accurately “equating” the über-racist and hypocritical Left with “white supremacist groups” is incredibly delicious icing on the cake. (And I say all this as a non-Trumpette.)
Naturally, the commie wusses out there are hysterical. “Democrats were aghast at Trump’s comments Tuesday. Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine said on Twitter that the Charlottesville violence ‘was fueled by one side: white supremacists spreading racism, intolerance & intimidation. Those are the facts.’”
Nope, Moron: those are your opinions. A fact would be along the lines of “One hundred people calling themselves ‘White Supremacists’ paraded along Main Street today…” See the difference? Good thing you’re in government, pal: no one in the real world would ever hire an imbecile who can’t tell the difference between his own bizarre thoughts (“I think the moon’s made of green cheese”) and the real world (“Acme Supermarkets need their shipment of provolone today, Tim: did you requisition the delivery van per my memo?”).
But I interrupted the commies: “… Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii said on Twitter that he no longer views Trump as his president. ‘As a Jew, as an American, as a human, words cannot express my disgust and disappointment,’ Schatz said. ‘This is not my president.’” So Bri, as Americans and humans more concerned with our liberty than we are with your racial and religious identity, can we expect you to “self-deport” and take your Progressive nonsense elsewhere?11:01 am on August 16, 2017 Email Becky Akers
As of yesterday the murder rate in Baltimore was twice the rate of notoriously bloody Chicago. That is all about to change for the good, however, since during the night the Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson statues were removed from the city. (Incredibly, even though this took place at night, in the city limits, no murders occurred at those spots during the removal). Anyone who knows anything understands that the reason black people in Baltimore kill each other by the hundreds every year is the existence of those statues. City residents can rest in peace tonight.10:06 am on August 16, 2017 Email Thomas DiLorenzo
You may recall a few months ago when malware that the NSA had hoarded and exploited escaped into computers worldwide, creating havoc. Critics excoriated the agency for its unconscionable and unconstitutional overreach in cultivating such technological horrors. Well, one of the NSA’s ex-spooks whines that the ransomeware wasn’t his colleagues’ fault: no, it was ours. You see, we don’t patch our software as we should, and we’re fond of customizing it, increasing its vulnerability…
As usual, we serfs are actually to blame instead of Our Supremely Wise and Benevolent Rulers.5:14 pm on August 15, 2017 Email Becky Akers
Someone has vandalized the Lincoln Memorial in D.C., a federal crime. This could spread if the anti-statue community starts reading some of Abe’s speeches, especially the most racist/white supremacist ones.
Lincoln was “a man of his times,” as they say, which means that he never could have been nominated, let alone elected, if he was not a white supremacist (advocating the deportation of all black people until the day he died, for example). For as Tocqueville wrote in his famous book, Democracy in America (p. 359), during his time white Northerners were bigger racists than white Southerners were.5:10 pm on August 15, 2017 Email Thomas DiLorenzo
A reader suggests four things: Wastes money, starts wars, tell lies, and keep secrets. I would add one thing: steals.
Thanks to P.D.4:10 pm on August 15, 2017 Email Laurence M. Vance
Five years ago today domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins II entered the HQ of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. He planned to kill all fifteen FRC employees, he said, “because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) identified them as a “hate group” due to their traditional marriage views.”
Corkins also intended to stuff Chik-Fil-a sandwiches into the mouths of his dead victims. His attack was thwarted when he was tackled by security guard Leo Johnson – after Corkins had shot him!
“While Corkins was responsible for the shooting, he had been given a license to perpetrate this act of violence by groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center which has systematically and recklessly labeled every organization with which they disagree as a ‘hate group,'” said FRC President Tony Perkins.
Sure enough, the SPLC also inspired the first terrorist attack in the United States under President Trump, when terrorist James T. Hodgkinson, 66, opened fire on Republican members of Congress on an Alexandria, Virginia baseball field. Like Corkins, Hodgkinson was also a fan of the abundantly-funded “poverty center” that has some $250 million in the bank.
Apparently, the SPCL haters aren’t spending that dough to end poverty: they’re using it to spread hate.
[note: FRC officials gratefully note that their historic escape from a mass murderer occurred on the Feast of the Assumption, a major Marian feast in the Catholic Church].3:54 pm on August 15, 2017
This is August 15. Perhaps you know the historical importance of this very date more than a generation ago.
Well, it marks the beginning of Woodstock, “three days of peace, love, and music,” in 1969. The music festival drew 400,000 people – and many more who would later claim to have been there!
But it is also a red letter day in our country’s economic history. On August 15, 1971 events were set in motion that are driving to an unhappy finish.
It was on this date 46 year ago that President Nixon severed the last remaining link of the U.S. dollar to gold, the preferred money of the ages. Nixon introduced a number of other destructive measures at the same time, including his wage and price control program, a harebrained scheme that played such an important role in ushering in the stagflation – economic stagnation accompanied by double-digit inflation – of the 1970s.
Since the dollar is no longer redeemable in anything and anchored to nothing, there is no discipline on the extent of dollar creation by the politicians and the monetary authorities.
And create money, they have. By the governments own calculations, figures that woefully understate the real loss of the dollar’s purchasing power, it would take $6.00 today to buy what $1.00 would purchase when Nixon closed the gold window.
For the last thirty-five years the monetary authorities have been using the privilege of a currency freed from the restraint of gold to buy down interest rates and transfer wealth from Main Street to Wall Street. But from its beginnings the Fed has been in the business of funding wars that the American people would never have willingly taxed themselves to pay for.
The monetary madness reached a frenzy of ferocity with Ben Bernanke and his madcap “Quantitative Easing.”
Except for the Christian doctrine of the forgiveness of sin, I know of no serious world view in which a monumental malfeasance like the creation of trillions of dollars out of nothing can have been allowed to proceed without eventually producing the most grave consequences.
Off the stage and mostly unobserved is the quickening of monetary events that were set in motion 46 years ago today.3:16 pm on August 15, 2017 Email Charles Goyette
As soon as an alien manages to enter Germany, however illegally, he has the right to stay there if he goes to court, however flimsy his case – all expenses paid by the German taxpayer. This goes on until the overcrowded courts can hear his case, and his appeals are exhausted.
Meanwhile he is provided with all the amenities – food, housing, legal representation, and, often, “training” for work (although most “refugees” – able-bodied young men – remain on welfare, whether their applications are approved or not).
All this is paid for by the taxpayer. Meanwhile, countless cases of sexual assault and rape of young German girls by “refugees” are not even brought to court. “Nothing will come of it,” said one policeman to the girl who managed to find and identify her attacker. She insisted he be tried. He was found guilty.
His punishment? He was moved to another refugee center.
A similar situation prevails in the United States, where the Catholic Church and other religious welfare agencies receive hundreds of millions of dollars a year from the taxpayer to “care for” aliens (whom they call “immigrants”), both legal and illegal.
Might that fact play a role in the frantic cries from “religious leaders” demanding amnesty for the millions of illegals in the US? And for their “moral” support of sanctuary cities harboring criminal aliens?
Draw your own conclusions.8:08 am on August 15, 2017
Worse than the old one. Canada wants a “more progressive” NAFTA that includes new chapters on gender rights and climate change. NAFTA, old or new, is not about free trade. A free-trade agreement would take a page, not 1,000 pages. NAFTA is about government-managed trade. Managed trade is not free trade.8:08 am on August 15, 2017 Email Laurence M. Vance
Sent: Mon 7/31/2017 11:59 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: hey
Dear Dr. Block: Thanks so much for putting me in touch with A. We are planing to start a libertarian club at S University. And thank you for your answer to my impertinent question about the libertarian juror. I agree that it is insoluble. Thank you for clarifying the complicated terrain, as you always do. And of course it in no way impugns libertarian theory. The four career path options you listed exactly match my plans. FIRE and the Institute for Justice are both on the list of institutions I’d like to apply to, and I have already have some experience working in criminal defense. I chose law school over a PhD because the job prospects are better, at least going to a top law school. My college mentor told me that as a white male, my chances of finding a tenure track position in academia were low. And he doesn’t know I’m a libertarian, which would make my odds even lower. Whereas a top law school’s graduates are consistently in demand. But I would love to eventually use my law degree to teach in some capacity, at a law school, or somewhere better like Mises University or Liberty Classroom. The helpful libertarian lawyer who you put me in contact with was R. He reached out to you when you posted one of my earlier inquiries to the LRC blog. I have updated and thanked him within the last few months. He was generous and full of insight. It is an honor to be considered for co-authoring a paper with you. I will remember your suggestion and contact you when I have a proposal. As I said, you’re an inspiration to me. Thanks again for all your time and help. J
Sent: Wed 7/12/2017 11:53 AM
Subject: Some questions on non-interventionism!
Dear Dr. Block, I am a 23 years old guy from Italy. It’s 2 years that I discovered the libertarian movement and mises.org has been my daily source of information. I’m writing to you in order to have further knowledge about how to apply libertarian principles over inter-national relationships and security issues. For example: if we have, let’s say, 10 small libertarian countries and 1 big totalitarian and aggressive one who starts attacking one of them. If there are signs that this state will continue to invade the other countries, wouldn’t it be wise for the 9 smaller countries to unite against the aggressor instead of facing it one at a time?
<<yes, wise, and, justified9:15 pm on August 14, 2017 Email Walter E. Block
Sent: Sat 8/12/2017 4:47 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Private Government
Hi Walter, Could you not just have no actual government, and just have legal protection insurance against the potential costs of legal action, brought by or against the policyholder. I imagine in a world of sound money, no taxes, and economies of scale, you would have a family lawyer for a fraction of the cost of what they are now, hence the insurance would be inexpensive. Is there any reason why not those who would like border protection, could not just pay into a scheme to ensure that those who wish to enter a country to contribute to its prosperity, or to be free to trade with the inhabitants of that country, are free to do so without any interference in such transactions from any other entity? Could you not have a fund you were happy to pay into, (like ambulance insurance for instance) to provide you with a local police force, to deal with the extremely low incidence of liberty encroachments, including violation of property rights or the non-aggression principle. I say the low incidence, because in this anarcho capitalist / objectivist world, there would be very few laws to break. What do you think? Should I just read The Privatization of Roads and Highways, and the answers will be in there? Kind Regards B
Dear B: Yes, part of the answer will be found in my book on road privatization, but that book is not exactly on point. Here is material more closely on point:9:08 pm on August 14, 2017 Email Walter E. Block
Sent: Sat 8/5/2017 1:49 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: The Public Murray Rothbard and a Personal Reminiscense (by Walter Block)
British Gas have raised their prices 12.5% and the Labour party are calling for renationalisation so the energy is run ‘for the people’. People are blaming capitalism. Why is capitalism not at fault? People are also picking fault at Centrica’s CEO who has a salary of £4million? Basically why is capitalism not to blame for this? And do you really think I can study at Loyola in Sept 2019? Even if I’m from a different country?
Dear A: Lot’s of foreign students enroll at Loyola U, New Orleans. British Gas is a very heavily regulated firm. Laissez faire capitalism posits no economic regulations at all. Therefore, any shortcomings of BG can hardly be laid at the door of free enterprise capitalism. As for CEO salaries getting out of hand, read this:8:52 pm on August 14, 2017 Email Walter E. Block
Sent: Tue 8/8/2017 11:46 PM
To: Walter Block;
Subject: Libertarian preemptive strike?
Suppose the leader of country A threatens to bomb all people of country B. According to Kinsella’s estoppel theory, anyone in country B has the right to bomb the leader of country A (before the leader of country A actually bombs anyone in country B). Of course an immediate objection would be that doing so would inevitably also hurt some innocent people in country A. But then according to the Blockian theory of negative homesteading (cf. the example of the human shield), a person in country B still has the right to bomb the leader of country A (and, in doing so, hurt some innocent people) in this case. (Of course it should be done by private individuals, but that’s another issue.) What do you think of the above line of reasoning, which just came to my mind? Thanks a lot for your time! A
Dear A: This sounds ok to me, but only with a big IF: if we don’t apply this to North Korea in the manner you suggest! Why not? Because the North Koreans saw what happened to Grenada, Libya, and other small, otherwise weak countries that had no nuclear weapons. So, it is really Uncle Sam that FIRST threatened to bomb the North Koreans, and did more than threaten. He actually carried out his plans to take over small, otherwise weak countries that had no nuclear weapons. Then, too, Uncle Sam was instrumental in keeping North and South Korea from amalgamating, just as did East and West Germany. So, your thought, I think, is acceptable to libertarian theory, at least as I understand it, but only with North Korea and the US reversed in your example. Of course, I don’t say North Korea would be justified in any preemptive strike against the US, God forbid. That would kill, murder, many innocent people. I only say that IF any preemptive strike is justified, which it is not, then matters would be the reverse of your implication. How many foreign military bases does the US have? About 800. How many foreign military bases does NK have? About 0. In how many foreign countries are these bases located? US: about 130. NK: zero, again. Who is the aggressor here? How many troops does the US have on the southern border of NK? Tens of thousands. How many troops does NK have on the southern border of the US? I’ll give you three guesses. What proper business would NK troops have on the border of the US? None. What proper business do US troops have on the border of NK? None, again.
Block, Walter E. 2010. “Response to Jakobsson on human body shields.” Libertarian Papers. http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/25-block-response-to-jakobsson-on-human-body-shields/
Block, Walter E. 2011. “The Human Body Shield” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22 , pp. 625-630; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_30.pdf
Block, Walter E. Forthcoming. “Human shields, missiles, negative homesteading and libertarianism” Ekonomia Wroclaw Economic Review
Kinsella, Stephan. 1992. “Estoppel: A New Justification for Individual Rights,” Reason Papers No. 17, Fall, p. 61; http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/17/rp_17_4.pdf
Kinsella, Stephan. 1994. “The Undeniable Morality of Capitalism,” 25 St. Mary’s Law Journal 1419; (review essay of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (1993));
Kinsella, Stephan N. 1996. “New Rationalist Directions in Libertarian Rights Theory,” 12:2 J. Libertarian Studies 313 326, Fall; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_5.pdf
Kinsella, Stephen. 1996. “Punishment and Proportionality: the Estoppel Approach,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring, pp. 51-74; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf7:54 pm on August 14, 2017 Email Walter E. Block
The Trump administration is considering a new scheme for “privatizing” the War in Afghanistan. In reality, the scheme does little other than make the US government less accountable, and the American taxpayers are unlikely to see any benefit.7:40 pm on August 14, 2017
7:29 pm on August 14, 2017
Email Charles Burris