Slander Against Yours Truly

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

In the field of academia, it is common to encounter slanderous articles against oneself, but this is all that the opposition has, for the most part. In this article, the author wrongly accused me of arguing that slavery is better than welfare for black families. This article was in response to my interview, where I spent a short time discussing how decades of government welfare have disrupted the unity of families and communities. One example was about black, American families who receive welfare, and the other was about the Swedish families who receive welfare.

In response to that slanderous article unfairly leveled against me, one of my research assistants took it upon himself to respond on that site.

The following are his two comments:

In this post, people have neglected to give people the benefit of the doubt, and more importantly they have failed to actually understand Dr. Block’s position.

Dr. Block cites Charles Murray’s Losing Ground in case anyone is interested in learning about the unintended consequences of welfare.

Paul Brown provides a great example of the straw man fallacy because his assertions are a fabrication which is completely devoid of Dr. Block’s actual stance.  Note that Paul Brown fails to quote Dr. Block specifically.  Nevertheless, Paulbrown’s rhetoric was effective enough for the three Facebook posters, but anyone possessing a keen sense of skepticism and a healthy adherence to logic will realize the flaws in Paul Brown’s post.

After viewing the full interview

anyone can realize that Dr. Block begins with an introduction on Austrian economics and libertarianism, and in one small segment, he is discussing the unintended consequences of welfare and the prohibition of certain drugs on black families.  This is a man who cares about what the government is (un)intentionally doing to human beings.  He wasn’t arguing that “black families were better off under slavery than welfare” (Paul Brown), which is evidently a false depiction of Dr. Block’s position.

The author of this article is being intellectually dishonest, and in no way does he positively contribute to the collective effort of human beings in trying to help each other

Admittedly, Elizabeth does make some good points about what was omitted, but after taking a breath and thinking clearly, anyone can realize that (a) the full interview is about 20 minutes which covers a vast amount of topics—specifically, Austrian Economics and libertarianism, (b) the questions are framed by the interviewer, so only a few points will be covered, and (c) given that the clip is only 4 minutes, it’s not surprising that Dr. Block failed to encompass the lengthy topics such as “breeding pens,” Jeffersonian law, rapes by owners, etc.  The main topic of the interview is not the history of slavery.  For about 7 out of 22 minutes, the interview is about the unintended consequences of welfare and drug prohibition

Karen Young assumes that Dr. Block maintains assumptions which Karen Young put into Dr. Block’s mouth.  Anyone can insinuate anything about anybody, but it doesn’t follow that one’s assumptions inserted into others are true.  She’s not at all familiar with Dr. Block’s background knowledge and intentions, so it’s easy for her to unintentionally create false assumptions about Dr. Block.

Anthony Peterson’s comment is amusing.  Dr. Block has said that if he was forced to choose between Romney or Obama, he would choose Obama.

If Mr. Peterson cared to hear Dr. Block out, then he’d realize that Dr. Block often criticizes Romney.

My main point is that we have to stop and question authority—authority like teachers, police, politicians, and media spinners, like Paul Brown here. Give people the benefit of the doubt, so we can calmly try to understand what someone is actually saying—instead of regurgitating what other people say about them (e.g., gossip and straw man fallacies).

7:15 pm on October 1, 2012
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts