Our Little Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes (Kill ’em All!)

Our Little Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes (Kill ’em All!)

by Walter Block by Walter Block Recently by Walter Block: Repeal Rent Control, and Sow Salt Where Once ItStood

Save for some liberal wieners and ungrateful pinkos, few in the country would doubt that a worldwide slaughter of foreigners would make America safer. While efforts of the heroic Bush administration to wipe out all Arabs are certainly a good start, we must not forget that other countries of the world are evil and we’ve got to settle their hash, too.

Before discussing the litany, it is important to note that this article only provides the tip of the iceberg. Understanding the vital important of a pre-emptive foreign policy, we have resolved to establish an institute to rigorously pursue this end. Heading up the International Democratic Institute for Overseas Transplantation will be noted aggressor-philosophers Randy Barnett, Eric Dondero, and Tom Palmer. Other IDIOT fellows will include Christopher Hitchens, the Kristols, and Sean Hannity. With the Institute in place to exhaustively target all foreign countries, do not interpret omissions in the present to imply approval of those evil regimes.

We do not seek world domination; to this end, we are critical of the Bush administration. We are realists and understand that we will never be able to control some insubordinates. So instead of costly bureaucracy, why not achieve control over the entire globe by eliminating every other inhabitant of it? Half measures will avail us nothing. It is time to own up to the logical implications of our foreign policy, not cringe at them. Let us "man up" by pre-emptively bombing everyone on the planet.

America must become the "terrible swift sword" of the world — a smiter of all evil and ill will. This sword, of course in the form of nuclear warheads, will be directed against the following evildoers (among all others):

Russia — They are fooling no one with their "surrender." The breaking up of the Soviet Union was one great political ploy designed at further freezing the Cold War. While we have been navel gazing, the Soviets have been assassinating foreign nationals. It’s hard not to admire the KGB. IDIOT fellow David Frum cautions us not to ignore "the evidence that the Russian government murdered a British citizen in the British capital with a radiological weapon." But Frum doesn’t go far enough. Whereas he simply calls for the invasion of Russia, he fails to understand that there will be Russians who survive such an invasion.

Germany — One word: Hitler. As supreme enemies of liberty, Germans will never change. There are still legions of Holocaust deniers running around spouting out their pernicious vitriol and singing "Du Hast." What alternative do we have other than bomb them? To allow this anti-Semitism to continue?

Vatican City — Let us not forget that the leader of this country is a theocrat, imposed on his subjects. The Catholic Church is not a democratic institution and dogma is decided upon by missive, not majority.

Israel — This is truly a socialist country. As pro-war libertarians, we resent their socialism. The latest chapter in this sorry story is that they have adopted price controls for bread. We’ll have to teach these people that free markets and private property are the last best hope for mankind.

Canada — It is ham; there is no such thing as Canadian bacon. During our first great war, i.e. the French and Indian, they provided comfort to the enemy. Not only this, but they steal the hydro-electricity of our Niagara Falls.

South America — As noted political philosopher Randy Newman points out, "they stole our name" and thus a nuclear first strike is the only appropriate response to this unjust linguistic theft. Yet if the unpatriotic have further doubts, let us not forget that we would not have cocaine, Che tee shirts, and immigrants had it not been for this horrid land.

India — It’s now our turn to outsource. Why should "Sanjay" steal the job of Steve? Because it is more economical and conducive to a global division of labor? Because it engenders world peace? Those considerations are clearly anti-American.

China — Not only are these people trying to industrialize, but they are hosting the Olympics. Didn’t Hitler host the Olympics? By logical deduction then, the Chinese are crypto-Nazis. What’s more is that they are trying to be peaceful. Only democracies are allowed to be peaceful.

We have the means to kill all these people; we simply lack the will. George Bush, accept our modest proposal.

President Bush, we will concede, has made a valiant effort. But his efforts so far should be considered only a very few timid first steps. This is the fundamental problem with neoconservatism — it’s a doctrine that takes too much pleasure in watching death up close. It is true that our policy will lead to quick, painless deaths, and we can understand the outrage over at National Review, but it is the only way. Bush can have his personal pleasure from Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, but he is a provincial thinker. We are true globalists.

(Walter Block writes this as a parody, not a serious proposal)

From: Walter Block Sent: Thu 2/11/2010 4:09 PM To: sghorwitz@stlawu.edu Cc: nskinsella@gmail.com Subject: Prychitko

Dear Steve:

Stephan mentioned to me that you were not happy with this recent publication of mine:

Block, Walter. 2010. "Rejoinder to Prychitko on Austrian dogmatism." Libertarian Papers. Vol. 2, No. 6

Please share with me your misgivings about it. If I have made an error, I would very much like to become aware of it. I would then publicly retract my erroneous statement.

Best regards,


Walter E. Block, Ph.D. Harold E. Wirth Endowed Chair and Prof. of Economics College of Business Loyola University New Orleans 6363 St. Charles Ave., Box 15 New Orleans, LA 70118 tel: (504) 864-7934 fax: (504)864-7970 wblock@loyno.edu

Dear Bardhyl (if I may); Please tell me a bit about yourself. Are you a student? Professor?

A very good question. Frankly, I hadn’t thought about it before; thanks for bringing it to my attention.

My thought is that the govt stole the land it used for “its” road from private sources. It did so either directly or indirectly. Directly, by seizing land, in an eminent domain case. Indirectly, by buying it from private owners, but with the money it stole from taxpayers. In either case, the govt cannot get any more rights than those it stole from the private sources, either directly or indirectly. So, when it sells or gives away “its” land to a new private owner, the new private owner cannot have any more rights to hem in people than the old ones had. But, in my view, the old ones had no such rights. So, then, neither can the new ones.

Murray Rothbard wrote something roughly on this question. Something about the government seizing, or selling, the Rockefeller estates, but I can’t seem to find this reference. So, a suggestion to you:

Please pardon this sentence in form letter style, but I make remarks of this sort often, and I find it saves me time. In order to get more answers/responses to your important question, and/or better publicize your point, I urge you to go to http://mises.org/Community/, and register it on that venue. If you do, please feel free to copy my answer along with your query.

Best regards,


Walter E. Block, Ph.D. Harold E. Wirth Endowed Chair and Prof. of Economics College of Business Loyola University New Orleans 6363 St. Charles Ave., Box 15 New Orleans, LA 70118 tel: (504) 864-7934 fax: (504)864-7970 wblock@loyno.edu

From: Bardhyl Salihu [mailto:bardhyls@gmail.com] Sent: Fri 2/12/2010 12:06 PM To: Walter Block Subject: Regarding your solution to the “entrapment” problem in privately-owned roads

Dear Dr. Block,

I’m currently reading your book Privatization of Roads and Highways, and I just finished reading you critique of Van Dun on freedom and property (2010). I still have problems with your solution regarding the “entrapment” problem. Let me first define my understanding of it.

By “entrapment,” I understand the situation whereby a person is unable to move outside his/her premises (property) when his/her only “way out” is through a private road, either because the owner of the road has prohibited the person from using the road, or because he’s charging an exorbitant price which that person can’t afford.

Now you say that this situation can only occur very rarely, because before a person “in his right mind” buys property which is “isolated,” he/she will make sure the access to the “outside world” is warranted first. However, this does not deal with a situation where the person already owns property whose only way out is a governmentally-owned road (in which he/she has free, unlimited access), but that road suddenly gets privatized. In this case, that person is powerless to make any “escape” deals because the road does not constitute his property, it is government’s. Unless the government somehow “agrees with” the new private owner to cede free access to the “entrapped” persons, the problem will still exist. The only possible way in which this person can now move outside is if he asked the road owner not to stop him because he wants to homestead a place somewhere else (which the owner has to accept in order to avoid precluding or forestalling).

You probably have responses to this situation, it’s just that I’m unfamiliar them (haven’t met them yet) in your writings. That’s why I thought contacting you directly may help me understand the solution. This is one of the problems I see with privatizing roads, at least for now.