Booby Trapping a Newly Conceived Infant

Letter 1

From: Walter Block <>
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2019 11:25 AM
Subject: RE: Booby trapping a newly conceived infant

Dear A:

Finally, finally, finally, I understand your point. I’m an idiot for not seeing it sooner. Thanks for persevering.

I don’t see any logical conflict, incompatibility between my views on negative homesteading and eviction.

The former is my attempt to analyze a case where A stands behind B, A uses B as a shield, and shoots at C. Both B and C are innocent people. I say that B is the first homesteader of the misery and must keep it to himself.

You say that the rapist is A, the mother is B and the baby is C. The mother must keep her misery to herself, and cannot take it out on C (by evicting him).

But there is a disanalogy here sufficient to drive a truck through. For example, both B and C are innocent people. The baby is not. He’s a trespasser. He of course lacks criminal intent, but, still, the unwanted fetus is living inside the property of someone else the mother.

Nevertheless, I am very grateful to you for keeping me on my toes, probing, deeply, into two views I have defended.

Block, Walter E. 2010. “Response to Jakobsson on human body shields.” Libertarian Papers.

Block, Walter E. 2011. “The Human Body Shield” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22 , pp. 625-630;

Block, Walter E. 2019. “Human shields, missiles, negative homesteading and libertarianism” Ekonomia Wroclaw Economic Review. Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 9- 22; file:///C:/Users/Walter/Downloads/2._Block%20(4).pdf;

Best regards,


Letter 2

From: A

Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2019 1:16 PM

To: Walter Block <>

Subject: Re: Booby trapping a newly conceived infant

On 10/18/19 8:26 PM, Walter Block wrote:

Dear A: I’ve published, maybe two dozen articles on this. I think I’ve dealt with the non rapist case somewhere in there. I don’t see why my views on negative homesteading and evictionism are incompatible with each other.


“According to the negative homesteading theory, one can come to own misery—a state of being, or about to be, attacked—which one cannot legitimately pass on to someone else, without his permission…”

The negative homesteading applies here to the case of pregnancy resulting from rape, and a premise of a rape victim’s attitude that the pregnancy constitutes a state of “misery”.

She has been “punished” with a baby (Obama’s word, mine would be “blessed” as in Joseph telling his brothers “You meant it for evil, God meant it for good”). She regards the situation as if were a case (in our words) of negative homesteading. She was forced by the evildoer to carry a child she didn’t ask for.

An intentional abortion at any point before full term and maturity, means that she has deflected all the risks and harm incurred by the violence of the rape onto the baby, or child, who is totally 100 percent free of any responsibility.

Kill the guilty rapist, put him at risk of death and harm, not the innocent baby. (Or put him into involuntary servitude to the benefit of both baby and mother until the child is independently able to survive, as retribution, and maybe even the rest of his natural life as punishment.



6:38 am on November 3, 2019