Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 4:22 AM
Subject: Caesar Chavez
Though your analysis of B’s question is consistent with principle and logical, it seems to me there is another possibility—the spraying of the field while workers are present could indeed be a tort, but one that the farmer can get away with because he knows the workers will not or cannot take him to court over it. In other words, the workers do not consent contractually to the spraying, but they acquiesce in it for reasons of their own, just as subjects in a State acquiesce in its various oppressions, because they believe themselves unable to prevent them, and likely to be more greviously harmed if they try.
I don’t think one can know in a specific case which alternative applies without careful investigation, and every case could be different. But that is what juries are for. In a free society it would be much easier for the farm workers to take the employer to court, and the jury would be well instructed in its rights and responsibilities (and even more so if the jury is itself professional).. S
Dear S: If this were a one shot deal, and/or if the workers were not notified beforehand that poison would be dropped on them, then, I think you have a good point. However, it was my understanding from B (see below) that this was an ongoing process. That being the case, I find it difficult to see how any lawsuit on the part of the employees against the employer would not be frivolous, at least so considered in a libertarian court. For part I of this exchange, go here: Block, Walter E. 2018. “Cesar Chavez saves workers from being poisoned. He’s a hero?” June 12; https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/cesar-chavez-saves-workers-from-being-poisoned-hes-a-hero/; Reprinted: https://sangabrieltutor.wordpress.com/2018/06/13/did-cesar-chavez-save-workers-from-being-poisoned/6:08 pm on June 13, 2018 Email Walter E. Block