Read from the bottom up.
From: Walter Block [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 1:45 PM
To: K
Subject: RE: Your recent podcast interview
Dear K:
My Correspondence Policy https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/my-correspondence-policy/
I receive questions on Austrian economics and libertarianism from time to time. If they are polite, I always respond, even if briefly, because I have lots of e mail messages to deal with. On occasion, I receive queries that I think worthwhile to share on this blog.
Why do I do this? I engage in this practice because I regard myself as a follower of my decades-long friend and mentor Murray Rothbard. Nary a day goes by when I don’t think of him, and try to emulate him as best I can. Murray had a voluminous correspondence with people from every corner of the globe, and, so do I. But I have one advantage over him: modern day electronic means of sharing such letters, and my responses, on a much easier basis than he had.
Be warned: if you ask me what I consider an important question, I will feel free to post it on LRC along with my response, but on an anonymous basis. That is, unless you tell me not to share your letter, and my response, with anyone else. But, then, I’ll be less likely to respond to you at all. My thought is that if I am going to spend time answering an important question, I would like to have it shared by as many people as possible.
I receive, oh, 100-200 e mails per day. I have this compulsion that I must answer all (polite) queries. However, I cannot always engage in back and forth correspondence with all knowledgeable, kind, interested, Austro-libertarian readers of LewRockwell.com. If I did, or even tried to do so, I’d never get any other writing done. And that is why I get so many queries in the first place; because I publish a lot. So, please forgive me for not always being as responsive as I would like to be. What I’m trying to say is: “One to a customer.” Well, per year. That is, I’ll respond to your first question to me, but then, if you have a follow up, let’s keep that limited to once every year.
Best regards,
Walter
From: K
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2018 5:10 PM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Your recent podcast interview
Dr. Block,
Ok. I’ve thought about this more. It still doesn’t seem to avoid initiating violence on the part of the airplane/boat owner.
So if I could go back to your analogy, you discover a person placed in your plane/boat in the middle of the ocean without your knowledge. I don’t see how it is a threat to your property for them to stay on the boat/plane until you land allows for a violent (even deadly) response.
Or, what is the initiation of violence? To be sure (let’s say it’s the mafia, or college pranksters) the people that put the person on your boat/plane initiated violence. But wouldn’t you only have recourse against the perpetrators of the violence against your property, along with the victim of violence, and not the victim themselves?
And let’s not forget that what you call an abortion is either ripping a human apart and sucking them out with a vacuum, or poisoning them. And I’m not saying that as rhetoric, but as a reminder that it’s violent. Are you sure that human in the womb has initiated violence? And if you do think it’s initiating violence to be in the womb, can you understand the reasoning by those of us who don’t?
Thanks,
K
On Thursday, September 27, 2018, 4:58:51 PM EDT, Walter Block <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear K:
Shooting is a per se offensive act. It’s murder. Evicting someone from your plane or boat is a defensive act, in protection of your private property.
You know that joke about what’s the difference between a living room and a bathroom? Answer: if you don’t know, don’t come to my house.
Well, couldn’t I say that if you don’t know the difference between shooting someone to death, which is a per se offensive act, murder, and evicting someone from your plane or boat which is a defensive act, in protection of your private property, then don’t get into political economy?
Best regards,
Walter
From: K
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 3:32 PM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: RE: Your recent podcast interview
Dr. Block,
I agree it’s an implied contract. In fact, dumping them off the plane or just shooting them would be viewed the same way in the context of murder.
Therefore, if I recall your podcast analogy correctly, if a person is found on your plane through no fault of their own, you would be allowed to shoot them. And that seems like it might not violate a contract, but rather the non-aggression principle. Or can you show how shooting and evicting are not the same in this context?
Thanks,
K
On Monday, September 24, 2018, 3:28:05 PM EDT, Walter Block <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear K:
I think you have an implicit contract to land the unruly guest on your airplane, in as safe a place as you picked him up.
Best regards,
Walter
From: K
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2018 9:18 PM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Subject: Your recent podcast interview
Dr. Block,
I listened to your recent podcast interview about abortion. You stand on eviction, which I agree comes with private property. However, I don’t see how you can say a person can evict another person to certain death.
Perhaps we can start with a simple example and move to your example. You invite a person into your house, but they start acting like a jerk so you kick them off your property. We can agree with this one.
Taking your example, a person you invite onto your airplane on a trip over the Pacific Ocean, they start acting like a jerk so you kick them off your property. Would they really only have a few seconds to jump or would you have to wait to land before cutting them loose?
It seems to me that good policy about private property shouldn’t include the ability to murder with little to no recourse. And if you don’t want to call it murder, you really have opened the door to saying that the bullet killed the target, not the person shooting the gun haven’t you?
Thanks,
K
5:07 pm on March 12, 2019
