—–Original Message—–
From: AW
Sent: Tue 7/12/2016 6:05 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Re: threats and trump

Dear Walter,

I generally agree with your writings, but this article seems a little silly. The question is not if it’s OK to threaten somebody, but rather of it’s OK to deploy self defense when faced with a threat. So yes, even an anarcho-capitalist may threaten others, as long as he doesn’t complain about the ensuing backlash. Whether or not there is a backlash is exactly the risk the thief or threatener has to weigh and accept. So, yes, the Donald is OK threatening family members of terrorists, but if he should become president, giving him the means to carry out his threat, the terrorist’s brother could kill President Donald and it would merely be an act of self defense.
Kind regards AW

—–Original Message—–
From: RD
Sent: Tue 7/12/2016 5:53 AM
To: walter block
Subject: Threats

Great article this AM RE: Trump making threats. Quick question – and this is stretching your point, admittedly – if you allow that threatening the atomic bomber’s innocent children with violence is legitimate given that 1) he is threatening us with violence, and 2) we don’t actually intend to carry it out, then wouldn’t the atomic bomber’s WIFE be justified in defending her children, since she 1) is innocent herself, and 2) doesn’t
know we don’t actually intend to carry out the threat? Or put another way, what if the children are grown adults? Wouldn’t they be justified in defending themselves against our hollow threat, given that they don’t know it’s hollow? I would say yes, given that the atomic bomber’s wife/children are no more enlightened as to the validity of our threat than we are to the atomic bomber’s. Thanks again, Dr. Block- RD

Dear AW and RD:

Your letters are very similar, so I hope and trust you don’t mind I answer both in one fell swoop.

Thanks for your interesting and important critique of this essay of mine:
Block, Walter E. 2016. “Cut Trump Some Slack: Threats; and Donald Trump.” July 12;
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/07/walter-e-block/cut-trump-slack/
I asked my guru on this matter, David Gordon, for his response to your objection, and this is what he wrote me:

“It’s clearly in order for an innocent person to take defensive measures against a threat, but it doesn’t follow that you can kill someone who threatens you or your children. What you can do depends on the circumstances: what are the police actually doing in the case, besides threatening to kill the children? Compare with this case: Khrushchev famously said, ‘We will bury you.’ The US government would not have been justified in launching a nuclear war because he threatened to kill us.” A similar point could be made with regard to the threats periodically uttered by the present dictator of North Korea.

I am still of the opinion that it would be justified for the hopefully private police to threaten the life of the mad bomber’s infant son, in an effort to get him to not detonate the atom bomb in the middle of Manhattan. Yes, the mother of this boy would be justified in feeling hard done by, but I, along with David, do not think that libertarian theory would support her killing the policeman. Hopefully, the police would be able to contact the mother and acquaint her with the true situation. But, if this were to happen, it would ruin the point of the example, which is to solve the supposed conflict between the rights of the Manhattanites not to be obliterated, and the self-defense rights of the baby boy not to be killed. This is admittedly a rough one, but I think this is the best that can be done in this philosophically (and otherwise) perilous case.

Best regards,

Walter

The Best of Walter E. Block