Dear Andrew:
These are very important and interesting questions, and I’m honored you ask me to address them.
First of all, I’m not a free speech absolutist. “I’m going to kill you” is a threat that constitutions a violation of the NAP, when uttered seriously and in a context in which this could actually occur.
I do address “yelling fire in a crowded theater” in my book Defending I:
Block, Walter E. 2008 [1976]. Defending the Undefendable. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute; John Stossel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DJ7wFENHkc; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/11/friedrich-hayek-playing-chess-with.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29; http://bit.ly/BlockDefending2; file:///C:/Users/WBlock/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/6I1PKZ08/Defending_the_Undefendable_2018_CS.pdf; https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Defending%20the%20Undefendable_2.pdf; audiobook on Amazon and Audible: https://www.amazon.com/Defending-the-Undefendable/dp/B005VFU05O and here: https://www.audible.com/pd/Defending-the-Undefendable-Audiobook/B005V1UV70;
As to you specific questions, I answer Yes to the first two. As to numbers 3-5, I offer this publication of mine:
Block, Walter E. and William Barnett II. 2008. “Continuums” Journal Etica e Politica / Ethics & Politics, Vol. 1, pp. 151-166 June; http://www2.units.it/~etica/; http://www2.units.it/~etica/2008_1/BLOCKBARNETT.pdf
Best regards,
Walter
From: Andrew Clifton
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:00 AM
Subject: Political conspiracies to initiate force – a justification for the proactive defence of liberty?
Importance: High
Dear Professor Block,
I have some questions I’d like to put to you about libertarian ethics and the justice of using force to defend oneself, and others, against actual or potential loss of liberty. I notice a number of posts on your website (and on LewRockwell.com) which answer questions from members of the public – so, if you can spare the time, I’d be very grateful if you could do the same here (and let me know when your reply is posted).
1. Does Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) prohibit actions which serve as preparation, planning, or conspiracy to commit acts of violence to person or property?
2. If so, does this – at least in principle – justify proactive self-defence against people who merely plan, conspire, or intend to abuse our liberty?
It may be helpful to briefly explain the thinking behind these questions. The NAP is sometimes expressed as a prohibition on the “initiation of force” – but it surely doesn’t require that, before acting in self-defence, one must wait for an evidently malevolent assailant to strike the first blow – or fire the first shot. Hence, it is usually stipulated that NAP also prohibits the threatened initiation of force – but this strikes me as insufficient to justify all cases of ethical self-defence. Acts of violence against person and property often occur without warning – precisely in order to ensure that victims are unable to take any effective defensive action. Hence, when police officers (whether employed by the State) discover evidence that some individual or group is planning a bank raid, or a terrorist outrage, the moral imperative is surely to prevent these crimes – not to wait until violence has commenced. I assume that most libertarians would agree that the would-be bank-robbers and terrorists can justly be punished for the crime of conspiracy to commit these offences. This would imply, I think, that the libertarian answer to 1 and 2 is “yes”.
This conclusion seems obvious and uncontroversial, but I think it has some radical implications. Imagine a future libertarian society in which government is drastically reduced to the minimal function of protecting liberty. A popular movement of socialist malcontents and reactionaries seeks popular support for the return of Big Government – organising mass demonstrations, protests and so on. Their intent is very clear: should they win power, liberties of all kinds will be severely restricted. It seems to me that, for libertarians, these actions can be interpreted as ”preparation, planning, or conspiracy to commit acts of violence”. If we answer yes to 1 and 2 above, we can then ask:
3. Does the NAP justify proactive self-defence against a political movement which seeks to unjustly restrict liberty?
4. If so, does this justify libertarian laws which prohibit, and punish, active participation in such a movement?
5. If so, does this justify restrictions on supposed “civil liberties” such as free speech, public assembly etc. – when these are to incite and promote aggressive outcomes?
I suppose some libertarians might strongly object to any restrictions on free-speech – which is often considered an inalienable right. However, I think others might argue that, in order to protect everyone’s liberty, certain limits on free-speech are necessary – the cliché example being that maliciously yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre (when there is no fire) can justifiably be treated as a crime, since it puts people at risk of injury. Likewise, incitement to acts of violence: it seems plausible, for example, that we can justly arrest and imprison a theocratic preacher who broadcasts sermons urging believers to murder atheists. This would suggest that, for libertarians, the correct answers to 3, 4 and 5 would be “yes”.
I would very much like to know where you stand on these questions – and I hope you find them interesting!
As mentioned above, if you decide to post a reply online, please let me know – and send me a link.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Clifton
Bath, England
6:58 am on December 28, 2020
