From: AL
Sent: Thursday
To: walter block
Subject: Non-coercive functions of the state
Dear Walter,
My University email account will no longer be usable after I graduate, so let me use my personal account to email you this time.
Suppose X dies and his will specifies that all of his money is to be used to set up a scholarship that is administered by the government (and his money is to cover all administrative costs, and the government should not promote the scholarship through any coercive channels). Assuming we are unable to get rid of the government in the meantime, should the government be allowed to take up this function?
Thanks a lot!
AL
P.S. Congratulations on the success of Libertarians For Trump!
My answer is, No. The government should not be allowed to do that, or, for that matter, anything else either. In the view of Rothbard (in For a New Liberty, p. 49): “if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place.” So, suppose that X died and left his money to ISIS, or the Mafia, or some other gang of criminals. Should any of them “be allowed to take up this function?” Here, the answer is easy to see, and it is also in the negative. No gangs, whether with good public relations or not, should be “allowed” to do anything, well, except, disband.
4:02 pm on May 5, 2016
