Letter I:
From: David Gordon [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 10:35 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Civil War
Dear Walter:
It was great to see you at AERC, and I enjoyed your excellent talk on Ayn Rand.
As I know that you love arguments, I’d like to pose an objection to something you said in one of the discussions. You objected to “Civil War” to refer to the war in America between 1861and 1865, on the ground that the war was a war of secession, not a genuine civil war.
Your premise is correct: the Southern States were not trying to replace the existing US government with another one, as would have been the case in a civil war.. They were seceding from the Union. But your conclusion, i.e., that we shouldn’t call the war the “Civil War,” doesn’t follow from the premise. That is, I hold that it is wrong to claim that because the war wasn’t a civil war, we shouldn’t call it the “Civil War.”
The problem with your argument is that you assume that “Civil War ” is a false description of the war: you argue, if you call the war the “Civil War” you are making, or implying a false statement, that the war was a civil war. But “Civil War” can be a false description only if it a description, and it isn’t. It is a name, and names aren’t descriptions. To call the war the “Civil War” does not state or imply that it was a civil war.
Maybe these examples will make clearer what I mean. The Holy Roman Empire, according to Voltaire, was neither holy, Roman, nor an empire. If Voltaire was right, it would not follow that “The Holy Roman Empire” is the wrong name for the political entity it designates. Names that include descriptive words don’t turn into descriptions. Another example: the Hundred Years War between Britain and France lasted longer than one hundred years, but it would be wrong to claim that the name of the war should be changed because it is inaccurate. It would be inaccurate only if it were a description. But it isn’t: it’s a name.
Best wishes,
David
Dr. David Gordon, Senior Fellow
[email protected]
334.321.2100
518 West Magnolia Avenue
Auburn AL 36832
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Walter Block wrote:
Letter II
Dear David:
Regarding your point about the “Civil War,” I have no idea as to whether or not you are correct in saying it is a proper name or not. How would one test that hypothesis? I don’t know. Let us assume you are completely correct; it is a name, not a description. Still, I think I am justified in calling for a renaming of this war, if only for the sake of clarity. Now, let us assume you are only half correct: it is both a name and a description. Well, as a description it is entirely wrong, and should be changed on that ground alone; and if the other part of it is a name, then, that, too, should be changed for reasons given above.
A similar situation occurs with regard to the Public Choice notion about “rent seeking.” I have also been on the (intellectual) warpath in an attempt to change this to “loot seeking” or something of that sort. Maybe, “theft seeking.” Why? Because it is improper to characterize so inoffensive a concept as “rent” in this nefarious way. But, maybe, “rent seeking” is now a name? I have no idea if this is true, nor how to determine the truth of this claim. And, I don’t much care. We ought to substitute “loot seeking” for “rent seeking” because the former is not misleading while the latter is.
On that see this:
Block, Walter E. 2002. “All Government is Excessive: A Rejoinder to ‘In Defense of Excessive Government’ by Dwight Lee,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 35-82. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/16_3/16_3_3.pdf; rent seeking, market failure
Block, Walter E. 2000. “Watch Your Language,” February 21; http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=385&month=17&title=Watch+Your+Language&id=19; http://mises.org/daily/385
Best regards,
Walter
Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fac: (504)864-7970
[email protected]
http://www.walterblock.com/
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/
http://samesideentertainment.com/talent/dr-walter-block/
https://www.facebook.com/wblock2
WalterBlock.com: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock
Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock
Skype: Walter.Block4
If it moves, privatize it; if it doesn’t move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or doesn’t move, privatize everything.
Letter III
From: David Gordon [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 11:36 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Civil War
Dear Walter,
You ask, how can one test my suggestion that “Civil War” is a name, not a description? The answer to that is simple. Consider the sentence, “The Civil War was not really a civil war.” This sentence makes perfect sense. If the phrase were a description, it would be a contradiction. It would be saying, “Something that is a civil war is not a civil war.” Thus, “Civil War” is a name, not a description.
You will be glad to know, though, that I think that your opposition to “Civil War” can be supported in this way. Even if the use of the name “Civil War” does not state or imply that the war was a civil war, the words may for some people, such as you, have an association that they do not welcome. This gives people who have this association a reason to favor a change of name.
Your opposition to “rent seeking” seems to me on strong ground. Clearly, this phrase is a description, not a proper name.
Best wishes,
David
Letter IV:
Dear David:
I agree with you entirely. And, enthusiastically. “Civil War” is indeed a name, and your proof of that is definitive. I’m glad you support my suggestion that we should change the name of this conflagration. I suggest alternatives such as “War of Southern Secession,” or “War to Prevent Southern Secession” or “War of Northern Aggression” or “War Between the States” or “War of Secession” or, more neutrally, “War of 1861.”
Best regards,
Walter
