My libertarian lawyers Ward LaFleur and Marc Mandich (who I HIGHLY recommend) start off their most recent legal brief (see below) in my lawsuit against the NYTimes with this sentence: “On January 25, 2014, the NYTimes published the article, ‘Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance.’”

That article was an attempt to smear the now newly elected Senator from Kentucky (congratulations!) by association with several libertarians deemed weird by this newspaper of record. They did so in order to derail his then attempt to launch a bid for presidency of our country. Although almost a dozen other libertarian “weirdos” (a redundancy for them) are mentioned, I pride myself that in their eyes I was chief amongst them. Why? Because I said that slavery was “not so bad.”

How did I come to express such an outrageous un-libertarian statement?

If you are interested in learning more about my lawsuit for libel against the NYTimes, continue reading below:

The NYTimes reporter interviewed me on two or three separate occasions for a total of maybe two hours. He kept pressing me to explain the libertarian philosophy to him. Of course, I mentioned the non-aggression principle (NAP) and private property rights based on homesteading, like the good Rothbardian that I am. I just wasn’t getting through to him (Sam Tanenhaus). I thought he was either particularly stupid, or, maybe, malevolent. I pressed on. I used all sorts of examples. For instance, our view on unions (they are unobjectionable if they limit themselves to a mass quit, but illicit when they beat up scabs or press for, and rely on, government compulsions for “fair bargaining” with unwilling employers). I tried to explain our views on prostitution, pornography, drugs, gambling, and other victimless crimes. We do not favor these activities; we only maintain they should not be against the law. I also gave our analysis of minimum wages, to the best of my memory: they hurt the poor, by creating unemployment for the unskilled, and they are deontologically (I didn’t use such a big word) improper since they prohibit certain labor contracts between consenting adults. Mr. Tanenhaus just wasn’t getting it. So, finally, I resorted to the nuclear option: slavery. I said slavery was an abomination, one of the most vile violations of the NAP. But why? Was it because they picked cotton, sang songs, ate gruel, lived in shacks? No, no, no, I said. Rather, it was because they were COMPELLED to do so; their rights of free association were violated; they could not quit. Take this one element out of the equation, and then “slavery would not be so bad.” Yes, I used these exact words. But, instead of quoting me to the effect that this HYPOTHETICAL slavery “wouldn’t be so bad” they quoted me as saying that ACTUAL slavery would not be so bad, a view that I as a libertarian could never, ever, hold. Tom Woods later pointed out to me a brilliant statement along these very lines by Frederick Douglass, which LaFleur and Mandich cite to great effect in their missive.

In the first round, the lower court, under Judge Ivan Lemelle, threw out my suit against the NYTimes with prejudice. This means I had to pay the legal bills of the NYTimes, which my lawyer estimated at almost $100,000 (DO NOT SEND ME ANY MONEY; I may need it later if my case fails, and I have to pay big bucks, but the case is not yet over, not by a long shot). Why did he do so? Because the NYTimes used my exact words, which I did not deny. So my lawyers appealed to a higher appellate court, consisting of three members. One of these judges went so far as to compare what the NYTimes did to me with what they might have done to Churchill who said something to the effect “Democracy is the worst system of them all, except for all the others” if they only cited the first part, not the second. Namely, “Democracy is the worst system of them all,” period. In effect, I said: “Slavery would not be so bad, if you could quit at any time and were not forced into it in the first place.” This judge said the that NYTimes in effect quoted the first part, but not the second. But the appellate court did not order to lower court to allow me a jury trial. Instead, this court required Judge Lemelle to reconsider my case (I’m probably not using the correct legal language; I’m no lawyer, merely a legal theoretician. If you want the exact terminology, read the LaFleur-Mandich appeal, below). Speaking of which, this is my lawyers’ attempt to address the full appellate court (en banc?), asking the entire panel of nine (?) judges to hear my case, not just three, as before. So, back went my case to Judge Lemelle, who, again, denied my claim for a jury trial. Hence, my lawyers second attempt to attain this goal which follows this introduction.

A word about their missive, below. The only “problem” I have with this beautifully-written, incisively-argued document is that so few people will see it. As I said to them, it really belongs in a law review. In order to rectify this situation, and to update readers of LewRockwell.com with the status of my legal case, I hereby share it with you.

You might also be interested in this essay of mine,

Block, Walter E. 2014. “May I sue the New York Times? A Libertarian Analysis of Suing for Libel.” September 5;

And also these publications, where I argue that not only was (real, not hypothetical) slavery entirely unjust and a vile, evil abomination, but that reparations in favor of the children of the former slaves are now justified, at least in principle:

Alston, Wilton D. and Walter E. Block. 2007. “Reparations, Once Again.” Human Rights Review, Vol. 9, No. 3, September, pp. 379-392;

Block, Walter E. 1993. “Malcolm X,” Fraser Forum, January, pp. 18-19; http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5361.aspx

Block, Walter E. 2001. “The Moral Dimensions of Poverty, Entitlements and Theft,” The Journal of Markets and Morality, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 83-93; http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2001_spring/block.html; http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=922087; http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketsandmorality.com%2Findex.php%2Fmandm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F587%2F577&ei=lBn9UuLIOtDOkQe1toHwBw&usg=AFQjCNF2MZ5XoFKKMF5UcOfOT5Kv-HQgZA&sig2=VVYWZhyl0ZmAWRAKXtkxWw

Block, Walter E. 2002. “On Reparations to Blacks for Slavery,” Human Rights Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, July-September, pp. 53-73;

Block, Walter E. and Guillermo Yeatts. 1999-2000. “The Economics and Ethics of Land Reform: A Critique of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace’s ‘Toward a Better Distribution of Land: The Challenge of Agrarian Reform,’” Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Law, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 37-69; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/ethics_land_reform.pdf

My publications – Walter Block vs New York Times

The Best of Walter E. Block