When I get questions like this, ordinarily, I make my correspondent anonymous. But Michael specifically requested that I identify him, so I will do so. My answers to his first set of questions can be seen after these marks (<<). For his second set of questions, and my responses to them, go to the next page.
From: Michael Ezra [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 4:38 PM
To: Walter Block
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hoax Bomb threats and the libertarian position.
Dear Walter,
1. You refer to things being "criminal." I have a problem with that term as I have been influenced by David Friedman on the matter. In an anarchist world there can't really be "crimes" as such because crimes are prosecuted by the state. Friedman sees what we understand as crimes, and would also be against the libertarian idea of initiation of force, would be subsumed into the law of tort which has civil rectification /restitution as opposed to state punishment.
<< I'm not a big fan of David Friedman's. I asked him to debate me on this, whether verbally or in print:
Block, Walter E. 2011. "David Friedman and Libertarianism: A Critique," Libertarian Papers, Vol. 3, Article 35; http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-35.pdf; https://plus.google.com/u/0/107839603122535455846/posts/6QfUcBR1gTS
but he declined.
Here’s another critique of mine against him:
Block, Walter E. 2003. “Private property rights, economic freedom, and Professor Coase: A Critique of Friedman, McCloskey, Medema and Zorn,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 26, No. 3, Summer, pp. 923-951; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2782/is_3_26/ai_n6640908/?tag=content
Of course there can be crimes in the absence of government. I can’t believe that even David would be so blind to libertarian theory. Suppose Cain murdered Abel (or was it the other way around?) and he did so in the absence of any government. That’s ok, then, according to libertarianism? I find that problematic. Of course there are crimes without government: murder, rape, theft, etc. This view, that I really can’t believe David holds, gives far too much importance to the state, which, after all, is merely a criminal gang, among other, smaller, criminal gangs.
2. While I accept that one does not need to engage in physical violence, it seems to me that one would have to either use physical violence or threaten to use it to be against the libertarian code. After all, there is only requirement – non initiation of force against someone or their property . It is because of this that I also struggle to see how a libertarian can restrict spamming. I note you use an argument by Kinsella to suggest that a spammer is a trespasser, but I do not see how this can be so. I accept if a spammer is a trespasser of sorts then the libertarian code has been breached, but, without reading what Kinsella has said, struggle to accept this can be so. When someone has a mail box (be it on a door of their house or electronic) to which they accept messages from third parties then whether it is a letter from parents, a flyer for the local dentist or a mass broadcast advertising viagra it shouldn’t really matter. If you wish to allow a prosecution or civil action against a local dentist offering 10% discount for the month June with the use of an invited and unwanted flyer, because that flyer is an initiation of force against property, then, it seems to me, that you are acting in a less liberal way than under the laws we currently have in Western society. I find it further problematic that one could restrict a spam caller offering to sell you a good or a service when people accept that there name is publicly available in the telephone directory. All I can see against spammers that should work for an a libertarian is a the free market one where email hosting companies will not accept spammers as clients as it could have negative consequences for their business.
<< you make a good point. But only about GOVERNMENT post offices. Private post offices would presumably allow their clients to reject, out of hand, "a flyer for the local dentist or a mass broadcast advertising Viagra." Surely, people would ALSO reject hoaxes of this sort no?
3., I still struggle to see how a hoax bomb threat can breach the libertarian code.
<< this hoax is spam. Spam is a trespass.
3. Yes, not only am I aware of your book on blackmail, I footnoted it in one of my early footnotes to my essay! I look forward to hearing any views on my essay, even if that view is a negative one!
<< please do send me your paper. I'll take a peek at it. Even though I don't agree with you on this hoax business, I regard you as a careful, thoughtful libertarian theorist. Who else would come up with a great objection to libertarianism? But, hopefully, my writings on David Friedman will wean you away from reliance on him. Here's more criticism of David, from Murray:
Rothbard, Murray N. 2012. "Do You Hate the State?" July 27;
https://mises.org/daily/5342/Do-You-Hate-the-State
From: Michael Ezra [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 1:24 PM
To: Walter Block
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Hoax Bomb threats and the libertarian position.
Thank you very much for your response. I should be honoured if you mentioned me. In terms of my address, I live in London UK. Rather than this email address (or my g-mail address) either my Twitter account https://twitter.com/MichaelEzra or my own blog http://undertheoculartree.com/ would be ideal.
I am very interested in what you say on this point. I see a problem with the electronic hacker comparison as a hacker is actually breaking in to someone’s electronic property – initiating force. Likewise, in your example, “big strong A comes up to a little weak B and says give me your money or I’ll bash you” this is a clear threat of force and a threat of force, I understand, as quoted earlier, Murray would have regarded as an initiation of force. However, someone who makes a hoax call is not breaking into someone else’s property and no threat is made – just false information is provided. Moreover, there is no contractual element, so as Murray, I seem to recall, explained somewhere, someone who shouts “fire” in a crowded theatre is in breach of a contract with the theatre as when he purchased a ticket he contracted not to shout out without due cause in the theatre. A hoax caller has no contract with the airline so that argument does not work. It seems to me more comparable to libel and slander. Hence I am interested in how you make a hoax call a crime, or, more precisely, a breach of the libertarian code.
I am very interested in everything you write and I have read lots (but not all – your output is vast) of it. As I mentioned it, and as I quote you, I enclose my submitted essay on blackmail. It is 2747 words (limit 2750). If you have a chance to read it, I should be delighted for any comments (Not that it can be changed now!)
Regards,
Michael Ezra
Cell: +44 (0) 7801 499508
Personal email is [email protected] and [email protected]
Dear Michael:
Thanks for your very insightful and incisive comments. I should have been more clear. I wasn’t saying that the false bomb announcer was exactly like the guy who yells fire in a crowded theater (I have a chapter on this in my book Defending I), nor like the person who threatens violence. I was merely making the point that engaging in actual physical violence against innocent people is sufficient for being a criminal but not necessary. There are other sufficient conditions too. For example, the false bomb announcer. Perhaps the best example (I owe this point to Stephan Kinsella) is the spammer. The latter is a trespasser, and the former is a sort of spammer. Surely, the false announcement of a bomb on board a plane is a version of spam, and unsolicited or undesired electronic message. Well, it really doesn’t matter whether the false bomb announcer does so electronically, or verbally on the phone, or through snail mail.
I will indeed read your piece on blackmail. As you may know, I have a book out on that subject:
Block, Walter. 2013. Legalize Blackmail. Straylight Publishing, LLC; http://www.straylightpublishing.com ; ISBN 978-0-9910433-0-9 (hardcover), 978-0-9910433-1-6 (e-book). My publisher, bless his heart, is a bit weird. Well, more than a bit weird. He is willing to sell you this new book of mine for whatever price YOU decide upon at Amazon.com. If this isn’t weird, I don’t know what is. Of course, legalizing blackmail, rescinding all laws outlawing blackmail, it cannot be denied, is also a bit weird. Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Legalize-Blackmail-Walter-Block/dp/0991043308 . Barnes and Noble: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/legalize-blackmail-walter-block/1117524839 . Direct from the publisher: https://gumroad.com/l/SzSd ; Legalize Blackmail is now available in all eBook formats for $9.99 across the board. The book may be obtained digitally in these formats: DRM-Free PDF, ePub, and MOBI – https://gumroad.com/l/SzSd ; Kindle – http://amzn.to/1jkO5bE ; Nook – http://bit.ly/1bDSNMJ ; https://gumroad.com/l/SzSd
8:12 pm on June 28, 2015
