Man insults another man’s wife

Here is a follow-up on the libertarian analysis of a man who insults someone else’s wife (https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/an-interesting-libertarian-question/). Two more comments of interest have come in on this topic. See below for my responses to both. (Sorry for the shameless self-promotion, but this is what one of these people actually said).

The first is from JB, who initially raised this challenge to our theory:

Dear Walter,

Thank you so much for your response, I knew my position as such wasn’t really defendable, but I did want to get the opinion of one of the greatest Libertarian minds of our time! I also thought of some things I have heard you say, in the course of, “would that violate the Libertarian principle”? Yes, but I am willing to take the consequences of my actions. It was funny, as I was reading it, I kicked myself and thought, Of course! Private property, everyone would have their own rules on their own property. It is so easy to forget this being in the Statist world we live in. Thank you again. JB

Here is the second:
Men who insult women in a “NAP” society could and should be issued a challenge to a duel–the time honored, “manly” way to settle some disputes, including insults and bad manners. Such challenges are traditionally delivered with a physical blow of some sort–and certainly qualify as initiated force. But in the American West, calling someone a liar was widely considered an invitation to an immediate gun duel–no slap needed. Perhaps the following sign should be posted–or worn–in places where bad manners are not tolerated: CAUTION: Bad manners are subject to challenge by traditional dueling rules. You have been warned. Proceed at your own risk! This is similar to Supersedure Zone postings (found at the link below) wherein notice is provided at the entry point. DW Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent http://tinyurl.com/Index-to-Covenant-Articles

Dear JB: Yes, property rights, property rights, property rights. These are often the key to libertarian solutions to vexing problems.

Dear DW: I am an idiot, a moron, an imbecile. I should have thought of the duel when I first responded to JB’s query. Red blooded American that he is, I’m sure JB will appreciate your point. Why do I kick myself for not initially thinking of this? Because I devoted an entire chapter of this book of mine to defending the “duelist.” Block, Walter E. 2013. Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in all realms; Terra Libertas Publishing House; http://store.mises.org/Defending-the-Undefendable-2-P10932.aspx

However, in that chapter I do make the case that this response is more of theoretical than practical interest. Why? Because “traditional dueling rules” (guns, swords, presumably) may not always be employed. It is for the person receiving the challenge, not the one offering it, to choose his weapons (unless stipulated otherwise). But suppose the recipient chooses chess, or tiddley-winks, solving math puzzles or race-walking as the means of settling the dispute? Given heterogeneity of human beings pretty much anyone can beat everyone at something. This applies even to Bruce Jenner, former winner of the Olympic decathlon event. He was among the world’s leading athletes at 10 different track and field events. But there are large numbers of other ways to settle a duel to the death (a spelling bee, best drawing, poetry contest, musical ability, etc.). Woe betide issuers of duel challenges under such institutional arrangements.

The Best of Walter E. Block