May a Person Use Violence Against A Crony Capitalist or Beneficiary of the State?

From: RR
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2017 10:38 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Limits of libertarian self-defense in a statist world
Dear Dr. Block, I’m a longtime libertarian and admirer of yours. As a matter of fact, I chose my line of work, which is as an X, after reading your analysis of what kinds of job a libertarian can do … while still not violating the NAP. I greatly enjoy your works, and always read your answers to questions put by fans at the lewrockwell blog.

My question to you is as the subject of my email suggests. What are the limits of libertarian self-defense in a statist world? I suppose that, as anarcho-capitalists, we agree that there is a right to defend yourself against an agressing government, though in almost every case it is counterproductive and not prudent to do so (i.e, it is no good shooting or avoiding the tax collector, as the government is more powerful and will imprison or kill you, even though this would be in self-defense). However, I believe that most libertarians would, though agreeing with the above, deny that there is a general right of tax-payers to aggress against tax-receivers on the grounds that the property in possession of the tax-receivers was stolen from tax-payers and they have the right to get it back.

But there is a middle-case. Sometimes a person A, using an unjust government statute, applies to the government, in order to extract resources directly from another person, B. We can think of an easy example in alimony law, where a former spouse fully capable of working refuses to engage in productive labor and asks the government to force the other ex-spouse to make him or her (usually her) regular payments. What are the limits of libertarian self-defense in such a case? Is B, who is being stolen from by the government in an ongoing monthly basis, to the benefit and by request of A, after exhausting all possible means of convincing A to desist from his or her aggression, entitled to commit violence against A in order for the aggression to cease, supposing they can get away with it (it is easier to get away with violence against one private person than against the government directly)? Suppose B does use violence against A, and before the case is judged, an Anarcho-Capitalist society comes into being. Should B be acquitted by an anarcho-capitalist court? … Regards, RR

Dear RR: Much as I would like to directly answer your question, I fear to do so. I’m not a lawyer, but, I think that if I gave the answer that I think is true to libertarianism, I might well be committing a crime. I’m sure that you can infer what my answer would be, did I feel free to articulate it, from what I just said. I am sorry that I do not wish to give a direct answer to your question. Let me try again. Suppose the following. There is rent control in a city. A is the landlord, B is the tenant. B pays far less to the landlord than the market value of A’s apartment. Is A justified in using violence on B, on the ground that B is in effect stealing from A? Is A entitled under libertarian law to use violence against the rent control commissioner? Against the legislators who passed this enactment? Not in any country that I live in, or might ever visit. Why? Because, again, I think my answer to this question would be illegal.

The Best of Walter E. Block