Nine Challenging Libertarian Questions; And Answers:

From: H
Sent: Wed 7/19/2017 5:46 PM
To: Walter Block
Dear Walter, Here are a series of nine questions I and my friends would like to ask you.

Dear H: See your questions below, interspersed with my responses. Thanks for all of them. Some are very challenging.

1. What are the rights of a dead body immediately upon death if nobody is established as an inheritor of the person’s estate? Assume the deceased has no family and no will.

Dead people, of course, no longer have any rights, as they no longer exist. Given that this person dies intestate, in the free society a (private) court would then determine what is to be done with this person’s estate.

2. What should a libertarian member of a jury do if the crime is aggressive (and guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt), is there any reason to vote not-guilty based on the belief that the state is illegitimate and the punishment necessitates further aggression (taxes to pay for imprisonment, not restitution for the victim)?

In my view, to think that a libertarian jurist should vote not-guilty on this ground is to give the government too much credit. As Murray Rothbard says: “If you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place.”

The Blood, the Crips, the Mafia, are also gangs; only their public relations accomplishments are far inferior to that of the government. Suppose on a given occasion, one of these gangs is robbing an innocent person, and another gang stops the first one from doing so. Then, at least at that point, the second good is doing a “mitzvah” (a good deed). Similarly, when an evil government (that is a redundancy) puts a murderer out of circulation, it, too, is acting properly, at least in this one regard. So, I see no justification for the libertarian member of the jury to undermine this. I am assuming, here, that there are only two choices: either the murderer is placed in a government prison, or goes free, to continue his depredations. While the gang, whether statist or “private” is not a righteous organization, it is capable of sometimes committing righteous acts. In other words, it is not unjust for the government to prevent the furtherance of crime and the libertarian juror should vote not guilty.

3. Collateral damage question: A stabs B in the leg. B sends private police to punish A. A flees onto the property of C. B’s private police run through property of C to catch A. Are B’s private police guilty of trespass? Or is A guilty of trespass for the damages incurred by both his own trespass and that of B’s private police, because as a recent-aggressor he knew that he was dragging pursuers with him? If not, then murderers can just hide on private property with impunity.

A is guilty of trespass, not the police. However, A’s private police may be guilty as well if they took negligent or unnecessarily violent measures. Murderers cannot just hide on C’s private property; the owner of said property would be a criminal as well. If C used his private property rights to prevent private police B from capturing the criminal, A, then C would be aiding and abetting a criminal, and would become a criminal himself. Private property rights do not give the owner the right to do whatever he pleases. X invites Y to his house for dinner. Whereupon X shoots Y. X’’s defense: “Well, it was my private property, a man’s home is his castle; he can do anything he pleases.” Certainly this is incompatible with libertarianism.

4. If so, what if B’s private police need to use guns to catch A (assume that he murdered B so that use of guns is acceptable)? What if they shoot and hit a gas line on C’s property and it kills A, C, and C’s family? Are B’s private police liable? Or is A?

Both A and B’s police force are responsible for this mayhem.

5. What if the only conceivable way to ever catch A, the criminal, is by dropping a bomb that kills A and his 100 closest (innocent) friends who are over for a barbecue? Is A the only one at fault if this occurs?

I have published on this issue, and offer these cites in lieu of a substantive response:

Block, Walter E. 2010. “Response to Jakobsson on human body shields.” Libertarian Papers. http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/25-block-response-to-jakobsson-on-human-body-shields/

Block, Walter E. 2011. “The Human Body Shield” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22 , pp. 625-630; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_30.pdf

Block, Walter E. Unpublished. “Human shields, missiles, negative homesteading and libertarianism”

My answer involves negative homesteading (whoever homesteads the misery the one who has to keep it) a concept I concocted in order to respond to challenges like this.

6. Siamese twins A and B share a body. A stabs some part of this body. B does not “consent” to the stabbing. But A says: “It’s my body, I can do what I want to.” Assuming that the nerves hit by the stabbing only connect to A’s brain, is the act aggressive? Or must no negative effects at all accrue on B (e.g. loss of blood, susceptibility to infection)? Or is it always illegitimate by virtue of it being a shared resource?

I have also published on this topic, so I’ll let that be my answer to this query of yours:

Dyke, Jeremiah and Walter E. Block. 2011. “Explorations in Property Rights: Conjoined Twins.” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 3, Art. 38; http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/38-dyke-block-conjoined-twins/

7. What should we make of the argument that libertarians should be more open to restrictions on campaign finance because donations to statists border on acts of aggression?

Border on? I think that donations to statists is in effect aiding and abetting criminals. Campaign finance for non-libertarian candidates is the equivalent of funding a criminal organization and should indeed be restricted.

8. If free speech is unlimited as you argue in DTU, what about yelling someone to death? Or wait is this taken care of by property rights, homesteading noise rights, etcetera? Well how much different is it than going into someone’s house and stabbing them? Obviously they can kick you out after but shouldn’t there be more?

Free speech isn’t unlimited–threats are illegitimate. Yelling loudly at someone to his death violates the NAP. Screaming so loudly that you burst his eardrums also violates the NAP. The best essay ever written on environmentalism in general, and noise pollution in particular, is this one:

Rothbard, Murray N. 1982. “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution,” Cato Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring; reprinted in Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation, Walter E. Block , ed., Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1990, pp. 233-279; http://mises.org/story/2120; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf

9. Spanking. What is the libertarian view on spanking children?

I have been engaged in two debates and one interview on this topic, and I’ll let those constitute my answer to this question:
Block versus Tim Moen: https://youtu.be/J6Kto38tk1I

Block versus Stefan Molyneux, Freedomain Radio: http://youtu.be/EgCmoVbdYtE;
MP3: http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2552_Walter_Block_Debate.mp3;

July 21, 2013. Interview with Steve Patterson, FEE
http://libertariannerds.com/2016/11/19/wizardly-wisdom-reality-anxiety-ep-4-darien-sumner-
from-bumblingbees-net/

Share

8:02 pm on July 21, 2017