Response to 3 questions on libertarian theory

From: B
Sent: Mon 6/22/2015 9:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Hopefully not too long and interesting enough

Hello Dr. Block, Thank you for your contributions to the online bodies of libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, Austrian and free market economics information. I have spend the last few months watching all the YouTube videos that feature you, (with the exception of some debates on redundant subjects) as well as videos of others, related: Tom Woods, Gary North, Robert Murphy, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell Murray Rothbard, et cetera). I have read a few of your articles, downloaded from your website, as well as some books on Economics and liberty, (*Economics in One Lesson*, Henry Hazlitt; *End the Fed* and *Liberty Defined*, Ron Paul; *The Concise Guide to Economics*, Jim Cox; *The Road to Serfdom*, F. A. Hayek *Defending the Undefendable* by yourself as well as one or two others that I may be forgetting at the moment). I am currently enjoying *Man, Economy and State *by Murray Rothbard. I especially want to thank you for helping me get a little closer to the “Truth” as you put it in a few of your videos. I never heard of anarcho-capitalism before, and didn’t understand how anarchism could perpetuate as such, without falling into a State. Evictionism is beautiful, as ugly as the subject may be. I really appreciate your hard line approach to property rights, not softening up your stance on them by giving way to incidental morals. Same goes for human cloning of embryos. There is more to say, but I will leave you with just this taste. I would like some help on three things, though, if you are willing to provide or direct me to it.

1) I remember in at least one of your videos, you mentioned you had an article attacking the Austrian Triangle. I would love to know this critique. Could you direct me to this article? If in your estimation, a nonacademic like myself would not be likely to understand it, could you direct me to a dumbed-down version of your critique?

2) More than once, I have heard you describe libertarian punishment theory as two teeth for a tooth, cost of capture and scaring. You posited that Russian Roulette be the method used to execute the scaring. How does the real danger of Russian Roulette in addition to Russian Roulette’s scaring quality justly fit into this theory? Is it simply that the real danger is a necessary minimum on the cost of executing real scaring? Is there an article that explains this? It seems the real danger is unjust.

3) The Non Aggression Principal does not allow for violence. I see violence as taking on at least two forms, both of which are clear violations of the NAP. The first form of violence, I will call “violence of the first kind”. This is violence of a *direct* nature, like murder and theft, (*direct* in the fact that it *directly* violates one’s property rights of life, (murder) and other rights in other property (theft)). The other form of violence I will call “violence of the second kind”. This is violence of an *indirect* nature. It is the violence manifest in the indirect act of threatening violence of the first kind. It seems to me, (and I implore you to resist your nature of holding back your opinion and share with me if you have one [sarcasm]), that a threat of violence only becomes violence upon the making of the threat. It seems to me that it likely follows that making a threat to make a threat of violence is not violence, because a threat of violence is not made. [If this actually is violence, it may necessitate the name “violence of the third kind”.] If it turns out that a threat of a threat of violence is violence, than it must follow that a threat of a threat of a threat of violence is also violence, as well as a threat a thousand times over of a threat of violence is violence. This, to me seems absurd on the face of it, notwithstanding the degree of unlikely-hood of this taking place ever in humanity. Thoughts? Articles? Looking to get one inch closer to the “Truth” and you seem like my best bet.

Thank you again, and forgive me if the length of this email is a bit too lengthy. I understand if you are too busy to respond, or to respond thoroughly. If you ever find yourself in the Portland metro area of Oregon, and want a free massage, (I’m a professional) let me know, because you have one. Take care, B

Dear B:

Thanks for your challenging and intriguing questions.

1. Here is my critique of the Hayekian-Rothbardian-Garrisonian triangle:

Barnett, William II and Walter E. Block. 2006. “On Hayekian Triangles.” Procesos De Mercado: Revista Europea De Economia Politica; Vol. III, No. 2, Fall, pp. 39-141; http://mises.org/journals/scholar/block18.pdf; http://www.academia.edu/1359916/On_Hayekian_Triangles

2. Forcing criminals to play Russian Roulette is justified so as to even things up for the fact that in addition to molesting victims, stealing from them, raping them, etc., they also scare them. How else are we to scare criminals? Say “boo” to them? I admit this might appear unjust, since the death penalty might be imposed upon minor criminals; say, for shoplifting. However, if there were 1 bullet and 500 chambers, it would be unlikely that many shoplifters would actually die. It sure as heck would give them pause, no? Don’t we want to stop crime? Here are some readings on this:

Block, 1999, 2002-2003, 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b, 2006, 2009; Block, Barnett and Callahan, 2005; Gregory and Block, 2007; Olson, 1979; Rothbard, 1998, p. 88; Whitehead and Block, 2003

Block, Walter E. 1999. “Market Inalienability Once Again: Reply to Radin,” Thomas Jefferson Law Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, Fall, pp. 37-88; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/market_inalienability.pdf;

Block, Walter E. 2002-2003. “Berman on Blackmail: Taking Motives Fervently,” Florida State University Business Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 57-114

Block, Walter E. 2003A. “Libertarianism vs. Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz,” Reason Papers, Vol. 26, Summer, pp. 39-62

Block, Walter E. 2003B. “The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism,” February 17; https://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html
(15th floor flagpole)

Block, Walter E. 2004a. Austrian Law and Economics: The Contributions of Adolf Reinach and Murray Rothbard, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 7, No. 4, Winter, pp. 69-85

Block, Walter E. 2004b. “Reply to Frank van Dun’s ‘Natural Law and the Jurisprudence of Freedom,’” Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 18, No. 2, Spring, pp. 65-72.

Block, Walter E. 2006. “Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Part II” Reason Papers, Vol. 28, Spring, pp. 85-109; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf; http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/28/rp_28_7.pdf; (death penalty justified, net taxpayer, ruling class analysis p. 87)

Block, Walter E. 2009. “Libertarian punishment theory: working for, and donating to, the state” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1; http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/17-libertarian-punishment-theory-working-for-and-donating-to-the-state/

Block, Walter E., William Barnett II and Gene Callahan. 2005. “The Paradox of Coase as a Defender of Free Markets,” NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1075-1095; http://tinyurl.com/2hbzd4; http://www.nyujll.org/articles/Vol.%201%20No.%203/Vol.%201%20No.%203%20-%20Barnett,%20Block%20and%20Callahan.pdf
Reprinted in Mario Rizzo, ed. 2011. Austrian Law and Economics; Edward Elgar; http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/austrian-law-and-economics-the-definitive-collection/

Gregory, Anthony and Walter E. Block. 2007. “On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 21, No. 3, Fall, pp. 25-42; http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_2.pdf; http://www.academia.edu/1360109/On_Immigration_Reply_to_Hoppe

Olson, Charles B. 1979. “Law in Anarchy.” Libertarian Forum. Vol. XII, No. 6, November-December, p. 4; http://64.233.167.104/u/Mises?q=cache:gFT18_ZusWoJ:www.mises.org/journals/lf/1979/1979_11-12.pdf+two+teeth+for+a+tooth&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp;

In the view of Rothbard (1998, p. 88, ft. 6): “It should be evident that our theory of proportional punishment—that people may be punished by losing their rights to the extent that they have invaded the rights of others—is frankly a retributive theory of punishment, a ‘tooth (or two teeth) for a tooth’ theory. Retribution is in bad repute among philosophers, who generally dismiss the concept quickly as ‘primitive’ or ‘barbaric’ and then race on to a discussion of the two other major theories of punishment: deterrence and rehabilitation. But simply to dismiss a concept as ‘barbaric’ can hardly suffice; after all, it is possible that in this case, the ‘barbarians’ hit on a concept that was superior to the more modern creeds.”

Whitehead, Roy and Walter E. Block. 2003. “Taking the assets of the criminal to compensate victims of violence: a legal and philosophical approach,” Wayne State University Law School Journal of Law in Society Vol. 5, No. 1, Fall, pp.229-254

3. I just don’t see the infinite regress that you pose. In my understanding, the libertarian non-aggression principle rules as a crime not only actual (initiatory, not defensive) violence, but the threat thereof too. If I pull a gun on someone and yell at him “Your money or your life” or “Your brains or your signature will be on that contract” (The Godfather movie), I can usually get what I want without any physical violence at all. The mere threat will suffice. Surely, a threat like that is worse than pickpocketing, or shoplifting, no?

I was recently in the Portland, OR area: May 30, 2015. Libertarian Party of Washington State convention in Vancouver, WA. http://www.lpwa.org/2015_state_convention. Drat!

The Best of Walter E. Block