—–Original Message—–
From: SG
Sent: Sat 11/19/2016 11:22 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: RE: Murder, Inc., An Austro-libertarian analysis

Walter: I don’t think that this is a correct interpretation of my view and perhaps I should elaborate further (although we might still differ). In a libertarian society if B or B’s life/health insurer had retained C to provide personal security for B, or a private owner of land D (e.g., a landlord or a mall owner) had retained C to keep the peace on his property, then if A physically violates B’s body (in the case of the land owner, while on D’s land), C would be entitled to take action against A. I was objecting to the notion that C can float around society taking care of the bad guys at his own whim. Isn’t that one of the things we object to about the U.S. military, namely, floating around the world whacking the bad guys (as defined by the U.S. military)? SG

Dear SG: We do indeed still differ. B is raping A. C is not a cop. He’s just a passer-by. He is a good Samaritan (libertarians oppose compulsory good Samaritanism, but not at all the voluntary variety). C has no prior relation to A or B. Nevertheless, on a “whim” C steps in and tears B off of A, rescuing the latter. In your view, C is a criminal since he “initiated” violence against B, the rapist, since B had never before harmed C. I find that highly problematic from a libertarian point of view. I see a dis-analogy between this case and that of the U.S. military tossing its weight all around the world. First of all, that organization by no means limits itself to “whacking the bad guys.” All too often it “whacks” the (relatively) good guys, and creates really, really bad guys. For example, the U.S. attack on Libya and Iraq created ISIS. The U.S. entry into World War I created Hitler (Treaty of Versailles, hyper-inflation of Germany in 1923, rise of Nazis). Further, assuming for the moment the minarchist position, the sole function of the U.S. military is to protect U.S. citizens residing in the U.S. (not while they are travelling to other countries; they have to take their chances abroad, otherwise we arrive at conflicting sovereignties). Yes, indeed, “one of the things we (libertarians) object to about the U.S. military (is indeed their) floating around the world whacking the bad guys.” But that is because they are violating their contract (according to the minarchists) with the American people. It is as if X hires Y to protect him full time, and Y, on a “whim” leaves X unprotected and assists Z instead. Take the case of the Lincoln Brigade during the Spanish Civil War of 1936 (and let us abstract from the fact that they supported the Communists). Here were a bunch of individual American citizens rushing off, under their own steam, with their own funds, to do “good” elsewhere. Certainly they were justified in doing so, and their connection with the U.S. military doing something superficially similar is invalid. It is as if a foreign B was raping a foreign A, and an American C came to her rescue. There would be no violation of any libertarian law in such a case.

The Best of Walter E. Block