Here is part II in this series: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-flagpole-part-ii/
From: Abhirath MS 12 C
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 5:33 AM
Subject: Your views on marital rape
Greetings Mr Block . At the very outset let me declare that I do not consider you as the appointed spokesman for all libertarians both dead and living . So with that out of the way, I must ask you ,what do you think of the criminalization of marital rape, ? Marital Rape Poll Results for Libertarians (isidewith.com) I recognize that isdewith isn’t perfect and that being espoused by a majority lends no moral weight to a claim but is it libertarian to criminalize it?
From: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 10:13 AM
To: ‘Abhirath MS 12 C’
Subject: RE: Your views on marital rape
Dear Abhirath:
Hadn’t you heard: Murray Rothbard appointed me the spokesman for all libertarians both dead and living! A big ceremony at the Mises Institute took place confirming my appointment!
I think that all rape should be considered a very serious crime, certainly including within a marriage.
Best regards,
Walter
From: The NAPster
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 5:40 AM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Subject: Flagpole Example
Walter:
Two comments on your correspondence on this topic.
First, you note to Bob that you are taking a deontological perspective, not a utilitarian view as he is taking. Yet in your next paragraphs, you justify your view on utilitarian grounds (your view is necessary to protect lives and the baking of bread).
Second, I couldn’t follow your logic with Mike. You say:
No one is talking punishment here. Obviously, the punishment for virtually any trespass, certainly this emergency kind of trespass, would be far less than the death penalty.
We’re only talking, here, whether if the woman shoots the flagpole trespasser, she’s a criminal. I say she is not.
In shooting the flagpole trespasser, isn’t the woman levying a punishment on him for his trespass? Wouldn’t you say that libertarianism requires some proportionality in punishment for NAP violations? And if you “over-punish,” then you yourself would be liable for violating the NAP?
Zack Rofer
Check out my book: Busting Myths About the State and the Libertarian Alternative
From: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 1:30 PM
To: ‘The NAPster’
Subject: RE: Flagpole Example
Dear Zack:
I commonly employ both deontological and utilitarian arguments. The one does not preclude the other.
I think it is important to distinguish between punishment for a crime, which takes place typically long after the crime itself, and violence used in self defense which occurs at the moment of the crime. Yes, indeed, the former needs to be proportional to the seriousness of the crime. But the latter does not. Yes, if the flagpole woman could fully protect herself using gentler means she would be required to do so. I don’t see how that would work in this case. But, in the ordinary trespass case, if she had two guns, one with lead bullets in it the other with rubber bullets in it, and, we stipulate that both would do the job equally well, then she should be required to stop the criminal in the gentlest manner possible.
Best regards,
Walter
From: Steve
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:58 AM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Subject:
Dear Walter,
A flagpole sticking out from the side of a building could be a species of what’s known as attractive nuisance.
Just as a homeowner should know that a kid could fall into his unfenced swimming pool and drown, the apartment owner should have known that her flagpole would be “attractive” to a falling man. If she has to shoot him because she fears for her own safety, or, heck, if he impales himself on the pole, she bears some responsibility for putting the thing there in the first place.
Sure, if the flagpole wasn’t there, he would certainly die, but the apartment owner would have clean hands. Instead she chose to install and maintain the attractive nuisance that led to unpleasant consequences for all involved.
I’m being facetious. I know these libertarian angels-on-a-pin arguments are important, but sometimes I can’t help finding them funny as well.
Most sincerely,
Steve
—
I look forward to the day when the people of the world achieve herd immunity to political fear-mongering and tyranny.
~ Steve
From: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 10:14 AM
To: ‘Steve
Subject: RE:
Dear Steve:
I have a pretty good sense of humor, but, I don’t see this attack on Rothbardian libertarianism as funny.
This flagpole challenge is a very powerful one against Rothbardian libertarianism. Many, many people have been taken in by it.
Nonetheless, having said that, I changed my mind. I think your point is indeed very funny. I lost my funny-bone for a minute.
Best regards,
Walter
2:41 am on January 25, 2022
