Here is part III in the flagpole series: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-flagpole-part-iii/
Here is the next installment:
From: T
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 12:18 PM
Subject: Flagpole
Well Walter if I was the guy on the flagpole I would just say “sorry for the trespass ma’am, but thank God your pole saved my life. Here’s a hundred bucks for your inconvenience.”
T
Dear T:
I see you and I raise you. I’d pay lots more than that to save my life. But, that’s not a question a libertarian can answer. As I see things, our philosophy can only answer questions concerning the use of violence. We can’t, at least not qua libertarians, tell the flagpole hanger what to do. We an only answer the question, if the homeowner shoots him, did she violate his rights. I say no.
From: Roderick
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 6:08 AM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Subject: Flagpole issue
Dear Walter,
Thank you for posting your flagpole articles. Your comment about taking the perspective of the property owner rather than the trespasser is enlightening.
On a bit of a tangent, in your 2003 post you said that those who attack the non-aggression axiom on emergency grounds should logically give up any wealth they have to those who have less.
Would it also follow that they should give up a kidney, eye, lung, etc. to those who are in greater need of these?
Is this what Ayn Rand meant (I think it was she) when she said the logical conclusion of altruism is that its adherents could only “shut up and die”?
Regards,
Rod
From: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 8:50 AM
To: ‘Roderick
Subject: RE: Flagpole issue
Dear Rod:
Yes, yes, yes! There are always emergencies, somewhere on this planet of ours. Why be compelled, only, to give up money without the NAP. Body parts too. ALL of them!
Best regards,
Walter
From: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 1:45 PM
To: ‘Tom Dilorenzo’
Subject: RE: Flagpole
Dear Tom:
I see you and I raise you. I’d offer $1000. Heck, $10,000. Way more. My life is worth more than that to me. Way more. But suppose the woman declines that offer?
However, that is not the question that a libertarian can answer. The only question a libertarian can answer is, If the woman shoots him, is she guilty of a crime?
I’m gonna post this on LRC. May I use your name, or should I keep you anonymous?
Best regards,
Walter
From: Jason
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 8:32 AM
Subject: The Flagpole
Dear Professor Block,
I have to quibble a bit with your stance on the right of a flagpole owner to order a falling person to release the flagpole. It is not equivalent to the example of selling your property in order to feed other people who are starving. In that case, you are not preventing them from eating by not sending food. But in the example of the flagpole, the owner is ordering the falling soul to let go of the only thing between him and near certain death. At that point, in my mind at least, the exercise of property rights has become an aggression and the NAP has been violated. Does anyone have the absolute right to condemn another to death for property rights if there is no self defense or defense of property involved? Isn’t there an obligation to at least wait until the Fire Department sends a crew to erect a net under the falling man before ordering him off the pole?
It’s a tricky question. Thanks for sharing.
Jason
El Paso
Dear Jason:
Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to this thread. I agree with you that the flagpole lady should be legally required to safeguard herself in the gentlest manner possible, compatible with her safety. Yes, indeed, if there is time for the fire department to set up a net, and the flagpole hanger can just hang there without moving toward her, then, she may not legally shoot him (I’m really being “woke” here; I’m such a wuss!; this will take her extra time to keep an eye on the flagpole holder for a few minutes).
However, take the more realistic case. It will take 5 minute for the fire department to get there. The flagpole hanger can’t hang on for that long. His only choice is to drop to his certain death (not near certain) or to move hand over hand toward to flagpole lady. Note, I do not address myself to the issue of what should he do. That is NOT a proper question to ask of a libertarian. That is the way critics of the NAP tug at our heartstrings. Remember, libertarianism is ONLY a theory of the proper use of violence. The ONLY question we may properly ask is, Is the flagpole lady guilty of a crime if she plugs this trespasser.
When we look at the matter in this way, her shooting him is a justified use of self defense, given that this is the only way she can protect herself (she doesn’t have armed guards in her apartment, ready to protect her; she fears that her pistol may be grabbed by the flagpole holder, if she allows him into her apartment, etc.)
Best regards,
Walter
From: mike
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 7:24 AM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Flagpoles
Dr. Block-
I missed ‘Flagpole, parts I and II’, so my apologies if I’m asking you to clarify something already plainly explored.
You state in a response to Zack, “Yes, if the flagpole woman could fully protect herself using gentler means she would be required to do so.” Whaaaaattt??
I’m at a loss to that response. Just what entity would a libertarian society have that would choose for the woman? Have we arrived at some kind of woke-libertarianism? If so, the philosophy is in a sad state.
In my libertarian mind, the choice belongs solely to the woman. Who is the ‘we’ that would require her to opt for rubber bullets? That sounds like libertarianism has woken up in Sweden or Denmark.
Please, enough of taking philosophical hypotheticals to absurd conclusions! When one fears for his/her life, there can be no limit to the choice of protection used, nor to the severity of its use.
Thanks for the ear,
Mike
Dear Mike:
You didn’t get the message that my word on libertarianism is definitive? That Murray Rothbard appointed me to be in charge of libertarian theory?
On a more serious note, in my humble opinion, I speak for no one on any issue such as this but me, the victim has only the right to 100% or as close as she can get protection, not anything more. Suppose that the woman is about to be raped. If she hits the rapist with her weak off hand, he will be rendered helpless with 100% certainty, and the police will be able to scoop him up and arrest him and he will never not only bother her again, but never again will threaten anyone at all. On the other hand, she’s very powerful, and if she hits the rapist with her strong hand, he will die.
I, wokester that I am, think that if she kills him under these circumstances, she will be violating his rights.
Take another case. A shoplifter is walking out of the store with stolen items. The proprietor has a net that will stop him, also, a bazooka that will kill him. All other things are exactly equal. In your view, the store owner has a right to kill the thief; I think otherwise. Here is a bibliography of libertarian punishment theory (note, we are now off the flagpole case, and onto general libertarian punishment theory):
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html
Block, 2009A, 2009B, 2016, 2018; Gordon, 2020; Kinsella, 1996, 1997; Loo and Block, 2017-2018; Olson, 1979; Rothbard, 1977, 1998; Whitehead and Block, 2003
Block, Walter E. 2009A. “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Guilt and Punishment for the Crime of Statism” in Hulsmann, Jorg Guido and Stephan Kinsella, eds., Property, Freedom and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, pp. 137-148; http://mises.org/books/hulsmann-kinsella_property-freedom-society-2009.pdf;
http://mises.org/books/property_freedom_society_kinsella.pdf; festschrift
Block, Walter E. 2009B. “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. 2016. “Russian Roulette: Rejoinder to Robins.” Acta Economica et Turistica. Vol. 1, No. 2, May, pp. 197-205; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309300488_Russian_Roulette_Rejoinder_to_Robins; file:///C:/Users/walterblock/Downloads/AET_2_Block_6.pdf
Block, Walter E. 2018. “The case for punishing those responsible for minimum wage laws, rent control and protectionist tariffs.” Revista Jurídica Cesumar – Mestrado, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 235-263; http://periodicos.unicesumar.edu.br/index.php/revjuridica/article/view/6392; http://periodicos.unicesumar.edu.br/index.php/revjuridica/article/view/6392/3190
Gordon, David. 2020. “Rothbard and Double Restitution.” September 4;
Loo, Andy and Walter E. Block. 2017-2018. “Threats against third parties: a libertarian analysis.” Baku State University Law Review; Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 52-64; http://lr.bsulawss.org/archive/volume4/issue1/; http://lr.bsulawss.org/archive/volume4/issue1/block/; http://lr.bsulawss.org/files/archive/volume4/issue1/4BSULawRev13.pdf?
Kinsella, Stephen. 1996. “Punishment and Proportionality: the Estoppel Approach,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring, pp. 51-74; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf
Kinsella, Stephan. 1997. “A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights,” 30 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 607-45
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. 1977. “Punishment and Proportionality.” R. E. Barnett and J. Hagel, III (eds.), Assessing the Criminal: Restitution, Retribution, and the Legal Process. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., pp. 259 270.
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
Best regards,
Walter
5:49 am on January 26, 2022
