From: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 2:00 PM
To: ‘zinsser’
Subject: RE: Joe’s murder
Dear Roger:
The Martians want someone else to kill Joe. Suicide will not satisfy them
Best regards,
Walter
Letter 2:
From: zinsser
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2019 8:43 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Joe’s murder
Hi, Walter. I hope you are well.
Your hypothesis about Joe’s murder is interesting, but it assumes that someone other than Joe has to kill him. Here is my take on it.
Thanks,
Roger Mitchell
Did the Martians stipulate that “someone else” kill Joe (which would be murder) or are they only concerned with Joe’s death. If the latter, then Joe could just commit suicide which would be allowable under the NAP. If Joe was rational about the whole thing, he would simply do it and go down in history as the ‘savior’ of the world. This scenario is magnanimous.
If he wasn’t willing and refused to ‘pull the trigger’, then world-wide pressure could be brought to bear on him—emotional, psychological, financial, social, etc.—making his life completely unbearable and bringing him to the point where he was willing to do the deed and actually carried it out. This would be “two minutes of hate” with a vengeance. Since hate is not punishable by law (except in today’s modern version), there would be no crime committed and no one would be punished. This scenario is unfortunate.
If the Martians demanded that another person kill Joe, then whoever did it should be brought to trial on the charge of murder, found guilty with extenuating circumstances, and sentenced appropriately with the understanding that clemency and pardon, in all likelihood, would be given to him. He would always have the knowledge of his “sin”, but could be completely forgiven and set free. This scenario is pragmatic.
One other solution would be to simply deliver Joe to the Martians and tell them to do their own dirty work. Those who did this would be guilty of aiding, abetting, and complicity in Joe’s murder, but would not be guilty of the murder itself. This scenario is defiant.
Regardless of the method, the ultimate goal would be to effect systematic change so that something of this nature never happened again. This alone would bring perfect justice to Joe’s death.
Letter 3:
Dear Roger:
Here’s a bibliography on this subject:
Block, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2010, 2011
Block, Walter E. 2001. “Jonah Goldberg and the Libertarian Axiom on Non-Aggression.” June 28; http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/block1.html
Block, Walter E. 2002. “Radical Privatization and other Libertarian Conundrums,” The International Journal of Politics and Ethics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 165-175; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/radical_privatization.pdf (murder park)
Block, Walter E. 2003. “The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism,” February 17; http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html
(15th floor flagpole)
Block, Walter E. 2004. “Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Part I” Reason Papers, Vol. 27, Fall, pp. 117-133;
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf
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. 2010. “Response to Jakobsson on human body shields.” Libertarian Papers. http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-25.pdf
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
2:41 am on April 19, 2020
