Letter 6
This is a 6 part series of letters between me and “A.” Here is my last contribution to this conversation. I place these letters in inverse order, so you will have to read from the bottom up if you are interested in perusing this exchange. Why do I do so? This is because A’s first letter is a long one, and I don’t want to take up too much space on this blog with that letter. My hope is that this interchange will help readers confront the statist argument offered by A.
Dear A: Who cares whether or not people who don’t want to be ruled by a government CAN leave. Only totalitarians place roadblocks against exit. The issue, the only issue, is whether they SHOULD have to leave when they do not want to be citizens of a newly formed government. And, there is no reason why they should. According to libertarian principle, they already own property there, before the state was formed, the one that now claims their obedience. So, I conclude, the formation of a government is incompatible with the libertarian emphasis on non-aggression, the Non Aggression Principle (NAP).
Letter 5
Dear Professor, I didn’t say they SHOULD leave, merely that they COULD leave under their own free will. I didn’t even say they would have to pay the tax — they could be free-riders. My scenario was intended to suggest benign initiatives — building a needed dam, fortifications (city walls), armed guards to protect against invasion, etc. (The unfortunate roughshod-running would come later.) Actually, I’ve never liked majority rule — going all the way back to elementary school, where classes sometimes voted on issues — and I was almost always in the minority. Best,A
Letter 4
On 2018-08-04 12:58, Walter Block wrote:
Why should they have to leave? They own property there. It is a
circular argument to posit they should leave. It assumes the very
point in question: that the majority has a right to run roughshod over
the minority; that the majority has a right to force the minority to
become citizens against their will
Letter 3
FROM: A
SENT: Saturday, August 04, 2018 9:51 AM
TO: ‘Walter Block’
SUBJECT: RE: Rand vs. Rothbard
Hi Walter,
Wait–aren’t the 5 percent folks free to “vote with their feet”? Best, A
Letter 2
FROM: Walter Block [mailto:[email protected]]
SENT: Friday, August 03, 2018 1:55 AM
TO: ‘A’
SUBJECT: RE: Rand vs. Rothbard
Dear ASF:
The 5% are coerced. That violates the NAP
Letter 1
FROM: A
SENT: Wednesday, August 01, 2018 4:48 PM
TO: [email protected]
SUBJECT: RE: Rand vs. Rothbard
Hi, “Rothbard correctly inferred from this that no state could be
justified, since it necessarily violated the NAP, by taxing people
without their consent, and demanding a monopoly of force within a
given area. Rand was illogical on this point; she contradicted
herself. Rothbard argued brilliantly on this matter.”_
I’m no scholar, but I can easily visualize a (young) state without
these two problems. At first, there are no taxes, but some project arises to which the
populace agrees (let’s assume 95%) but instead of spending their time
on it they accept a one-time tax and let a small committee run it.
Over time this occurs more often, and eventually the committee
proposes a permanent tax of some sort. Thus the state is officially
born. If it goes too far, however, the committee should be able to be
easily checked by the rest of the population if necessary.
I see a similar scenario with regard to force. Initially the people
fend for themselves or together as needed, but then it becomes easier
to create a police force (likely comprised of people who can’t do much
of anything else). This group eventually demands more money and leeway
to perfect its craft, morphing into a permanent military. Outnumbered,
this group should be able to be easily checked by the rest of the
population if necessary.
The vast majority of the populace just wants to live their lives
without hassles. However, the two groups above tend to work together
and attract the worst people. Gradually, imperceptibly, the rest of
the population comes to accept the pair’s supremacy. Regards, A
