From: R
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2016 12:41 AM
To: Walter Block
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the Farmer Dilemma

Walter,

Thank you so much for tackling this with us!  I’d be interested in a discussion of another part of this dilemma- one that I hope will help clarify a few things:  

Bionic includes a quote from Rothbard involving a very similar situation of a merchant who is seeking the death penalty for the crime of bubble gum theft.  But, there are a few differences:–He refers to the assailant as being “convicted” of the crime.  This means the shop owner is out a piece of bubblegum which the assailant stole- these are established facts of history.  Rothbard’s analysis of proportionality in punishment of crimes is presented as being considered as someone analyzing a historical event.

However, the landowner at the time of trespass is in a different situation altogether.  There is no way the landowner can look into the future to see what is to occur for certain.  This is supported by your analysis regarding the libertarian “flagpole dilemma” when you say that “The owner of the flagpole is totally within his rights to defend his property, both the flagpole and his apartment.”1.  Do you see a distinction between the Rothbardian scenario of shoplifting and the Blockian flagpole scenario?

2.  Although you said children “must be treated differently than adults, in terms not only of punishment theory after the fact, but even in defense of property during this criminal behavior.”, you have also defended the absolute right of the homeowner to use lethal force in defense of property from trespass.  Can you explain why the libertarian qua libertarian is to “treat children differently than adults…”?  If it is a child on the flagpole, is the apartment owner required to acquiesce to the child?

–Another difference between the Rothbardian shoplifter and the trespasser is the scene of the crime(s).  The bubble gum monger is inviting people onto the property- as many as he can possibly receive, whereas the orchard owner is excluding all except those who are contributing to production of apples.  Have you written or lectured on that concept of exclusion vs. eager inclusion of outsiders (strangers) on private property?

Thanks again, Dr. Block!

Dear R:

I think child trespassers, and child criminals, are different than adults, since they pose far less of a threat. For example, it if were an unarmed five year old sliding his way down the flagpole, I think libertarian law would mandate that he be treated far more gently than an unarmed adult. Children are a complication, a challenge, a difficulty, for all poitical philosophies, not just libertarianism.

I wrote about the flagpole here: Block, Walter E. 2/17/03. “The Non Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism,” http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html; http://archive.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/no_author/the-heart-of-anarcho-capitalism/

It is difficult to think of any case in which the death penalty should ever be imposed upon a child. However, if we have a machine that can transfer the life out of a murderer, and into the body of the dead victim…

As to the cut off point for children, see this:

Block, Walter E. and William Barnett II. 2008. “Continuums” Journal Etica e Politica / Ethics & Politics, Vol. 1, pp. 151-166, June; http://www2.units.it/~etica/; http://www2.units.it/~etica/2008_1/BLOCKBARNETT.pdf

I agree with Murray Rothbard on virtually all issues in political economy, and, certainly, with his view that the punishment should be proportional to the crime.

This is a very difficult case for libertarians. Why? Because it pits two elements of the NAP seemingly against each other. On the one hand we have the sanctity, the inviolability, or private property rights. Yes, the owner should be able to use deadly force to protect his person and property. But, on the other hand, and, yes, there is another hand, we also incorporate the insight that children are different than adults, and have diminished responsibility. How do I reconcile these seemingly irreconcilable elements of our philosophy? My claim is that yes, the owner should be able to have attack dogs roaming his property, but, if so, he must place fences with barbed wire around his territory, along with signs, large ones, warning of this danger. My analysis of booby trapping empty cabins in the woods is the same. This is allowed, but clear signage indicating the danger is also required. This allows us to have both our deontological and utilitarian cakes and eat them both, too. Private property is protected, and so are children. For that matter, so are accidental trespassers. They don’t call me Walter Moderate Block for nothing. For the importance of warning children and trespassers who lack mens rea, see my publications on “murder parks.”

Whitehead, Roy and Walter E. Block. 2002. “Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A Property Rights Perspective,” University of Utah Journal of Law and Family Studies, Vol. 4, pp.226-263; http://141.164.133.3/faculty/Block/Articles%20for%20web/Sexual%20Harassment%20in%20the%20Workplace.doc

http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jlfst4&div=24&g_sent=1&collection=journals#243

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/publications/radical_privatization.pdf; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/radical_privatization.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2007. “Alienability: Reply to Kuflik.” Humanomics Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 117-136;http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=0685BBB744173274A5E7CE3803132413?contentType=Article&contentId=1626605

The Best of Walter E. Block