The very solid libertarian, Block, who has written a book on why streets should be privatized, attempts to show the "good" side of billionaire Charles Koch, as a defender of property rights, with this point:
Let me end with a personal recollection of Charles Koch that took place in the 1970s. He and I were in Scotland with our wives attending an Austro-libertarian conference. One evening we were all four standing on the sidewalk when along came a drunkard who in a loud and surly voice announced that the sidewalks were for walking not standing, and that we should move out of the way so that he could pass us by. I was amazed at Charles’ reaction: he didn’t say a word, but got out in front of the three of us and assumed the boxing stance. The drunk walked around us. A multi-billionaire who would do such a thing is not someone who is likely to give up his property rights. Even in the face of criticism and pressure, no one can deny that Charles Koch holds firm in defending his principles.Walter is this the best you can do to defend your billionaire benefactor? This is a point that the left is yelling about with regard to Charles, that he is willing to take "public" property for personal benefit. You are really confusing things to suggest that this implies that Charles would be willing to defend private property rights versus his willingness to just grab whatever the hell he can. Your example proves in dramatic fashion that Charles is programmed and willing, with near instinctive fervor, to take control of muddled "public" land for his own use, damn everyone else--including local drunks.
I note that as per your telling of this story, it took place in Scotland, which using the "use theory" of property rights suggested by John Locke and supported by Murray Rothbard, the drunk probably has a lot more justification to that sidewalk than a multi-billionaire American flying in for the weekend. You should have defended the drunk and punched out Charles.
Ouch.
ReplyDelete"You should have defended the drunk and punched out Charles."
ReplyDeleteCome on, RW, we all know that Walter Block only defends the undefendable.
So a drunk comes by and adopts a "loud and surly" tone, but doesn't threaten violence. In fact, the drunk uses nonviolent persuasion, saying the group "should move out of the way." Koch is so threatened by this surly peaceful street persuader that he is rendered speechless, unable to react except by raising his fists and moving to the front of the group.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing "drunks using 'should language' to gain the right of way" won't make it into Defending the Undefendable, Vol 3. Can't wait to read the chapter on "billionaire street pugilists," though.
Easy pickens.
ReplyDeleteWenzel, why are you attacking Block? Koch isn't his "billionaire benefactor"; the claim is absurd as it sounds. You are slandering one of the best minds in the Austro-libertarian scholarly movement and one of the most principled disciples of Rothbard.
ReplyDeleteI am a big fan of yours, but I have noticed a tendency by you to be overly critical and sniping; not always a flattering trait because it makes you reckless sometimes.
But he sparked a good debate, didn't he? I don't think we get anywhere by patting ourselves on the back; in fact this debate has allowed a few very differing points to be raised, which we can only say to be good for arriving to the proper formulations and solutions to the problems. "The right to
Deletemake a choice . . . is important to me, for the freedom of
selection is necessary to my sense of personality; it is important to society, because only from the juxtaposition of ideas can we hope to approach the ideal of truth." (Frank Chodorov, “How to Curb the Commies,” analysis 5, no. 7
(May 1949): 2.)
Duh!
DeleteIn the article by Dr. Block, he fully admits that Charles Koch is a benefactor:
"Full disclosure. The Charles Koch Foundation generously donates substantial funds to my employer, Loyola University of New Orleans, which my colleagues and I use for promoting the study of liberty amongst our students (pizza, inviting in outside speakers). Further, both Charles and Ed in the 1970s bought me a sabbatical from teaching which I used to write articles that later become my book on privatizing roads and highways. I am very grateful for that support."
Anon,
DeleteLet's not get our panties in a bunch here. It's obvious that Wenzel has respect for Walter, and Walter has told me himself that he likes Wenzel, so I don't see what the problem is here. Do you never have debate with your friends? If one of your friends publishes an article that you think is incorrect, is it then wrong of you to publish a rebuttal? You need to grow a bigger set and stop making such a big deal about it. You're essentially using the same logic that Reagan used when he said, "thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican". Sorry, but that simply is not how it works in the world of ideas. When something is wrong, you call them out on it. In fact, debate is both Wenzel's and Block's favorite activities, so all you're really saying is that you don't want either to have any fun with their old pass-time. You, Mr. Anonymous, is the one that is "sniping" here, not Wenzel.
And Wenzel is wrong here. Public property is essentially a no man's land. The loud and surly drunk made an aggressive announcement. With wisdom, Koch should have perhaps given way to avoid an unnecessary fight. However, there is no ethical principle that absolutely required he retreat on public property, just a determination that on balance it would lead to the best outcome.
ReplyDeleteYou apparently aren't familiar with the principles that Wenzel is using to defend his position here. He specifically mentions "use theory", so this means that he believes that public property is unowned, so you're correct in that regard. However, also in this theory of first use is the idea of who would own such "public goods" if it were returned to its rightful private owner(s). There are many different ways in which libertarians treat this problem, but it is clear that the case is more than likely that the bum would be closer to being a rightful owner of that property than Mr. Koch would. Notice, Wenzel didn't say that the bum clearly had a stronger claim to the sidewalk, rather he said that the bum "probably" has a stronger claim. He is coming to this by his understand of "use theory" and how libertarians deal with the returning of public goods back to private hands.
DeleteWhat is clear is that you aren't aware of these theories, otherwise you would have noticed it immediately in Bob's above post. I know that Walter will know exactly where Bob is heading here.
I said, "loud and surly voice." I thought it was implicit that this was threatening. I think Charles was totally within his rights to confront this bully in that manner. I think even a halfway sympathetic reading of what I wrote would have realized that "loud and surly" means threatening. Surely, we libertarians see threats as improper? Walter Block
ReplyDeleteSo, if somebody calls another person a jerk in a "loud and surly" voice, does that give them justification to then point a gun at them?
DeleteBut Walter, you are taking your own words out of context. Here is the full sentence from which you quote:
Delete"One evening we were all four standing on the sidewalk when along came a drunkard who in a loud and surly voice announced that the sidewalks were for walking not standing, and that we should move out of the way so that he could pass us by."
Clearly, as you put it, the drunkard, certainly in an obnoxious manner, was doing nothing more than requesting that the four of you should "move out of the way so that he could pass us by." This does not to me sound like a request that should be responded to with a boxer's stance. Especially when dealing with the murky area of "public" property. Are you insinuating that Charles could justify his threatening stance by invoking that all too common police claim when shooting someone, "I feared for my life"?
The drunkard asked you all to move, that sounds like a reasonable request. Tourists on sidewalks can be pretty annoying. Just this morning, before I read your article, coming out of a Starbucks, tourists were standing on the sidewalk and talking and blocking my way. In a pretty gruff manner I said, "Excuse me."
Would any of those tourists been justified in threatening me with a boxer's stance?
If anything, after Charles went into the boxer's stance, I would think that based on libertarian principle, the drunkard would have every right to clock Charles. The man drunk, or otherwise, made a request that Charles chose to ignore and then, by your own account, Charles went into a threatening stance.
I am usually with you Wenzel but I think you're off here. Saber rattling is not violence. Neither is letting someone know that you are prepared to defend yourself, your positions, your property, and/or your friends and loved ones.
ReplyDeleteWhere do you think a billionaire would be these days if they didn't protect their assets and even seek to acquire more, sometimes in the muddled area of, "public," property? I would think any billionaire who would embrace passivity would be forsaking the very quality that was part of the wealth initial accumulation. It's a slippery slope for sure. But to be constantly beset on all sides by those some that envy, loathe and selfishly flatter you sounds exhausting.
Aren't we being just like the progressive when we take broad jabs like this? Maybe not, but it sure feels that way.
There's a big difference between saying a few strong words and putting up your dukes. If somebody shows their fists to me (in a boxer's stance), that is an immediate threat of impending violence. For instance, do you think that it is justifiable to shoot somebody if they point a pistol at you? I do.
Delete@ Fetz,
DeleteFor obvious reasons I could never see someone in a boxing stance on par with someone pointing a gun.
"... was doing nothing more than requesting." He was demanding, not requesting. He did so in a loud and threatening manner. There were women present. Charles was entirely in the right.
ReplyDeleteSounds like thug Koch was guilty of 'assault' on the bum: causing fear of harmful touch, by raising his (Kook's) fists at the bum.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
To the bum: you should have sued Kook! He has deep pockets!
I think I'm gonna have to take both sides on this one. Block says "Charles was entirely in the right". Whether that means it was wise for him to do, I suppose is another story.
ReplyDeleteI would have preferred if Block said "Charles was entirely within his rights," as it would be easier to agree. "The right" is a bit more difficult, but I don't necessarily disagree that Koch wasn't violating any libertarian principle by putting his fists up.
However I also agree with Wenzel that the drunk would have been within his rights to clock Koch.
This may actually be an example of how a situation can escalate to violence without anyone clearly violating NAP. It could be argued that Koch simply displayed the fact he was willing to defend himself...but it could just as easily be argued he was the one who actually made an actual threat...thus putting the drunk within his rights to defend himself.
This is just too fuzzy for me. I obviously wasn't there, but from the way it sounds, Koch made a poor move that could have easily ended up in violence, when a less aggressive response may very well have been the more prudent choice.
Either way I don't see how it follows that simply jumping to a fight stance on a sidewalk in a foreign country when a local said he should move (whether it was a demand or not) is any sort of evidence that Koch would be at the ready to defend private property...so much as it shows he'd be willing to defend himself against something he thinks he has a right to...whether it's a space on a sidewalk in Scotland, or your house that happens to be in the way of his next construction project.
Here I have to agree with Wenzel.
A boxer's stance is a neutral-defensive stance. Taking this stance doesn't mean you will attack but it let's someone know that if they do attack you're in a much better position to defend and counter attack if necessary. Now if someone were to assume this stance and start to stalk forward or throw faints then yes, I would regard that as aggressive.
ReplyDeleteForget your meds today, Bob? This post is kooky, approaching Callahan kooky.
ReplyDelete