Sunday, June 24, 2012

When Is It Justified to Own Your Own Nuclear Weapon?

If you are not a hardcore libertarian, you will be thinking twice, perhaps three times at some of Professor Block's positions.

After a debate over Rand Paul's endorsement of Mitt Romney, Dr Block and I move onto to discuss his brilliant new book, Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

As part of the discussion, Dr. Block explains whether it is ever legitimate in a libertarian society for an individual to own a nuclear bomb. Dr. Block also calls for Nuremberg-type trials of Federal Reserve employees.  We discuss Thomas Sowell. Cato. The libertarian solution to air pollution. And much, much more.

(Apologies for the shaky audio quality on this one)

Buy Dr. Block's new book here





39 comments:

  1. Stephan Molyneux doesn't need Block's forgiveness, Walter. He needs to stop overestimating himself.

    Also, while Stephan has become softer on Ron Paul, his views on voting are still the same.

    Stephan was right, and Block's arguments in that article he wrote were pathetic and suggestive (while trying to clear himself by simultaneously admitting he "didn't know for sure" or "didn't have any evidence").
    The arguments he had were nothing but logical fallacies and the whole article smacked of borderline emotional hysteria, the kind which you can expect from a fanboy who sees his favorite moviestar being criticized.

    A lot of respect i had for Walter went down the drain because of that article. I at least expected some well-reasoned arguments but the only thing i read was irrational, angry garbage from a man way too invested in Ron Paul.
    The thing i remember most in terms of irony and hypocrisy was the fact that Block, a self-described anarcho-capitalist, accused Molyneux and McElroy (also anarcho-capitalists) of not being true libertarians because they had the nerve not to believe voting for Ron Paul would change anything. Logic on its head.

    I still believe Walter Block is a libertarian. But i have stopped believing he is one of libertarianism's most brilliant minds.
    Brilliant minds, especially when they are libertarians, don't place criticism-free group think, about a politician of all people, over well-reasoned arguments and intellectual independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I still believe Walter Block is a libertarian. But i have stopped believing he is one of libertarianism's most brilliant minds. "

      You've nailed my thoughts on the matter as well. I have tremendous respect for Dr. Block in terms of the base he's helped to build, especially in light of the "times" in which he did it(no internet, not as many Libertarian minded groups/individuals, etc.).

      That being said, the number of writings published isn't always an indicator of the quality of the reasoning. He's done some heavy lifting, but he lacks in reasoning in some areas. I just got done listening to his argument on "abortion". He tries to the make the case that an unwanted fetus is a "trespasser" and tries to parlay that into a "compromise" on position....lol

      I wish I could say it was a comedic skit. It doesn't take much imagination to poke holes in the trespassing business...especially in light of the fact the one being "trespassed" against is the one that put the "trespasser" there in the first place, or that not only did the trespasser not commit the act itself but has no ability to rectify it himself.

      Anyway, you are right. There are several better minds today adding to the foundation, Block is important/valuable none the less but as the converts expand so does the competition level. He just seems to think he's more important that he is....and acts accordingly-as some weird just of all that is "libertarian" or not.

      Delete
    2. "It doesn't take much imagination to poke holes in the trespassing business...especially in light of the fact the one being "trespassed" against is the one that put the "trespasser" there in the first place, or that not only did the trespasser not commit the act itself but has no ability to rectify it himself."

      It doesn't take much to poke holes in your comment. If a women gets pregnant because she is raped, does that mean that she put the trespasser (the baby) there in the first place? If you think Walter Block's position is comedic then you should read Rothbard on abortion. You may not agree with Block's reasoning on abortion or Rothbard's reasoning on it but it doesn't mean the quality of their reasoning is questionable.

      Also Block has always been very humble and lavishes praise on men that he considers great libertarians like Hoppe and Rothbard, for example. If you listen to this interview he did with Lew Rockwell and start around the 6 minute mark you can see how silly it is to say Walter Block sees himself as more important than he is.

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2009/07/29/126-walter-block-is-an-anarchist/

      Delete
    3. While I wouldn't go so far as to diminish Block's huge contribution to libertarianism, I decline to idolize him as well. Your straw man argument about rape aside there are problems of clarity of thought with Block's theory of evictionism( see Wisniewski and Parr) that have and have not been addressed.
      All that said, Block can be gracious and generous and at times snarky......like all the rest of us.

      Delete
    4. David, can you explain how my argument was a straw man? Anon, brought up how the one being trespassed against is the one who put the trespasser there in the first place. So I pointed at a situation where a women gets pregnant from being raped as an example of a person who didn't put the trespasser there in the first place. A woman in this situation clearly didn't put the trespasser their willingly. I'm not sure you understand the definition of a straw man argument if you think I made one in this instance.

      Delete
    5. Just to respond to your earlier argument(I'm Anon btw, not David), the instance of rape should not/does not apply to all instances of abortion. So your "argument" only covers one aspect, not the whole enchilada.

      Further though, I'll speak specifically on your one "argument", that surely makes up less than 10% of abortions:

      The old axiom of two wrongs don't make a right can easily be applied in a case where the "trespasser", who had no control of his "crime"...similar to someone strapping a bomb collar on you and telling you to rob a bank- has no ability to not "trespass" and the act of doing harm(even potentially) to them does not "fix" the earlier "crime" already having been committed. To suggest that a women has the right to kill the fetus as a result is clearly that, two "wrongs"(or crimes) to supposedly make a right. Unless of course, you believe the "crime" of trespass warrants the response of death rather than removal. (which obviously isn't the case in all scenarious, but that is a whole nother' matter)

      Delete
    6. I'm not sure why you put argument in quotation marks. Are you trying to say that that example is not a real argument? You really love putting quotation marks around everything, don't you? Anyways, you say it is two wrongs but that is the whole debate, isn't it? Murray Rothbard didn't see abortion as a crime. Dr. Block, who takes a slightly different position, wouldn't call it a crime in most instances. Whether it is the moral thing to do is different than if it is a crime. And nobody is claiming that abortion fixes any type of crime. I'm not sure what your point in talking about fixing a crime is. You haven't dealt with the example I brought up at all. You simply restated your belief that abortion is a crime.

      You bring up a guy having a bomb strapped to him and being told to go rob a bank. If a guard at the bank shoots this guy as he is trying to rob the bank would the guard be guilty of murder? If not, then I don't know how this bolsters your argument.

      Sometimes the only way to remove a trespasser causes their death. For example, see the abortion argument.

      Delete
    7. Dan, if Block's theory is so strong can you explain why you resort to such a double rare occurrence( conception from rape) in order to bolster your comment? It seems to me that if the argument is strong then it can be argued from normal examples...not statistical caricatures. Does Block skirt dealing with the rights of the fetus( which he acknowledges as human....he certainly deals with the rights of the mother)? Does appealing to Rothbard in your comment make the argument stronger( can you teach me which fallacy that is....)?

      Delete
    8. 1. I take it that since you couldn't show how I was guilty of creating a straw man argument that you admit you were wrong to accuse me of that fallacy.

      2. I brought up that specific example because it contradicted the claim made above that the trespasser was put their by the one being trespassed against. Anon said Dr. Block's position was easy to poke holes in and then used an example that I could poke holes in to try and prove his point. I wasn't trying to prove the entirety of Dr. Block's position as correct. I was trying to show that the claim made above was not a knock down argument of Dr. Block's position. Since nobody has shown how a women who is impregnated from being raped willingly put the trespasser inside her my argument was effective in accomplishing my goal.

      3. I wasn't making an appeal to authority by bringing up Rothbard. The first time I brought him up was because Anon called Dr Block's view comical and I was showing that one of the titans of our movement holds an even more radical view on this topic. A view many in the libertarian camp hold to be correct. I wasn't saying Rothbard believes x so therefor x is right. I was simply saying that it isn't a comical view that Rothbard or Block holds. It is a view shared by many in our movement and one there is much debate on. It was more a call to not be insulting to people's views just because you disagree with their conclusions.

      The second time I brought Rothbard up was because Anon simply restated his belief that abortion is a crime to try to prove me wrong when that is the very thing being debated. I was pointing out that people like Rothbard were not arguing that it is a justified crime. They are arguing that it is not a crime at all. You do realize that you can bring up Rothbard without it being an appeal to authority, right?

      Delete
    9. "If a guard at the bank shoots this guy as he is trying to rob the bank would the guard be guilty of murder?"

      If he can see the collar on his neck and knows why it's there, yes he is guilty of MURDER Dan.

      David, there is no other defense for his/Dr. Block's argument. They have to use this ridiculous statistical occurrence to draw it all together. Even using that it's a dubious argument at best and as you pointed out ignores the rights of the fetus.

      Delete
    10. Anon, if a guy tries to rob you then you can act in self-defense to stop him. You are not required to give a robber your property simply because he was forced into robbing you by another person. You have weird limitations on self-defense if you believe that situation would be murder.

      Also there are plenty of arguments to defend Block's or Rothbard's position on abortion. You may not agree with them but it is just ignorant to claim that there is no other defense. Still, I see no point in going to other examples because the example I gave pokes holes in your original claim and you have yet to deal with that.

      Delete
    11. Dan, do you know what a "statistical caricature" is? Why does evictionism ignore the rights of the fetus or more properly does not address his rights? You do realize that you can commit argumentum ad verecundiam by bring up Rothbard, correct?

      Delete
    12. Evictionism doesn't ignore the rights of the fetus. Even Rothbard, who takes a more radical position than Block, doesn't ignore the rights of the fetus. You guys like to act like they ignore the rights of the fetus but it simply is not true.

      Yes, I do realize that you can commit the appeal to authority fallacy by bringing up Rothbard, but since I have never made an argument that because Rothbard believes something it must be true, I think you are wrong to say I committed this fallacy. Just like you were wrong when you said I committed a straw man argument.

      Delete
    13. You've poked holes in nothing Dan.(see my response below) David is right, your appeal to authority means nothing. Especially in light of the argument being similar. It's obviously your only option left in light of the lack of concrete reasoning.

      Delete
    14. Anon, you said, "especially in light of the fact the one being "trespassed" against is the one that put the "trespasser" there in the first place"

      I brought up the fact that a women who is impregnated from being raped did not put the trespasser there in the first place. Thus a hole was poked in your comment.

      To back up your claim that the one being trespassed against put the trespasser there in the first place you brought up this argument, "similar to someone strapping a bomb collar on you and telling you to rob a bank- has no ability to not "trespass" and the act of doing harm(even potentially) to them does not "fix" the earlier "crime" already having been committed."

      1. I don't know how a guy being forced to rob a bank explains why a women who was impregnated by being rapped put the trespasser there in the first place.

      2. It doesn't even bolster your argument that abortion is murder because even if a guy was forced to rob someone it doesn't prevent the person being robbed from defending their property. You claim that it would be murder if someone came to rob me, and I knew he was being forced to do it, and I was forced to kill the person in order to keep my property. I am unfamiliar with the libertarian theory that says if I know that someone is being forced to commit an act of aggression against me that I am not allowed to defend myself with deadly force if necessary. You claim I rely too much on brilliant libertarians like Walter Block and Murray Rothbard. I claim that you would be less likely to make such weird statements if you relied on the brilliant libertarians who have paved our way rather than relying on the things you come up with on your own.

      At no other point have you even remotely addressed how a women impregnated by being raped had actually put the trespasser there in the first place. You and David have complained the scenario I described doesn't occur often but that in no way answers my assertion. Until you do consider a hole poked in your original statement.

      Finally, I didn't make an appeal to authority above. I have already explained why that charge against me is false. Since you continue to bring up this incorrect charge I must assume you don't understand what the appeal to authority fallacy actually is.

      Delete
    15. "At no other point have you even remotely addressed how a women impregnated by being raped had actually put the trespasser there in the first place."

      I have; not only is the issue of it being less than a 1% occurence represent a statistical problem for you, arguing for what is an essence an anomoly in the big picture(although you try to use that anomoly to make the argument for 99%+ of abortion)-but I dispute that the fetus itself IS a trespasser...which blows up your whole argument.

      The fact that 99% of the time the women IS responsible for making the fetus a "trespasser" should be argument enough.

      Not withstanding, if you want to focus on the less than 1% so be it...I suppose the "compromise" really should be then only applicable to the 1%, if anything.(but instead you/Block/Rothbard want this to cover ALL abortion)

      Obviously I still claim you're attacking the fetus in violation of the non-agression principle regardless in your less than 1% scenario...in retaliation for a violation committed by someone else. THAT'S HOW I ADDRESS IT.

      Either you don't understand it or refuse to acknowledge how I'm addressing it.

      Delete
  2. Hmmm...let me see if I understand Mr. Block's position correctly:

    Let's see how many people we can convert to Libertarianism by not acting like Libertarians...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh? Where did you come up with that? If you're talking about his views on Rand he agreed with the criticisms that Wenzel stated about Rand's endorsement. I took it that Block didn't think it was the right decision to make but he also doesn't see it as a matter of principle.

      Delete
  3. That was another great interview. Between yours and Lew Rockwell's podcast libertarians really have some fantastic material to help convert our friends and family.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dan, I was curious how many abortions came about as the result of rape since you/Dr. Block make it an important part of your "argument".

    According to a cursory "google" it's less than 1%. I'd say basing your entire argument on a set of circumstances that represent less than 1% of the overall problem is pretty close to ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not basing my whole argument on that and neither is Dr. Block. I brought that example up because it directly contradicted the claim made above. If you need a complete explanation of Dr. Block's position go read what he has to say.

      Delete
    2. Sure you both are, the idea of someone being "trespassed" against assumes they had no hand in creating the "crime" to begin with.

      Btw, I like using quotes on words whose meaning are being manipulated to make a point. For instance, "trespass" as a noun definition(in referring to the fetus):

      "A voluntary wrongful act against the person or property of another, esp. unlawful entry to a person's land or property without their permission."

      Sorry you don't care for it, maybe you'll learn to live with it. Either way it doesn't matter, because when you change the meaning of words, like you/Dr. Block have, you force people to do silly things like put the words in quotes to point out the usage is not in character with the meaning.

      Delete
    3. No, I'm not basing my whole argument on that one example. You can repeat that until you are blue in the face but it won't make it true. It's not like there isn't literature on this topic from libertarians who don't view abortion as murder. Go read The Ethics of Liberty pgs. 98-104, for example. But I don't need to give other examples because you haven't even dealt with the one I gave.

      Delete
    4. Also, even Parr uses the term trespasser to describe the fetus in an unwanted pregnancy. So it's not just me and Block using that word to describe the fetus. Both sides are using the same terminology. That is why I find it weird that you put quotation marks around everything you write. I could be mistaken, but my guess is that you've not read a lot on the positions of evictionism vs. departurism.

      Delete
    5. Sure I have, you just refuse to acknowledge it and now want to chant "Rothbard" instead of focusing on the argument as presented by Dr. Block, which has some basis in Rothbard's writings but is still not quite the same. I answered the rape scenario both in terms of it's application to the greater problem(which is only 1%) and the axiom of murder not justifying the remedy for the "crime" of "trespassing"(which doesn't even fit the definition in this case).

      You act like Rothbard is Jesus. Is there ANYTHING that Rothbard has wrong? Go ahead, name for me just one thing you think Rothbard has wrong...leaving Block out of the mix for a moment. I'm curious to hear that answer.

      Btw, Rothbard does nothing to continue this line of dialoge in the pages you referenced by to go on into the lack of obligations for parents in relation to borne children. He makes similar arguments to Block and at least concedes that the fetus may have "rights" from a reasonable perspective...but goes on to say there are no obligations to the parent based on its parasitical state.His whole argument is similar except that he's calling the fetus an "invader" instead of a "trespasser". lol...it's just plain moronic.

      I think you're just putting forth Red Herring's because you know the argument related to evictionism/tresspasing isn't strong, scratch that...it's absurd.

      Still yet, don't forget to do me the favor of telling me just one issue you think Rothbard has wrong. I look forward to it.

      Delete
    6. "Parr uses the term trespasser to describe the fetus in an unwanted pregnancy"

      So what? Maybe he did it to focus on other parts of the weak argument. I prefer to bring up the fact it doesn't even match the definition via the inclusion of one simple word: "voluntary".

      You always appeal to other people in your thinking for some reason rather than laying forth the argument yourself. If you want to continually reference other people so be it, but it'd be better for you to make the case on your own-using their thoughts if necessary otherwise you get lost in referring to their works rather than making an actual argument.

      Delete
    7. "You act like Rothbard is Jesus. Is there ANYTHING that Rothbard has wrong? Go ahead, name for me just one thing you think Rothbard has wrong...leaving Block out of the mix for a moment. I'm curious to hear that answer."

      Sure, I think Walter Block is right on evictionism and Rothbard didn't quite get this area correct. But since I'm not allowed to bring up Block I'll point to the fact that I think Rothbard was wrong on IP. I believe Stephan Kinsella is correct on this issue. I also believe Wenzel is wrong about IP. Does that satisfy your prickish request?

      "He makes similar arguments to Block and at least concedes that the fetus may have "rights" from a reasonable perspective...but goes on to say there are no obligations to the parent based on its parasitical state.His whole argument is similar except that he's calling the fetus an "invader" instead of a "trespasser". lol...it's just plain moronic."

      Wow, good argument. It's just plain moronic, huh? Well, if the great Anonymous says it's moronic it must be.

      "You always appeal to other people in your thinking for some reason rather than laying forth the argument yourself."

      Does it bother you that I suggest you read the works of men who have done a much better job at explaining beliefs that I share than I ever could?

      "If you want to continually reference other people so be it, but it'd be better for you to make the case on your own-using their thoughts if necessary otherwise you get lost in referring to their works rather than making an actual argument."

      I disagree. I think it is better to reference work by men who are better at explaining these views than spending hours recreating them in my own words. Maybe you just prefer to read short comments on a blog and it bothers you that I suggest reading scholarly work on the topic. Also I haven't gotten lost at all, have you?

      Delete
    8. "So what? Maybe he did it to focus on other parts of the weak argument. I prefer to bring up the fact it doesn't even match the definition via the inclusion of one simple word: "voluntary".

      You always appeal to other people in your thinking for some reason rather than laying forth the argument yourself."

      I brought up Parr because you said me and Block are changing the definition of words. I used him to show that the libertarians who have posted scholarly critiques of Block use the same words. But since you seem hell bent on me disposing of this spurious charge I will comply. Here is the definition of a trespasser.

      Trespasser: intruder: someone who intrudes on the privacy or property of another without permission.

      Since an unwanted fetus is intruding on the property (womb) of the mother without her permission it is thus a trespasser. Still, if you just really don't like this way to describe an unwanted fetus who doesn't have permission to stay in the mother's womb, I suggest you come up with another definition that better defines this situation.

      Delete
    9. I'm waiting for your answer Dan on one thing you think Rothbard has wrong. Just one.

      Delete
    10. Apparently, you have trouble reading. I already did mention two things I disagree with him on. One thing where I don't think he was completely wrong but not quite right either, and another thing I don't agree with him at all on. I have already responded to this prickish request of yours.

      Delete
    11. I'm sorry Dan, I didn't catch it. Thank you for providing the answer. So Rothbard is partially wrong on one thing are totally wrong on IP.

      Good to know. Maybe it popped up after my comment...I wasn't up @ midnight to find out.

      The "prickish" request of mine was too see if you're able to think outside the Rothbard/Block paradigm.

      What "bothers me" is that you don't make argument, as David said you'd rather appeal to authority in some obscure manner and sit back like a prick yourself, smugly thinking you've proven something.

      Tell you what though, I think I'm content at this point to let my argument rest and I feel pretty good about the points made.

      Delete
  5. Btw, here's two more things for you to contemplate on while you are examining the issue of Rothbard's perfection and how it relates to your worldview:

    1. Abortion is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle and hence breaks a fundamental tenet of libertarianism.

    2. Along those lines, if you're going to claim the infant is an "invader" as Rothbard claims or a "trespasser" as Block put it you'll have to show me HOW the fetus took the action itself to be either. (by their respective definitions as I'm not into using the made up words)

    It's obviously VERY important for those two to paint the fetus as such. Otherwise it's hard to justify the aggression as self defense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "1. Abortion is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle and hence breaks a fundamental tenet of libertarianism."

      Well, that is the whole debate, isn't it? Your argument here consists of saying that you believe abortion breaks the non-agression principle. Why? because abortion is murder. Why is abortion murder? Because it breaks the non-agression principle.

      Are you familiar with the logical fallacy, begging the question? Walter Block, Murray Rothbard, myself, and many other libertarians would say that abortion doesn't necessarily break the non-aggression principle.

      "2. Along those lines, if you're going to claim the infant is an "invader" as Rothbard claims or a "trespasser" as Block put it you'll have to show me HOW the fetus took the action itself to be either. (by their respective definitions as I'm not into using the made up words)"

      I don't have to show that at all to make my case. I can show that the fetus is a trespasser simply by showing that the mother doesn't give permission for it to be on her property (her womb). Here is the definition of trespasser again.

      Trespasser: intruder: someone who intrudes on the privacy or property of another without permission.

      Delete
    2. Dan, refer to my earlier definition of "trespasser" as including the term "voluntary".

      "Walter Block, Murray Rothbard, myself, and many other libertarians would say that abortion doesn't necessarily break the non-aggression principle"

      That doesn't sound too convincing, does it?

      It does break the non-agression principle, it's just that simple. If you can't see that the fetus is not "attacking" you, requiring defense/aggression, then there's no hope for you. (but at least down that rabbit hole it provide for abortion if the fetus is jeopardizing the women's health)

      Delete
    3. "Well, that is the whole debate, isn't it?"

      No, that's not the whole debate.

      That's one point of several. You're clinging to this idea that the mother has been aggressed on by the fetus, which frankly is laughable.

      99%+ of the time she was responsible for it being there, so if anything she "harmed" herself, and now she's got a fetus with rights to contend with.

      Or in your less than 1% argument you cling to, a rapist aggressed on her and the fetus is an innocent bystander in the whole affair...which the mother now wants to aggress against(sometimes) in retaliation for what the rapist did.

      Either way, it's a clear violation of the non-agression principle.

      Delete
    4. Anon, refer to the dictionary definition of trespasser that I posted above. If you don't like the dictionary definition of trespasser, which applies to an unwanted fetus because it is living in the property ( mother's womb) without the mother's permission, then come up with another term that describes an unwanted fetus that we can agree on.

      Also, it is not clear that aborting an unwanted fetus breaks the non-aggression principle. You clearly believe it does, but many libertarians disagree with you on this.

      Delete
    5. Yes, I am saying the fetus is unwanted and living in the mother's womb (her property) without her permission, thus the fetus is a trespasser.

      You know what I find laughable? I find it laughable that you are pinning your whole argument on the unwanted fetus not being a trespasser. You really should read Wisniewski and Parr on this. At least they have arguments that force people like me to think deeper on this issue. You simply want to act like the dictionary definition of trespasser doesn't apply to an unwanted fetus, but you are the only person I've ever seen that wants to even argue this point. You seem to believe that trespass can't occur if you end up on someones property involuntarily. That's total bs. Regardless of how you got there, if the property owner wants you off their property and you don't leave then you are trespassing. Anyways, this semantic debate you want to have is tiresome. Good luck changing the definition of trespass.

      Delete
    6. Your last two comments are a demonstration of what you've done this whole argument.

      You cite other people's work, pretending you've made a point(also assuming that I or other haven't read it) when in reality what you've cited doesn't bolster your argument at all.

      In fact, here's a like to the "Wisniewksi" working paper that also disagree with the classification that Block's theory makes based on the definition of the word "trespasser". What dictionary are you using, one you've made yourself?

      http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-16.pdf

      You've cited a work that contradicts your argument, similar to what you've done earlier.

      Good job.

      Delete
  6. No audio-only on podbean makes it significantly less convenient to listen to this one. :(

    ReplyDelete