Saturday, March 1, 2014

The Outpouring of Support for Walter Block

NEW FROM WALTER BLOCK: DEFENDING THE UNDEFENDABLE II




The New York Times distortions of the views of Walter Block and the letter by University of Loyola, New Orleans president Father Kenneth Wildes, which took the NYT article as gospel, has spawned an outpouring of support for Prof. Block from students, colleagues and friends.

EPJ has obtained copies of over 100 emails that have been sent to Father Wildes in support of Dr. Block. They are reprinted below.




From: zhasenei . [mailto:zhasenei@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 4:03 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Regarding the letter by the president of Loyola
Dear Dr. Block, Dr. Thomas Woods had made it known that you requested any copies of letters to the president of Loyola about your unjust vilification. Universities are supposed to foster intellectual diversity, yet they often fall prone to the same breed of political correctness that permeates the media. Thank you for your time and patience.

Dear Dr. Wildes, though you may command a great deal of respect from many, it is important to ensure that other intellectuals of prestige, such as professor Walter Block, are not unfairly ridiculed. I have read your letter to the editors of "The Maroon", and felt the need to write this letter. While your stances on the issues of racial discrimination may indeed have the moral high-ground, your representation of the professor's statements are misleading.
In the first paragraph, you neglected to mention the fact that Walter Block faulted slavery for being involuntary, which is ultimately why the notion of slavery is considered heinous in virtually all academic circles. Indeed, if Blacks VOLUNTARILY chose to pick cotton or work for plantation owners, slavery would not be considered so bad. Both you and "The New York Times" completely omitted this. The Non-Regression Principle is at the heart of libertarian philosophy.
The second paragraph makes an error not in its omission of what the professor actually said, but in arguing that people were not forced to associate with people against their will as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You correctly state that "No one was forced to sit at the lunch counter.". but in forcing prejudiced institutions to include demographics that they may deem, albeit sadly, unwanted, it is by definition violating the freedom to associate.
I understand the message you are attempting to promote, and it is a commendable one, but unfairly ridiculing a libertarian professor based on the gross distortions of a left-leaning newspaper is not the best way to go about conveying this message. Universities are supposed to be tolerant of expression and diversity of opinion, especially if the opinion happens to be unpopular.


--
Zachary Hasenei


-----Original Message-----
From: Jordan Reel [mailto:jordanreel@me.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 2:51 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Academic Abuse

I have many emotions and thoughts about the academic abuse which is being thrusted upon you. I would like to write something in your defense, but I am not aware of your political situation on campus outside of what has been written in the Maroon and your friends and students on Facebook. Would the maroon be the best place to send an open letter, or would there be a more effective outlet? Do you know how non-economics students are responding to these false accusations, thoughtlessly absorbing the garbage as usual? In a saner world they would all be protesting against such intellectual injustice. The students are being robbed (defrauded) by an institution which prefers to refer to itself as an institution of education despite the reality of being not much more than a four-year or longer party once you remove the empty content and uncritical content. Of course my criticisms do not apply to your department. It was my experience with the economics department that showed me what a university education should be like. You gave me a taste for university education, especially of a socratic nature, which I can not stop hungering for. Perhaps an ideal taste for a college student to have, but at Loyola I was starving from the curriculum and suffocated by the inability of other students to think critically.

Maybe you could form an "Academic Integrity Tast Force” :)


From: rhett lloyd [mailto:gatorlandrhett@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 2:43 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Faulty Assumptions in Your letter to The Maroon

Kevin Wm. Wildes,
I have read your letter submitted to The Maroon in which you recklessly made faulty assumptions while at the same time maintaining that it is someone else making erroneous assumptions.

Claim one is your assertion that Walter Block claims slavery is not so bad. Having read much of Block's writings and witnessing lectures it is apparent that you are unaware of his position on slavery nor aware of what scholars employed at your institution believe either. Block has been more consistent and principled in the application of the non-aggression principle than anyone of our time. Your quoting his use of the term "bad" seems to be oblivious to the entirety of the lecture that Block made. Block has consistently been against forced slavery in his work. It is appalling that a university president would be so ignorant of an employee's work you could make an erroneous assumption. Block was clear in that slavery was not bad because of singing songs while work or grueling conditions but because people were forced to do so. Choosing grueling work and making the best of the situation is not so bad if the individual chooses that line of work voluntarily. The evidence you seek can be found by not rushing to judgement but by listening to Block himself. Block clearly condemns slavery that is forced as that is in violation of the non-aggression principle.

Your second claim is also faulty in that the Civil Rights legislation did not force people to associate with those against their will. Instead it did just that by telling private property owners who they must serve. In fact the very segregation you seek to bemoan was institutionalized by government itself through Jim Crow laws. Many businesses voluntarily broke down the color barriers seeking profit that could be gained from people of color who had little options to spend their income. The Civil Rights legislation violated property rights in owners controlling their property. The same government that forced people apart against their will has now forced people together against their will. Like Block I do not defend the racist policies of businessmen whom seek to refuse service based on race and only wish upon them losses and bankruptcy. Another point that Block continuously drives home when speaking to this issue.

You finished your letter of misunderstanding and false assertions by saying you would give it a failing grade. It is obvious to me that you would greatly benefit from spending more time in Block's classes and should consider enrolling yourself. But with your aptitude for rushing to judgement and misunderstanding the situation before you I don't expect you would get a passing grade though you would be given a fair shot.

In Liberty,
Perry Lloyd


From: Jon Malmin [mailto:jogusmal@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 5:29 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Letter to the president of Loyola

Dear prof. Block,
Here is a copy of an email I sent to the president of Loyola in defense of you. I hope you feel that I have done you justice, although I don't know if it will get through to him or change is mind at all.

"Dear President Wildes,
I'm not going to ask for much of your time. I just read your letter about prof. Block, and with all due respect, I think you've misunderstood his statements completely. I can understand how the NY Times-article would make you believe that prof. Block is exonerating slavery, but the statements provided as "evidence" were taken completely out of context and were in reality nothing more than part of a joke, typical of prof. Block.

His complete statement (and there are dozens of recordings from years ago featuring the same example) is an attempt to illustrate the libertarian principle of non-aggression, and it goes something like this: "Apart from the coercion, slavery wasn't so bad. You got to pick cotton, sing songs, etc. The only problem with slavery was that you couldn't quit when your boss got out the whip". The aforementioned joke being that if you were allowed to quit, it obviously woudn't be slavery, thus implying that slavery per se is a violation of the libertarian rights prof. Block espouses. Now, while this joke might seem crude and tasteless to you, surely you must be able to see that Block was in fact condemning slavery when his statement is put in its proper context.

I've never studied under prof. Block or met him in person, but I've listened to countless of his recorded lectures and learned so much from him. And I've come to understand his sense of humour, which is in fact one of the things which make his lectures so engaging. Walter Block is a treasure of an economics professor, and I just thought you as President of Loyola should know. I sincerely ask you to talk to him in person and hear him out, it will clear this whole situation up for you and Walter at least won't have to worry about being under fire from the faculty of his own school. The NY Times must be enough for him to deal with, and he deserves far better than this.

Regards,
Jon Malmin, Umea University, Sweden"
From: Brock Townsend [mailto:brocktownsend@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 2:26 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Fwd: Walter Block


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brock Townsend
Date: Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:25 PM
Subject: Walter Block
To: pres@loyno.edu

Your smear campaign against the subject is both despicable and disingenuous.
Brock Townsend




--
Brock
"Braveness during daylight comes easier than in darkness."
BT
--------
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
-- Thomas Jefferson
--------
"And Now, After Sending Our Best Young Men To Die On distant battlefields fighting Communism, we may simply vote a Marxist into our highest office."
23 July 2008
10/'67 - 5/'69 USARV, 6/'69 - 09/'71 OICC/RVN+, 06/'73 - 25/04/'75 DAO, US Embassy RVN
--------
Memories Of Dixie And The Republic Of South Vietnam
http://www.namsouth.com/
"I say we cannot know your suffering, but this we do know; We love and honour you, veterans, and are justly proud of the heritage you have given us. Just so long as warm blood flows in the veins of man, so long will the words 'Confederate Veteran' cause that blood to tingle with glorious pride, and, if there be one among us, born in our glorious Southland who is not so thrilled, every drop of stagnant blood proclaims him bastard to the South-a coward to all the world."
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=49/viewtopic.php?t=49&mforum=brocktownsend
Joseph Powell Pippen, Esq.
My Grandfather
--------
NOTICE:
Any E-mail sent to "Brock Townsend" becomes property of same and may be used elsewhere.
From: Mark Smith [mailto:markdsmith52@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 3:01 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Your unfortunate criticism of Dr. Block

Father Wildes,
I read your letter (online) in the Feb 6 issue of the Maroon, criticizing Dr. Block. You evidently did not read his rebuttal to the NYT's hit job, so here's a link:http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-block/scurrilous-libelous-venomous/
If one of your school's goals is to cultivate critical thinking, you should at least base such thinking on having good information.
I am particularly disappointed, as a Catholic (member of St. John Neumann Parish in St. Charles, Illinois), to see the president of a Catholic University resort to the kind of misrepresentation displayed in your letter. This doesn't seem particularly Christ-like to me.
I have friendly suggestion for you. Listen to the 6-CD set by Father Richard Rohr of his "Art of Letting Go." My son gave it to me for Christmas and I just finished listening to it. Among other important topics, Father Rohr does a great job of explaining non-dualistic thinking, and its importance in living a Christian life. Maybe you've heard about it. But based on your letter, I think you could do yourself a favor by reviewing it, even if you think you know it. If you had taken a non-dualistic approach in deciding to criticize Dr. Block, you might have sensibly retreated from the precipice of political correctness before pitching yourself headlong into that abyss.
Peace.

Mark Smith
St. Charles, IL
From: Harry Painter
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 3:02 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Fwd: your letter to the Maroon

Dr. Block,
At the request of Tom Woods' excellent video and blog, I have sent a letter to Fr. Wildes in your defense. Thanks for, along with Dr. Woods, making me a better libertarian and advocate for liberty.
Sincerely,


J. Harry Painter
M.A. Political Science,
The American University '13


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Harry Painter
Date: Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:57 PM
Subject: re: your letter to the Maroon
To: pres@loyno.edu

Dear Fr. Wildes,
I was disappointed to find that instead of coming to a Loyola professor's defense when he was libeled by the country's most famous newspaper, you joined the paper in attacking him. You make two points in your letter, and both of them are mistaken.

The first point is mistaken because you did no independent research in criticizing Dr. Walter Block. The New York Times article misunderstands the "not so bad" comment, and so do you, because you did not go to the source, his LewRockwell.com piece. What Block says, in jest, is that slavery was "not so bad" besides that it violated the libertarian principle of nonaggression. Which, as Block says, is the bedrock principle on which a just society is based. Obviously, then, the "besides" leaves very little breathing room. I will also add a "besides:" Block's "not so bad" refers to such dubious activities as "eating nice gruel" and "picking cotton." While not the most obvious use of sarcasm on its own, considering the context, Block could not have meant what you and the New York Times say he meant.
In your second point, you wrongly claim that the Civil Rights Act did not compel people to "associate with others against their will." While the Civil Rights Act is laudable for many aspects, if there is a downside to the law, it is certainly this: it does indeed violate freedom of association. You raise a strawman when you say that people were not forced to sit at the lunch counters. Freedom is a two-way street, and the law restricts the other side of that street: the owners of the lunch counters! Are those people not forced to associate with customers against their will? You say they are not allowed to exclude based on race, so you have already answered in the affirmative.
Fr. Wildes, please apologize to Dr. Block, because in a free and open academic environment, debate should be honest, sincere and well considered. Especially when the debate is between the president and a professor at his school. Your letter violates at least the final criterion.

Best,


J. Harry Painter
M.A. Political Science,
The American University '13


From: Jonathan Koop [mailto:jkoop1@alumni.nd.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 3:10 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: In Defense of Prof. Walter Block

Fr. Wildes,

As a graduate of a Catholic university and a Jesuit high school, I implore you to defend Professor Walter Block from the libel and slander directed toward him due to an intentionally distorted interpretation of his remarks on slavery.

As you know, Professor Block is one of the most distinguished advocates of a libertarian philosophy based on the non-aggression principle, which states that it is always wrong to initiate force against another individual. Professor Block's entire life's work has been dedicated to integrating this principles into real life situations.

In regards to the recent distortions and attacks from the New York Times it is clear to anyone who is not out to destroy the character of Professor Block that he was applying the non-aggression principle to the issue of slavery: What was morally wrong with slavery is not that individuals were engaged in strenuous, back-breaking labor--many free Americans who were not slaves engaged in the same jobs of tending fields. Instead, what was morally wrong with the institution of slavery is that people were forced through coerciond and violence to engage in this labor and were brutally beaten while doing it. Even slaves who were lucky enough to work in the house and may not have been subjected to the brutality of beatings were still victims of a morally repugnant attack because their rights as individuals were destroyed. The work itself was neither moral or immoral; the aggression and violence enacted against another human being is what was morally reprehensible.

This, clearly, was the point being made by Professor Block and I encourage you to defend him for the unjust and distorted attacks against his character and his argument.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Koop
From: Tyson Puetz [mailto:tysonpuetz@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 3:11 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: comment I left on the Maroon's website under Wildes' article

Why would you react to a New York Times article that is clearly quoting Professor Block out of context? Do you have any intellectual integrity? Maybe you should have read up on what Walter actually said before responding to a biased article. You seem to dislike your own school, considering the fast growing population of young libertarians that admire the Professor. Wouldn't it make more sense to try and attract more students with this publicity? His future students are undoubtedly more intelligent and discerning than you. I thought teenagers were reactionary but you,sir, take the cake.

From: Bryan Payne [mailto:digitalpayne@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 3:25 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: From a concerned Catholic

I sent this to the President because I care about justice and you. I forgot to CC you.

FYI

Dear Father Wildes,

I am a 43 year old father of two, married 17 years, Catholic in good standing at Our Lady of The Rosary church in Land O' Lakes, Florida. I am an ardent fan of Walter Block and had an opportunity to meet him in Tampa at an Economic Conference. As a layperson in the field of economics, I have listened and read countless articles and speeches from Mr. Block and I am eternally grateful for his passion and his intellect.

As a Catholic, I am called to spread truth and to be the "Salt and the Light" to the people around me and to be charitable with my time, talent and treasure. When I learned of the misinterpretation that Mr. Block's message had created a controversy, I knew that I needed to write you, to support Mr. Block.

The cornerstone of Libertarianism is Christianity, not it's commitment to Christ per se, but it's principals rooted in freedom and liberty. Non-violence and non-aggression are its core principals. Walter is a kind, loving, peaceful economist that has helped educate millions. Not many people know how popular Walter is and how many people follow him. The number certainly is in the hundreds of thousands.

Defense of the innocent is a core principal of the Church. It is my hope that as the leader of Loyola that at a minimum, with the smear campaign underway, that as a Priest - a thorough and fair investigation of his words are conducted. I also hope that at a minimum a mandatory conference with all faculty of Loyola will be facilitated in order for Mr. Block to publicly defend himself.

I ask you this as a brother in faith and in the interest of justice and loyalty to Jesus Christ, our savior.

Sincerely,

Bryan M. Payne
Wesley Chapel, FL.
Mangrove Software
(813)401-8180

From: rumix@ymail.com [mailto:rumix@ymail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 3:53 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Fw: Regarding those disgusting statements

;-)

On Monday, February 10, 2014 3:51 PM, "rumix@ymail.com" wrote:
Dear Mr. Wildes,

I was shocked and horrified to hear the statements that have come out from a man that you employ, Walter E. Block. Nothing better represents the fundamental tolerance of Loyola like the kneejerk reaction Walter has received for not automatically pinning all the problems the black community faces on those evil racist whites.

Although such an exercise may seem inappropriate to some, I'm sure that the Tolerance™ squad has given you gold stars for your performance.

Good work, Private!
Karim Barrett

From: James
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 5:14 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Subject: Support Walter Block

Rev. Wildes,

I am writing in regard to your inappropriate response of Walter Block's quotes in a January 25, 2014 New York Times article.

It saddens me that politics and political correctness seem to have won out over the pursuit of knowledge at your academic institution. Dr. Block is an extremely well respected academician and is known to lean libertarian--given those two facts, it never crossed your mind to ask him about those "quotes" on slavery? The very fact that a libertarian is being purported to support slavery should be a rather large red flag. Had you bothered to talk to him about it, you would have learned that he was grossly taken out of context. I hope by now you have found out that Dr. Block was saying the manual labor performed by the slaves wasn't inherently bad--it was the fact that they were forced to do it that was reprehensible.

Instead of sensing something amiss in an article that was clearly aimed at attacking anyone and anything to do with libertarian ideas, you joined in. Your letter of February 6, 2014 didn't say that you condemn slavery or racism. It said that a well respected member of your faculty was, in effect, an imbecile who wouldn't be able to pass a class you were teaching.

What an unbelievably unprofessional response. First, academia should promote exploration into the controversial. It should support non-conventional notions. That's how progress is made. That is also the historical root of tenure--so academics could pursue unpopular ideas without fear of reprieve. Second, you chose to attack Dr. Block without ever trying to find out his side of the narrative.

It is rather obvious that the New York Times authors have an alternative agenda, and I suspect you might too. You brought up libertarianism in your February 6 letter. Specifically, you said that Walter Block's view that slavery wasn't bad contradicted his libertarian views. There was absolutely no need to mention Dr. Block's libertarian leaning to address his quotes. It added nothing. Unless of course you want to associate bigotry and hypocrisy with libertarians. This is something opponents of the philosophy have been trying to do with increased vigor via the media--and your letter reads as if you've joined in.

Finally, I'd like to point out that it is YOU who would be failing at least two classes: journalism and American history. In journalism students are taught to verify quotes and sources. They are also taught to request comment from someone before publishing a story on them. Civil rights legislation does in fact violate free association. If you're the owner of a business and you can't ask someone to leave, you are being forced to associate with them. To be more clear, suppose a white member of the KKK goes to a lunch counter owned by a black person. It would violate civil rights legislation for the black owner to throw out the white klansman. The owner is being forced to associate with someone that he/she does not want to.

I ask that you actually speak to Walter Block concerning this matter. His remarks come with ample evidence and strong argument...if you're actually willing to listen. I would also ask that you put out another letter apologizing to Dr. Block, and making it known that he was grossly taken out of context.

It is ironic that you criticize Walter Block for having a lack of critical thinking. Perhaps if you thought more critically, you would have formulated a more professional, more appropriate response to this matter.

Deeply Disappointed,

James
From: Douglas Carkuff [mailto:dcarkuff@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 5:40 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Thank you Dr. Block

Walter, you have long been one of my intellectual heroes. I'm sure you know that there are many of us out there who are grateful for your courage and dedication to the truth of things. Do not let the bastards get you down. my best, doug

-----Original Message-----
From: R Kidder [mailto:ronniekidder@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 5:55 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: In support of Dr. Walter Block

Fr. Wildes,

If you took the time to research the claim made by the ny times from Dr. Block's writings, you would find it to be false.

I know this as I have been reading Dr. Block's material and listening to lectures and interviews for over two years.

Sincerely,
Ronnie Kidder
Lafayette, La






-----Original Message-----
From: Mark J. Schuberg [mailto:mark@schuberg.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:01 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Walter Block

Dear Sir,

Please allow me a few words in defense of Prof Walter Block and this recent dust up over slavery.

As a Catholic, I'm shocked at the treatment being given Dr. Block at your university. As Catholics, we believe the earnest search for truth can never be anything but noble and worthwhile. I've read Dr. Block's articles for many years and can say with confidence his purpose is a relentless search for truth. Even though, I believe, an atheist, he has great respect for all men and women, of whatever faith. His greatest effort is expended in the defense of the libertarian 'non-aggression principle'. If you had the slightest curiousity, you would find that the 'non-aggression principle' is diametrically opposed to slavery. The New York Times purposely mischaracterised Dr. Block's views and refused to issue a correction.

Stop trying to score points in the politically correct game, and start treating with respect those with whom you disagree. Who was it that said "Love thy neighbor as yourself"? Why not debate Prof Block on the subject under discussion?

Mark J. Schuberg
Moorpark, California
From: jorge antonio soler sanz [mailto:solersanzjorgeantonio@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:16 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu; wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Water Block take on wage-gap and slavery

Birmingham 10th of February 2014
Kevin Wm. Wildes
S. J., Ph D.
Loyola University
Dear professor:
I have seen your reply to Dr. Walter Block's take on both discrimination and chattel slavery, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is commonplace to say that all knowledge comes from experience, but this is simply not true. It all looks as though "evidence" was a non-problematic concept or idea in your reply to discard Dr. Block's assertion that the wage gap, if there is any, has nothing to do with discrimination and that the only thing wrong with slavery boils down to the fact this is not a voluntary institution.
When we see things around us and interpret certain objects as cars, buildings, furniture, etc., it is not our senses what informs us about the nature of these things, but the fixed set of criteria we evaluate them against. All our senses can provide us with is raw data but not information us such, which can only be obtained after looking through the glass of language and theory. To deny this, would imply there is, somewhere out there, a pure observational language anyone can resort to if in doubt when assessing phenomena, which, obviously, is not the case. All data is theory-laden, and the only way to access it is by means of a theoretical background and language. This is to say there are no facts beyond language, or this or that theoretical scope or set of ideas.
When Dr. Block's denies that the wage-gap is a direct result of discrimination, he is not so more denying the occurrence of such phenomena as discrimination in the actual world, as he is questioning our unthinking response to it. In A Case for Discrimination, Dr. Block has been able to show us that this wage-gap practically disappears when you compare notes, not with the group of the widowed, divorced, married, etc., but do evaluate against the backdrop of the never-married one instead. If discrimination against women is to be blamed for this apparent wage-gap, then, surely, it should be possible to explain this statistical result, but this is something we cannot do based on the idea women are being discriminated against because of their gender.
The main idea to highlight here is that no employer can pay you more than the marginal utility value you produce after time preference is discounted, which is the interest we pay our employer for lending us his capital goods and money so that we can produce to consume now what could only be produced and consumed later. When you come to think of it, the only way it seems possible to discriminate women at work is by way of externalizing the cost onto someone else, and this can only be achieved by public expending. In the UK, for instance, care-workers have won a precedent setting lawsuit against their "ruthless" employer (namely, the City Council) for breaching its own statutory regulations and policies on equal pay, equal opportunities, equal pay for equal work, etc. in the workplace. In this particular case, it was found that women who were on the same income tier as men were actually paid less money than the latter when it was the case both set of tasks, if however different, were comparable or equivalent in terms of their job roles. Here it could be argued whether or not the female workforce's input was equivalent to that of the men's, but it is still true all CCs failed in implementing their own set of criteria according to equal pay legislation.
As for slavery, it is quite apparent that no libertarian would advocate for such a thing as slavery, for libertarian law is based on the idea that no individual shall initiate force or violence onto others when the non-aggression principle is not violated. What professor Block is doing here is elucidating the idea of slavery, but only to come into the conclusion that the only thing that was wrong with this institution was that it was all based on non-voluntary principles. This is to say that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with labour, or endurance, or picking up cotton in the sunny fields of Alabama if you like, insofar individuals do those tasks of their own accord and not so more because of the fact they are forced or coerced into doing it.
Here I'd like to support professor Woods' claim that Walter Block is, not only a brilliant scholar, but also a true gentleman with international support who does not deserve this straw-man, but I think you are already aware of this. Personally, I am a Catholic and do believe in God, but upon inspection, I cannot find anything wrong with any of professor Block's assertions on both slavery and wage-gap discrimination. Surely, this is not going to go down well with any of his international supporters, nor will you achieve to impress any Austrian scholars on this particular matter either, but only God knows why you seem to be so upset about it, or why you hold this personal grudge against him. If you really cared about your institution, and the international image you convey, perhaps you should stop this witch-hunt and start thinking about what professor Block is saying.
Best regards:
Jorge A. Soler Sanz
Innisfree UK CEO and Chief Editor
PS. A Case for Discrimination is due for publication in its Spanish version (En Defensa de la Discriminación), but the Editor´s Foreword is yet to be included.


-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander, Kimberly A. [mailto:kalexand@lhup.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:24 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: NYT Sigh

Hello Walter,

Sorry to hear about the grief caused by the NYT article. You have a lot of support in libertarian community.

In the meantime, I saw this listing at LHU.
https://jobs.lhup.edu/postings/2000

Thank you for all you do,
Kim

Kimberly Alexander, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Sociology
209 Court House Annex
Lock Haven University
Lock Haven, PA 17745











From: Michael R. Edelstein [mailto:DrEdelstein@ThreeMinuteTherapy.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 6:40 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: Walter Block
Subject: In Defense Of Dr. Block & Logic

Dear Fr. Wildes,

The libertarian non-aggression principle says any action two consenting adults agree on is not a violation of their individual rights, as long as it does not violate the rights of others. It’s logical then that everything slaves have done would have been okay if they were done by mutual consent. That’s Walter’s message.

Does this make sense?

Warm regards, Michael

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
San Francisco
415-673-2848 (24/7)

Author of Three Minute Therapy
(with David Ramsay Steele, Ph.D.)
Features help for anxiety, depression,
relationships, panic attacks and addiction

From: Jakob Bauman [mailto:jakob.bauman@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 7:10 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Cc: locander@loyno.edu
Subject: NY Times

Dr. Block,

I just wanted to drop a quick note of support. The NY Times was grossly unfair to your position and it is a shame that many of your public detractors probably didn't take the time read your full explanation, which took me all of 15 minutes with a quick intranet search.



Sincerely,
Jake Bauman, BBA '98 MBA '00

From: Thomas Woods [mailto:woods@mises.org]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 7:28 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu; walter block
Subject: The Loyola faculty is opposed to slavery -- what a relief!

Dear Dr. Wildes:

No doubt you have received quite a bit of correspondence by now about Walter Block. I won’t rehash the main points. You are familiar with them already.

I will say that I find it impossible to believe that you, an intelligent man, believe your own interpretation of Walter’s remarks to the New York Times. You note that Walter’s comment about slavery seems to run counter to libertarian principles. You don’t say! Might that be an indication that the Times, which despises what Walter stands for, has distorted his views?

A university president ought to support his faculty in a case like this, in which he knows full well that a professor has been grotesquely mischaracterized. If this were an accurate rendering of Walter’s views, why was he considering a libel suit?

Had Walter been a left-wing professor accused of Stalinism, would you have been so quick to denounce him? The question answers itself.

This is why it is impossible to believe that any of this has to do with Walter’s remarks. You are not a fool. You know Walter, and you know where he stands. He has never kept his views a secret. You owed him better, and you failed him.

Now it’s true, you did communicate to the university community that your views are the conventional and respectable ones, and that you are not to be confused with Walter Block. We got that.

Some of your faculty, whom you should have rebuked rather than implicitly congratulated, treated Walter with a similar lack of charity.

Since the substance of your (and their) claims have been dealt with elsewhere, let me raise some relevant considerations:

(1) How many professors at Loyola University can say students have enrolled for the express purpose of studying with them?

(2) How many professors at Loyola University can say they have co-authored scholarly articles with their students – not once or twice, but dozens of times?

(3) How many professors at Loyola University have a big enough audience that it would even matter if they urged students to attend Loyola, as Walter constantly does?

(4) How many professors at Loyola University have over 400 peer-reviewed articles?

(5) How many professors at Loyola University would anyone anywhere in the country lift a single finger for?

(6) Oh, and how many professors at Loyola University, who preposterously accused Walter of “sexism” for denying that “discrimination” could explain the male-female wage gap, dared to face Walter in open debate? (Their decision not to try to debate Walter is a fleeting sign of intelligence among them.)

Yes, yes, I got the message: your faculty is against slavery. What courage they must have had to summon in 2014 to unbosom to the world their opposition to slavery!

But I wonder: would people who ostentatiously announce their opposition to slavery in 2014 have had the courage to oppose it when it counted – say, in 1850? I have my doubts that people so desperate to assure the world of their conventional opinions and how appalled and offended they are by heretics, would have been the sort of people to buck conventional opinion at a time when two percent of the American electorate supported an abolitionist political party.

What I know for a fact is that Walter Block would have opposed it, lock, stock, and barrel.

That you simply repeated the New York Times’ characterization of Walter Block, without even conceding, as the Times did, that Walter believed slavery was wrong because it was involuntary – so your behavior was worse than that of the Times, which is no mean feat – is bewildering and appalling in a university president, or indeed in a human being.

Long after every name on that faculty list is gone and forgotten, the work of Walter Block will continue to educate new generations in the principles of liberty. No one will recall the pygmies who attacked him out of spite or envy.

Cordially,
Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D.

From: Jacques Fournier [mailto:j.fournier@alumni.virginia.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 7:49 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Subject: Jesuit university attacks Walter Block

As a graduate of a Jesuit high school in Phoenix (Brophy College Prep), I am greatly disappointed with your attack on Walter Block, who is an immensely accomplished, serious scholar who would never engage in your kind of shallow, thoughtless analysis. Please see the following video by Thomas E. Woods, PhD, a catholic who is a New York Times Bestselling Author, and author of several books on Catholicism.

http://tomwoods.com/blog/jesuit-university-attacks-libertarian-professor-i-respond/
Sincerely,
Jacques Fournier

-----Original Message-----
From: David Robins [mailto:dbrobins@i4031.net]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 7:07 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Attack on Dr. Walter Block

Dr. Kevin Wildes:

As a scholar, you should have done better than to have, as it were, immediately thrown Dr. Block "under the bus" without spending a minute or two, even, in investigating whether the New York Times summation of his views was at all accurate (it was not). It would have behooved you, who administrate the selfsame school at which he teaches, to examine even a sampling of Dr. Block's publications to see if your assumptions were at all in line with the tenor of his publications (they were not).
I suppose you should be praised, in light of general ignorance, to at least understand that libertarianism stands contra slavery; know that Dr. Block is not an exception there. Furthermore, you made the erroneous assumption that the forced association that Dr. Block spoke of was of individuals going to Woolworth's, and thus soundly defeated a straw man (it was not; but was in fact in the other direction).

I have had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Block, and of watching many of his lectures and reading his books and papers; and you, sir, would do well if you can aspire to such scholarship. I urge you to retract your shoddy, vapid, and uninformed letter to the press of February 6, spend a few minutes to take in the facts rather than reacting without them, and stand by Dr. Block rather than with the unenlightened that would seek to drag him to their level.

David B. Robins, MS


-----Original Message-----
From: Kyle Jungmann [mailto:kmjungmann@wisc.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 7:52 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Subject: Leadership

Mr. Wildes,

I am truly disappointed in your letter to The Maroon last Thursday regarding one of your professors, Dr. Walter Block. Rather than focus on your multiple errors in describing history and Mr. Block's comments, I want to focus on your leadership abilities.
First off, do you not have the professionalism to first confront Dr. Block on the issue before going public? Especially given that it was the New York Times writing the piece.
Second, are you not familiar with any of your professor's work? I can only assume this is true, given that you do not seem to understand his position what so ever.
Third, how do you suggest that Dr. Block did not provide evidence in his multiple hours of being interviewed by the New York Times? Because they did not publish it? Again I ask are you at all familiar with your professor's work? Again the answer is blatantly obvious.
Fourth, I believe it is you that are lacking any critical thinking. I respect a man a lot more who is willing to go against the crowd and present a strong argument, than one who stays in his shell and does nothing but criticize. Again, please read a book or article Dr. Block has written. After you are familiar with his entire argument, you are then welcome to critique it.
Fifth, apparently you didn't watch his lecture on campus regarding this very issue after others of your faculty refused to have a debate with him. Here is the link if you wish you actually learn something that he said in it's original context. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty0QXqHcQHo
Finally and perhaps worst of all, you didn't even bother to read his response to the article, published a week before your letter. http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-block/scurrilous-libelous-venomous/


It is honestly embarrassing for not only you, but the university you represent that you acted in such an unprofessional manner. Its quite sad that an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin was aware of the entire story, and took the time to read it, before the President at the university at which Dr. Block is employed.
I hope that you have learned from this experience, researched the subject at hand more in depth, and maybe even read some of Dr. Block's work. Also I would hope that you have apologized both personally and in writing for not defending one of your own professors who was so obviously characterized in the wrong way.
Best Regards,
Kyle Jungmann

-----Original Message-----
From: Strode, Nathan [mailto:strodn09@highpoint.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 8:13 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Cc: pres@loyno.edu
Subject: You're the man Dr. Block

Hey Dr. Block,

I saw Tom Woods' post and know he asked readers to email your President and CC you, but why would I waste my time writing to that joker? He had a major opportunity to come to your defense after you were libeled on a national stage by that rag and capture the interests of thousands of future college students (something you have already done). This was one of the best things that could have happened to that guy. AND HE BLEW IT! Spectacularly. He showed he lacked leadership, logic and courage all at the same time. He probably won't even read most of the emails, and I'm supposed to write him and Cc you? NO WAY!

The fact is Dr. Block you were enough for me to consider Loyola for graduate school. And you know what? As much as that guy sucks, I still will! You are THAT good. You resemble everything he claimed Loyola was about. You should be distinguished and treated like the valuable asset you are. Something like the Walter Block Award- given to the student or faculty member who best challenges the status quo or advances An-chap. *WINK WINK MR. PRESIDENT*

You were unfairly attacked by your university's President, fellow faculty AND on the front page of the NYT! You made it farther than Mises and Rothbard! Cut that thing out and frame it. It will be a piece of history one day, but until then, it's a motivator.

Keep up the good work Dr. Block,

Nathan Strode


From: ron [mailto:cliner1@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 8:21 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Subject: Support for Dr. Block

Dear Dr. Wildes,
I was very much surprised and shocked by your letter regarding Dr. Walter Block. Having read most of his books (all wonderful), heard him speak a number of times, and even dined with him, I can assure you that he is not for slavery. One of the constant themes of his work is the "non-aggression principle"; namely, that it is never right to initiate force against anyone at all, and since slavery is one of the worst cases of using force against someone, clearly he is against it. Later in the New York Times article you referred to, this is even stated!
I can only assume that:
1) You didn't read the article, or worse, you didn't understand it.
2) You have not bothered to read any of Dr. Block's many books.
3) You have not taken the time to attend any of Dr. Block's speeches or lectures.
4) You have not bothered to sit and talk with Dr. Block, one of your pre-
eminent faculty members.
5) You have not discussed this issue with Dr. Block.

Since all of these seem to be true, your letter brings a great deal of embarrassment to your fine University. Likewise, the faculty who supported you in your statements do not speak well of your school. Moreover, as a retired professor (Michigan State University and Kettering University), I have never in my career witnessed or heard of such a stunning, reprehensible attack on a faculty member by the president of a college or university.

You have attempted to sully the reputation and life-long brilliant work of a great scholar and great man. You ought to immediately publish an apology and retraction, and then begin behaving in the manner of a scholar and gentleman.

Sincerely,
Ronald L. Cline
From: Tom Ruane [mailto:tomruane@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 8:28 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letters@loyno.edu
Subject: Professor Block

As a Catholic father and physician who studied at Loyola in Chicago I am disappointed to learn of what sounds like unfair treatment of Professor Walter Block. It seems that Jesuit "tolerance" extends only to modernist liberal ideas and not to a well argued and morally neutral analysis of widely held societal myths.

Does Loyola seek human respect or Truth?


Thomas J. Ruane M.D.
Venice Flor


Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 9:02 PM
To: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu
Subject: Support Walter Block

Dear Faculty:

I was appalled to read your collective letter of February 6, 2014 regarding Walter Block's comments in a January 25, 2014 New York Times article.

Your collective bias is stunning, as you all chose to attack Dr. Block without making any effort to understand his position. That is the generous reading of your letter. A more realistic reading shows an obvious intent to smear him without any regard for his actual views.

To elaborate, you cite his response on lewrockwell.com. You CHOSE to leave out parts of that response where Dr. Block explicitly talks about his oppositions to the horrors of slavery and explains their relation to free association and the non aggression principle. Quotes from that piece, which you cite and presumably have read, are below.

"I spent more than just several hours with Mr. Tanenhaus trying to explain to him how central to libertarianism is the non-aggression principle (NAP). I told him that the essence of this philosophy is that it is illegitimate to threaten or actually use violence against innocent people. I gave him all sorts of examples. I tried to make the point as dramatically as I could to him. I went so far as to say that the only thing horrid about actual slavery was that it violated the NAP. Otherwise, apart from that one thing, slavery was innocuous: you could pick cotton in the healthy outdoors, sing songs, they would give you gruel, etc. This of course was a hypothetical. A point made to dramatize exactly why slavery was wrong. Not because of cotton, gruel, singing, etc., but due to the vicious violation of the NAP against innocent black people."

"Major problem. In actual point of fact, I along with pretty much all other men of good will think that this institution was vicious, depraved and monstrous. Why? Again, because of NAP violations, not anything else, certainly not anything as peripheral as singing songs and eating gruel. I think that the movie “Django Unchained,” and the television series, “Roots,” accurately depicted this system. It would be impossible for any fair minded person to turn what I said into support for such a despicable system."

Furthermore, you mischaracterize Dr. Block's views by asserting that they marginalize the struggle by minorities to achieve equality. He explains in the lewrockwell.com response how free association is a protection against slavery, and goes on to explain how minority rights are protected without civil rights legislation.

"But is it not unfair, and harmful, to racial minority groups to allow bigots to discriminate against them in lunch counters, or in employment, or in any other way? No, no and no. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have done more than any other two scholars to demonstrate the falsity of this sort of reasoning. If white owned restaurants do not wish to serve black people, the latter will be more desperate, willing to pay more than otherwise, to be able to purchase meals. Thus, profits in doing precisely that will rise, and other entrepreneurs, both white and black, will have more of an incentive to provide such services. If employers discriminate against black workers, this will drive down their wages to lower levels than would otherwise obtain. This, too, sets up enhanced profit opportunities for yet other firms, to hire these people. If some transportation companies insist that African-Americans ride only in the back of the bus, others will spring up to attract such customers; they will earn higher profits, at least initially. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” works all throughout the economy. Racial discrimination is impotent to really harm its targets. Why, then, did this aspect of laissez faire capitalism not actually function in the south in the early part of the last century? ‘Twas not due to any “market failure.” Rather, the free enterprise system was not allowed to function, due to Jim Crow laws. For example, in order to set up a competing bus company, one that would allow black people to sit in any section of their vehicles, permission had to be obtained from state(ist) authorities, the very people responsible for the Jim Crow back of the bus law in the first place. Nor must it be thought that initially black people would have to suffer from higher lunch prices, lower salaries, sitting in the back of the bus, etc. These are only theoretical possibilities, if entrepreneurs do not take advantage of profit opportunities. But we have a name for businessmen of that type: bankrupt."

You may disagree with his conclusions, but to intentionally ignore them, pervert their sentiment, and characterize Walter Block as a bigot in need of censure is deplorable. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for so grossly misrepresenting his views. None of you deserve the title of "professor" and it is disturbing you are permitted to impart knowledge to anyone. I suppose white male privilege doesn't cover libel.

Finally, with regard to your assertion that Walter Block is detracting from the University...I've heard of him. I know of books he's written. I've never heard of any of you. When one of you has written about a dozen books and published some 400 pier reviewed papers, maybe I could take your claim more seriously. The rush to sacrifice and smear a well respected academic who has an opinion that is different from yours--that is what damages the university.

I am asking that you speak with Walter Block directly, so that you may hear his actual opinions. You will find he has strong arguments for his positions, supported by ample evidence. I am also asking you issue a formal apology for grossly misrepresenting him.

Deeply Disappointed,

James

Southard [mailto:alexander.southard@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 9:38 PM
To: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu
Cc: letter@loyno.edu; wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Dr. Walter Block's Article and Your Response

Fr. Wildes, Faculty, and Others,

I'm unsure how you've all managed to miss the argument that Dr. Block made in his article regarding slavery and free association. Why would so many of you attack a fellow professor without a complete grasp of the subject matter? The letter that so many of you signed onto shows that you lack an understanding of free association as seen through the lens of self-ownership. I suppose it's easy to attack someone en masse and then attempt to blend into the crowd, hoping nobody notices. That's why none of you have bothered to come forward on your own and discuss the topic in the open. Unfortunately for you, there are plenty of people out here in the world who understand exactly what Dr. Block wrote. Hell, I think if you thoroughly read the article yourselves and did some critical thinking, most of you would even agree with him. I'm disappointed in all of you.

Sincerely,

Alexander Southard
From: Benjamin Gross [mailto:brgross@inbox.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 9:46 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: FW: Walter Block, Slavery & Faux Outrage

Professor Block

I'm no Tom Woods, but I gave it a rattle. Big fan of yours in PA.

Take care,

Ben Gross
Legal Director, Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center

-----Original Message-----
From: brgross@inbox.com
Sent: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 19:43:01 -0800
To: pres@loyno.edu
Subject: Walter Block, Slavery & Faux Outrage
President Wildes:

I suppose your choice to throw Dr. Walter Block to the media wolves was more about saving and promoting your own reputation than about destroying Dr. Block's. Still, I imagine that no amount of showering can cleanse that cruddy feeling that you will always harbor for sacrificing your colleague whom you and I both know has dedicated his life to chronicling the bonds of human indenture promoted by the state, its laws and its apologists.

You, sir, and the copied lot of credentialed cowards, are bullies in tweed, tenured brownshirts and race-pandering pedants. You and they engage in the Everest of hypocrisies by leveling accusations of hostility, privilege and ahistoricism when you and they obliviously or intentionally ignore Dr. Block's academic contributions to economics, history and individual liberty. How exactly is Dr. Block hostile and to whom? Who at your university has better documented the acids of statist privilege? We all know the answers to these questions, but we also know that dishonest discourse and faux outrage are more effective at protecting your brand of privilege among the academic flat earth society.

I request that you publicly apologize to Dr. Block. I request it, but I don't expect it.

Benjamin Gross, J.D.
Rosslyn Farms, Pennsylvania


From: Robert B. Eckhardt [mailto:eyl@psu.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:02 PM
To: Walter Block
Cc: John Levendis; Robert Eckhardt
Subject: Re: Please read this

Dear Walter,

Reading through all this.

I share your enthusiasm for Rand Paul, and voted for his father the last four elections, even when he was not an official candidate. Colleagues rebuked me for "wasting my vote" but my response was, for which Presidential candidate was the vote not wasted?

In you I recognize a kindred spirit. Sometime I should dig out and share with you my old files from when I was a beginning (very untenured) faculty member at the University of Michigan.

As a matter of health maintenance I do not read the New York Times. It is one of the devices, along with keeping my body mass down and walking at least three miles per day, that enable me to keep my blood pressure low without medication.

From the various exchanges, I suggest that among your various sins surely you overestimated the intelligence and decency of the NYT reporter.

I've read the unsurprising criticisms of you, including the one from your University President. I think that he must have leaped into the same mosh pit as the President of my own University.

While I track down and read the original NYT piece and sort out what the hell I might do, you might get a little relaxation by juggling chain saws or maybe hide out at the Copenhagen Zoo disguised as a giraffe.

WTF,
Bob
From: Drew Brekus [mailto:drewblue142@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:07 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: President of Loyola response email

Dear Walter, I saw around about two weeks ago the hack job that the New York Times did to you, the Mises Institute, and Ron Paul. At least we know that they can't possibly represent our ideas properly, probably because we would convert their readers and the New York Times would lose their readership. Today I saw the editorial written by the President of Loyola in The Maroon and I can't believe that the President along with so many other faculty of Loyola have taken the chance of this hack job to slander you. I heard that you were looking for an attorney to sue the New York Times, I have some connections to lawyers (Devon Prep mock trial, my dad was a former attorney, and my mom works for a large law firm based in Philadelphia), but I doubt they would lower their price for the law suit. The following paragraphs are a rough draft email I wrote that I intend to send to the president of Loyola as a response to the editorial he wrote. I read from Tom Wood's website that you wanted the email sent to you so I'm sending it to you first before I send it to the president. Also thank you for the sources you sent me recently, I'm hopefully putting them to good use.

Dear Fr. Kevin Wildes, my name is Drew Brekus and I am an accepted student who intends to enroll into Loyola University of New Orleans starting the Fall semester of 2014. I live all the way in Pennsylvania where the winter storms have been horrendous as of recent, and where several people have lost power. The school I go to is Devon Preparatory School which is run by the Piarist Fathers, and has been out for the past week because of the winter storm. Luckily I never lost power. Unfortunately having electricity, and thus internet access, I have been able to see that Professor Walter Block has come under attack from the New York Times and by you. I must admit, one of the very reasons that I wanted to come to Loyola New Orleans was because of Professor Block's accomplishments as an economist and my desire to study under him. I have read articles and publications by Professor Block, including his Defending the Undefendable, and must say that his writings, along with his counterpart's, converted me into becoming a libertarian and a supporter of Austrian economics. Around mid-January I flew into New Orleans to visit the campus and see the city for the first time. I decided that Loyola New Orleans was the college that I was going to enroll in after said visit. What sold the entire school though was when I was allowed to observe Walter's micro economics class. I approached him when the class ended and got him to sign my copy of Defending the Undefendable. He subsequently offered to take me out to dinner to talk with him and some of his students. I must repay his kindness to me which is why I must respond to your editorial in The Maroon which criticizes Professor Block, even though it puts me in the precarious position of opposing the president of the college I want to go to, when I haven't even finished the enrollment process. However, I will use this time to prove to you that I have "critical thinking" skills, and therefore will be a contribution to Loyola University of New Orleans.
First you state Walter, "made the claim that chattel slavery 'was not so bad.' " This is fallacious. In the New York Times article, "Rand Paul's Mixed Inheritance" they commit the same fault. However if we look at the entire quote from Walter's article, we find that Walter was not talking about slavery being "not so bad" at all. Professor Block stated, "Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to 'associate' with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory." The point Professor Block was making was not that slavery unobjectionable, but that merely the job of picking cotton in the South during the 19th century "wasn't so bad." Being that this is a misquote, the rest of your argument in the second paragraph fails.
The next argument you make against Professor Block, ironically claiming that he has made a fundamental logical mistake, is itself a logical mistake. You make the claim that the Civil Right's Act of 1964 did not violate the libertarian axiom of free association. You claim that "What the Civil Rights legislation did was prevent places like Woolworth’s from excluding people because of their race." Your summation of what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 however, breaks the libertarian axiom of free association. Woolworth's was owned by a person. Woolworth's was the private property of that person. Private property is private property, therefore the property rights that I have over my own restaurant, are the same as the property rights I have over my own home. Suppose I throw an open party at my house. If we are to take the logic of the Civil Rights Act, I should not be allowed to refuse people of a different race from entrance of my home. Now this isn't just one way, minority exclusion by white owners. this works all ways. People can exclude me too because of my race, I'm white, from their house, restaurant, or any other private property owned by another individual. Private property rights tell us that we should be allowed to exclude whoever we want from our property. Now I'm sure Professor Block will be the first to explain how this behavior of exclusion is discouraged by a free market, being that the people I exclude will associate with my competitors and I will therefore make a loss because of my racist behavior.
Thank you for your time, I hope that even though I have opposed your editorial, that I have taken a step in proving my critical thinking skills. Sincerely, Andrew Brekus

From: Jim Savell [mailto:yankeehtr18@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:17 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu
Subject: In defense of Walter Block

Mr. Wildes,

This letter is in response to your letter that appeared in The Maroon.

Not only have you fallen into to the trap of what the New York Times has tried to do. They have tried to paint libertarians as people who are in favor of such terrible things like slavery. This is not the first time the mainstream press has tried to do it. They make the same argument when libertarians make the case for nullification.

I feel that it was irresponsible for you to take something that was printed by the New York Times as something that was to taken without any further investigation. You know Walter Block personally. Do you really believe that he is pro-slavery? I would say that you do not think this.

Also, your assertions that the Civil Rights legislation does not force associations is incorrect. For example, a gas station owner who is black has to serve Hispanics. In some parts of America, those two races do not necessarily get along too well. Economically speaking, it is not a good business practice to discriminate because you are cutting out a section of possible customers, which means that profits will probably be lower than they would have been if that group of people had been allowed to get gas there.

Now that your basic economics lesson is complete. Let's move on to Libertarians. Anything that infringes on someone's liberty, regardless of what it is, is opposed by Libertarians. Clearly, you have distorted what Walter said, as he separated the involuntary part of it, and was referring to the actual work being performed. You chose to ignore that and applied his comment to the entire topic of slavery.

Walter Block does not deserve this treatment by you or by any of his co-workers who decided it was their job to announce they were anti-slavery. Your faculty's letter is along the same lines as yours. However, they are wrong in different ways.

They failed to take into account that Libertarians also adhere to a non-aggression principle. So again, he separated out two aspects of slavery, the work and singing of song that was "not so bad". Also, everyone enjoys the same freedoms as laid out in the Constitution, regardless of what your faculty thinks. For them to think, that just because he is white he enjoys things that others do not is outrageous. I, as a 24 year old white U.S. Navy sailor, have no more advantages than someone in my same position that is ANY other race. The work of Thomas Sewell and Walter Willams has shown this time and time again.

Mr. Wildes, you should have defended Walter against this distortion portrayed by the New York Time. Walter has done so much for your university, and this the way you treat him? This is an example of bad leadership on your part.

Thank you for you time, sir,

James Savell
From: Evan Rogers [mailto:evangrogers@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:19 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: The least I could do for my Jedi Master.

Hello,

I recently heard about some sort of idiotic uproar being evoked in the world of Loyola University which seems to be centered around one Walter Block.

What in the flaming hell is wrong with your entire university that you can't see the brilliant professor you have working at your school? Almost every single argument I have ever heard him make regarding sexism, discrimination, and slavery not only made near-perfect sense, but was almost impossible to refute without making an ass of one's self.

I used to be a moronic liberal douche - much like those receiving this e-mail, most likely - until the 2008 election cycle, when I heard one Ron Paul speak. He pin-pointed exactly how I felt about politics. It's a shame that I hadn't heard these argument earlier - they were unconventional, but so inherently undeniable that I had an awakening.

Ron Paul turned me into a libertarian, and about 2 months later I read a book thatwas endorsed by Walter Block: Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt. After reading that book, and listening to my Jedi-Master, Walter Block, I became an Anarchist almost over night.

Without Block's presentations made available by the Mises Institute, I would still be a brain-dead liberal simply repeating "the state should do.... the state should do...." without giving a single thought to how the state pays for anything.

To disparage Walter Block is to disparage everything that education holds dear. To disparage the work of Walter Block is to attempt to imprison the masses in their horribly bleak false dichotomy of "Left vs. Right" where, secretly, there is only fascism.

You should all be absolutely disgusted for your misrepresentations of Walter Block - he has EASILY made life better for THOUSANDS more people than you could ever hope to in your entire lives.

--
Evan Rogers
614-595-4962
evangrogers@gmail.com
www.evanseasyjapanese.com

From: Robert Fellner [mailto:robfellner@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:24 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu
Cc: letter@loyno.edu; wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Please stop lying about Professor Block's views

Hello,
My name is Robert Fellner and I reside in Las Vegas, NV. I have never stepped foot in Louisiana, but I am very familiar with your colleague, Dr. Walter Block. This is due to his world-renowned reputation as one of the brightest and most accomplished libertarian scholars alive today. I have purchased many of his books, read many of his scholarly articles, and even have had the opportunity to correspond with him directly on several occasions.
On the occasions we have corresponded he has always been extremely giving of his time, helpful, and encouraging. On multiple occasions he implored me to consider attending Loyola University or encouraging my peers to do the same. Being past college age myself, I pass the message on to all of my friends and family who are thinking of attending University.

Given how gracious of a teacher he has been, and how enthusiastic of a proponent for attending Loyola University he has been, I was appalled to see his colleagues attack him in such a way. In regards to the President of Loyola's comments specifically, in addition to demonstrating remarkably poor critical thinking skills, it seems an odd professional choice to choose to attack and slander the greatest asset the University has.

I will not rehash how illogical and blatantly untruthful the claims you have made in regards to Professor Block's views on slavery are. I am sure that is being done many times already and, quite frankly, it seems unlikely that your comments were made as a result of intellectual error and not something more based out of emotion.
I will say that you denigrate the University you represent when you put forth such mean spirited and dimwitted arguments such as the ones published recently.
Dr. Block is a personal hero of mine. It is likely thousands of people around the world regard him in the same light. I am not asking you to do so. I merely ask that you treat him with the respect and dignity you would expect shown to yourself. And if you truly believe the ugly nonsense you spout, have the courage to address him personally. I would suspect that anyone who is of honest intentions would be dispelled of such notions within minutes of doing so.
Sincerely,

Robert Fellner
200 Hoover Ave.
Las Vegas, NV 89101
From: Andrew Finnerty [mailto:andrewgfinnerty@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 11:11 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu
Subject: Walter Block is a great professor

Dear President Wildes,

You are the one of the luckiest universities in the US to have Walter Block as a faculty member. His body of work and credentials speak for itself. I was lucky enough to study under him for one week at the Mises Institute during Mises University which Block has been participating in for over 30 years. In that time he has lectured to more diverse crowds than you could imagine. How often do you see a professor willing to stay up until 2 am talking to students who were there specifically to talk to the individual? It's quite rare!

Ludwig von Mises is one of Block's intellectual heroes. He was one of thousands of Jews exiled from Europe by the Nazi's not only for being from the heritage he shares with Block, but because he was a classically liberal intellectual who praised reason and found the importance of understanding the minor premise underlying every argument.

I think the intellectually and morally honest thing to do is examine Block's argument, meet with him face to face as a person, converse, explore - and eventually forgive yourself for being so judgmental and dishonest about his character (I'd prefer this be a public display; collectively if you must).

Thank you for your time,
Andrew Finnerty
BA, BS
Mises University 2011
Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito
From: Christopher Caughey [mailto:caugheyc@tcd.ie]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 11:14 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu; wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Walter Block

Dear President Wildes and faculty of Loyola,

I am disappointed to learn of the way you've chosen to deal with Dr. Block in person and in print. I must admit that I feel more than a bit sorry for you, because I've always been told about how rigorous the Catholic intellectual tradition is. But after reading your letter to the editor of the Maroon, dated February 6, 2014, I'm sure there must be some mistake, because your letter to the editor does not reflect such a tradition.

Now I did not receive any of my degrees from Catholic universities, so I cannot engage in any a posteriori observation regarding your diatribe vis-a-vis the legacies of Ignatius or Bellarmine. But I did do my PhD at the University of Dublin, Trinity College, and I must say that my advisor and my viva committee all required me to cite supporting sources and to take opposing arguments into account as I did my research. I am curious why Loyola faculty and its president do not seem to adhere to a methodology even remotely resembling that.

Anyone who has read Dr. Block - or listened to any of his lectures - knows that he is committed to the principle of non-aggression. In other words, Dr. Block believes that it is categorically wrong to initiate force/violence/aggression/etc. against another person or group of persons. I have only read a small fraction of Dr. Block's immense body of scholarly output, and I know that. So I am curious why you would take the New York Times's claim at face value, that Dr. Block believes that slavery is 'not so bad.' Especially because Dr. Block is on your faculty, it only makes sense that you would go to him and ask him if the New York Times had accurately represented his views - and, if it had, how that could possibly be reconciled with his commitment to the non-aggression principle. Please help me to understand why this simplest of steps was skipped.

Your second point about the Civil Rights Act seems to be a willful misunderstanding of Dr. Block's application of the non-aggression principle to interpersonal relations. If Jesuit priests did not want me to study at their academic institutions, should I ask a group of armed men and women to threaten the lives and persons of those Jesuits with bodily harm up to, and including death, until I am accepted at said institutions? I do not want to be somewhere I am not wanted. Furthermore, I believe that competing academic institutions would be happy to take worthy students who are rejected by the Jesuits. I understand that this way of looking at things is not politically correct in America. But if American universities are only permitted to be politically correct, then intellectual midgets will be America's contribution to the world of ideas.

Finally, your greatest failure is spiritual/theological. Your treatment of Dr. Block is a clear violation of the eighth commandment (as Catholics number them) because it participates in, and perpetuates the bearing of false witness against him. Was the Tridentine doctrine of justification not supposed to stir Catholics on to greater piety and holiness? Also, you need to take Luke 6:27-36 to heart. There Jesus admonishes his followers that even hypocrites and unbelievers love those who love them and hate those who hate them. But the indicative behind his imperative is that even though we were God's enemies due to Adam's sin having been imputed to each of us, God demonstrated his love toward us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. So to treat others with whom we disagree (hate?) as our enemies is to pretend to be holier than God. I will be the first to admit my intellectual limitations, but this I know beyond doubt: neither you, nor I - nor any mere human being - is holier than God. And how will you, as a sinful human being be reconciled to a holy and righteous God?

Make this right, President Wildes and faculty.

Sincerely,

Chris Caughey, PhD

From: cllight@loyno.edu [mailto:cllight@loyno.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 12:29 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: [Fwd: RE: Your Recent Comments]

Professor Block,
The president responded to my email. The exchange is below. I have sent another response but don't expect much to come out of it. I'm glad to see that people are upset and sending letters to the president and faculty criticizing them and their actions. Also, the comments on the Maroon website concerning the two letters to the editor are very defensive of you and critical of the president and faculty.
Regards,
Christian Light


---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: RE: Your Recent Comments
From: cllight@loyno.edu
Date: Mon, February 10, 2014 11:22 pm
To: pres@loyno.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------





Fr. Wildes,


I have found your response to be less than satisfactory. �In
retrospect my letter to you was quite harsh. �I respect that you at
least provided me a response and will be more cordial in my tone and
rhetoric.


In your letter to the editor you state:


"Dr. Block made two claims, one empirical and one conceptual,
that are simply wrong.� First, he made the claim that chattel
slavery “was not so bad.” �


In the response to my letter you state:


"And, as a philosopher I do not know what was and was not
said...Only he and the writer know what was originally said."


I ask you this question. �If you claim that you did not know exactly
what was said then why would you say anything in the first place?
�It is never wise to jump into a fight without having proper context
of which side is which. �The first quote I provided from your letter
to the editor indicates that you were not unbiased in your critique of
Professor Block.


"My point was to correct the public record. �There is no way,
as a President of a Catholic university, that I could simply say nothing
in the public record."


What exactly were you trying to correct in the public record? �If
you say that only Walter and the writer knew what was originally said
then what exactly in the public record needs to be corrected? �What
could you possibly offer by writing a letter to the editor in the Maroon?
�I think your letter to the editor and the letter to the editor by
certain Loyola faculty have caused considerable controversy. �You
would probably prefer to not have undesirable emails being sent to you as
I'm sure you have received other emails calling you out for the same
things I have. �Also, the comments on the Maroon website regarding
your letter to the editor are very critical. �Many people are upset
with you and other Loyola faculty for their actions. �


Regards,


Christian Light


Economics Major








> Fr. Wildes asked that I send you his reply to your recent email.


>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Dear Christian,

>

>

>

> I received your letter of 8 February.

>

> Let me be very clear that I respect our faculty members, including
Dr.

> Block, especially in their areas of expertise.

>

> Dr. Block has certainly had experience in dealing with the press as
he has

> given many interviews and been quoted often. So, he is well aware of
the

> challenges of giving comments and interviews. So, he bears some

> responsibility in giving the interview. And, as a philosopher I do
not

> know what was and was not said.

>

> Only he and the writer know what was originally said. My point was
to

> correct the public record. There is no way, as President of a
Catholic

> university, that I could simply say nothing in the public record.
What I

> said was to address the public record and I will stand by what I
have

> said.

>

> Thank you for your letter.

>

>

>

> Kevin Wildes, S.J.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Sent to you by Fr. Wildes from:

>

> Gail Howard

>

> Executive Assistant to the President

>

> Loyola University New Orleans

>

> 6363 St. Charles Avenue, Campus Box 9

>

> New Orleans, LA 70118

>

> 504.865.3849 Direct

>

> 504.865.3851 FAX

>

> ghoward@loyno.edu

From: BRADY, ROSS [mailto:bradyr@email.sc.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:00 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Thanks

Dr. Block,

Just wanted to say I support you in this nonsense concerning your character. Somehow, Walter Block, the libertarian anarcho-capitalist, thinks slavery is good. Walter Block, one of (if not the) most consistent defenders of the NAP... you supposedly support the NAP, but in the instance of 19th century blacks, you forget the NAP and think slavery is good.

Nonsense. No need to comment further. Period.

Truly a disgusting display from the media.

That said, I must extend my thanks. Without you, it's not likely I would have found Mises and Rothbard. I wouldn't have continued my undergraduate degree in economics. I wouldn't be considering postgraduate studies in economics.

Hopefully, if I'm lucky, I'll be able to attend Mises U this summer and enhance my education . Without many of your videos online, this wouldn't be an option.

In short: You've been a positive influence on my life. I'm unequivocally sure you've been a positive influence on many others. Keep fighting the good fight.

Your friend,

Ross Brady


From: Joe Lima [mailto:bignuncio@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:14 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Copy of an email to Kevin Wildes

I'm sure you've heard enough on the mistakes you've made in the handling of your misconceptions about Walter Block so I'll be brief here.

I hope you feel suitably embarrassed about displaying zero critical thinking in your letter in your school paper by now. I think at the least you owe a public apology to a man you work with and probably should have spoken with before mischaracterizing and slandering him as well as an opportunity to rebut claims about what he said or debate those who differ with him.

Put simply, you have made a mistake here and it may be difficult to do the right thing but you will be better for it and the reputation of your university will be better for having greater diversity even if it means the possibility of having controversial views discussed.

Thank you for your time,
Joe Lima
From: Joe Lima [mailto:bignuncio@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:14 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Copy of an email to Kevin Wildes

I'm sure you've heard enough on the mistakes you've made in the handling of your misconceptions about Walter Block so I'll be brief here.

I hope you feel suitably embarrassed about displaying zero critical thinking in your letter in your school paper by now. I think at the least you owe a public apology to a man you work with and probably should have spoken with before mischaracterizing and slandering him as well as an opportunity to rebut claims about what he said or debate those who differ with him.

Put simply, you have made a mistake here and it may be difficult to do the right thing but you will be better for it and the reputation of your university will be better for having greater diversity even if it means the possibility of having controversial views discussed.

Thank you for your time,
Joe Lima
From: William Bowman [mailto:billbowman53@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 2:54 AM
To: walter block
Subject: Fwd: Hi there.

Don't hate me for understanding you and wanting to help! I hope this message meets with your approval, though I warn you it has already been received. Keep it up Dr. Block!!!
Bill Bowman, a fan
P.S. I sent this to your colleagues and university president 5 minutes before you sir

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: William Bowman
Date: Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:51 PM
Subject: Hi there.
To: lmurphy@loyno.edu, aladd@loyno.edu, bewell@loyno.edu, ccorprew@loyno.edu, llhope@loyno.edu, kfitzger@loyno.edu, aaparham@loyno.edu, Ahoward2@loyno.edu, tmelanco@loyno.edu, mikulich@loyno.edu, pbboyett@loyno.edu, jathibod@loyno.edu, eggers@loyno.edu, quant@loyno.edu, sweishar@loyno.edu, aalcazar@loyno.edu, lmartin@loyno.edu, jlhunt@loyno.edu, letter@loyno.edu, pres@loyno.edu

You don't know me. While you are free to denounce who you want, for reasons that you want, and one Dr. Walter Block would be the first to stand up for this natural right of yours, please know that as valiant as you think you are in the fight against oppression of people, Dr. Block is 99999 times more valiant than that (and in the opposite direction, as his efforts are of consequence and in the positive realm, and yours, though as of yet you seem still unaware, are sadly, in the negative). Please don't respond to me. Or, rather, you are welcome to respond after you look into this man, what he says, the context of the sentence and passage that he says it in, and apologize to him. After that, I welcome your response. Have a nice day!
Bill Bowman
P.S. Please join him in his effort to call out the New York Times. He is considering a libel case, which, interestingly, go against his basic principles, as he writes in "Defending the Undefendable." That is how right he is (and how wrong you are/were)!

Some Support for Walter Block
Michael S. Rozeff

Now that the President of Walter’s university is making public comments about Walter’s comments, I feel as if he is being ganged up against, and so I want to say that I don’t think the NY Times reporters or this president (Reverend Kevin Wildes) understood what Walter said. They didn’t grasp his meaning. They didn’t connect one sentence to the next in order to grasp the context. Walter has explained this himself, but I still want to add my two cents because Walter is a fellow scholar with a lot of courage, a champion of rational thought and argument, a real champion of libertarianism, and a bold thinker. He’s never shown the least hint of any prejudice or bias in any of his work that I’ve read, which is a fair amount. In fact he’s a defender of all sorts of groups and people that ordinary society discriminates against!
So, what did Walter say? Here’s the quote
“Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to ‘associate’ with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.”
Here’s my understanding of these words. Walter’s pointing out the importance of the freedom of association. That’s how the passage begins and how it ends. He argues that chattel slavery violated this right, and that was its central violation of liberty. He argues also that chattel slavery violated the slaves’ property rights in their own persons.
Since Walter believes in and constantly propounds libertarianism, he’s a strong supporter of both the freedom of association and of each person’s ownership of his own person. He therefore could not be a stronger critic of chattel slavery.
The failure of both the NY Times reporters and Wildes to acknowledge these facts about Walter’s libertarian critique of coercion and chattel slavery strongly suggests to me that they haven’t done their homework. If they had, they couldn’t criticize Walter for a belief he doesn’t hold.
Perhaps the phrase “slavery wasn’t so bad” was such a red flag to their emotions and ideas of political correctness that they couldn’t process the word “otherwise” and couldn’t assimilate the rest of the passage. Either way, their conclusions are based not just on shoddy scholarship but on no scholarship at all. The least wee bit of unbiased investigation would have shown where Walter stands.
I am being charitable to the reporters because I’m looking at this from a scholarly point of view. This doesn’t exclude other points of view. For example, Lew Rockwell has pointed out, accurately I think, that articles like the Times article that smears Walter and the Mises Institute are designed to “to demonize and destroy a school of thought that the regime considers threatening.”
Walter did not make the BALD claim that chattel slavery wasn’t so bad, as Wildes says. And he didn’t BALDLY or SIMPLY describe chattel slavery as not so bad, as the NY Times reporters wrote. Walter’s first 5 sentences described the tragic and evil condition of the slaves from the viewpoint of the basic abrogation of rights that they endured. They did not have their liberty to associate freely. They could not quit. They were forced to be where they were and do what they were made to do.
The key word that follows is this: OTHERWISE. “Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad.” That is to say, if the slaves had had freedom of association, then they wouldn’t have been slaves. Being made to work as slaves, being held against their wills, being beaten, being bought and sold, and having their families broken up were the consequences and manifestations of having their basic rights of association and self-ownership violated. Had these violations not occurred (otherwise), they could have sung songs, picked cotton, eaten gruel, much as did many free men of the period in this country and elsewhere who were poor. Otherwise, if people have freedom of association and self-ownership but are still poor peasants who sing songs, pick cotton and eat gruel, their lives are not so bad, i.e., not so bad as other free but poor men of the time and not so bad as if they were unfree and had lost control over most of their lives, their family lives, and much else.
Walter then went back to his point, which was that the real problem was not doing some things that many poor men did but being MADE to do them for their owners and against their wills because they had no freedom of association.
What about Woolworth and the 1964 legislation? We’re talking about this. Reverend Wildes makes this claim:
“Dr. Block makes the mistake of assuming that because of the Civil Rights legislation people would be compelled to associate with others against their will. The Civil Rights legislation did no such thing. What the Civil Rights legislation did was prevent places like Woolworth’s from excluding people because of their race.”
Wildes is wrong. Walter made no mistake, but Wildes has. To prevent A from excluding Q is to compel A to allow entry of Q onto A’s property and to compel A to serve Q. In this way, A is forced to associate with Q.
I hope it’s now clear why Walter, taking the libertarian view, is sensitive to forcing Woolworth or any business establishment to serve everyone. Freedom of association is far more important as a basic principle than approving government coercion to achieve a goal. Approving coercion for any social goal opens a Pandora’s Box. Indeed, Government coercion was historically an extremely important basis for chattel slavery, Jim Crow and then segregation. Getting rid of government coercion is therefore a high priority goal of the libertarian political philosophy.
From: Orlando Machado, Jr. [mailto:mcmachete@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:51 AM
To: pres@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu; Tom Woods
Subject: Response to Dr. Wildes' Letter to the Editor re: Walter Block

Dr. Wilde,

In your recent Letter to the Editor, printed at The Maroon on Feb. 6, you claim that "Dr. Block makes an assertion but gives no evidence for his assertion." His assertion being that slavery "was not so bad."

Indeed, sir, it is you who offer no evidence to your assertion. Had you read the context of his words, you would find that he does not make such a claim. The phrase came from his explanation that the fundamental problem with slavery - the key factor that makes slavery bad - is the lack of consent. Even the New York Times noted that Dr. Block "fault[ed] slavery because it was involuntary." That you were able to point out the "conceptually contradictory" nature of his alleged position relative to general libertarian theory should have clued you in to the fact that Dr. Block's position was being grossly mischaracterized.

Second, you are flatly incorrect in claiming that Civil Rights legislation did not compel people "to associate with others against their will." It is precisely what the legislation did (that is, aside from the positive aspects of the Act that overturned government-sponsored discrimination). You are of course correct that "[n]o one was forced to sit at the lunch counter," but those who owned and worked at the lunch counter were nonetheless compelled to serve these customers. The Act interferes with how ostensibly free individuals use their private property, as well as how they form mutually agreeable and beneficial contracts and associations. Now, you may argue that this compulsion against how individuals wish to interact with others is merely some necessary means to some beneficent ends. And I would certainly agree with you that discrimination based on physical or cultural characteristics is completely deplorable. I - and no doubt countless others - would certainly not patronize an establishment that behaved in such an abhorrent and uncivilized manner. But that doesn't change the fact that the legislation is, ultimately, one of compulsion.

Which means both of your refutations have proven to be baseless and wrong.

If these remarks were made in a paper for my class (presuming, that is, I taught a class), I would return the paper with a failing grade. This is hardly critical thinking. Rather it is a position filled with assertions, without argument or evidence, to gain attention (or, more precisely, to deflect attention).

Sincerely,

Orlando Machado Jr.
From: Chad [mailto:chad.eldaron@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:17 AM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu; wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Regarding Dr. Block: Shame On You

Dr. Wildes,
I am writing to express my outrage at the treatment of Dr. Walter Block at the hands of you and your faculty. It smacks of nothing more than cowardice to see such a champion of liberty thrown to the curb in the face of a blatant hatchet piece in the NYT. Anyone interested in truth should be lambasting the Times for publishing such a glaring mischaracterization. Sadly, few in academia have the courage to call out the Grey Lady for anything at this point. There are few universities that I respect much. I had given Loyola some credit for employing a man such as Walter, but I see it was only superficial.
Shame on you, and shame on your faculty for joining the mob rather than taking a moment to investigate beyond the quote in the NYT. Your willingness to throw Walter under the bus does not speak well of your loyalty to the truth.

Regards,
Chad E. Lust
Minnesota

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Reed [mailto:nathanreed@sunflower.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:20 AM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; imartin@loyno.edu; jhunt@loyno.edu
Subject: Reading and comprehension

Reference: Your commentary on the recent NYT article regarding Professor Walter Block’s professional work

Sir:

I do not personally know Mr. Walter Block. I have been reading Mr. Block’s commentary and professional work for 30 years. I have never ever found one single indication in any of his work that would indicate the slightest hint of any form of support for the mistreatment of another human being. If you can offer any of his written work or speeches (or actions on his part) in complete context that show this to be incorrect then I would certainly alter my opinion.

I can only draw one of two conclusions from your silly recent remarks regarding the NYT references to Mr. Block. Either you did not actually read any of the comments and Mr. Block’s actually writing and speaking or you have just decided to lie. I guess there could be the third possibility that you are incompetent with regard to your position.

The current formal academic culture is being replace by our ability to communicate and organize in new ways. You sir are a prime example of why that will be a very good outcome.

It is actually quite fun to watch administrators such as yourself struggle to find purpose and direction in the new evolving networked world. I suspect that a very large majority will not find their way. It is just sad that professionals such as Mr. Block are in a situation where large amounts of their time will be consumed by such pathetically silly lies by said struggling administrators.

I most anxiously look forward to receiving any documentation or references to documentation you can provide as evidence to support what appears to be pure lies.

Thank you,

Nathan Reed
From: Sean Parr [mailto:parrfection@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:27 AM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu
Subject: Principled Liberty

To whom at Loyola University, New Orleans it may concern,

I stand with Walter Block in both his condemnation of the institution of American slavery on the grounds of adherence to the non-aggression principle and his insistence that no law is just that prevents an individual or institution from excluding anything—person, action, or material item—from their own legitimately held property.
Both slaveholders and perverted laws are guilty of destroying the simple and sacred ideal of liberty (e.g., freedom from invasion). “A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.” -Bastiat

Sincerely,
Sean Parr, MPA

P.S.
Walter’s dissenters would be wise to seek a debate with him. If the Truth is what they seek, there is no fear in losing.
From: JR
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:44 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Fw: Walter Block


Dr. Block as per your request Im sending you a copy of this email that I sent to your university president and I also cc'd it to the faculty members listed on Tom Woods' site. Im just a fan of your work and I am no academic but I just had to voice my disappointment at Loyola. Continue to do the good work you do.
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:34 AM, JR wrote:
Dr. Wildes:

I recently came across your letter to The Maroon of 2/6/14 concerning Dr. Walter Block. It is disappointing but not surprising that you chose to work off of the NYT piece alone instead of getting a fuller picture from Dr. Block himself. I would think that someone who encourages "people to cultivate critical thinking" would have applied those skills to the article. Apparently critical thinking is a skill used only when it is convenient for you. You merely regurgitated the article's mischaracterization of Dr. Block's views without even having the decency to seek out his take on the article. Is this how you treat one of your own academic family members? Very bad form. Your letter really showed no critical thinking on your part. It would seem Dr. Wilde that you and the faculty treat articles from the NYT as if it were a papal bull or an encyclical from Rome. Thus speaketh New York.

Dr. Block wrote an article that explained the one sided piece here http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-block/scurrilous-libelous-venomous/. Ill leave it up to him to address your remarks about his "not so bad" description of slavery and his statements on the Civil Rights Act which you misrepresented. He was referring to the forced association of owners to serve not of consumers to patronize. I seriously doubt you'll read what he has to say. Its safer to believe in one side of the story especially when it reinforces your intellectual prejudices. If his views disturb you and the faculty, who also wrote a joint letter to The Maroon, than perhaps a serious academic panel to discuss this would be in order. Since no one has taken up his offer to debate him I doubt this will happen either. After all isn't sunshine the best disinfectant. This is your chance.

Dr. Wilde I must say that you represent a very poor example of the great scholastic tradition of the Jesuit order. As a Catholic myself I am embarrassed on behalf of Loyola University. I am not affiliated with Loyola University New Orleans but I heard Dr. Block speak in my city years back. He is a true gentleman scholar and a gem to your university. You should include in your sincerest prayers gratitude that your university is his teaching home. I don't expect you or his fellow faculty members to agree with him but to misconstrue his statements or refuse to hear him out before throwing him under the proverbial bus is shameful.


Sincerely,

Javier Ramirez



From: Madjd-Sadjadi, Zagros [mailto:sadjadizm@wssu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:54 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Character Assassination

Walter,

I read the absolute character assassination by the president of your university against you in the New York Times (as well as the original editorial that he reinforced). While I can expect such an attack from the illiberal institution that is the New York Times (in which you were what may be termed "collateral damage" in their attempt to take down Rand Paul), as for the president of your university (whose attack was direct and unrelenting), I really think that he really needs to sit in your class and actually learn to think critically about issues instead of becoming a mouthpiece for those who would seek to deny liberty to all. I wonder if he has even bothered to READ any of your writings. If he had, he would see that you are, by far, one of the most upstanding and fair citizens that I have ever had the good pleasure to know. Everyone in academia needs to come together to defend you, especially at this time, when you now apparently number among the "undefendable" that you so eloquently defended in your book. For without the right and the duty to speak when all others oppose your speech, we will lose our this fundamental freedom in a heartbeat and the cause of liberty will be extinguished from this land.

Zagros Madjd-Sadjadi, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
& Master of Healthcare Administration Coordinator
Winston-Salem State University
RJR 109
601 S. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive
Winston-Salem, NC 27110
(336) 750-2398
sadjadizm@wssu.edu


Dear Dr. Wildes:

No doubt you have received quite a bit of correspondence by now about Walter Block. I won’t rehash the main points. You are familiar with them already.

I will say that I find it impossible to believe that you, an intelligent man, believe your own interpretation of Walter’s remarks to the New York Times. You note that Walter’s comment about slavery seems to run counter to libertarian principles. You don’t say! Might that be an indication that the Times, which despises what Walter stands for, has distorted his views?

A university president ought to support his faculty in a case like this, in which he knows full well that a professor has been grotesquely mischaracterized. If this were an accurate rendering of Walter’s views, why was he considering a libel suit?

Had Walter been a left-wing professor accused of Stalinism, would you have been so quick to denounce him? The question answers itself.

This is why it is impossible to believe that any of this has to do with Walter’s remarks. You are not a fool. You know Walter, and you know where he stands. He has never kept his views a secret. You owed him better, and you failed him.

Now it’s true, you did communicate to the university community that your views are the conventional and respectable ones, and that you are not to be confused with Walter Block. We got that.

Some of your faculty, whom you should have rebuked rather than implicitly congratulated, treated Walter with a similar lack of charity.

Since the substance of your (and their) claims have been dealt with elsewhere, let me raise some relevant considerations:

(1) How many professors at Loyola University can say students have enrolled for the express purpose of studying with them?

(2) How many professors at Loyola University can say they have co-authored scholarly articles with their students – not once or twice, but dozens of times?

(3) How many professors at Loyola University have a big enough audience that it would even matter if they urged students to attend Loyola, as Walter constantly does?

(4) How many professors at Loyola University have over 400 peer-reviewed articles?

(5) How many professors at Loyola University would anyone anywhere in the country lift a single finger for?

(6) Oh, and how many professors at Loyola University, who preposterously accused Walter of “sexism” for denying that “discrimination” could explain the male-female wage gap, dared to face Walter in open debate? (Their decision not to try to debate Walter is a fleeting sign of intelligence among them.)

Yes, yes, I got the message: your faculty is against slavery. What courage they must have had to summon in 2014 to unbosom to the world their opposition to slavery!

But I wonder: would people who ostentatiously announce their opposition to slavery in 2014 have had the courage to oppose it when it counted – say, in 1850? I have my doubts that people so desperate to assure the world of their conventional opinions and how appalled and offended they are by heretics, would have been the sort of people to buck conventional opinion at a time when two percent of the American electorate supported an abolitionist political party.

What I know for a fact is that Walter Block would have opposed it, lock, stock, and barrel.

That you simply repeated the New York Times’ characterization of Walter Block, without even conceding, as the Times did, that Walter believed slavery was wrong because it was involuntary – so your behavior was worse than that of the Times, which is no mean feat – is bewildering and appalling in a university president, or indeed in a human being.

Long after every name on that faculty list is gone and forgotten, the work of Walter Block will continue to educate new generations in the principles of liberty. No one will recall the pygmies who attacked him out of spite or envy.

Cordially,
Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Ph.D.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Aragona [mailto:alexarag@rogers.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:47 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Libel: You Should Sue the NY Times and Condemn Loyala Faculty As Well

Dr. Block,

I am a university student in Canada majoring in both Business and Economics. I have been studying your works for some time now and have put many hours into watching your full lectures on YouTube.

It is quite clear to me that you in NO way support slavery or make light of the slavery era in the United States. The fact that the New York Times quoted you completely out of context to paint you in a light that seemed to say you were down-playing slavery, is absolutely unacceptable by them and does, in my opinion, qualify as character defamation. They have successfully painted a picture to the public of a racist economic school of thought and a racist political school of thought.

However when I was researching this issue further I cam across an open letter from faculty at Loyola University. I'm not sure if you've seen it but here is the link:

http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/letter-faculty-says-walter-block-s-claims-were-once-again-untrue-and-offensive-1.2854769#.Uvo-yfbY_qQ

From what I have seen, I believe that faculty members at Loyola are making conclusions about you publicly based off of false or misleading/misrepresenting information which means they too are guilty of character defamation.

As a Canadian student with an international perspective on America, it is clear to me (and many of my friends) that the NY Times misrepresented you and so have your own colleagues. It is amazing to me that American society has come to this point.

I'm not sure what help someone like me can be to you, but nevertheless I offer up my time if you need someone to witness on your behalf or something like that from an international perspective. I would have no problem representing Canada to Loyola University in condemning this nonsense.

I'm not necessarily sure how this will play out for you in weeks to come but I wish you the best of luck and I wanted you to know that there are MANY people all over the internet who are coming to your defines in the name of the actual truth.

Your friend in liberty and economics,

Alex Aragona

From: Chris Condon [mailto:rye1950@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:59 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: More on slavery

Dear Walter:
I don’t suppose that this is directly relevant to your predicament with the NYT, but slavery seems to be very hard to get rid of. I would remind you that it was right around the time that chattel slavery disappeared that socialism appeared. Socialism is just a new form of slavery, except that the slave owners are better educated, mostly went to Harvard, and wear Brooks Brothers suits. Incidentally, the arguments that socialists use today are similar to the arguments that the old slave owners used back in the days of chattel slavery: capitalism is ruthless and exploitative and socialism is necessary to protect the Little People. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Good luck with the NYT,
Chris Condon
From: Nick Constant [mailto:constantn@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:57 AM
To: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu; pres@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Slavery; By your definition.

Fr. Kevin Wildes and faculty members at Loyola:

I find it very hard to believe that Walter Block's comments in the New York Times have been so grossly misinterpreted by the lot of you.

In both of your rebuttals, you fail to recognize what Walter was saying: Without force and coercion, slavery would not exist. It's that simple.

The faculty's rant about the slaves being taken from their homelands and brought here in horrible conditions to work in the fields does not exist without force. If the slaves had come here to live and work under their own volition (and had received compensation for it), then the work that they would have been doing would not have “been so bad” because if it was, they would have been able to walk away from it. The fact that they were forced to come here, work, and even live in service to a master against their will is what made it slavery. Their call for censure of Mr. Block is ludicrous and reprehensible.

As far as Wildes's response, he ought to be ashamed. Mr. Block's statements cannot be misconstrued any more than he has misconstrued them. It's even hard to formulate a response to it because it is so juvenile. By Wildes's understanding of what slavery is, and his presumption of Mr. Block's endorsement of it, we still have rampant slavery in this country; There are still people in fields picking crops (or is it just work in general?). Unfortunately for your argument, we both know that this is not considered slavery because it lacks the compulsive aspect of the work.

The whole thing is silly and it wreaks of ulterior motives, both on the part of the New York Times and all of you.

-----Original Message-----
From: John A deLaubenfels [mailto:adaptune@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:25 AM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: The Walter Block imbroglio


Fr. Wildes,

I am horrified to learn of your treatment of Walter Block. To accuse him of being a supporter of slavery (or saying, "It was not so bad") is a deliberate distortion of his clearly stated views.

Your actions will inevitably bring disrepute on Loyola. Shame on you!

Sincerely,
John A deLaubenfels
From: Travis Province [mailto:travis.a.province@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:30 AM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu
Subject: Prof. Block and NYT

Dear Rev. Dr. Wildes,
I am sure by now you have received a great deal of correspondence regarding Professor Walter Block's recent comments in the New York Times. I am afraid that I must burden you with one more email.
The Times piece in question was itself a disgrace. It was, for lack of a better term, a hack job - and a blatant one at that. Indeed, if one reads the piece with even a minimal amount of care and attention, it is obvious that it was written with the intention of smearing Professor Block's reputation. This is especially clear if one has checked the correspondence between Dr. Block and the Times after the article was published. They made it quite clear that they were comfortable with their deliberate misrepresentation of Dr. Block's views. For this reason, Prof. Block went so far as to consider filing a lawsuit against the Times.
It is no secret that Dr. Block holds views that are outside of the mainstream, "acceptable" opinion - a spectrum that runs anywhere from Mitt Romney to Hillary Clinton. It is also no secret that the Times vehemently disagrees with Professor Block's libertarianism, so it is not exactly shocking that they would mislead their readers regarding Dr. Block's views. Moreover, as despicable as it is, it is not surprising that they would refuse to correct their piece and/or apologize for what they did.
And now I come to you, Fr. Wildes. As unsavory as the Times may have been during this ordeal, the fact that you and members of your faculty chose to publish letters condemning not the reprehensible behavior of the Times, but
instead ganging up on Prof. Block, is utterly inexcusable and many times worse than anything the Times could ever have done. What you and your faculty members did was cowardly and unbecoming of serious scholars - you have disgraced your University.
You and the entire faculty had the opportunity to stand behind one of your own from an unfair attack. You all presumably know Professor Block and where he stands. You all know full well that Dr. Block, as perhaps the most prolific libertarian scholar in the world, condemns slavery in all forms and at all times. While you may disagree with him on any number of issues, you had the chance to show the world that your University is a place of genuinely free academic inquiry and intellectual integrity. Instead, you chose to lick the boot of the New York Times. You, Fr. Wildes, and the faculty members who signed that disgusting letter in the university newspaper, should be ashamed of yourselves. You owe Dr. Block a public, written apology.
Sincerely,
Travis Province
From: Aragon, James (GE Capital) [mailto:James.Aragon@ge.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:35 AM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu
Subject: Walter Block

Reverend Kevin Wildes,

I have watched with wonder at the manner in which Pope Francis has reimagined how Catholicism is perceived. His humility is legendary, even to those of us who are not Catholic.

It would seem righteous if your institution would practice a similar note as it relates to Professor Walter Block. To hone in on a singular phrase without regard for context, thoughtful consideration of intent, or even a courtesy private consult, leaves Loyola University New Orleans at odds with Pope Francis’ own priorities of promoting peace and interfaith dialogue. I understand there is no overt theological point of contention, but certainly there is much to be discussed in how we understand the complexities our world. Professor Block’s contention that the problem with slavery is force does not seem controversial. We accept that interns are able to work for free. We acknowledge, though for many repulsively so, that sadomasochists voluntarily subject themselves to master-submissive roles. No, Professor Block argues that being forced to do so is immoral. And yet controversy ensues. I cannot pretend to know the motivations of yourself, nor your staff, but I do wonder why there seems to be little want to understand his argument. Could it be that an argument against force is compelling and undercuts much what your faculty holds dear?

I would urge your institution to relook at the manner in which it attempts to have a meaningful dialogue. If Professor Block were to agitate for force of any kind, such as enslavement, taxation, or a stronger national ‘defense’, then I would gladly join any attempt to ride him out your city. So long as that is not the case, I would encourage you to have meaningful dialogue. Your institution may even learn something.

These views are my own and do not represent those of General Electric.

James J. Aragón
Surveillance Manager, Surveillance & Governance
GE Capital - Retail Finance
T + 1-678-245-6402 C + 1-678-925-2263
Email: James.Aragon@ge.com
From: Robert Katz [mailto:robtkatz@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:37 AM
To: Robert Katz
Subject: Kevin Wildes fails elementary logic

Sayeth Kevin Wildes, University President of Loyola:

"... His [Walter Block's] second claim is an example of a fundamental logical mistake. In peaking of discriminatory lunch counters, Dr. Block makes the mistake of assuming that because of the Civil Rights legislation people would be compelled to associate with others against their will. The Civil Rights legislation did no such thing.

What the Civil Rights legislation did was prevent places like Woolworth’s from excluding people because of their race. No one was forced to sit at the lunch counter. The law simply made clear that people could not be excluded from the lunch counter because of their race."


I have not seen any of the fellows at the Mises Institute or the columnists at LRC point out the ignorance of the above mentioned statement. It is Fr Wildes who makes a fundamental logical mistake, not the honorable Walter Block:

Premise: The Civil Rights legislation would compel people to associate with others against their will.
Dr Wildes refutation of that premise: The law simply made clear that people could not be excluded …

Well, Fr Wildes does not understand the obvious. One can't exclude (for whatever reason) is tautologically equivalent to one must associate with, and must associate with is tautologically equivalent to compelled to associate with.

It seems that Fr Wildes did a good job of supporting what he claims he opposes; or looking at it another way, opposing what he claims he supports.

Perhaps if Fr Wildes took a remedial course in logic he might learn to think straight. Then he might take a course with Walter Block to learn something about economics and ethics.
Walter:

Here's the email I just sent to Fr. Wildes, cc: the faculty members and student newspaper that Tom listed on the video page. As you see, I'm also cc'ing Tom, Lew and Butler.

I've tried to phrase my remarks so that the recipients might read or at least skim them and not immediately hit delete. Tom made the obvious point. How many of these individuals would have had the courage to speak out against slavery or other prevailing norms if doing so had been dangerous and could have cost them their reputations and, perhaps, their careers and their livelihoods?

I didn't mention the countless and little known acts of care and kindness you've shown, over the years, to students, colleagues and others more numerous to mention, including myself. I didn't want to come off sounding like one of "Walter's boys."

I hope the outpouring of support will do some good, to you personally and to the issues that you speak to with the kind of courage and integrity that, these days, is all too rare in academia.

Best wishes,

Ed Smith
-------------------------------------
Dear Fr. Wildes:

I'm writing to you from Amherst, Massachusetts. Perhaps nowhere, during the antebellum years, did abolitionism enjoy such steadfast support.
Abolitionist meetings were held at the Dickinson and Huntington homesteads. Vehement condemnations of slavery were published in the Springfield Republican. A statue of Henry Ward Beecher, famed for his anti-slavery sermons, adorns the Amherst College campus. Lincoln is said to have remarked to Rev. Beecher's daughter, "So you're the little lady whose tale started this war."

Sixty miles to the east, in Concord, Henry David Thoreau, in his essay, "Slavery in Massachusetts," excoriated the Massachusetts legislature for willingly, if reluctantly, enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law. Some years earlier, the first slave in the U.S. to sue for his freedom resided in Barre, Massachusetts; and though the suit failed, the court's sympathetic opinion laid the basis for the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, the first state so to do.

These observations will be familiar to you and to the members of Loyola's faculty. I mention them because I believe that Prof. Block would qualify as a classical abolitionist and would have been recognized as such by his abolitionist peers whose views precisely mirrored Prof.
Block's own. The gravamen of Prof. Block's argument is quite logical. A relationship entered into voluntarily, with neither party under constraint to the other, harms neither, which, of course, is not the case with slavery. One may disagree with such an assertion. I have reservations about it. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the discussion ought to take place on that level, not on the level of the ad hominem which only strengthens an opponent's position.

The faculty's letter doesn't allege that Prof. Block endorses slavery.
The letter alleges that Prof. Block appears insensitive to the dehumanizing context in which the institution of slavery exists, American slavery in particular, and that his comments seem anachronistic and intemperate by today's standards. In that light, it seems to me that the feelings that such a reaction arouses were better communicated in private and not in the public forum where opportunities for misunderstanding abound.

Yours truly,

Ed Smith

From: Matthew Postell [mailto:postellmatthew@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 12:06 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Fwd: Defending the Defendable


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Matthew Postell
Date: Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:04 PM
Subject: Defending the Defendable
To: pres@loyno.edu

Dear Dr. Wildes,

I am disappointed with your remarks about Walter Block's misrepresented comment on slavery. I believe you owe Walter Block a sincere apology for the unscholarly review. I do not want to take anything away from your intelligence, but do you have any clue what the non-aggression principle actually means? Do you understand supporters of the non-aggression principle can in no way support involuntary slavery? Have you a clue? If you know Walter Block is a libertarian, and one who supports the non-aggression principle, how can you characterize his position in this way? Has Walter not been at Loyola for some time now? Has he not been an outspoken critic of coercion (slavery) and force (slavery) at Loyola? I have never met the man in person, but does he turn into Edward Hyde when he steps foot on your campus? Is he libertarian only half the time?It takes ten minutes or less to google Walter Block and see his articles stating the opposite of what you have stated. When I was in college I did just that, I googled this man to find out more about him and his views. After seeing him debate Dr. Bloyd Blundell on labor unions and minimum wage, I emailed him questions on his critique of Milton Friedman. He is the only professor that has ever taken the time out of his day to email me back answers to my questions (I've never been in his class nor did I go to Loyola University). I would have a hard time believing I would get the same courtesy from you.


Sincerely,

Matthew Postell


From: Philip Haddad [mailto:phaddad777@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 12:18 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Thank you

Dr. Block, it was a pleasure seeing you in Tampa for the Ron Paul Rally. I am the co-editor of the book Ron Paul Speaks and a fan.
I emailed the president of the college and BCC'ed the professors that publicly took at stance against you. I normally try to win others over by the love of Christ and grace so I apologize that I may had the wrong spirit when I angrily typed this out:

I was very disappointed to read that your name was attached to unnecessary and baseless attacks against Dr. Block. Dr. Block is a smart decent man who challenges intellects. He should be applauded, not ridiculed.

For you to come out and take a public stance against slavery makes a mockery of you. Everyone in the scope of this discussion certainly is against the practice and for you to make that position seems to take a pitiful swipe at Dr. Block as if he does not. If you understood his views and principles than there would be no confusion on the matter but instead it seems in your worldview ok to throw a fellow colleague under the bus to fit some PC narrative, and without so much decency as to open dialogue with the person in question.

Shame on you. I would like you to apologize to Dr. Block, it can be private though I prefer it to be public. Please affirm your commitment to liberty and free speech. I expect more from you and hopefully my trust can be restored once your appropriate actions redeem the aforementioned Godly stances.

Thank you in advance,
Philip Haddad


From: Tate Fegley [mailto:tatefegley@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 12:29 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Subject: Regarding Walter Block

Dear Dr. Wildes,
I wanted to take the liberty of responding to your letter to the editors of The Maroon regarding Walter Block. Though I have become disillusioned by the lack of intelligence shown by many of those in academia, I must say that I'm disappointed with your treatment of Dr. Block.
It seems utterly ironic that you claim to encourage the cultivation of critical thinking considering your evaluation of the New York Times article. I would assume that such critical thinking would lead one to do a number of things in your situation, including but not limited to:
Reading a quoted statement in context, particularly the one in question. To think that Dr. Block actually meant what you've accused him of meaning demonstrates that you made no effort in this regard.
Extending some charity in interpretation. You correctly point out that endorsing slavery would contradict the principles of libertarianism. How you could then think Dr. Block is contradicting himself rather than that you mistakenly attributed an assertion to him shows a lack of critical thinking.
Plainly making any effort at all to understand a position before criticizing it. Clearly, when Dr. Block claims that the Civil Rights Act compelled people to associate with others against their will, he wasn't asserting that anyone was being forced to sit at a lunch counter.
I had the fortune of meeting Dr. Block at a week-long economics seminar. I have never seen a professor more dedicated to educating students than he is. In the evening hours after the seminar's lectures, one could always find a large gathering of students around him, whose questions he would answer until the facilities were shut down for the night. His amiability and knowledge have left a deep impression on me.
I had considered attending Loyola University New Orleans to study under Dr. Block, but seeing how the faculty is treated and how no benefit of the doubt is extended has given me pause.
Sincerely,
Tate Fegley

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Graham [mailto:autofyrsto@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:43 PM
To: letter@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; pres@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: The New York Times misrepresented Prof. Walter Block

Hello Fr. Wildes and Loyola University faculty.

I'm writing this message to you in defense of Prof. Walter Block. I am not now nor have I ever been a student at Loyola University, so I'm not sure how much weight my opinion should carry. I am only a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who follows economic news from a libertarian perspective.

Having followed the work of Walter Block at Mises.org for at least the past seven years, I immediately understood, even before reading Prof.
Block's own response, that the New York Times misrepresented Prof.
Block's views on slavery. Of course, as a libertarian, I understand that Prof. Block abhors the kidnapping and forced labor perpetrated against Africans. The lesson I drew from Walter's self-clarification was that manual labor in the 18th and 19th century was hard for not just for slaves, but also for free laborers. I believe this is lesson is valuable, as many who have grown up in modern times take our current relatively high living standard for granted. Many go so far as to suggest, erroneously in my view, that free markets and modernization have caused a global harm. I believe academics like Prof. Walter Block are right to challenge this misapprehension at every opportunity.

Regarding Prof. Block's comments about the Civil Rights Act, his argument as I understand it is to liken business owners, required by law to engage in business, to slaves, required by law to serve their masters. I can certainly understand how this comparison is provocative and insensitive to both the historical and the modern victims of slavery. I believe the thrust Prof. Block's argument is that the two legal states of servitude differ not in kind, but vastly in degree.
Therefore, I do not find his comments to be outside the scope of legitimate academic discussion and debate.

I hope you will reconsider Prof. Block's comments with more deference to him, and in light impressive academic credentials.

Thank you,

Tim Graham
autofyrsto@gmail.com

From: markmcintosh58@comcast.net [mailto:markmcintosh58@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 4:42 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Copy of a letter I sent

Here is a copy of the letter I sent. I am a big fan of your willingness to say what you believe to be correct, even if I don't agree with you on everything.


Dear Fr. Wildes,

I just wanted to weigh in on Walter Block and the recent controversy. I wouldn't describe myself as a hardcore libertarian by any stretch of the imagination, but I watched a John Stossel special on Walter Block's book Defending the Undefendable a few years back. The show and subsequently reading his book certainly influenced the way I view economics. It helped me realize how much of what seems intuitively correct is in reality false. It also made me respect Professor Block for his intellectual honesty and his willingness to apply proper economic thinking to politically incorrect topics.

Given that background of taking on controversial issues, I was very disappointed that you took Walter Block's comments, that were taken completely out of context, at face value. He was saying that the labor part of slavery was not the problem. People throughout the world have harsh working conditions. It was the working against your will that was the problem. That is the problem with slavery. He was in no way defending the institution of slavery and I can see no way that a reasonable person would interpret his comments that way.

Secondly, I happen to think that the Civil Rights Act was a necessary government involvement to correct prior governmental errors. But you are absolutely wrong to think that the private accommodation part of the Civil Rights Act is somehow libertarian or that it didn't violate free association and property rights. I'm guessing other people have emailed you and addressed your bizarre statement on this.

Academic settings should be places where debate is vigorous. Your response and the cowardly response by other Professors over Walter Block's comments a couple of years ago about gender and race wage gaps are why people think college campuses are so intolerant. The views expressed on the wage gaps are views that are certainly not controversial to anyone with any understanding of basic economic theory. Professor Block's views on the Civil Rights Act and the gender pay gap are very much in line with Milton Friedman thought as well as other Nobel Prize winners. Academics should hold the pursuit of truth as their chief goal in research. Though it seems too often that confirmation of a very narrow, liberal world view has become the goal.

Thank you,

Mark McIntosh
To The Editor,
>
> The libertarian non-aggression principle says any action two consenting
> adults agree on is not a violation of their individual rights, as long as
> it does not violate the rights of others. It�s logical then that
> everything slaves have done would have been okay if they were done by
> mutual consent. That�s Dr. Walter Block�s message.
>
> Follow the logic and it make perfect sense.
>
> Warm regards, Michael
>
> Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D.
> Clinical Psychologist
> San Francisco
> 415-673-2848 (24/7)
>
From: Lake Hearne [mailto:wlhearne@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 7:37 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Slaverygate

Dear Dr. Block,

I was not aware that the NYT-created Slaverygate issue had legs and had staggered back to your place of employment until I visited Tom Woods’ site.
Are your detractors among the Loyola faculty actually that dopey, or have they abandoned all intellectual integrity, and shame, when it comes to defending the State?
Particularly shocking is the letter from Fr. Wildes wherein he dared to bring up "critical thinking."
If he were not the president of a university, Fr. Wildes' response would be laughable.
Fr. Wildes accuses you of making a logical mistake regarding freedom of assembly in connection with lunch counters, while ignoring the fact that a “counter” necessarily involves two sides.
While it is true that "No one was forced to sit at the lunch counter” by government compulsion, it is equally true that the owner of the counter was forced by threat of violence to serve others against his will.
Under Fr. Wildes’ logic, Jesus’ crucifixion involved no government coercion because the Roman soldiers who nailed Jesus to the cross voluntarily worked in tandem.

I just wanted to send you an email of wholehearted support. You are truly a remarkable person.


Lake Hearne
http://www.cookyancey.com/attorney-profiles/w-l-hearne/

From: Victor Skakandy [mailto:vskakandy@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:17 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Loyola

Walter
I sent the following letter to pres@loyno.edu as well as the faculty mentioned by Tom Woods.
You are terrific!
Dear Sir:
I cannot imagine what you are thinking with the attack on Walter Block. I have listened to dozens of his presentations from Australia to Canada and back to the U.S. He almost always starts off discussing nonaggression principles, and how everyone has the right their person, and at the same time must keep their mitts off of others.
In addition, I have heard him discuss how native Americans might have a difficult time proving land claims, but that descendants of slaves are likely to have a written record to support a claim on a southern plantation. He has specifically discussed reparations for slaves and how those claims would be supportable and consistent with his philosophy.
It seems that 100 years of failed progressive policies from government to education have made your side desperate.
Walter is a serious scholar and you should be ashamed for acting like a coward and not defending him.
Victor L Skakandy
Richmond, VA

Selective Pseudomoral Outrage
This note is written in response to two letters that appeared on your Editorial page on February 7, 2014. I was not surprised by the tone of the joint letter from the Loyola faculty group in the Maroon, though I must say that I checked the spelling of the publication’s name to ensure that it did refer after all to a color rather than my mistaken initial flash impression that it might have made pejorative reference to the writers’ cognitive status. Their letter evidently appeared in response to the distorted New York Times report mentioning “Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who described slavery as ‘not so bad,’” etc. That newspaper writer apparently had an agenda (guilt by association of Rand Paul with Walter Block and any of his ideas that can be misconstrued to influence uncritical readers).
One can expect the privileged (as academics are, regardless of their University home) easily to sacrifice principles, particularly those triggered by rhetorical devices (e.g. irony) which they appear not to understand, and concepts (e.g. freedom of thought) with which they seem not to agree. But I was astonished at what appears on its face to be the sycophantic tone of the letter from Loyala’s University President, for which one of the few defenses might be that he was unaware of Dr. Block’s real – not misrepresented – positions. George Orwell would recognize the intrinsic logical inversion and the resultant destructive effects it might have.
The idea that Walter Block (or Rand Paul, for that matter) might be an enthusiast of slavery or to have any interest or ability to revere or reinstitute that horrific institution makes about as much sense as imagining that Rosa Parks, had she managed to gain more social clout than she did, would have mandated ethnically gerrymandered seating on motor coaches; or that Mahatma Gandhi, similarly gaining the upper hand politically rather than morally in India, would have made mandatory the carrying of firearms by his supporters, the better to enforce their strategy of nonviolent resistance. Come on.

Although my family was not Roman Catholic, they sent me to a Catholic parochial grade school for nine years, believing that I would get a better education there than in the local public schools. They were right. The Sisters of Charity and Franciscan priests helped shaped my skills in critical thinking and moral balance. Thus it is odd to me that these aspects of character seem currently to be in such short supply at an institution with the pedigree of Loyola.

To me (though he might not share my opinions) Walter Block seems strikingly to think and write in the mold of the great Catholic apologist G. K. Chesterton. I could adduce many quotes in support of this postion. Here are a few of the most cogent:

“If you attempt an actual argument with a modern paper of opposite politics, you will have no answer except slanging or silence.” – Chapter 3, What’s Wrong With The World, 1910

“Modern man is staggering and losing his balance because he is being pelted with little pieces of alleged fact which are native to the newspapers; and, if they turn out not to be facts, that is still more native to newspapers.” – Illustrated London News, 4/7/23

“It is the mark of our whole modern history that the masses are kept quiet with a fight. They are kept quiet by the fight because it is a sham-fight; thus most of us know by this time that the Party System has been popular only in the sense that a football match is popular.” – A Short History of England, p.156.

The New York Times reporters, having little to say of substance about either Rand Paul or Walter Block, manifestly have resorted to the devices of a sham fight. It’s not an intellectually powerful approach, but it seems to have been sufficient to trigger reflexive reactions of selective pseudomoral outrage in some of the administrative and faculty masses at Loyola. Your University and our country deserve better.

Sincerely,
Robert B. Eckhardt, Ph.D.
State College, Pnnsylvania
From: Sasha Klein [mailto:sashanklein@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:50 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Fwd: Walter Block



Sasha
561-703-5256

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sasha Klein
Date: Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:49 PM
Subject: Walter Block
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: murphy@loyno.edu, aladd@loyno.edu, bewell@loyno.edu, ccorprew@loyno.edu, llhope@loyno.edu, kfitzger@loyno.edu, aaparham@loyno.edu, Ahoward2@loyno.edu, tmelanco@loyno.edu, mikulich@loyno.edu, pbboyett@loyno.edu, jathibod@loyno.edu, eggers@loyno.edu, quant@loyno.edu, sweishar@loyno.edu, aalcazar@loyno.edu, lmartin@loyno.edu, jlhunt@loyno.edu, letter@loyno.edu

It has come to my attention that you and your faculty seem to have willfully misrepresented Walter Block's views in order to smear him.

As a reader of Mr. Block's for quite some time, your accusations couldn't be further from the truth. His intellectual support of equality and Freedom are unparalleled in the scholarly world.

Moreover, as a parent who once considered your university as a potential school for my children, I'm appalled that a so called institution for higher learning would be so careless and vicious.

Mr. Block's views are well publicized and your knee jerk reaction to label him a racist serves as a huge disservice to your university.
I suggest that in an effort to salvage your good name, you issue a public apology and rescind your slanderous accusations of Mr. Block.
Sincerely,


Sasha K.
From: John DeGaray [mailto:johndegaray42@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:13 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Professor Block

Hello,

This message is in regards to the letter posted by you entitled Walter Block has made too many assumptions and contradictions. The title of your letter pretty much sums up the lack of understanding you have for Block's positions. Contradictions? Are you kidding me? He is the one of the most logically consistent philosophers of all time.If you have a disagreement with him then you should debate him and discuss your point of view. I for one would pay to see that. Thank you for your time.

John



















From: chrisrossini@gmail.com [mailto:chrisrossini@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Chris Rossini
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:44 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: In Your Corner

Hi Walter,

Just wanted to send you a quick note of confidence. You obviously have a wonderful libertarian community at your back. You can add me to the list.

It's very tough to see the slimeball establishment twist a total fiction.

As usual, and fortunately, you have truth on your side. Truth always wins out.

Your friend,

Chris Rossini
Executive Producer | The Robert Wenzel Show
Columnist | EconomicPolicyJournal.com
(609) 442-3172 | Follow @ChrisRossini

-----Original Message-----
From: Prof Dr Chung Boon Kuan [mailto:chungbk@mail.utar.edu.my]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:33 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Does Libertarianism means you can say anything
Dear Prof Block,
I was sadden by your University President's letter against you. I felt laughable as to who was the one without critical thinking: the one who accepted the mainstream/majority opinion without questioning, or the one who deprecate intellectual subjects. As usual, intellects do not necessarily able to think critically, or see the truths that are so obvious. Anyway, I hope thing will work out well, and that he can be enlightened to understand Libertarianism better.
Best regards,
BK Chung

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/further-support-for-walter-block/
Further Support for Walter Block
Michael S. Rozeff
Here is what one person wrote to me:
“As I read it, Walter was stating the obvious.
“Consider my grandfather working the coal mines of eastern PA from the 1920′s to the 1960′s. He worked under horrendous conditions, watching coworkers occasionally die on the job. So the work is not the issue. The issue is the property right to self. My grandfather could have left his job at any time (assuming his company bill was paid), the slave could not. And that is the essence of what Walter was stating.”
From: Thomas Collord [mailto:thomascollord@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 4:06 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Keep your spirits up

Hi Dr. Block, I wrote you last year as a result of one of your many interesting articles and talks.

Hang in there with the NYT silliness, and I hope things are fine in your department at LNO.

Your invitations caused me invite my niece and a young cousin, both in the US, and young colleagues from Europe, to consider going to your school and studying economics.

Sincerely,
Tom Collord
CPA, Amsterdam, Netherlands
From: Art Thomas [mailto:art.thomas@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:33 AM
To: msroz@buffalo.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Block and Ridiculing NYT Nonsense

"Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc."

Whether Walter meant it or not, but even within its explanatory content, the above comment is the perfect laugh- in-your-face ridicule that the NYT reporters and Loyola president deserve. Walter yanked their chain!

No one said it better than Thomas Szasz. He opens the introduction to his book The Untamed Tongue with these
words:
" Serious error would seem to require serious argument to refute it. While this may be true in the hard sciences which deal with material objects, it is not true in the social sciences which deal with human affairs. Indeed, faced with the pretentious solemnity of official Nonsense, evidence and reason are helpless. Our only effective weapon against it is laughter, especially the laughter of ridicule."

I can imagine Walter chuckling to himself when he uttered those infamous words.

Art Thomas
From: Landon Gates Tucker [mailto:lgtucker@my.uno.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:17 AM
To: pres@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Dr. Walter Block

Good Morning,

I wanted to quickly write you all and express my disappointment with your recent denouncement of Dr. Block’s comments in the media. While you might not agree with his reasoning or his comments, to publicly shame him by printing statements out of context is deplorable. I am a catholic and I am disappointed with your rejection of diverse opinions; even if they are of a sensitive nature.

Dr. Block is a brave critical thinker in this atmosphere of “political correctness”.


Landon Tucker
3740 Pontiac St.
Metairie, La. 70002
504-638-8074


-----Original Message-----
From: Yaakov Markel [mailto:yaakovmarkel@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:33 AM
To: pres@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu
Cc: Walter Block
Subject: Walter Block

Bs'd


To whom it may concern,

I was deeply disappointed to hear recently how strongly Walter Block is being attacked for some truly innocuous comments. It seems to me that there are more important things to criticize in his work than the utterly imaginary charge that he could be pro-slavery. He's outspoken on many subjects and I'm sure he's wrong sometimes.

As anyone who has read literally any of Walter Block's work or heard him speak could tell you, Walter is one of the biggest expounders of something called the Non-Aggression Principle. You seem to be be unfamiliar with it and it truly saddens me that academics such as yourselves would attack someone so blindly.

I'll explain the NAP here in short: It is illegitimate to use aggressive violence or the threat of violence against innocent people to coerce, or otherwise injure them or their property. This means that slavery is out. Period. One person cannot enslave another. No ifs ands or buts. The only proper use of violence is in self defense.

When Walter said that slavery was "not so bad" he was referring to the specific conditions and not the violent coercion of human beings into forced labor. Had you actually read what he said you'd know that he was simply talking about the work itself, the food, and the other general living conditions. Sure, slaves picked cotton. So did many other people who were not slaves and did so voluntarily either in their own fields or as employees in the fields of others. Slaves in the south couldn't read but neither could much of the rest of the population. Slaves ate simple foods and endured other rough conditions but those things are not evil in and of themselves. What was the specific problem which makes slavery a terrible thing that must be eradicated from the world? The violation of the Non-Aggression Principle in forcing blacks to labor through the use of violence and the threat of violence is what makes slavery evil.

I'm sure you all were enrolled in kindergarten at some point in your lives. Some more recently than others so maybe the memory is fresher. I'd like to remind you of some lessons you were hopefully taught there: Don't hit. Don't take things that aren't yours. Don't yell at or threaten others. Keep your hands to yourself.

Unless you disagree with these simple rules for civilized life, you are all actually in agreement with Walter on more than you realize. Please look at some of his works. Read his books, watch his lectures, walk down to his office and have a conversation with him. I'm sure he'd love to talk to you. Find out what you agree on and how much Walter has fought to end every kind of slavery that exists. Maybe you'll find that you actually agree with him. I hope you'll do all of this and that you'll realize the error of this attack. An apology couldn't hurt either.

Respectfully,
Yaakov Markel
From: Levi Russell [mailto:levi.ksu@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:45 AM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu; walter block
Subject: Your denunciation of Walter Block

Dr. Wildes,

I was recently made aware of a letter ( http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/letter-walter-block-has-made-too-many-assumptions-and-contradictions-1.2854765#.UvusbvldV1C ) you wrote denouncing Dr. Walter Block. That anyone who is in charge of managing a faculty would so viciously attack one of their own faculty based on the words of any outside source (especially one so clearly full of bias as the New York Times) is appalling. You should very much be ashamed of yourself. You have denounced someone who is clearly your most productive faculty member. You have willfully chosen to ignore his attempts to clarify his position. It seems to be your position that Dr. Block's body of work (several books and over 400 peer-reviewed articles) can be summed up in one silly article by the NYT.

It is very clear to me and many others that you are not managing your relationship with Dr. Block with anything approaching Christian Charity. We Catholics are called to approach all of our relationships in life with patience and love. Taking pot shots at your own people is not at all in line with that principle.

Dr. Wildes, you owe Dr. Block a public, written apology. You also owe him a public forum in which the two of you discuss the issue. You have chosen to denounce him publicly based on a silly caricature of his views and academic work. It is upon you now to right your mistake.

This man should be praised for advocating freedom (in fact, much of his work is consistent with the work of Thomas Aquinas and other scholars working in the Thomistic tradition), not denounced for a mischaracterization of his views. Next time you want to publicly denounce your employees, at least give them the common courtesy of attacking their ideas, not silly caricatures.


In Christ,



Levi Russell, PhD
From: Michael Degaray [mailto:mikedegaray@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:15 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu
Subject: Shameful

Fr. Wildes,

You and many of the staff at Loyola University have demonstrated a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. Denouncing slavery in 2014? How brave of you. Of all the people to call contraindicated, you chose Walter Block. What a joke.

I have one question for the faculty of Loyola: do you think Africans would have submitted themselves to the atrocities described in your letter had the relationship with the human traffickers and slave owners not been compulsory?

The truth is Walter Block's work will become more popular with time, and he will be remembered for his contributions long after he is dead. The same will not be said for the rest of you.

--
Mike DeGaray


-----Original Message-----
From: steven@landsburg.com [mailto:steven@landsburg.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 12:15 PM
To: aalcazar@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; pres@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; steven@landsburg.com; sweishar@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; Walter Block
Subject: cc of letter to president wildes


Dear Mr. Wildes:

I write as one who shares your deep dismay over a great number of things that Walter Block has neither said nor implied. I write also as one who shares your condemnation of "slavery enforced against someone's free will". In fact, Walter Block (another thinker who shares our view) put this quite well when he said that "The real problem was that [slavery] was compulsory". Perhaps you'd like to quote him with approval the next time you write on this subject.

There are a couple of things that baffle me though, and I'd love to hear your responses.

1) Walter says that, except for its compulsory nature, chattel slavery was "not so bad". You call this an empirical claim. But actually it can be interpreted in any of several ways. One possible interpretation is that nothing, as a matter of principle, can be all that bad as long as one is empowered to walk away from it. That's a principled claim, not an empirical one. My question is: Did it occur to you that this is quite plausibly what he meant?

2) Suppose, though that Walter's claim was in fact empirical --- that is, suppose that he intended to say that the material conditions of slavery were not so bad. According to you, that claim is "simply wrong". So you and he have made dueling empirical claims. You also suggest that Walter is at fault for making an empirical claim without supporting evidence. I note that you made your own empirical claim with exactly zero supporting evidence. My question is: Why is okay for you to make empirical claims without supporting evidence, but not okay for Walter to do the same?

3) Because you're so sure that Walter's "empirical claim" is incorrect, I infer that you're well versed in the relevant literature, especially "Time on the Cross" and the critical literature it spawned. My question is: Which parts of that literature did you find most convincing?

4) I am dismayed by your blindness to the clear analogy being forced to work someone else's land and being forced to serve someone else's lunch. (Are these exactly the same thing? Of course not. That's why the word "analogy" was invented.) Of course we all have our
blind spots, but many of us went into academics precisely because we enjoy having our eyes opened and seeing things in new ways. Indeed, many of us are particularly delighted (and grateful) when our own students show us new ways to see the world. But you've proudly announced that if any of *your* students were to argue cogently about this matter you would both resist enlightenment and punish the student with a failing grade. My question is: Why would a man with such deep-seated hostility toward clear thinking choose an academic career in the first place?


Sincerely,

Steven E. Landsburg


-----Original Message-----
From: Walter Block
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 5:43 PM
To: 'steven@landsburg.com'
Subject: RE: your mail

http://www.thebigquestions.com/2014/02/13/block-heads/

Dear Steve:

I'm launching a law suit against you. I was rolling on the floor, laughing so hard, that I got stomach cramps. This is all your fault.

I admit it. This is a great improvement on a magnificent first try.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318 New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fac: (504)864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
http://www.walterblock.com/
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/
http://samesideentertainment.com/talent/dr-walter-block/
https://www.facebook.com/wblock2
WalterBlock.com: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock

If it moves, privatize it; if it doesn't move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or doesn't move, privatize everything.


-----Original Message-----
From: steven@landsburg.com [mailto:steven@landsburg.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:44 PM
To: steven@landsburg.com; Walter Block
Subject: your mail


Walter:

>
> Rewriting perfection? You could only make it worse (:)).

I hope you're wrong. I just rewrote a bit, and posted to my blog at www.TheBigQuestions.com . You are still welcome to share my original letter, but I do think the blog post is better and you might want to share that instead.



From: J. Mark English [mailto:jmenglish@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:17 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Fwd: Walter Block Walks with a Mirror


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: J. Mark English
Date: Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:17 PM
Subject: Walter Block Walks with a Mirror
To: pres@loyno.edu

Dear Father Wildes,

I am writing to express my support for Professor Walter Block.

Professor Block is a critical thinker, and sees the world through the proper perception of what is right and what is wrong. We inherently know that the individual seeks to live in balance. Speaking for myself, I do not seek to inflict harm on any other being. Nor, would I want them to do harm on to me.

If I myself as an individual could convince you that no individual should do harm to another, in the same manner that the individual does not want harm done to myself - this being held in principal can set a proper guideline for human behavior.

If the individual should not act in a harmful manner to another - even for reasons of disputes of politics, gender, race, or belief system - than neither should one 'group' be able to do so to another 'group'.

For no group of people actually exist in material. A group is a descriptor which describes the gathered individuals. But the group is still just individuals making decisions collectively against another individual or groups of individuals.

Taxation is a form of a group imposing its collective will against an individual.

Fundamentally speaking, how is this any worse than slavery? If slavery is the taking of the results of labor out of threat of violence, then isn't taxation a from of slavery?

Does it matter if it is not 100% of your labor capital?

If you only hurt me a little, instead of killing me, is it not still wrong of you to hurt me just a little? Are you really taking the position that Professor Block is wrong to point out the inconsistency in strong opposition to slavery, but not your strong opposition to compulsive taxation?

And furthermore, is it not also fair to be shown the results of what has happened since the end of slavery?

Please understand that these are not rhetorical questions.

Thank you for your time.

Warm regards,
J. Mark English
--
J. Mark English
Cell - (914) 672-2537

--
J. Mark English
Cell - (914) 672-2537

From: J. Mark English [mailto:jmenglish@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 12:42 PM
To: letter@loyno.edu; pres@loyno.edu
Cc: walter block
Subject: The Logical Professor Block

Dear Father Wildes,

I am writing to express my support for Professor Walter Block.

Professor Block is a critical thinker whose arguments are based on the long standing tradition of dealing with ethics.

His position on chattel slavery is not from a mystical feeling of injustice. Rather, it is based on logical reasoning. He is incredible consistent in his application of the Golden Rule.

For example:

We inherently know that the individual seeks to live in balance. Speaking for myself, I do not seek to inflict harm on any other being. Nor, would I want them to do harm on to me.

If I myself as an individual could convince you that no individual should do harm to another, in the same manner that the individual does not want harm done to myself - this being held in principal -can set a proper guideline for human behavior.

If the individual should not act in a harmful manner to another - even for reasons of disputes of politics, gender, race, or belief system - then neither should one 'group' be able to do so to another 'group'.

For no group of people actually exist in material. A group is a descriptor which describes the gathered individuals. But the group is still just individuals making decisions collectively against another individual or groups of individuals.

Taxation is a group imposing its 'collective will' against an individual.

Fundamentally speaking, how is this any worse than slavery? If slavery is the taking of the results of an individuals labor through the threat of violence, then isn't taxation a from of slavery?

Does it matter if it is not 100% of your labor capital?

If you only hurt me a little, instead of killing me, is it not still wrong of you to hurt me even if it is just a little?

It is not an act of bravery in 2014 to take a strong stance against chattel slavery. If the year was 1850, I would commend you. However, in 2014, most people, especially in academia outright, reject chattel slavery.

But some still argue for the 'right' of authority to demand an involuntary tribute to the state. The individual may not be compelled to give over 100% of his labor. But a taxpayer is still giving over part of his labor by force or a threat of force.

The Catholic Church asks for voluntary tithing. I believe a good tither is expected to give 10% of their labor back to the Church - voluntarily.

This is not the case with the state, and it is certainly much more then 10%.

Professor Block is attempting to stick his neck out to make the logical claim that any compulsive force in the form of theft is wrong. Not matter if it is 100% or .001%.

Thank you for your time.

Warm regards,
J. Mark English

--
J. Mark English
Cell - (914) 672-2537



The state is a gang of thieves writ large. - Murray Rothbard


From: smross7 [mailto:smross7@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:20 AM
To: pres@loyno.edu; Walter Block
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu
Subject: A Letter of Regret From a Jesuit Student

Fr. Kevin Wildes,

My name is Sean Ross, a 2010 Alumnus of Regis University in Denver, CO. I hold a B.S. in Economics and Political Economy, and perhaps more importantly I am a practicing Catholic educated in the Jesuit tradition. While what follows is a message sent to Loyola, it very well could be directed at any staff in any of the outstanding Jesuit centers of learning around the world.

The subject of this message is the grossly unfair and deeply saddening treatment of one of Loyola's own, Dr. Walter Block. I have known of Dr. Block for many years and he has even been kind enough to return my correspondence when I made such efforts. He is a great ambassador for logical reasoning, economic and moral philosophy and the debate of ideas. He is also a great ambassador for Loyola. I am now honored to speak in his defense.

The Jesuits at Regis encouraged, not surprisingly, a openness of mind and heart to new ideas, a willingness to advocate for and give aid to the needy and the disadvantaged, and to not be afraid to disagree with anyone (so long as the dispute be peaceful and fair). That last point is crucially important to the history of the Jesuit order. Their own complicated past with the "established" beliefs of the church in Rome is, and should be, worn as a badge of pride by those in the Ignation tradition.

That Dr. Block has unique (at times contrarian) theories or beliefs should be championed by those with a love of learning. I have both read articles and watched full-length videos of Dr. Block's lectures about the Marital Asymmetry Hypothesis, about Evolutionary Psychology, and about gender and race wage gaps in the United States. I found them to be intellectually provocative and challenging. I found them to be presented fairly. And I have seen Dr. Block's willingness to have these ideas challenged in open forums - the proper battlegrounds of truth in ideas and learning, at least as I was taught at Regis.

To my shame as a former student, I have not seen Loyola respond in kind. I have not seem Loyola (nor The New York Times) challenge these views in an honest fashion. Instead, through public letters of preemptive condemnation, I have seen both your university and yourself figuratively toss this new belief to the lions. To act as if the marketplace of ideas is rather a machine of propriety - those who dissent are treated as the pariah, as the uncouth, or even worse as the racist and the sexist. No reasoning given. No honest appraisal of the controversial views. Nothing fair and nothing just.

So this is a Letter of Regret. This is a letter of regret in seeing that the response of this Jesuit institution to an alternative view, once a hallmark of their tradition, is akin to that of a witch-burning. To burn these different and improper views, to distort the representation of those views in the public eye, to teach the students of the University to distance themselves from, and to condemn, those who offer alternative reasoning.

Having no authority to do so, I humbly ask that you recant your statements about Dr. Block, that you use this opportunity to engage the student population of the University in the battleground of ideas, and that if you have respectful disagreement that you take up the debate as your weapon. Not establishment group-think and condemnation.

I'll leave you with a passage from Romans: "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is acceptable and perfect."

Sincerely,

Sean Ross
From: Chris W. Surprenant [mailto:chriswsurprenant@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:01 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: support slavery?

Walter,

These people are idiots. Not much can be done about that.

Chris



---
Chris W. Surprenant
Assistant Professor of Philosophy &
Director of the Tocqueville Project in Law, Liberty, and Morality
University of New Orleans
New Orleans, LA 70148
(504) 280-6819
chriswsurprenant.com
tocquevilleproject.org
From: James Hines [mailto:hine1476@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:55 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Fwd: In Defense of Walter Block

Dear Walter,

Here is my letter to Dr. Wildes.

All the Best!,

James Hines


Begin forwarded message:


From: James Hines
Subject: In Defense of Walter Block
Date: February 12, 2014 at 9:53:28 PM EST
To: pres@loyno.edu

Dear Dr. Wildes,

I am writing to ask that you either
summarily issue a letter apologizing to
Walter Block for your comments condemning
Dr. Block as a person who believes that
“Slavery was not so bad” in your letter of February6,
2014 in the Loyola Maroon
()
OR that you offer Walter Block an opportunity to discuss
the matter with you in a public forum on the campus
of Loyola University of New Orleans.

I can certainly understand that you might have been
alarmed to read an article in the New York Times
in which Walter Block, a professor at Loyola, was characterized
as saying that the institution of slavery was “not so bad”.
And, yes, if you were firmly convinced that a member of
the faculty at Loyola of New Orleans had in fact said such a thing
and meant precisely that and that such comments were not offered
in a sarcastic tone or the like that you might wish to discipline
him in any number of ways.

That said, I should think that you would also have at least
as much interest in defending any member of your faculty
if their sentiments on such a controversial subject may have been
misconstrued or misrepresented by a member of the press. And,
had you been so sincerely interested in the welfare of each and every
member of your faculty, I should reasonably expect that you would have
called that member of your faculty and invited them to your office so that
you might have determined whether or not they had in fact said and did
in fact believe what they were reported to have said in no less notorious a
paper than the New York Times.

Of course, I think we both know that you did not extend any such
courtesy to Dr. Block before you presumed to draft a letter condemning
Dr. Block for actually holding sentiments which he does NOT in fact hold
and THEN for SUBMITTING your condemnation of Dr. Block on the basis of
such false pretenses for publication.

Had you been so kind as to extend Walter Block an opportunity to meet with you
to discuss the sentiments which were falsely attributed to him by Mr. Tanenhaus
and the New York Times you would, in fact, have been extending no less a kindness
to yourself. For, IF you had availed yourself of the opportunity to discuss the sentiments
attributed to Walter Block by the Times, you would have afforded yourself the opportunity
to actually learn that Walter not only does not hold but positively abhors the very sentiments
which Mr. Tanenhaus and the New York Times have ascribed to him in the article concerned.

Had you afforded Walter the opportunity to discuss this with you before submitting your
letter condemning Walter for publication, you would have afforded yourself the opportunity
to hear Walter tell you, in person, what he has subsequently explained in an article published on
the website of the Economic Policy Journal (titled “How NUT Mischaracterized My Views on Slavery
(And What I Tried to Do About It)”.

Among other comments made in that article, Walter Block explains…

"I spent more than just several hours with Mr. Tanenhaus trying to explain to him how central to libertarianism is the non-aggression principle (NAP).
I told him that the essence of this philosophy is that it is illegitimate to threaten or actually use violence against innocent people.
I gave him all sorts of examples. I tried to make the point as dramatically as I could to him. I went so far as to say that the onlything horrid
about actual slavery was that it violated the NAP. Otherwise, apart from that one thing, slavery was innocuous: you could pick cotton in
the healthy outdoors, sing songs, they would give you gruel, etc. This of course was a hypothetical. A point made to dramatize exactly
why slavery was wrong. Not because of cotton, gruel, singing, etc., but due to the vicious violation of the NAP against innocent black people."

And please allow me to provide a link to that article so that you might
read it for yourself and understand the many ways in which Walter Block
does, in fact, believe that slavery was HORRIBLE precisely BECAUSE of the
numerous ways in which slavery DOES violate the Non-Aggression Principle.
You can read that article here...


It is, of course, regrettable for everyone concerned that you
have chosen to seek an opportunity to condemn Walter Block
for sentiments that he did not hold when you had every opportunity
to discuss the matter and save yourself and, perhaps, others
embarrassment.

The good news is that you do have the opportunity to
make amends for that mistake by extending an apology to
Walter Block in the same public manner by which you have
presumed to condemn him. For the even better news, of course,
is that, in truth, Walter Block never said or believed the things which
he has been characterized as saying.

In closing, please allow me also to note that, as a Catholic
University, Loyola is also a Christian University.
Though I am not a Catholic, my own life and my own faith
has been deeply touched by the works of Walker Percy
- who, I am pleased to note, also taught at Loyola of New Orleans.

As one Christian to another, please allow me to appeal to our
common conviction that where we have born false witness against
another (even if on the basis of what was false information provided
to ourselves by others …or gossip) that we are bound to apologize to
them and to seek their forgiveness and to do our utmost to make them
whole where our words or actions may have harmed them.

In Christ!,

James Thomas Hines, III
Tue Feb 11 2014 00:14
To begin with, I know for a fact that Ted Quant should be ashamed to have signed this letter - as drafted - because the simple fact of the matter is that I personally know that Ted Quant knows (and KNEW at the time this letter was drafted) that Walter Block is NOT, as he is characterized in this letter, a "Privileged White Male". I know this because I personally sat in a meeting with Ted and Walter where I personally pointed this out to Ted. I was the only "Privileged White Male" in that room. Having grown up in Mobile, Alabama where my parents were members of the Mobile Country Club, I also distinctly remember the day that a Jewish woman who was also the wife of a Jewish attorney in Mobile announced to me that she and her husband had been admitted to the Mobile Country Club ...to which she added (as was quite factually the case) "Yes, they needed a token Jewish family". Walter Block is JEWISH. Jews are not white males and have not been "privileged" in Louisiana any more than they have been privileged in Alabama EXCEPT to the degree that their labors and efforts have merited any such "privileges". And, yes, in my opinion, Walter Block's efforts as an educator - both within and without the classroom or campus - have earned him great respect. I would not call that "privilege", though, as that which is earned is not a "privilege".
AND…
James Thomas Hines, III - Privileged White Male
Tue Feb 11 2014 00:17
Allow me to add that I am the author of the post entered at Tue Feb 11 2014 00:14
and that my name is James Thomas Hines, III.


From: James Hines [mailto:hine1476@bellsouth.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 2:59 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; wblock@loyno.edu; James Hines; sophocleus john
Subject: A Genuinely "Privileged White Male" defends the "Hymie" Walter Block

To Whom It May Concern,

Please find my letter
In Defense of Walter Block
posted below.

AND...

Please allow me to add this…

Where, in a letter written by
by a number of “Loyola Faculty Members”
(and to whom I am most particularly addressing
myself at the moment), it is stated that…

"While Block might have the academic freedom to teach such
ahistorical and hostile beliefs in his own economics classroom,
these claims — expressed to a reporter for a nationwide newspaper
article — are an insult to millions of African Americans in this country
as well as to the pain and suffering incurred by both black and white
people in their struggle to gain the same basic American freedoms that
Professor Block enjoys today as a privileged white male.”


(Continuing)… That - in addition to the offense of assuming
that Walter Block’s actually DID say what he was, in fact,
MISREPRESENTED
as having said in the New York Times
and then ATTACKING him on such erroneous grounds
WITHOUT making any effort to contact Walter, personally, to ask if
this was really what he had said….
it would seem, particularly according to the
peculiar etiquette of political correctness to which
you all seem to be subscribe, that the characterization
of Walter Block as a “privileged white male” is
particularly inappropriate.

The fact is that Walter is Jewish.

Speaking personally as someone who is, in fact,
a “privileged white male” (owing to the circumstances
of my own birth), I can tell you that, particularly here
in the southern states, I know, as a “privileged white
male” that “privileged white males” have frequently been
no less inclined to discriminate against Jews
than they have been to discriminate against blacks.

In fact, I distinctly remember
an occasion on which, while visiting a woman (who happened
to be Jewish) who had been my homeroom teacher at St. Paul’s
Episcopal School in Mobile, Alabama a few years afterwards
when I was home for a visit, I remember her saying to me….
“SO, I suppose you heard that my husband and I were admitted
to the Mobile Country Club.” When I told her that I did not know that,
she added “Yes, they needed a token Jew.” I was no less aware of the
accuracy of her depiction of discrimination against Jews by many
privileged white males (and females) in Mobile than she was.

And let us not forget that, however
disdainful it may be to mention such things
in “politically correct” company, that the fact of the
matter is that Jews have also frequently been the target
of disdain from many in the black or, if you prefer,
African American community. Indeed, no less notable a
“Civil Rights Activist” than Jesse Jackson has frequently
been known to refer to Jews disdainfully as “Hymies”.



Am I to suppose that it has now become
unacceptable, in “politically correct” circles
to dare to criticize disadvantaged “African Americans”
in their attempts to malign Jewish males as
“Privileged White Males”? Indeed, do any of you
imagine that I need to apologize for having been BORN
a “Privileged White Male”? Is it, indeed, any less absurd
to seek to discredit someone by referring to them as a
“Privileged White Male” when, it just so happens that
this is precisely what they happen to be by nothing more
than the circumstances of their birth, than to discriminate
against an poor African American Female when that is simply
what she is by the circumstances of her birth?

But I digress...

Returning to your attack on Walter Block,
I mention all of this because, where the attempt to malign
Walter Block as a “privileged white male” may have been
relatively “innocent” for most of you (…if, indeed, it is
EVER really “innocent” for anyone of any race to seek to
discredit anyone of any other race - or gender - on the basis
of their race, or gender, or even their relative degree of
“privilege”) …I can tell you that this was NOT an “innocent”
mistake on the part of Mr. Ted Quant. A few years back,
I personally arranged a meeting between Mr. Quant and Walter
Block and sat in on that meeting. During that meeting, Mr. Quant
made the mistake of characterizing Walter as a “White Male”
(if not a “privileged white male”) and, at that very moment,
I pointed out to Ted that this was not true and that Walter
was (and is) in fact of Hebrew descent …and that I was the only
white male in the room.

Nor am I aware of any sense in which Walter actually
IS “privileged”. So far as I am aware, Walter has, in fact,
earned every penny and every distinction and benefit
which he enjoys through his ardent studies and his
fervent efforts to share his passion for economics and,
more importantly, freedom with his students. So, if you
are not aware of any sense in which Walter has been the
recipient of some unmerited advantage over the rest of
humanity, please allow me to suggest that you also owe
him an apology on that particular point.

And, for that reason, please allow me to say that,
where each and everyone one of those of you who
signed this letter…



…should apologize to Walter Block for your attempt to
dehumanize him as a “privileged white male” (for which
you might also apologize to me and to all other “privileged white males"
…though I must admit I would doubt your sincerity if you were to do so
at this point), that, in any case, Ted Quant particularly owes such an apology to
Walter as Ted DID KNOW that Walter was not Jewish when he signed
the letter above, prior to its publication, but signed it with that
“insulting” characterization of Walter anyway.

Sincerely,


James Thomas Hines, III
(“Privileged White Male”)




Dear Ronalee:

Thanks.

Dear Dr. Fitzgerald:

I hereby invite you to publicly debate me on these issues. Are you interested? If you decline, or do not answer, that will speak volumes.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fac: (504)864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
http://www.walterblock.com/
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/
http://samesideentertainment.com/talent/dr-walter-block/
https://www.facebook.com/wblock2
WalterBlock.com: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock
Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock

If it moves, privatize it; if it doesn't move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or doesn't move, privatize everything.

From: Ronalee Martin [mailto:ronalee74137@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 6:19 PM
To: Kathleen Fitzgerald
Subject: Re: Dr. Walter Block

Dear Dr. Fitzgerald,

Thank you for your reply. I disagree completely with you that his words were not taken out of context or misrepresented. Slavery is absolutely antithetical to voluntaryism. And the non-aggression principle is true social justice. Dr. Block has a provocative way of discussing ideas. Some people get caught up in controversial words and don't actually read his work. That, in my opinion, is irresponsible.

Regards,

Ronalee Martin
On 12 Feb 2014, at 18:07, "Kathleen Fitzgerald" wrote:


Dear Ronalee ~

First, Dr. Block’s words were not taken out of context or misrepresented. He said those things…and has said those things in other venues. He admits to saying those things, he just also says he said a whole lot more which did not get quoted (which is pretty standard when you do media interviews). Second, in no way is Dr. Block rare for getting to know your child as an individual. The great majority of faculty at Loyola University New Orleans put tons of energy into teaching and into getting to know our students. That is something we take great pride in. Indeed, it would be rare for a professor on this campus to NOT know their students. That is the exact opposite of exceptional. It is what is expected of us and we proudly meet this expectation.

I am glad your son had a positive experience at Loyola University. It is what we hope for all of our students. I am surprised that after your son earned his fine education at Loyola, your opinions of this entire institution have changed because some faculty members and the president of this institution were shocked and dismayed by Dr. Block’s irresponsible public comments. We are a Jesuit institution, committed to social justice. His comments could hardly be less representative of this institution and thus, warranted a response. By your own admission, your son only took one of Dr. Block’s classes. So it seems surprising that this professor means so much to you that you are willing to disregard his experiences with his other 39 classes and professors.

Best,
Dr. Kathleen J. Fitzgerald


Kathleen J. Fitzgerald

Associate Professor of Sociology
Department of Sociology
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Ave, Campus Box 30
New Orleans, LA 70118

Author of "Recognizing Race and Ethnicity: Power, Privilege, and Inequality." 2014. Westview Press.
Faculty Advisor, Social Justice Scholars
Book Review Editor, Humanity and Society
President-Elect Association for Humanist Sociology, 2015

504.865.2574
kfitzger@loyno.edu
www.loyno.edu



From: Ronalee Martin [mailto:ronalee74137@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:52 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; lhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu
Subject: Dr. Walter Block

Dear Dr. Wildes,

I am the parent of a 2013 Loyola graduate. My son made the Dean's list eight out of eight semesters and graduated Magma Cum Laude. I have believed Loyola was a good place for him because of its focus on the individual student.

I was shocked and disappointed to read the letter you published about Dr. Walter Block in The Maroon. It is clear Dr. Block's words were taken out of context and and his positions misrepresented. With a bit of critical thinking on your part, and perhaps some reading of his work, you would have reached that conclusion. I have to ask myself why you would join in this attack instead of speaking the truth.

My son took one of Dr. Block's classes. I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Block. I introduced myself as the mother of one of his students. it was clear that Dr. Block knew my son, knew his work, and had gotten to know him as an individual. Very few professors put that kind of energy into their teaching. Dr. Block is exceptional.

I will be first in line to contribute to Dr. Block's legal expenses should he decide to seek remedy. I will not contribute ever again to Loyola unless this shameful incident is rectified.

Regards,

Ronalee Martin


Volumes

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fac: (504)864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
http://www.walterblock.com/
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/
http://samesideentertainment.com/talent/dr-walter-block/
https://www.facebook.com/wblock2
WalterBlock.com: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock
Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock

If it moves, privatize it; if it doesn't move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or doesn't move, privatize everything.

From: Kathleen Fitzgerald [mailto:kfitzger@loyno.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 9:40 PM
To: Walter Block; 'Ronalee Martin'
Cc: 'Laura Murphy'; 'Lisa Martin'; 'Ashley Howard'
Subject: RE: Dr. Walter Block

Dear Dr. Block ~

No, my non-response or lack of interest in “debating” you does not speak volumes about anything except the extraordinary size of your ego. For the record, you do not set the terms of any debate, much less this one. What are you even suggesting we debate? Your views on slavery? Or the current state of the media? Or the level of faculty engagement at Loyola? Or something altogether different?

I have witnessed you “debate” colleagues in the past. For the record, high school debate students would flunk if they used your “style” since you rely on absolutely no facts and stand there name-calling your opponents (oddly, using terms like “pinko-commie” and complaints about Ted Kennedy – who you do know is dead, correct?). That is not an intellectual debate, nor is it professional. It is childish.

Thank you for the invitation, but I do decline.

Sincerely,
Dr. Kathleen J. Fitzgerald


Kathleen J. Fitzgerald

Associate Professor of Sociology
Department of Sociology
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Ave, Campus Box 30
New Orleans, LA 70118

Author of "Recognizing Race and Ethnicity: Power, Privilege, and Inequality." 2014. Westview Press.
Faculty Advisor, Social Justice Scholars
Book Review Editor, Humanity and Society
President-Elect Association for Humanist Sociology, 2015

504.865.2574
kfitzger@loyno.edu
www.loyno.edu

From: Chris W. Surprenant [mailto:chriswsurprenant@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:38 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: support slavery?
I don't think that letters like the two included in your email should even be dignified with a response. Your only mistake was to agree to be interviewed by someone at the NYT. The entire piece was aimed at skewering RP and any organization or person who could be associated with him. Anyone who cannot see that is a complete fool.
Chris

---
Chris W. Surprenant
Assistant Professor of Philosophy &
Director of the Tocqueville Project in Law, Liberty, and Morality
University of New Orleans
New Orleans, LA 70148
(504) 280-6819
chriswsurprenant.com
tocquevilleproject.org

From: Kaj Grüssner [mailto:vindician@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 5:05 PM
To: lmurphy@loyno.edu
Subject: Pursue the truth!

Dear Prof. Murphy,

I had the great pleasure of reading your and your colleagues' letter to the editor (link below) regarding Walter Block's controversial statement about slavery in the New York Times.

http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/letter-faculty-says-walter-block-s-claims-were-once-again-untrue-and-offensive-1.2854769#.Uvv8hEKSxG5

You conclude the letter by saying:

"In so doing, Loyola University must reaffirm our commitment to pursue truth, wisdom and virtue — and most importantly to work for a more just world."

I couldn't agree more. Therefore, I urge you to please agree to a public debate with Walter Block on this issue, a debate that through youtube and other media can be seen by the whole world. Wouldn't this be the very best and academically appropriate way of pursuing the truth?

Sincerely,
Kaj Grüssner

PS. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the cowardice and immorality of our intellectual opponents, but I still am. Goes to show that you can never underestimate them enough. They will always find a new low to sink to.

Always a fan,
Kaj


------------------------------------------
"It takes longer to do things quickly,
it's more expensive to do them cheaply
and more democratic to do them in secret."
-Sir Humphrey Appelby,
Permanent Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs
------------------------------------------
"In the private sector, their brains serve the public; in the so-called public sector, their brains serve the state."
- Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.,
Co-Founder and President of the Ludwig von Mises Institute
------------------------------------------

From: Kaj Grüssner [mailto:vindician@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:20 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; walter block
Subject: The Christian thing to do?

Dear president Wildes,

I'm sure you've received a fair amount of emails by now about your and your faculty's treatment of Prof. Block, but I wanted to add mine to the mailbag nonetheless.

I sincerely hope that you and your faculty take these letters seriously, because they are expressions of genuine disgust of the way you've treated Prof. Block, who by any measure is the most prolific scholar of your university. The fact that you took the NYT (a shill for the regime if there ever was one) at face value, didn't care to investigate the matter or even so much as ask Prof. Block about it, is truly appalling and completely unworthy of an academic, let alone a university president.

You and Prof. Murphy and her ilk ought to contemplate long and hard about what it means to be an academic, a scholar, and an intellectual. If you have any decency, you will allow Prof. Block to face your criticism in an open debate, in which each side gets to make its point, and let your arguments show the merits of your cases.

Will you do this, president Wildes? I'm no expert of course, but I'm rather confident it would be the Christian thing to do, wouldn't you agree?

Respectfully,
Kaj Grüssner


To whom it may concern,

My name is Marc Luettecke and I am a 2013 graduate of Loyola University New Orleans College of Business. I am referring to you to testify against the claims of Dr. Walter Block’s socially inappropriate comments on slavery and historical racism. I was shocked to see the article and the ongoing debate concerning Dr. Block’s integrity for his Libertarian values and, as a teacher at a Jesuit Institution, for his moral mindset.
I have taken Dr. Block as a Freshman for my Microeconomics class and have experienced his engaging, polarizing and though-provoking lectures on massive privatization, legalization of various illegal endeavors like prostitution or drug-issues and countless other topics. We have also discussed the topic on hand, which is slavery and potential modern forms to exploit it in a very controlled and free-market economy. His approach to teach these issues was always to make his students start to realize what all is possible with an open mind-set for economic policy making and that his arguments do not need to be correct, but that so far no one was able to convince him otherwise. History tells us that new ideas can create alternate ways to behave and solve modern problems and that is what I have always taken Dr. Block’s lectures for: a polarizing standpoint that encourages discussion, get naturally un-invested students to discuss economic problems in the hallways and form a personal opinion about these extreme, but relevant problems.
In a city like New Orleans that has historically been a melting pot for racial conflicts and is still full of minority groups of Americans that make the city as unique as it is, Dr. Block has not once in my presence shown any form of racial disrespect or unawareness of Black, Asian, Native American or any other group that could be offended by his lectures. It was a purely economic talk about potential scenarios and their benefits and drawbacks. Dr. Block invited debates, between him and other colleagues, students and whoever wanted to challenge him intellectually, in private or in public. As a advisor for the Econ Club at Loyola, Dr. Block expanded his influence by inviting guest speakers, and encouraging, once again, a critical debate on social and economic topics.
For the record, I am preparing for graduate doctoral studies in the field of Financial Economics and I am well-aware of the controversies that Dr. Block’s lectures arose. I have not agreed with many of his proposed courses of action, but it was his polarizing approach that has awaken my interest in the broad field of economic policy making. His ongoing efforts to help me as a mentor for class scheduling, career and personal advice just underline his open-door policy to talk and discuss with whoever wants to take his time.
In a world of mediocreness and round edges, Dr. Block remains a gem to the Loyola faculty that makes students pick an economic side, debate, and on the way, learn how economics should be taught. Without discrimination or glorification of any inappropriate topic including slavery.
If needed, I’m willing to expand on any of this, I can be reached via email and phone to talk to anyone, who wants to hear any clarification on the topic.

Sincerely,

Marc Luettecke
Neuenkamp 36
59071 Hamm
Email: marc.luettecke1@gmail.com
Phone: +49 176 31505805



Dear Hap:

Thanks for this magnificent letter of yours.

I very much appreciate you quoting this paragraph from a publication of mine:

"Owning a slave is a crime under libertarian law. The Nuremberg Trials have established the validity of ex post facto law. Those people who owned slaves in the pre civil war U.S. were guilty of the crime of kidnapping, even though such practices were legal at the time. A part of the value of their plantations was based on the forced labor of blacks. Were justice fully done in 1865, these people would have been incarcerated, and that part of the value of their holdings attributable to slave labor would have been turned over to the ex slaves. Instead, these slave masters kept their freedom, and bequeathed their property to their own children. Their (great) grandchildren now possess farms which, under a regime of justice, would have never been given to them. Instead, they would have been in the hands of the (great) grandchildren of slaves. To return these specific lands to those blacks in the present day who can prove their ancestors were forced to work on these plantations is thus to uphold private property rights, not to denigrate them." On Reparations to Blacks for Slavery in 2000

As it happens, I have written supporting reparations to black people for slavery several other times:

Alston and Block, 2007; Block, 1993, 2002; Block and Yeatts, 1999-2000

Alston, Wilton D. and Walter E. Block. 2007. “Reparations, Once Again.” Human Rights Review, Vol. 9, No. 3, September, pp. 379-392; http://tinyurl.com/2b75fl

Block, Walter E. 1993. “Malcolm X,” Fraser Forum, January, pp. 18-19; http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5361.aspx

Block, Walter E. 2002. “On Reparations to Blacks for Slavery,” Human Rights Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, July-September, pp. 53-73;
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/reparations_slavery.pdf

Block, Walter E. and Guillermo Yeatts. 1999-2000. “The Economics and Ethics of Land Reform: A Critique of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace’s ‘Toward a Better Distribution of Land: The Challenge of Agrarian Reform,’” Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Law, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 37-69; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/ethics_land_reform.pdf


The plantation owners had stolen the life-long labour of his grandparents. In 1865, the slaves should have been compensated for this outrage by at least being given the land they had been forced to homestead. Instead, this was passed through inheritance into the hands of the grandchildren of the enslavers. Malcolm's idea was to turn this property over to its rightful owners the African-Americans who would have received it as a bequest had justice been attained at the end of the civil war.”

Surely, people should be able to see that these are not the words of a person who thinks slavery was alright, or ok, or “not so bad.” Instead, I called it an “outrage.”

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fac: (504)864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
http://www.walterblock.com/
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/
http://samesideentertainment.com/talent/dr-walter-block/
https://www.facebook.com/wblock2
WalterBlock.com: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock
Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock

If it moves, privatize it; if it doesn't move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or doesn't move, privatize everything.

From: Hap Werther [mailto:jennifer.werther@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:21 AM
To: corrections@nytimes.com
Cc: pres@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; wblock@loyno.edu; Guy McLendon; Scott Lewis; GaryJohnson@ouramericainitiative.com; Ce Vest-Coleman; Sarah Stewart
Subject: NYT LIBEL IRT DR BLOCK AND MISES INSTITUTE?

Dear New York Times Editor,

This is in reply to NYT article "Rand Paul's Mixed Inheritance" by Sam Tanenhaus and Jim Rutenberg, Jan 25, 2014.

I am a Retired Navy Chief, Advocate for Liberty, Tulane University Student (next door to Loyola in New Orleans), have heard Dr Walter Block speak about ten times, and have read a few of his books and essays. Beyond that, the Mises Institute and its various writers have been a great source for Austrian economics and libertarianism.

I just recently attended a Mises Circle in Houston, TX where Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell spoke. The topic was the growing police state. This is something that every liberty lover should be up in arms over from the martial law and illegal searches through Watertown, MA to NSA's widespread surveillance. These are attacks against the smallest minority, the individual. From African American majorities in prison in Louisiana, to gay marriage, to stop and frisk, to Constitutional rights, to TPP/SOPA/CISPA, to immigration, to bringing our troops home, to peaceful interaction vice policeman of the world, Mises and Libertarians are addressing these issues. Libertarians have become the advocates for civil rights and civil liberties. Democrats have been reluctant to address these issues as not to attack a Democrat President. This is exactly the time when they should advocate, while they have a Democrat President in office. Your attacks are without merit.

I am omitting discussion of your representation of Ron Paul and Rand Paul, because I am really not interested in their family RV trips and debates over politics. Two people, even family, especially family, are sure to have differing thoughts, feelings, and opinions.

Dr Block uses analogies of slavery going back to 1975 in his book Defending the Undefendable: The Pimp, Prostitute, Scab, Slumlord, Libeler, Moneylender, and Other Scapegoats in the Rogue's Gallery of American Society (which itself may have been a play on Louis Armstrong's "gamblers, hustlers, cheap pimps, thieves, prostitutes" from his autobiography Satchmo: My Life in New Orleans.) In New Orleans, even if you are not African American, Academia often uses local analogies. Dr Block has been writing since the 70s and what better example of aggression than to use slavery. African American studies in Louisiana are probably one of the top in US. Besides our great gumbo pot of First People of Poverty Point, Native Americans, Spanish/French/English Settlers, to Acadians/Cajuns, Creoles, Africans, Eslanoś, Italians, Irish, Germans, Filipinos, Chinese, Vietnamese, Mexicans, Central Americans, we do not overlook many historic battles, deaths, slavery, attacks, and bigotry. We teach our current and future generations not to feed into those aggressions.

Dr Block has uses slavery a lot in his writings along with promoting self-ownership. Slavery is the great example of aggression, so he can easily use slavery as an example against the non-aggression principle (NAP). Dr Block has written on reparations: "Owning a slave is a crime under libertarian law. The Nuremberg Trials have established the validity
of ex post facto law. Those people who owned slaves in the pre civil war U.S. were guilty of the crime of kidnapping, even though such practices were legal at the time. A part of the value of their plantations was based on the forced labor of blacks. Were justice fully done in 1865, these people would have been incarcerated, and that part of the value of their holdings attributable to slave labor would have been turned over to the ex slaves. Instead, these slave masters kept their freedom, and bequeathed their property to their own children. Their (great) grandchildren now possess farms which, under a regime of justice, would have never been given to them. Instead, they would have been in the hands of the (great) grandchildren of slaves. To return these specific lands to those blacks in the present day who can prove their ancestors were forced to work on these plantations is thus to uphold private property rights, not to denigrate them." - On Reparations to Blacks for Slavery in 2000. Wow, yeah, that is really offensive to African Americans.

Understand that when Libertarians talk about aggression (opposite of the non-aggression principle) and forced to associate (opposite of free association), these terms are about war not for our defense, this is murder, this is assault, this is police brutality, this is holding someone against their will, this is government aggression against individuals, this is the our ridiculous prison system, this is stop and frisk, etc. These go against my freedom to go about my life without aggressing others and others freedom to go about their lives without aggressing me. As The Dude said in the Big Lewbowski, "This aggression will not stand, man." New Orleans culture very much follows the laissez-faire French liberty or as in Herbert Spencer's "every man has freedom to do as he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of every other man." Now we have context.

So, what was slavery beyond aggression, murder, assault, against your will? What was slavery beyond the NAP? I just discussed aggression in the previous paragraph. What was slavery beyond forced association? You can't quit if you're a slave. That's forced association. So, when Dr Block says that free association is crucial and the slave's relationship to the master was compulsory, these are true statements. Slave owners did not have the Slave's best interest in mind. Slaves were forced to associate. Yes, this is true. Lets use what was written as Dr Block's verbage:
“Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to ‘associate’ with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.”

Picking cotton and other field work happens now without aggression, right? So, that's not offensive. Were slaves singing? Yes, what Sidney Bechet called the "field hollers" which developed into the blues and rock and roll of my time. Music is in our souls in Louisiana. Surely, that is not offensive. Be fed nice gruel? I'm sure this depended on whether you were starved by aggression or otherwise you had vegetables from the plantation, or slave gardens, and animals that slaves kept. Was it good food? Yes, Louisianians take pride in the food that came from the slaves (example: red beans and rice!). People come from all around for New Orleans food and music. Don't knock it! What is Etc? Everything that slaves did without being aggressed.

Dr Block says that this was a dramatization in the middle of several hours of talking about the non-aggression principal and free association. Did he say, "slavery was not so bad"? Dr Block contends that he did not say this, but after several hours discussing Libertarian principles, the NYT journalists have made this out to be fire for attacking Libertarians as NYT journalists have history of doing. Libertarianism is in mainstream media every day now. The risks of talking with Democrat or Republican partisan media is seen here as you can twist what anyone says to their own goals, attack Rand Paul, attack Dr Block, and attack Libertarianism. http://www.lewrockwell.com/?post_type=article&p=473740&preview=true

New York Times, can you show one previous writing by Dr Block that backs up your fabrications? I have Dr Block's many writings that support his side? NYT does need to print a retraction for falsification and present an apology. Your falsification against Dr Walter Block has also caused problems with his job. Others at Loyola have asked the university to condemn and censure Dr Block because of your article. As these matters often go, what will probably happen is the NYT Editor will present a tiny statement somewhere with the retraction. Meanwhile, the damage was already done. NYT has something to learn from non-aggression principle. Its a shame that after a couple of hours with Dr Block, these journalists, instead of learning about non-aggression, made a decision to practice aggression.

The Academia of Loyola should understand the politics of media and not jump to conclusions. Writing the university over a NYT article is kneejerk at best. NYT has become a partisan media source without fair and reliable reporting.

The Libertarian Party is the fastest growing political party in the US next to "no party" affiliation. Dr Walter Block is a national and our local New Orleans expert in Austrian Economics. At Loyola University in New Orleans, he is the Economics Department Head and has built the largest group of Austrian Economics Professors in one university. His writings and speeches are certainly influencing a new generation of libertarians. His department hosted an outstanding Students For Liberty Regional Conference at Loyola with 200 attendees. Dr Walter Block has generously and freely spoken at Libertarian Party of Louisiana parish caucuses as new Parish Executive Committees (PECs) were developed across Louisiana.

Dr Block and Mises Institute writers are not politicians and therefore you can be held libel for your character assassinations. I hope they all show their legal rights against NYT. They are not politicians for this to be political mudslinging. These advocates of liberty have my strongest support through these attacks.

Sincerely,

Jennifer "Hap" Werther


From: Rod Peet, Jr. [mailto:rpeetjr@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:37 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: the work of "slavery was not so bad"

Dear Walter,

You are right. I have firsthand knowledge of the conditions of which you write. When I was 14 years old I couldn’t wait to get permission to work from the state government. (I didn’t understand the implications of that). I wanted a job. My first job after delivering newspapers was picking tobacco. I’ve never picked cotton but if I had a choice I think I would prefer picking cotton to picking tobacco. Cotton is relatively clean and you work standing up. Picking tobacco I spent a lot of the time on my hands and knees in the dirt and mud. And by the end of the day my hands would be black from dried tobacco juice. I remember telling my father that after picking tobacco any job I had for the rest of my life would be easy. I was right.

Yes it was hard work but we made friends and laughed and carried on as we worked. There were blacks on the work crew whose ancestors were probably slaves. They would sing and chant as they worked and we all got into the rhythm and the day flew by. And we made money to spend as we wished. And we were free. Other than that it was like slavery. Not so bad.

Your article distilled out the essence of slavery and rightly condemned it. Your critics are too blinded by their own prejudices to see that.

Regards,
Rod
Rod Peet, Jr.

From: Sharpjfa@aol.com [mailto:Sharpjfa@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 5:50 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Fwd: support slavery?

Dear Professor:

I wish you a safe passage.

This is Dudley, the pro death penalty fellow.

I see this all the time. It is the tyranny of liberalism. (BTW, I despise both major political parties).

Say something they don't like and it can be an irrepressible swarm, where truth is the first casualty and the last concern. Your extinction is the goal.

My arena.

Some academics, often anti death penalty, have written solid papers, that just happen to support capital punishment, based upon their research. It created such a horror show for them that they have sworn never to write anything on that topic, again. No one ever questioned the accuracy of their work. That was not the issue. The issue was the audacity of publishing it.

Professional careers have been ruined by this tyranny.

I hope many come to your aide. You will be surprised who does not.

Most sincerely, Dudley Sharp

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Weinberger [mailto:loftmike@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 5:50 AM
To: letter@loyno.edu
Subject: Walter Block

Dear Editor:

In my experience, Walter Block is a courageous, intelligent and thoughtful advocate for at least three types of Freedom: intellectual, economic, and religious.

It is not fair to sully his reputation by jumping on an out of context 3 word snippet. Indeed, anyone who jumps on this snippet to level an attack informs us more about his own politically correct motives than about Professor Block.

I hope the forces supporting Freedom at Loyola rally around Professor Block and resist these Politically Correct Bullies.

Mike Weinberger,
New Orleans

From: gordon patton [mailto:gordonspatton1@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:34 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: support slavery?

Dear Prof. Block:
Assuming the quotation from you is correct, the problem is that you are dealing with humorless ideologues who completely miss the ironic import of your remarks. Naturally they are in high dudgeon. They are undoubtedly the same sort of people who, two hundred and fifty years ago, would have read Swift's "A Modest Proposal",a satire attacking the abuse of the Irish by the Anglo-Irish landlords, and thought Swift was seriously advocating fattening up Irish children so they could be eaten. There is no cure for lack of imagination and its concomitant stupidity. It also shows what the Left really thinks about academic freedom and free speech in general--no way except my way.
You mentioned in an earlier email about taking legal action against the Times for their manipulation and misrepresentation of what you said. I assume you are familiar with Sullivan vs.NY Times, a Supreme Court case from fifty years ago which created a category of Public Figures who have no right to sue for defamation unless they can show actual malice, i.e. a deliberate misstatement of facts about someone which would subject that person to
obloquy. If you really want to pursue this, there are some foundations which do this sort of thing on behalf of those of us on the "right" (the right-hand side of the Tennis Court at Versailles where the Etats-Generaux converted itself to the National Assembly). Also you should expect the other side to gin up a very unpleasant campaign against you. I believe the modern American Left is basically a very authoritarian movement that has few if any scruples in dealing with opposition. The whole PC movement, and that is what you have run afoul of, employs "thought reform" a la Mao. If you have never read Robert Jay Lifton's "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism", you should at least read the essay form available on the internet to understand what you are up against. It is appalling what has happened in the modern academy, but it represents the outcome of what Gramsci called "the long march through the institutions."
The best way to handle these people in my view is to laugh at and ridicule them. H.L.Mencken said "a horse laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms."
Gordon Patton

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Walter Block wrote:


Dear Gordon:

Thanks. Am I a Public Figure?

Best regards,

Walter

Dear Walter:
Let me adopt my best lawyer-like evasion, possibly. Of course the fact that you become known because of a third party's acts, ie. The New York Times, does not, I think, make you a public figure. I think closer to home is whether of not the blather by other faculty members will have any consequences at Loyola. I was amused to see every Left Wing cliche trotted out, especially "white privilege". These folks are indefatigable. What you were really guilty of was stirring up the animals as H.L. Mencken used to say.
Gordon



Dear Rocco:

Thanks. I couldn’t have put it better myself.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fac: (504)864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
http://www.walterblock.com/
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/
http://samesideentertainment.com/talent/dr-walter-block/
https://www.facebook.com/wblock2
WalterBlock.com: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock
Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock

If it moves, privatize it; if it doesn't move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or doesn't move, privatize everything.

From: Roccorodriguez7 [mailto:roccorodriguez7@googlemail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 12:37 PM
To: Pres
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu
Subject: Walter Block

Fr. Wildes,
I'm writing in support of Dr Block, whom, I feel, you have treated in a very poor fashion.

Let's put aside all his wonderful writings and speeches - all of which are expressions of his profound belief that all interactions among people should take place on a voluntary basis - and look at his quote regarding slavery in the New York Times. Dr Block said that, apart from not being able to quit, slavery wasn't so bad. But the very essence of slavery is not being able to quit. Hence, Dr Block's statement is the equivalent of "apart from being a slave, being a slave wasn't so bad". How anyone could take this as being in any way supportive of slavery is baffling. If someone told you that, apart from being on fire, being on fire wasn't so bad, would you take this to be a ringing endorsement of that? Of course not. No serious person would.

Fr. Wildes, do the right thing. Dr Block is a wonderful, decent man. You have done him wrong. You owe him an apology.

Yours faithfully
Rocco Rodriguez

From: Roccorodriguez7 [mailto:roccorodriguez7@googlemail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 9:36 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: RE: Walter Block

Dear Dr Block,

I write for a UK austro libertarian-ish blog, Bogpaper.com. (We are small, but we can claim Redmond Weissenberger of Mises Canada as a fan.) I have a post up on there, http://bogpaper.com/support-walter-block/ encouraging our readers to email Fr. Wildes et al, expressing their support for you.

Best regards

Rocco Rodriguez

From: Roccorodriguez7 [mailto:roccorodriguez7@googlemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 3:01 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: permissions

Dear Dr Block,

Should you be interested, here is a copy of the comment I left on the Maroon letters you linked to (I think you'll like the South Park analogy):


"There's a South Park episode where Stan becomes the coach of a children's ice hockey team. One young boy is not at practice - he has cancer, and is very near to death. Stan visits him in hospital and asks, "How are you doing?" The boy, evidently in a great deal of pain, replies, "Pretty good [weak cough]. Apart from the cancer." Now this is a good joke and all, but I doubt any of the faculty at Loyola would take this as a ringing endorsement of having cancer.

As to the Civil Rights Act, if I were to go and stand in Fr. Wildes' office while no less a power than the US government forbade him from kicking me out, or even asking me politely to leave, would he really believe he wasn't being forced to associate with me?"

I've no objection to you using this (or my letter) however you like.

Best regards

Rocco



From: Tony Lewis [mailto:tony.lewis.x@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 12:41 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Fwd: Indeed, extremely amazing...

Most esteemed and venerable Professor Walter Block,

I just purchased another one of your books right before I sent the letter off.
Thank you for your contributions to truth.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tony Lewis
Date: Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:35 PM
Subject: Indeed, extremely amazing...
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu, aladd@loyno.edu, bewell@loyno.edu, ccorprew@loyno.edu, llhope@loyno.edu, kfitzger@loyno.edu, aaparham@loyno.edu, Ahoward2@loyno.edu, tmelanco@loyno.edu, mikulich@loyno.edu, pbboyett@loyno.edu, jathibod@loyno.edu, eggers@loyno.edu, quant@loyno.edu, sweishar@loyno.edu, aalcazar@loyno.edu, lmartin@loyno.edu, jlhunt@loyno.edu, letter@loyno.edu

Fr. Wildes,

I do not understand how a man of your position can so indolently, biased, and vagariously contort Professor Block's words in the manner you did in your published screed. That the New York Times would do so is not surprising, but a university president, a leader of a 'scholarly' institution? It's bewildering and ignominious.

You have evinced the abeyance of logic, deduction, intellect, intelligence, knowledge and truth that has beleaguered our country and culture for far too long.

Rescind the screed. Omit the diatribes. Redact the calumnies. Apologize to Professor Block. Do not allow your exemplified stupor pervade the university and theology you represent.

Ironically, it is statements like yours that will precipitate and accelerate the new Intellectual Awakening. Participate in it through sound reason and liberty as men like Professor Block do, not infamously as fools do.



Dear James:

I’d LOVE to come on your show. But not tomorrow, Friday, 2/14; I’ll be out of town then. I would have answered this sooner, but it got lost in an avalanche of a few hundred other e mails. When else might I appear on your show?

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fac: (504)864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
http://www.walterblock.com/
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/
http://samesideentertainment.com/talent/dr-walter-block/
https://www.facebook.com/wblock2
WalterBlock.com: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock
Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock

If it moves, privatize it; if it doesn't move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or doesn't move, privatize everything.

From: james parker [mailto:thejamesshow@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 11:56 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: RE: support slavery?

Holy crap. This has gotten out of hand. Would you like to come on the show tomorrow (Friday) to talk about this attack from the NYT and race faculty?

James




From: Frank Speiser [mailto:frank.speiser@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 9:35 AM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: letter@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; walter block
Subject: Two Challenges In Defense of Walter Block

To The President, Faculty and Staff of Loyola:

Thanks in advance for considering my point of view.

When I recently saw that Loyola was "distancing itself" from the remarks made by Walter Block, with the implication that Walter may be supporting slavery in any way, I had to do a double-take. My first thought was along the lines of, "Surely they must mean a DIFFERENT Walter Block." I was shocked and confused to find out that you were, in fact, detracting from the reputation of THE Dr. Walter Block that we all know to be liberty's staunchest defender.

If you do know and work alongside Walter, or even if you are an honest scholar (heck - even just an honest person), there is no way you can ever imply that Walter would lend to anything in favor of slavery. Not if you were to consider his work and his life in a meaningful way.

There are a two things you should ask yourselves before proceeding with any type of action against Dr. Block.

First, I challenge you to define "slavery". Do you know what it means? It's pretty clear you do not read or consider Dr. Block's work, so if you need another academic to help with the definition due to issues of pride or prejudice, I'd suggest reading "Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting" by Daniel Dennett. The punchline in all of that literature basically boils down to the fact that slavery is the negation of free will by coercion, force or fraud (which I think a Jesuit philosophy would agree is a bad thing).

Secondly, I then challenge you to understand the point Walter was making. You represent a Jesuit University, and this is important to understand. The lesson of Jesus was one of demonstrating love through our own choices of free will. He redeemed the sins of shirking our individual responsibility and left an example of keeping your own free will in the face of all the temptations to give it over, so that it may be there to choose good in the future and forever after. This leads me to Walter's point, and why you must understand the definition of slavery to participate in this conversation: the conditions of slavery, while prone to be abhorrent are actually far less of an injustice when compared to the absolute failure of selling your free will. Isn't this the lesson your institution is committed to furthering above all else?

In pointing all this out, Walter was using a technique called "sarcasm", which can be quite effective in calling surprising focus to something that has been overlooked and buried under obfuscation so that it may be examined in a new light. This technique is usually well-suited for intelligent individuals and helps break up the monotony of trivial and agreeably insignificant banter.

If there is something to which we should call attention, and understand so that we do not become trapped in our own vanity of self-centered misunderstandings - isn't it the topic of slavery? Let's understand it, and do away with it.

I respectfully urge you to consider the treasure and integrity you have in someone like Walter Block and treat him with the respect that someone with principle and commitment to the truth deserves.

Thanks For Your Time,
Frank Speiser
A Concerned Friend of Walter Block




Dear James:

Fr. Kevin Wildes, SJ
6363 st charles av
NOLA 70118

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fac: (504)864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
http://www.walterblock.com/
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/
http://samesideentertainment.com/talent/dr-walter-block/
https://www.facebook.com/wblock2
WalterBlock.com: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock
Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock

If it moves, privatize it; if it doesn't move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or doesn't move, privatize everything.

From: James Dunlap [mailto:jdunlap@esacadiana.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 10:57 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: support slavery?

Got a name and a surface mailing address for a letter?
JD

-----Original Message-----
From: Cathy Robinson [mailto:catbirder@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 12:21 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu; wblock@loyno.edu; woods@mises.org
Subject: Pharisaic hypocrisy toward Dr. Walter Block

"Father" Wildes, and all the disgraceful faculty who for unChristian reasons turned, with lies and malice, and attacked Dr. Block:

We don't know each other, but I know Christ. And I know what you have done is NOT of Christ.

You have betrayed and dragged our Christ through the mud, crucified Him again, in deliberately vilifying your brilliant faculty member, Dr.
Walter Block, over a clear, deliberate, malevolent "misrepresentation"
of something he said in an interview with a "reporter" at the New York Times. It stretches credulity past the breaking point to accept that you believe the Times represents honest reportage -- especially with the documentation of its reporters' consistent lies and twisting of facts most of the time, let alone the record of this particular instance.

One of two things: You either have never read anything he's written, nor talked at any great depth or even spoken to Dr. Block (which says an AWFUL lot about YOU), OR you just plain don't like him because he doesn't worship PC and the government as you do, and wish he would just leave "your" institution, but because of his academic standing and accomplishments, and the fact that he brings more business and good reputation your way than any of the rest of you, you can't just fire him. Both make you culpable for anti-Christian malice and disbelief in everything about our Savior and His sacrifice.

Which is it? Or is it both?

Either is shameful and without excuse. And you are charged by Heaven and man to lead and represent an institution supposedly founded on the Truth of Christ.

Do you not have a Christian conscience? Do you not have the courage of Christ? Do you in fact not believe in and follow Christ if His path diverges from what for you is expedient in the world?

You represent Christ to those who don't know who Dr. Walter Block is, and who don't really understand Christ. And you betrayed them, and Dr.
Block, and Christ, and yourself.

What are you going to do about it? We know what Christ did. Will you get back on His path and follow Him? Or are the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil just too much for you?

Praying for you to allow Christ back into your conscience, for your repentance of your sin, reconciliation with Dr. Block and publicly defending him in the Way as the example of Christ's Good Samaritan, just as publicly as you have attacked and maligned him, yours sincerely,

Catherine Robinson
Lakeside, CA 92040



Isaiah 56 - 59; Matthew 4:1-11; 5 - 7; 25:31-46; John 13 - 15; Romans 12; 13:8-10; 1 Corinthians 13; 2 Corinthians 10:1-5; Galatians 5 - 6; Hebrews; James; 1 John; Revelation 19.

Who has the right to put a gun to your head and force you to do anything?

"So, why do I think that religion – in this case the Christian religion – is compatible with libertarianism? Let me give you two verses of Scripture, one from the Old Testament and one from the New, since Christians accept the authority of both:

“Proverbs 3:30 – 'Strive not with a man without cause, if he have done thee no harm.'

“1 Peter 4:15 – 'But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.'

“These verses, my friends, embody the essence of libertarianism. Don’t kill anyone, don’t take what’s not yours, don’t do anyone wrong, don’t stick your nose in someone else’s business, and don’t bother anyone if he hasn’t bothered you. Other than that do whatever you want – 'Anything that’s peaceful,' as Leonard Read says, for 'ye have been called unto liberty,' as the Apostle Paul says. The only caveats for Christians when it comes to liberty are to not let their liberty become a stumbling block to weaker brothers and to not use their liberty for an occasion to the flesh; that is, don’t be a libertine." -- Laurence Vance



-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Warswick [mailto:smwarswi@episd.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 9:03 AM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; . letter
Subject: Walter block

Dear Fr. Wildes,
I have been watching the "controversy" over Walter Block and comments he is alleged to have made with great interest. I have been a follower of Dr. Block's career for a number of years now, and I think it is absolutely ludicrous that anyone would think he is pro-slavery.

Furthermore, as his boss and leader of an institution of higher learning, you should be ashamed of yourself. How could you think he was capable of such ridiculous ideas? If you knew Dr. Block you'd know he is not. He is one of the nicest people in the academy and often goes out of his way to help. Just one example of this occurred in June 2013. I was teaching a high school economics course, and some of my students emailed Dr. Block asking him questions about free market economics. He kindly responded within one hour! Furthermore, when I emailed him to thank him for taking time to respond to my students, he generously offered to send me a free copy of one of his books.

I hope you will take the time to try and learn what it is Dr. Block does and what he believes. If you do so you will find he is not only a very kind and engaging person, he is an asset to your university.

Thank you for your time.



--
Shawn M. Warswick
Social Studies
Coronado High School


The El Paso Independent School District does not discriminate in its educational programs or employment practices on the basis of race, color, creed, age, sex, religion, national origin, marital status, ancestry, citizenship, military status, mental or physical disability, gender stereotyping and perceived sexuality, or on any other basis prohibited by law. Inquiries concerning the application of Titles VI, VII, IX, and Section 504 may be referred to the District compliance officer, Patricia Cortez, at 230-2033; Section 504 inquiries regarding students may be referred to Cecilia Whiteman at 230-2836.


El Distrito Escolar Independiente de El Paso no discrimina en los programas de educación o en prácticas de empleo usando el criterio de raza, color, credo edad, sexo, religión, origen nacional, estado civil, ascendencia, ciudadanía, estado militar, discapacidad física o mental, estereotipo sexual o sexualidad percibida, u otra práctica prohibida por la ley. Preguntas acerca de la aplicación del título VI, VII o IX, y la Sección 504 pueden ser referidas al oficial del distrito, Patricia Cortez al 230-2033; preguntas sobre 504 tocante a estudiantes pueden ser referidas a Cecilia Whiteman al 230-2836.
--------------------
Nondiscrimination

The El Paso Independent School District does not discriminate in its educational programs or employment practices on the basis of race, color, age, gender, religion, national origin, marital status, citizenship, military status, disability, genetic information, gender stereotyping and perceived gender, or on any other basis prohibited by law. Inquiries concerning the application of Titles VI, VII, or IX, and Section 504 may be referred to the District compliance officer, Patricia Cortez, at 230-2033; Section 504 inquiries regarding students may be referred to Cecilia Whiteman at 230-2836.

El Distrito Escolar Independiente de El Paso no discrimina en los programas de educacion o en practicas de empleo usando el criterio de raza, color, credo, edad, genero, religion, origen nacional, estado civil, ascendencia, ciudadania, estado militar, discapacidad fisica o mental, estereotipo de genero o percibida, o otra practica prohibida por la ley. Preguntas acerca de la aplicacion del titulo VI, VII o IX, y la Seccion 504 pueden ser referidas al oficial del distrito, Patricia Cortez al 230-2033; preguntas sobre 504 tocante a estudiantes pueden ser referidas a Cecilia Whiteman al 230-2836.


-----Original Message-----
From: Frank [mailto:frankinbolivien@yahoo.de]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:04 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: WG: Prof. W. Block (copy of my letter)

Dear Walter,

as wished an extra copy for you. I used a spam proteccion address because of so many copies. Maybe this outsider view might be helpful as well.

Best wishes

Frank




--- Frank schrieb am Do, 13.2.2014:

> Von: Frank
> Betreff: Prof. W. Block
> An: pres@loyno.edu
> CC: lmurphy@loyno.edu, aladd@loyno.edu, bewell@loyno.edu,
> ccorprew@loyno.edu, llhope@loyno.edu, kfitzger@loyno.edu,
> aaparham@loyno.edu, Ahoward2@loyno.edu, tmelanco@loyno.edu,
> mikulich@loyno.edu, pbboyett@loyno.edu, jathibod@loyno.edu,
> eggers@loyno.edu, quant@loyno.edu, sweishar@loyno.edu,
> aalcazar@loyno.edu, lmartin@loyno.edu, jlhunt@loyno.edu
> Datum: Donnerstag, 13. Februar, 2014 19:49 Uhr Dipl. Kfm. Frank
> Schwarzbauer
>
>
> To the Honorable President of Loyola University New Orleans Dr. Wildes
>
>
> Guatemala, 13th of Feb. 2014
>
> An outsider view on Walter Block
>
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> I am german and speak all day long spanish in these days, so my
> english is rusty and simple and I apologize for that. I apologize also
> to admit that I do not follow what the problem is some seem to have
> with Mr. Block. And although I do not expect that you or anybody else
> will read my poor letter, it is my pleasure to express my sympathy
> with Walter Block.
>
> I lived in Africa when I first read from Mr. Block, a professor of a
> university I had never heard about. I was astonished to find that
> amount of energy and wisdom in an US-professor, because honestly and
> with all duy respect I think the US intellectual leadership is going
> down in freefall. For an outsider the view on universities in USA is,
> one pays the amount of a fair family home in order to make ones kids
> become a little nothing. For the first time in a long time I thought
> positively about US education and I remembered “Loyola University New
> Orleans” as the one place to study in the Staates.
>
>
> I (born 1964) was trained in school to sence nazis and to fight them.
> In todays world the political left side seems to be more accepted than
> the right one and my problem became, that I received the sensation to
> be a rightist just because of the reason I was not at all a leftist.
> I got somehow lost. I started to question myself. I began to suffer
> and wrote to the german Mises Institute (a very poor institution
> compared to the US one, which never answered).
> The german problem is, that we cannot talk freely anymore.
> Jim Rogers may use the term “financial armageddon”, but in german the
> word armageddon is “forbidden” and can ruin ones carreer. To question
> anything left, makes one a rightist (=a potential nazi). I felt myself
> not left nor right, nor in the middle – I felt to be in a third place,
> as if there should be instead of “tarts”-diagrams a
> “mercedes-star”-diagram, with me on top.
>
> Many weeks later I found this link:
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/walter-e-block/left-and-right/
> You have no idea, what this article gave me emotionally. I started to
> cry reading it. I had to clean nose and eyes. I was so thankful to “my
> Loyola professor”.
> I was not lost anymore!
> I am not a rightist!
> I am in a third place - a libertarian one! A place which is never
> shown in these tv or newspaper tarts-charts.
>
>
> I understand that Prof. Block might have used a “forbidden”
> (armageddon like) term and now all the wish-to-be-intellectuals are
> acting like in Monthy Phyton’s “he said "Yehova" – let’s stone him!”.
> This is typical for a dying society. The Germans did this also to
> their intellectual leaders in the 30’s…. and we had after the
> “cleaning” only good (brainless or
> brainwashed) nazi professors at our universities.
>
> I admit I have never written anything like this letter in my life. It
> took me some time. I did it, because I found accidentally Tom Woods
> page, when I followed a “Walter Block link” – I expected new education
> from New Orleans, but instead Mr. Woods asks “Stand with Walter”.
>
> I wish this could be a way for me to give a little back to the best
> living “prof” I know. Although Mr. Block works with Loyola, he is a
> worldwide teacher – he is also mine.
>
> I do not know how serious this all is, nor under what kind of pressure
> you are, sir. But my country’s history tells me that sometimes we have
> to stand with each other, and to stand with Walter Block is not only a
> duty for me – it is an honour.
>
>
> With very best wishes for my teacher and for you sir
>
>
> Frank Schwarzbauer

From: Donna Knezevich [mailto:jdk640@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:53 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu; walter block
Subject: I stand with Walter Block, not the New York Times

Dear Dr. Wildes,

I am shocked and appalled that you, and several of the faculty at Loyola, have either not taken the time to find out what Walter Block actually meant, don't really know him, or have taken the politically correct route over being a truly principled person.

Anyone who knows Walter Block, and read the article in the New York Times, would immediately be suspicious, for he would never have supported slavery. I not only knew that, but I also knew that this newspaper routinely take quotes out of context, and puts their "spin" on everything. That you as President of Loyola would not stand behind him is disappointing. I can think of no reason for such behavior other than that you are fearful rather than courageous.

It is my understanding that Walter offered to debate those at the University who maligned him over this article, but no one would engage him in a debate. Well, I have to give them credit for some intelligence, for they would have lost. Too bad they did not have the intelligence to question what actually happened instead of jumping on the politically correct bandwagon. Their behavior is equally despicable.

You owe Dr. Block and the community an apology. He is a man who would never compromise his principles for political correctness or any other reason. He is a man to be admired and emulated. I wish I could say the same for you and your faculty.

Sincerely,
Donna Knezevich
262 Ripple Creek Dr.
Poplarville, Ms. 39470

I know pasting a Facebook thread is high schoolish, but you should see this; it's part of a thread on Xavier's page, where Xavier is defending Walter.

· RHAMEY: well normally out on the porch in Auburn we could just say, "oh it's just walter" and laugh about it, but this is a public statement in the New York Times! As such, there's really nothing all that bad about the president's letter. The responsibility for the comment being misinterpreted is on the person who uttered the words "slavery is not so bad". It should be condemned, because, as the president said, it's a comparative judgement leaving us to wonder...against what? As a general rule, public opinion is (and should) drift toward the person saying slavery is, in fact, that bad.

broadly speaking, we have to stop circling the wagons everytime someone does something stupid. Yeah, Tom gets all hot and bothered by it because this is how Tom makes money. But for those of us who are serious academics, this profound nonsense is an incredible impediment to the spreading and promotion Austrian ideas.

There are about 435 other things tangentially related to this and the New York Times article that need to change about the Mises Institute, but I am going to do my best to restrain myself.

· Heather Woods Tom makes no money off of defending Walter; I resent your implying that his motives are financial. And since you don't know Tom, obviously, nor do you have a window into his life, I am sure you have no idea what is really going behind the scenes. And the idea that Tom, nor Walter aren't true academics is ridiculous. Even if Tom weren't a serious academic, I guess I'd prefer to be married to a man who does not ascribe dishonorable intentions to others simply because he decided that's what makes the most sense in his head, with nothing to base it on.

· Tom Woods Patrick, you have got to be joking. I am working frenetically to produce over 600 videos for the Ron Paul homeschool curriculum. You think I have time for this? My wife can tell you: I threw off my whole week by standing up for Walter, and I'm working at night to make up for it. What a rotten thing to say.

Also, you are the very first person I have encountered who thinks the university president's letter was reasonable. He says Walter doesn't offer evidence. IT'S AN INTERVIEW IN WHICH THE REPORTER DECIDES WHICH OF WALTER'S REMARKS TO PRINT! You find this defensible?

You know what? Don't answer. The top article on LRC today is as complete a reply as one could ask for. If this doesn't persuade you, you are being a jerk. Had this been a left-wing professor, they would all have said he'd been misinterpreted. You are living in la-la land to think the president is merely responding reasonably and impartially. Sure.

· Tom Woods And Patrick, as for the "serious academics" remark, would you like to compare publications?

· Tom Woods I love people who benefit from the Mises Institute's generosity, and then go off to lecture the world about all the things that need to change there. Bad manners, lack of gratitude, no class, I don't know what else to say about it.

--
The Tom Woods Show: Shredding the 3x5 card of conventional opinion.
http://www.TomWoodsRadio.com
http://www.TomWoods.com



Dear Neil:

Are you kidding? Magnificent!

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fac: (504)864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
http://www.walterblock.com/
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/
http://samesideentertainment.com/talent/dr-walter-block/
https://www.facebook.com/wblock2
WalterBlock.com: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock
Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock

If it moves, privatize it; if it doesn't move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or doesn't move, privatize everything.

From: pellegrinn@aol.com [mailto:pellegrinn@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:10 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: A Letter In Your Defense

Professor Block,

Below is the email I intend to send to Fr. Wildes and all other recipients you requested to be CCed. Please let me know if it is to your satisfaction.

-----------------------
Fr. Wildes,

My name is Neil Pellegrin. I'm a New Orleans-based radio host and music historian. I'm sending this message with regard to the recent attack on Professor Walter Block, several of his colleagues, and essentially the libertarian philosophy as a whole. I find the New York Times' obviously intentional distortion of Professor Block's views to be vile and repugnant. One would hope that such distortions would be readily apparent to any reasonably intelligent individual who understands even the most basic essence of libertarianism; and more importantly, to anyone who knows Walter. His dedication to his craft and the libertarian philosophy, which more than any other in history has uncompromisingly rebuked and disdained all forms of aggression and coercion (for which slavery certainly qualifies), is unmatched by even the most revered of his fellow heroes of liberty. I can attest personally to the fact that anytime a question, comment or idea is floated his way, Dr. Block always makes time to reply with sincerity and interest, no matter who the questioner or what the query. Can this be said of most professors? To have such a man at your institution should be considered a great honor and privilege. Rather than making apologies for "unconventional opinions," I urge you instead to defend Professor Block with the same gusto and fervor that his detractors conjure in their attempts to sully his good name and reputation. That would be the only respectable and decent move to make.

Sincerely,
Neil Pellegrin

-----------------------------

Please let me know what you think. I'll send this off as soon as I hear from you. I have no doubt that, as in the past, things will work in your favor. Keep up the great work!

Sincerely,
Neil




-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Luedtke [mailto:lostinwilderness@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 5:12 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: smear campaign against Walter Block

Walter Block is one of the world's leading advocates of freedom, so I find it hard to believe this smear campaign against him regarding slavery is honest. I question the motives of everybody involved in the smear.

Standing with Walter against oppression,

Mark Luedtke

--
Mark Luedtke

One can survive everything, nowadays, except death, and live down everything except a good reputation. - Oscar Wilde


From: Nels Hefty [mailto:nels.hefty@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 5:59 PM
To: walter block
Subject: president's letter

hi walter,
i thought you might like to know that i called the office of the president on monday and spoke to the woman there about the letter the president wrote, etc. i told her that he ought to know better, and that he was disingenuous in his comments, that upon a moment's reflection (if not sooner) he would have realized that of course walter block isn't ok with slavery of any kind, that he ought to support you and not seek to demagogue and be sanctimonious in order to gain points with the "establishment" media or academia....etc. i went on for a while. she asked if i wanted someone to call me back, but i said to just pass my comments along.

hope you're well, walter, and i trust you're probably weathering this just fine - but it sure must be a nuisance.

take care, and keep up the good work.

nels hefty


From: David Henderson [mailto:davidrhenderson1950@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:11 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: Walter Block; Landsburg Steven E.
Subject: Your criticism of Professor Block

Dear Dr. Wildes,
I am writing to respond to your criticism of Professor Walter Block.
You write, “In the Jan. 25 article “Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance”, Dr. Block made two claims, one empirical and one conceptual, that are simply wrong.“
This statement betrays a simple misunderstanding. Dr. Block made no claims in the January 25 article because Dr. Block did not write it. Sam Tanenhaus and Jim Rutenberg did. This might sound picky because they do quote Dr. Block. But it is not picky. The reason is that you actually go on in the rest of your letter to criticize him because “Dr. Block makes an assertion but gives no evidence for his assertion.” For that criticism to be justified, it would have to be the case that Dr. Block wrote the article. As you well know, he did not. So even had he wanted to give evidence, that evidence would not necessarily have made it into the article. I don’t know if you have ever been interviewed by a newspaper reporter or opinion writer. I’m guessing, given your position, that you have. Have you ever seen every comment you made to a newspaper writer quoted verbatim? I suspect not.
So the only way for you to know whether Dr. Block has given evidence for his claims is for you to ask or at least take the time to read his work.
Since you think it important to examine people’s claims, let’s take a few minutes to examine yours. First, you state, “he made the claim that chattel slavery ‘was not so bad.’” Actually, he didn’t. Here’s the whole paragraph from which you plucked the words “was not so bad.”
Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to ‘associate’ with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.
Do you see the difference? Virtually everything bad about slavery arose because it was, well, slavery. But what is the defining characteristic of slavery? It is that the slave is being held involuntarily. That was the point Professor Block was making. I know you are a fellow academic and I notice that you have published some serious work yourself. We academics live for the life of the mind and the life of the mind is, in many cases, about making distinctions and not quoting out of context. Do you see, Dr. Wildes, how you broke those rules?
You write:
Furthermore, it is also conceptually contradictory to his position as a libertarian that people could be treated as property against their will. So, by even hinting to endorse slavery enforced against someone’s free will, Dr. Block seems to contradict his basic libertarian principles.
Could you please explain where he was “hinting” to endorse slavery? In the passage from Professor Block that I quoted above, which, recall, is the one you are criticizing, Dr. Block actually makes clear his opposition to both the lack of free association and the fact that slaves were treated as someone else’s property. That’s what he meant when he wrote that slavery violated “the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons.” I must ask: when you read that statement, which I’m sure you did, given that you’re a responsible academic one of whose jobs is to support your faculty, what do you think he meant by that statement? Do you think that when he said slavery violates the slaves’ property rights that he actually meant the opposite? Is this what you meant by “hinting?” So, for example, if you said that you support Dr. Block’s academic freedom, should I take this as a “hint” that you oppose Dr. Block’s academic freedom? Forgive me, father, but that’s not what most people mean by the concept of hinting.
You also write:
His second claim is an example of a fundamental logical mistake. In peaking [sic] of discriminatory lunch counters, Dr. Block makes the mistake of assuming that because of the Civil Rights legislation people would be compelled to associate with others against their will. The Civil Rights legislation did no such thing.

You go on to explain, “What the Civil Rights legislation did was prevent places like Woolworth’s from excluding people because of their race.”
Exactly. And that is why it is your statement that is incorrect. When Dr. Block made his claim that the Civil Rights Act compels people to associate with others, he was making the assumption that the people who own the lunch counters are, well, people. I think you are making the very common mistake of seeing a Woolworth’s or other retail establishments as just buildings. But they are not. The buildings are owned by people and it is those people whose freedom of association was denied.
In your criticism of Dr. Block, you end by bemoaning its lack of critical thinking. I did not see that lack and I notice that you have actually not given evidence—and I know you are a strong advocate of giving evidence—for his lack of critical thinking. Rather, you took the easy way out by quoting four words out of context. On top of that you showed a misunderstanding about freedom of association. And you claimed in one of his statements a hint that he meant the exact opposite of what he said.
Might I suggest, Dr. Wildes, that you yourself actually engage in critical thinking? And might I also suggest that you apologize to your Loyola faculty member, Dr. Block, for your undercutting of him publicly? I have known Walter Block for forty years. He is a very forgiving man. I would bet that he would forgive you.
Yours truly,

David R. Henderson
Research Fellow, Hoover Institution



From: Jo Ann Cavallo [mailto:jac3@columbia.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 6:15 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Fwd: Defending Prof. Block

Hi Walter,
I'm forwarding to you for your collection the message I just sent to Pres. Wildes and his cohorts.
Best wishes,
Jo Ann

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
Defending Prof. Block
Date:
Thu, 13 Feb 2014 19:07:46 -0500
From:
Jo Ann Cavallo
To:
pres@loyno.edu
CC:
letter@loyno.edu, jlhunt@loyno.edu, lmartin@loyno.edu, aalcazar@loyno.edu, sweishar@loyno.edu, quant@loyno.edu, eggers@loyno.edu, jathibod@loyno.edu, pbboyett@loyno.edu, mikulich@loyno.edu, tmelanco@loyno.edu, Ahoward2@loyno.edu, aaparham@loyno.edu, kfitzger@loyno.edu, llhope@loyno.edu, ccorprew@loyno.edu, bewell@loyno.edu, aladd@loyno.edu, lmurphy@loyno.edu



Dear President Wildes,
Anyone who knows Walter Block could not – by any stretch of the imagination – believe he would hold the view that slavery was not "so bad." There is some absurdity in having to make such an obvious point – not only because nobody today would condone slavery (even though in the past many did, including Aristotle), but because the condition of slavery is an extreme violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, the core value of the libertarian philosophy that Prof. Block has dedicated his university career and his life to expounding.
Nonetheless, this slanderous accusation against Prof. Block, made in the context of a NY Times hit piece, seems to have been taken seriously by some. I am disappointed to find that the President of Loyola University is among this group. However, I am not writing to take you to task for your unwarranted attack on Prof Block. Rather, in the spirit of dialogue which leads to increased understanding, I would like to invite you to familiarize yourself with his actual writings and with libertarian scholarship more generally, instantly available to you through free pdfs on the Ludwig von Mises Institute website (mises.org).
As a faculty member at Columbia University (Walter Block’s alma mater), I am pleased to add that he will be giving two talks on our campus next month hosted by the Columbia College Libertarians. I am copying the information below, since the talks will be available via web cam for all those unable to attend. (I shall gladly provide the web cam link closer to the date when it has been set up). I hope you will take advantage of this opportunity to hear one of your most prolific and esteemed faculty members.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Cavallo
Professor of Italian, Columbia University


**

Thursday, March 27, 8:30pm
Prof. Walter Block, Loyola University
"Adam Smith, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises"

Smith, Hayek and Mises are not only important figures in economics, but in ethics
and political philosophy too. The former would have won the Nobel Prize in economics, if
this award were given during his lifetime. The middle mentioned one actually did have this
honor bestowed upon him, in 1974. The latter should have won this too, but, scandalously,
did not. These three are very important for students in that modern economics courses, and
economists, tend to ignore all of them, particularly the latter two, who were members of the
Austrian School of economics. My lecture will attempt to right this imbalance.

312 Mathematics Building, Columbia University

**

Friday, March 28, 7:30pm

Prof. Walter Block, Loyola University
"Me and the NY Times"


Although I spent several hours with their journalist trying to explain the libertarian philosophy to him, the article he wrote managed to totally misconstrue this philosophy, at least where I was concerned. It went so far as to attribute to me the view that actual slavery in the U.S. was not “so bad.” In this lecture I intend to correct the record. I will also discuss a related issue: the critical view that most libertarians have about the so-called Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Wien Hall ground floor lounge, Columbia University
Seating is limited for both events. In order to attend either event, you must register by emailing libertarians@columbia.edu.

**
Prof. Jo Ann Cavallo
Department of Italian
514 Hamilton Hall MC 2835
1130 Amsterdam Avenue
New York, NY 10027
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/italian/fac-bios/cavallo/faculty.html
http://www.utppublishing.com/The-World-Beyond-Europe-in-the-Romance-Epics-of-Boiardo-and-Ariosto.html


-----Original Message-----
From: David Pfau [mailto:david.pfau@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 7:51 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: On your behalf

Dear Dr. Block,
I told your detractor that he is ignorant.
Regards,
David Pfau



-----Original Message-----
From: McGee, Robert [mailto:rmcgee3@uncfsu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 11:17 PM
To: letter@loyno.edu
Cc: pres@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu
Subject: Comment of Walter Block's NY Times article

Dear Editors,
I am writing to comment on the comments made about Professor Walter Block’s alleged views on slavery. I might begin by pointing out that the comments made by others (Kevin Wm. Wildes and Laura Murphy, The Maroon, February 7) regarding Dr. Block’s philosophy are based on an inaccurate statement made by the individual who wrote the New York Times article. Dr. Block has pointed out that the statements the author made in that article were inaccurate. Yet some individuals, for whatever reason, begin with the premise that the information given in that New York Times article is accurate, which Dr. Block has asserted is not the case. If one wants to learn what Dr. Block’s views are on the various issues, all one need do is ask him, either verbally or in writing. It is shoddy scholarship to publish things without checking the facts.

Robert W. McGee, JD, PhD, DPhil, DSc, Dr Univ, Dr.oec, CPA, CMA, CIA, CBA, CertIFR, Cert IA School of Business and Economics Fayetteville State University
1200 Murchison Road
Fayetteville, NC 28301
USA
http://www.robertwmcgee.com/




-----Original Message-----
From: Jim O'Connor [mailto:joconnor@orderndev.com]
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 12:38 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Hang in there, Dr. Block

I know you’ve been taking it on the chin lately.
But you’ve been out there in the fight, and I appreciate your work.

Best to you,
Jim O’Connor
Kenai, AK

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Morin [mailto:morin.greg@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 2:29 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Defending the Undefendable? Walter Block addresses causes, not effects

15 February 2014
To: President, Faculty and Staff of Loyola University

The fact that you are so aghast at Walter Block’s recent remarks in the New York Times and elsewhere only serves to underscore why it is so important he continues to make the same point again and again. You are not simply missing the point – you are not even aware there was a point. Your indignation is wholly predicated on your (quite correct) disdain for the effects of slavery (violence, exploitation, horrendous living conditions, etc.) But that is not at all what his remarks pertained to. He was addressing the root cause and propagator of slavery: force. And how is such force made manifest both then and now? Government. Government (pre- and post- US revolution) protected, condoned, supported and legalized slavery. All the things you decry in your response were a RESULT of the very thing (force) he was denouncing.

Do you or do you not agree with the following sentence?: “ is good, but if is forced upon the individual then it becomes which is bad." If presumably you agree with this sentiment, then you must agree that by inserting the word “labor” for “X” we are left with nothing other than the very message Dr. Block was conveying. That is all.

Now, with respect to his characterization of slavery (i.e. the effects of slavery) being not "so bad” all I can say is that you clearly have never met the man, read his books or listened to any of his lectures. Were that the case you would realize he was merely engaging in pedagogical hyperbole in order to provoke a response that seizes the attention of the listener. To elicit thoughtful reflection from a student/listener, the deft lecturer will sometimes employ (obvious) exaggeration to invoke an emotional response. Your decision to engage in a knee-jerk emotional response rather than thoughtful contemplation says more about your own intellectual intransigence than it does about your mistaken presumptions regarding Dr. Block's beliefs. His provocation was meant solely to compel the listener to acknowledge the sheer futility of being angered by effects whilst simultaneously ignoring their very cause. Your response has only served to unwittingly demonstrate how correct he is in his efforts to spread this message.


Sincerely,
Dr. Gregory T. Morin


1498 Townside Drive
Bishop, GA 30621

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Greg Morin • morin.greg@gmail.com • www.gregmorin.com
Twitter: @gregtmorin Phone: 678-481-8567 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Dear Neil:

I am very grateful for this magnificent letter.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fac: (504)864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
http://www.walterblock.com/
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/
http://samesideentertainment.com/talent/dr-walter-block/
https://www.facebook.com/wblock2
WalterBlock.com: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock
Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/WalterEBlock

If it moves, privatize it; if it doesn't move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or doesn't move, privatize everything.

From: pellegrinn@aol.com [mailto:pellegrinn@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 5:26 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: A Letter In Your Defense

Professor Block (By the way, would it be rude to call you Walter?),

I hope all is well. Below is an email I intend to send to Fr. Wildes and all other recipients you requested to be CCed. Please let me know if it is to your satisfaction.

-----------------------
Fr. Wildes,

My name is Neil Pellegrin. I'm a New Orleans-based radio host and music historian. I'm sending this message with regard to the recent attack on Professor Walter Block, several of his colleagues, and essentially the libertarian philosophy as a whole. I find the New York Times' obviously intentional distortion of Professor Block's views to be vile and repugnant. One would hope that such distortions would be readily apparent to any reasonably intelligent individual who understands even the most basic principles of libertarianism; and more importantly, to anyone who knows Walter. His dedication to his craft and the libertarian philosophy, which more than any other in history has uncompromisingly rebuked and disdained all forms of aggression and coercion (for which slavery certainly qualifies), is unmatched by even the most revered of his fellow heroes of liberty. I can attest personally to the fact that anytime a question, comment or idea is floated his way, Dr. Block always makes time to reply with sincerity and interest, no matter who the questioner or what the query. Can this be said of most professors? I'm not a gambling man, but I'd be willing to bet that Dr. Block has helped to recruit more students to Loyola than any other professor in its history. To have such a man at your institution should be considered a great honor and privilege. Rather than making apologies for "unconventional opinions," I urge you instead to defend Professor Block with the same gusto and fervor that his detractors conjure in their attempts to sully his good name and reputation. That would be the only respectable and decent move to make.

Sincerely,
Neil Pellegrin

-----------------------------


Dr. Block,

Please let me know what you think. I'll send this off as soon as I hear from you. I have no doubt that, as in the past, things will work in your favor. Keep up the great work!

Sincerely,
Neil





One of the ways I will occasionally depart from straight economics on this blog is to defend fellow academics from unfair attacks by bullies. When the president of your university attacks you unfairly and in public, he is being a bully. If you want to know the background, see Walter Block's original comment on slavery and then read his boss's attack on him in the pages of the student newspaper.
And if you want to see a letter by a gutsy Loyola University student, Jonathan Lingenfeiter, read this.
Then read my letter, below.
Dear Dr. Wildes,
I am writing to respond to your criticism of Professor Walter Block.
You write, "In the Jan. 25 article "Rand Paul's Mixed Inheritance", Dr. Block made two claims, one empirical and one conceptual, that are simply wrong."
This statement betrays a simple misunderstanding. Dr. Block made no claims in the January 25 article because Dr. Block did not write it. Sam Tanenhaus and Jim Rutenberg did. This might sound picky because they do quote Dr. Block. But it is not picky. The reason is that you actually go on in the rest of your letter to criticize him because "Dr. Block makes an assertion but gives no evidence for his assertion." For that criticism to be justified, it would have to be the case that Dr. Block wrote the article. As you well know, he did not. So even had he wanted to give evidence, that evidence would not necessarily have made it into the article. I don't know if you have ever been interviewed by a newspaper reporter or opinion writer. I'm guessing, given your position, that you have. Have you ever seen every comment you made to a newspaper writer quoted verbatim? I suspect not.
So the only way for you to know whether Dr. Block has given evidence for his claims is for you to ask or at least take the time to read his work.
Since you think it important to examine people's claims, let's take a few minutes to examine yours. First, you state, "he made the claim that chattel slavery 'was not so bad.'" Actually, he didn't. Here's the whole paragraph from which you plucked the words "was not so bad."
Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to 'associate' with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn't so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves' private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.

Do you see the difference? Virtually everything bad about slavery arose because it was, well, slavery. But what is the defining characteristic of slavery? It is that the slave is being held involuntarily. That was the point Professor Block was making. I know you are a fellow academic and I notice that you have published some serious work yourself. We academics live for the life of the mind and the life of the mind is, in many cases, about making distinctions and not quoting out of context. Do you see, Dr. Wildes, how you broke those rules?
You write:
Furthermore, it is also conceptually contradictory to his position as a libertarian that people could be treated as property against their will. So, by even hinting to endorse slavery enforced against someone's free will, Dr. Block seems to contradict his basic libertarian principles.

Could you please explain where he was "hinting" to endorse slavery? In the passage from Professor Block that I quoted above, which, recall, is the one you are criticizing, Dr. Block actually makes clear his opposition to both the lack of free association and the fact that slaves were treated as someone else's property. That's what he meant when he wrote that slavery violated "the slaves' private property rights in their own persons." I must ask: when you read that statement, which I'm sure you did, given that you're a responsible academic one of whose jobs is to support your faculty, what do you think he meant by that statement? Do you think that when he said slavery violates the slaves' property rights that he actually meant the opposite? Is this what you meant by "hinting?" So, for example, if you said that you support Dr. Block's academic freedom, should I take this as a "hint" that you oppose Dr. Block's academic freedom? Forgive me, father, but that's not what most people mean by the concept of hinting.
You also write:
His second claim is an example of a fundamental logical mistake. In peaking [sic] of discriminatory lunch counters, Dr. Block makes the mistake of assuming that because of the Civil Rights legislation people would be compelled to associate with others against their will. The Civil Rights legislation did no such thing.

You go on to explain, "What the Civil Rights legislation did was prevent places like Woolworth's from excluding people because of their race."
Exactly. And that is why it is your statement that is incorrect. When Dr. Block made his claim that the Civil Rights Act compels people to associate with others, he was making the assumption that the people who own the lunch counters are, well, people. I think you are making the very common mistake of seeing a Woolworth's or other retail establishments as just buildings. But they are not. The buildings are owned by people and it is those people whose freedom of association was denied.
In your criticism of Dr. Block, you end by bemoaning its lack of critical thinking. I did not see that lack and I notice that you have actually not given evidence--and I know you are a strong advocate of giving evidence--for his lack of critical thinking. Rather, you took the easy way out by quoting four words out of context. On top of that you showed a misunderstanding about freedom of association. And you claimed in one of his statements a hint that he meant the exact opposite of what he said.
Might I suggest, Dr. Wildes, that you yourself actually engage in critical thinking? And might I also suggest that you apologize to your Loyola faculty member, Dr. Block, for your undercutting of him publicly? I have known Walter Block for forty years. He is a very forgiving man. I would bet that he would forgive you.
Yours truly,
David R. Henderson
Research Fellow, Hoover Institution


Dear David:

Thanks for your magnificent letter.

You are absolutely correct. I would indeed forgive Fr. Wildes, SJ. I would not only shake his hand, I would give him a big hug. Heck, I’ve made worse mistakes in my career than this misunderstanding of his. We are all imperfect creatures. There but for the grace of something or other go I.

Best regards,

Walter




From: Emily Stewart [mailto:emilyjanestewart@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:40 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: support slavery?

It's a shame that Dr. Block's ideas are considered radical when they are the result of common sense and logical thinking. It's a shame for a professional journalist to take a quote out of context and promote sensationalism over the truth. It's a shame that members of the Loyola New Orleans community are so quick to persecute someone who so fully embodies the critical thinking for which the University is known.

I graduated from Loyola in 2006 and am proud to have had Dr. Block for a professor.

Sincerely,
Emily Thorburn Stewart

From: Christopher Fleming [mailto:crobertfleming@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:23 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re:

I heard about the recent incident. It's almost as if someone google searched your name and the word slavery and didn't bother to read the actual paper. Reading the paragrah, the tone is "Slavery isn't so bad except for the fact that it's slavery." It is unmistakable and it is certainly willful ignorance on their part to not notice.

From: Christopher Fleming [mailto:crobertfleming@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 6:45 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re:

I hear that you're going to be on television tomorrow? That's great! I hope you drive home that the gist of your paragraph was that "Slavery wasn't so bad except for being slavery." Also, I think that it is important to bring up what is involved with "free association": If the slaves were allowed to freely associate, their children wouldn't have been taken from them, they wouldn't have been forced into marriages, and most of the other atrocities of slavery wouldn't have occurred.

bob.murphy.ancap@gmail.com;

Murphy, Robert P. 2014. “Loyola University President Impresses With His Critique of Walter Block.” http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/02/loyola-university-president-impresses-with-his-critique-of-walter-block.html

I truly wasn’t going to get involved in this issue, primarily because it will undoubtedly sow seeds of discord in the comments. In the NYT article on Rand Paul, the writer claims that Walter Block thinks slavery “wasn’t so bad.” If you know Walter and how he talks, and then you read that phrase in context, you will understand that the writer completely mischaracterized him–Walter was rhetorically trying to emphasize just how bad the involuntary nature of slavery was. (It’s possible that libertarianism is so foreign to the NYT writer that he didn’t think he was misrepresenting Walter.)
Regardless of whether it was fair or not, Walter said those words, and they ended up in the NYT. So of course the president of Loyola University (where Walter teaches), Kevin Wildes, is going to throw Walter under the bus. (Just like Steve Landsburg was all alone during the Rush Limbaugh “slut” incident.)
Yet the guy surprised me. Wildes’ letter to the school newspaper was so ridiculous in its criticism of Walter that I have to draw your attention to it. Tom Woods does a magnificent job blowing it up, but I want to focus on one line in particular that Tom didn’t address. Here’s Loyola’s president explaining what was wrong with Walter’s views about slavery:
Dear Editors,
One of our goals as an academic institution is to encourage people to cultivate critical thinking. You can imagine my dismay when reading the Sunday New York Times and I found remarks by Dr. Walter Block.
In the Jan. 25 article “Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance”, Dr. Block made two claims, one empirical and one conceptual, that are simply wrong. First, he made the claim that chattel slavery “was not so bad.” “Bad” is a comparative measure that, like every comparison, is understood in a contrast set. My initial question was where is the evidence?
Dr. Block makes an assertion but gives no evidence for his assertion. [Bold added.]
I am speechless; I am without speech. The guy’s acting like Walter wrote a Letter to the Editor of the NYT. No, Dr. Wildes, Walter was quoted (very briefly) by a reporter writing an article on Rand Paul.
To complain that Walter “gives no evidence for his assertion” is like me saying, “Dr. Wildes says he opposes slavery but never fought for the Union.”
Oh yeah, then Wildes goes on to point out that Walter should oppose slavery, what with his being a libertarian and all. But I don’t want us to lose focus on his first complaint. That’s way more impressive.
57 Responses to “Loyola University President Impresses With His Critique of Walter Block”Reply
Sam Geoghegan says:
at
Any attention brought to libertarianism is positive news, because it’s always contentious. It would have been worse if the NYT never uttered a word about libertarianism, Rand Paul, Block, et al. But they have, and this augments the groundswell of sentiment against govt and its sycophantic purveyors of disinformation.Reply
andrew' says:
at
His f n book is defend in the undefendable. One needs only to know anything more than nothing at all about block to know what’s up. In fact have they ever read any economics whatsoever?
But otoh how can we do anything about it?
Prez has to c.h.a. hes talking to even dumber notional audience. He may even be a snake in the grass. But if we think he’s dumb why would he care?Reply
Bob Roddis says:
at
As I have pointed out, while we libertarians fuss and worry ourselves to death about whether bringing a defamation action against someone with whom we are arguably in contractual privity (a college president to a professor) because it might violate the non-aggression principle, it never ever dawned on any of us that slavery violated the non-aggression principle.Reply
andrew' says:
at
So did the civil war. I ponder how many years of slavery someone would have traded in exchange for a peaceful abolition. I don’t think the nyt has principled libertarianism in mind when they slander libertarians.Reply
Major_Freedom says:
at
The civil war had both initiations of force that violated the NAP, and defensive uses of force that did not.Reply
andrew' says:
at
And?Reply
Major_Freedom says:
at
That’s it.Reply
Cosmo Kramer says:
at
“To complain that Walter “gives no evidence for his assertion” is like me saying, “Dr. Wildes says he opposes slavery but never fought for the Union.”

No one with that much education is as stupid as Dr. Wildes’ behavior displays. This is a campaign against libertarians. They set out to fool the uninformed. Is it so hard to win an argument honestly?
If you are not arguing against your opponent’s ACTUAL views, I’d contend that you have already lost.Reply
Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:
at
My guess is that Wildes doesn’t know/care about libertarianism one way or the other. My understanding of this situation is that after Walter was quoted saying something controversial, we got the usual schtick of students and other faculty feigning moral outrage that someone with such evil views could work at their university, and sent letters demanding Block be censured (I believe he has tenure and can’t be fired).
So the President, to placate the bloodthirsty mob, HAS to come out with something like this. Ain’t the first time, won’t be the last. Good for Walter for not backing down. Again.Reply
Cosmo Kramer says:
at
Block is one to say controversial things. But, it is only controversial because so few are willing to say it.Reply
Ken B says:
at
A succinct summary of most of the Kontradictions.Reply
Major_Freedom says:
at
^ ^ ^
A succinct microcosm of campaigns and absence of evidence.Reply
Ken B says:
at
“(Just like Steve Landsburg was all alone during the Rush Limbaugh “slut” incident.)”
As I recall Bob that was our first spat here. I was defending Steve, you were bringing buses to Rochester. Ah, good times, good times.
Anyway this time we agree. Block was misrepresented, in print, by his titular leader, who had but did not avail himself of the chance to get it right.Reply
joe says:
at
Here is Block putting his quote in context on Lew Rockwell’s site:
“slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths”
1) The owners of Woolworths are not forced to associate with anyone. They don’t deal with customers.
2) Arguing that forcing a corporation that provides public accommodation to sell good and services to blacks is similar to slavery implies a racist attitude towards blacks. Is it really that horrible to have to take a black person’s money?
3) Nobody is forcing Woolworth to provide public accommodation for profit. They can close shop if associating with blacks is really that bad. Based on Block’s argument which ignores Woolworths’ freedom to walk away, you are a slave if you wind up sitting next to an ahole at a football game.
4) Forced association was hardly the only “real problem” with slavery. It’s fair to say that it was the most minor problem.
5) Under the segregation laws, lots of whites who wanted to associate with blacks were not able to associate with blacks. The Civil Rights gave these people the freedom to associate. Why no consideration of this by Block? Perhaps he has a hard time believing that any white person would chose to associate with blacks.
6) Block has a history of making provocative racial comments. Here he is on Sep 22, 2012 arguing that slavery is better than welfare for black communities. (dont’ bother pointing out that Sowell and Walter Willams say the same thing, that means nothing. They make their living parroting this tripe on behalf of white people).
Walter Block Says Slavery Is Better Than Welfare For African-American Communities
http://youtu.be/jEl7BJVNFq4
7) sing songs? Like a minstrel? This is a obvious dog whistle to racists.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
9) What does a person have to do in order to be called a racist by paleoconservatives? They seem to believe that you can make all kinds of derogatory statements about blacks but as long as you use some ideology or some cherry picked data (aka The Bell Curve book), then you’re merely telling the truth andanyone offended is being “politically correct.”
10) sack up and stop whining. You want to be politically incorrect, then you are going to offend people and get some blow back.Reply
Ken B says:
at
” Arguing that forcing a corporation that provides public accommodation to sell good and services to blacks is similar to slavery implies a racist attitude towards blacks. Is it really that horrible to have to take a black person’s money?”
No it doesn’t. It is perfectly possible to say “I don’t have the right to get involved.” I’m not endorsing that view, but it is quite common on this board. It could well be wrong, destructive, and crazy. But it’s not racist towards blacks. It’s not racist at all towards anyone. They equally would refuse to interfere with blacks who refuse white customers, tall people who refuse short custom, blondes who refuse to serve brunettes. The principle has zip to do with race.Reply
Bob Roddis says:
at
Let’s keep in mind that Jim Crow began decades after the Civil War with GOVERNMENT DIKTATS using force to prohibit voluntary interaction between members of different “races”.
If the free market naturally led to such a result, what was the point of these horrible laws which went so far as prohibiting “mixed race” pool playing?Reply
Dan (DD5) says:
at
More intellectual dishonesty. Here is the full quote:
“Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to ‘associate’ with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.”
I don’t think it is an accident that you deliberately started your quote at where you did.Reply
Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:
at
I usually irritate my neo-liberal friends by bringing up slavery whenever they start to complain about unemployment being caused by capitalism. Something to the effect of, “You know, at one time in America, we had an entire race of people who enjoyed full employment!”
I think Block’s point is similar here (if made for different reasons). Taken in a vacuum, there are individual components of slavery that most people would love: guaranteed meaningful work, food and shelter provided for you, etc. But the fact that it’s involuntary transforms this situation into one of the worst horror-shows imaginary.
When people join the military, they willingly subject themselves to the equivalent of temporary slavery. You agree to essentially do whatever the government tells you to do. In fact, legally, you are their property. They can even modify the terms and length of your contract after the fact (you; however, cannot). In exchange, they provide all of your basic needs for free. Why do people see military service as a noble endeavor? A moral good? Because it’s voluntary (well, sometimes).Reply
Bob Roddis says:
at
Forced association was hardly the only “real problem” with slavery. It’s fair to say that it was the most minor problem.
Uh oh! Joe’s a racist racist racist! He said that being chained up for life, unable to leave the plantation to visit one’s family and being forced to work for life with no pay was a “most minor problem”.
He said it. He said it. He said it! Neo-Confederate!
BTW, no libertarian EVER supported Jim Crow laws and every libertarian is able to easily distinguish between forced and voluntary segregation.Reply
Tel says:
at
5) Under the segregation laws, lots of whites who wanted to associate with blacks were not able to associate with blacks. The Civil Rights gave these people the freedom to associate. Why no consideration of this by Block?
It would have been perfectly reasonable to remove segregation laws without also requiring forced association… but that never happened which might be why Block doesn’t spend a lot of time discussing it.
I might point out that if some states have more generous free association laws than others and if people have the freedom to leave their current situation then they can generally fix the problem for themselves. Which is more freedom than you offer to shopkeepers.
You claim that the forced association of slavery is just a minor issue, but the ability to help yourself out of a bad situation is the most valuable thing anyone can have.Reply
andrew' says:
at
Conflation of public and private is either a de facto power grab or an intentional power grab.Reply
andrew' says:
at
And what is up with this “you are free to close your business” nonsense?
Freedom is like, more freedom than that.Reply
andrew' says:
at
“Dear slave, you are free to kill youtself”
Makes great sense!Reply
Ken B says:
at
Actually not. Attempted suicide would be theft, just like it could be for slaves in Blocktopia.
Let’s not forget here that just because Block was smeared here he is still minimizing the horror of slavery – common amongst “Libertarians” alas.
Major_Freedom says:
at
It’s not minimizing slavery to refrain from over-exaggerating chattel slavery.
As horrible as slavery is, it’s not wrong to argue that it isn’t as bad as the exaggerated statements make it out to be.
As an example, if someone said chattel slavery is the worst thing that can ever be imposed on someone, and I believed I’d rather be a chattel slave than being tortured on a stock and pillory every day for the rest of my life, then it would not be unreasonable for me to say that slavery isn’t that bad.
To say something isn’t as bad as an arbitrary statement concerning that something, is not in any way minimizing it, let alone supporting it.
We don’t have to exaggerate something in order to voice our absolute opposition to that something. You and Gamble seem to have issues with getting that. Gamble is trying to convince people that Ayn Rand was pro-communism, to voice his displeasure with her atheism.
Bob Roddis says:
at
What libertarian has EVER minimized the horror of slavery, smart guy?
Ken B says:
at
Walter Block, in the passage quoted, handsome guy.
(If you can be envious so can I)
Block didn’t say slavery was moral, but he did limn a portrait of the conditions that would have made Margaret Mitchell blush.
martinK says:
at
he is still minimizing the horror of slavery – common amongst “Libertarians” alas.
Really? You have quotes like that from many other libertarians?Reply
martinK says:
at
The owners of Woolworths are not forced to associate with anyone. They don’t deal with customers.
The word ‘associate’ is used in a broader sence here.
Arguing that forcing a corporation that provides public accommodation to sell good and services to blacks is similar to slavery implies a racist attitude towards blacks.
If it only applied to selling to blacks, it would.
Based on Block’s argument which ignores Woolworths’ freedom to walk away, you are a slave if you wind up sitting next to an ahole at a football game.
Not at a football game, unless you own the stadium *and* your forbidden from making the guy leave.
Forced association was hardly the only “real problem” with slavery. It’s fair to say that it was the most minor problem.
Really? I’m curious to know what the real problem was then.
Under the segregation laws, lots of whites who wanted to associate with blacks were not able to associate with blacks.
Which was wrong too. I would be very surprised if Block would say otherwise.
The Civil Rights gave these people the freedom to associate. Why no consideration of this by Block. Perhaps he has a hard time believing that any white person would chose to associate with blacks.
Or perhaps he doesn’t talk about it because he doesn’t object to it.
sing songs? Like a minstrel?
http://www.themeister.co.uk/dixie/plantation_songs.htm
Not only whites in blackface can sing songs.Reply
andrew' says:
at
Joe doesn’t know what associate or degree mean. And he’s a meanie pants.Reply
Cosmo Kramer says:
at
You can try harder to distort Libertarian views.Reply
Matt Tanous says:
at
“The owners of Woolworths are not forced to associate with anyone. They don’t deal with customers.”
A specious argument. They are being forced to allow someone on their property against their wishes.
“Arguing that forcing a corporation that provides public accommodation to sell good and services to blacks is similar to slavery implies a racist attitude towards blacks.”
No, it implies simply that forcing someone to associate with another person against their wishes is a form of enslavement.
“Nobody is forcing Woolworth to provide public accommodation for profit.”
Business is not “public accommodation”. It is private property.
“Based on Block’s argument which ignores Woolworths’ freedom to walk away, you are a slave if you wind up sitting next to an ahole at a football game.”
You don’t own the football stadium. If the football stadium was legally barred from ejecting “aholes” that would amount to the same thing.
“Forced association was hardly the only “real problem” with slavery. It’s fair to say that it was the most minor problem.”
Uh, no. All the problems of slavery stem from forced association. If the slaves could leave… well, they would be employees! When was the last time you got whipped at work?
“Under the segregation laws, lots of whites who wanted to associate with blacks were not able to associate with blacks. The Civil Rights gave these people the freedom to associate. Why no consideration of this by Block?”
It is considered. No one is saying that the revocation of forced segregation is bad. Simply the other side of the coin – forced association – is just as bad. Believe it or not, if you submerge a house to put out a fire, the water damage isn’t good.
“Here he is on Sep 22, 2012 arguing that slavery is better than welfare for black communities.”
So what? That proposition could very well be true. It may be, from certain perspectives (as “better” is always subjective) that it is true. Certainly, the black family unit survived slavery better than it has current welfare laws. Who are you to say that there aren’t harms that occur to black communities due to welfare that are worse than the harms the communities suffered under slavery?
The rest is mere derogatory nonsense without any actual logic or basis, so I won’t address it.Reply
Major_Freedom says:
at
The Loyola President is obvioisly behaving on the basis of acute fear, which is why his statements contain so many errors and flaws.Reply
Ken B says:
at
The joe must be terrified.Reply
Major_Freedom says:
at
No mommy and daddy government? Some are more terrified than others. Joe makes only slightly more errors than you.Reply
Bob Murphy says:
at
This thread has almost everything I could have hoped for, except Ken B. you haven’t made fun of my religious views yet. Still getting your coffee this morning? Or is this the one day a month when you work?
Thanks, I’ll be here all week folks.Reply
Ken B says:
at
Bob, like you I’m for freedom of association.
If you don’t want to force reason and evidence to associate with your religious beliefs I’m not not to compel you.Reply
Major_Freedom says:
at
“Bob, like you I’m for freedom of association.”
Ken B, you need to do some more self-reflection, because you’re holding inconsistent beliefs here.
You can’t claim to be in favor of freedom of association, because freedom of association of course does not exclude freedom of disassociation. If we can’t disassociate from X, then we do not have the freedom to associate with only those not X.
As a self-professed minarchist, you do not believe in the freedom to disassociate from the minarchist state, and to instead associate oneself with protectors one chooses to associate with rather than the state.
Thus, you’re against freedom of association. To be in favor of freedom to associate with anyone who would agree to associate with you back…except the state, which is mandatory association, you’re not actually in favor of association.Reply
Bob Murphy says:
at
MF when Ken B’s trying to be a pest, the least you can do is not analyze his quips at face value. Have some decency man!Reply
Major_Freedom says:
at
Then I’ll never analyze anything he says at face value.Reply
Ken B says:
at
You never analyze anything I say MF. You only analyze what you pretend I say.
Major_Freedom says:
at
Those are called your premises Ken B, in which I analyze as nobody else is doing so.Reply
Ken B says:
at
I’m in favor of reading Hammett. Doesn’t mean I’m in favor of doing nothing but reading Hammett. There are lots of conflicting goals to be considered. Like many commenters I’m in favor of candor and civility; discussing your posts presents dilemmas there.Reply
Major_Freedom says:
at
Ken B:
Seems you don’t want to force logical consistency into your beliefs.Reply
Gamble says:
at
MF,
I see what you did there. As soon as I I looked past your robotic logic mantra, I saw your quip about freedom to disassociate. Very clever.Reply
Ken B says:
at
MF exercises the freedom to dissociate.Reply
Major_Freedom says:
at
We all do Ken B, to varying degrees.
For you, even with the internet at your fingertips, which can help you reconcile your problems in logic and ethics, you are choosing to exercise some form of detachment from your immediate surroundings. Going further, you emotionally and psychologically detach yourself from the horrors unleashed through territorial monopolies of protection. Murphy’s blog posts are apparently a bigger evil than murder. “You are the same!”. Perhaps, but I’m not foolish enough to believe I never choose to dissociate.
Eduardo Bellani says:
at
Just to illustrate the nature of the horror MF is talking about, here’s the link again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-25721545
Ken B says:
at
Canadian cops were they Eduardo? Swiss?
Bob Roddis says:
at
Remember Ipperwash?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipperwash_Crisis
Ken B says:
at
I do. The cop involved was charged, convicted, and jailed.Reply
Bob Roddis says:
at
I submit that all of these pathetic attacks on us and our ideas are quite useful and helpful, similar to Rudy Giuliani’s attack on Ron Paul regarding blowback as described by Chris Rossini:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/chris-rossini/the-blowback-neocons-fear/
Any newbie who has a general understanding of our ideas can see that our opponents are simply not addressing the gist of our positions but are distorting them, apparently because they feel that the truth would only further help our cause.Reply
peter says:
at
First they ignore you, then they fight you,….Reply
joe says:
at
It’s also worth pointing out that Block has recently changed his reason for opposing slavery.
On Oct 9, 2013, Block said the ONLY problem with slavery is that it violated freedom of association. Now on Jan 30, 2014, he says it violated the law of free association, AND that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons.
Anyone want to explain why he added “private property right in their own person” since Oct 2013? Seems like he is making it up as he goes along.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/10/a-walter-block-email-to-leader-of.html
“I go so far as to say that the only problem with pre 1861 slavery was that it violated freedom of association. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. They gave you gruel. You could pick cotton (good exercize). They gave you free room and board. The ONLY problem with slavery is that it violated a principle precious to libertarianism: freedom of assocation. The right to pick and choose who you associate with. And, yet, this is PRECISELY the right taken away from Woolworths, when they were forced to associate with those who they didn’t want to assocate with. By the way, would you force a black storeowner to serve a KKK member?”
January 30, 2014
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/walter-e-block/scurrilous-libelous-venomous/
“Free association is a very important aspect of liberty. It is crucial. Indeed, its lack was the major problem with slavery. The slaves could not quit. They were forced to ‘associate’ with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory. It violated the law of free association, and that of the slaves’ private property rights in their own persons. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, then, to a much smaller degree of course, made partial slaves of the owners of establishments like Woolworths.”Reply
Matt Tanous says:
at
“Anyone want to explain why he added “private property right in their own person” since Oct 2013?”
Given that the former is a subset of the latter (i.e. you have freedom of association because your right to your person allows you to decide where it is), it really doesn’t matter.

From: Bob Brenton [mailto:bdbrenton@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:54 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: May a libertarian take money from the government?

Hi Dr. Block,

First of all, I would like to offer my support of your position in the current controversy you are undergoing at Loyola regarding slavery. Anyone with a basic understanding of the English language should understand your position and not conflate it with being pro-slavery. My sympathies in your current trials.


Letter: Walter Block has made too many assumptions and contradictions
By KEVIN WILDES
University President
Published: Thursday, February 6, 2014
Updated: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 18:02

Share on email
Dear Editors,
One of our goals as an academic institution is to encourage people to cultivate critical thinking. You can imagine my dismay when reading the Sunday New York Times and I found remarks by Dr. Walter Block.
In the Jan. 25 article “Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance”, Dr. Block made two claims, one empirical and one conceptual, that are simply wrong. First, he made the claim that chattel slavery “was not so bad.” “Bad” is a comparative measure that, like every comparison, is understood in a contrast set. My initial question was where is the evidence?
Dr. Block makes an assertion but gives no evidence for his assertion. Furthermore, it is also conceptually contradictory to his position as a libertarian that people could be treated as property against their will. So, by even hinting to endorse slavery enforced against someone’s free will, Dr. Block seems to contradict his basic libertarian principles.

His second claim is an example of a fundamental logical mistake. In peaking of discriminatory lunch counters, Dr. Block makes the mistake of assuming that because of the Civil Rights legislation people would be compelled to associate with others against their will. The Civil Rights legislation did no such thing.
What the Civil Rights legislation did was prevent places like Woolworth’s from excluding people because of their race. No one was forced to sit at the lunch counter. The law simply made clear that people could not be excluded from the lunch counter because of their race.

If these remarks were made in a paper for my class, I would return the paper with a failing grade. This is hardly critical thinking. Rather it is a position filled with assertions, without argument or evidence, to gain attention.
Sincerely yours,
Kevin Wm. Wildes, S.J., Ph.D.

President
Recommended: Articles that may interest youSelected for you by our sponsor:
Best 5 Graduate Degrees You Should Just Do Online (Education Portal)
Social Security — just say ‘no’ (Bankrate.com)
You might also like:
Column: Walter Block contradicts own ideals (The Maroon)
Basketball falls again (The Maroon)
Brief: Louisiana abortion clinics oppose new regulations (The Maroon)
Maroon Minute for Feb. 13, 2014 (The Maroon)




Recommended by
Facebook Comments
Site Comments
44 comments Log in to Comment
Next »
123
GSDoc
Sat Feb 15 2014 21:32
Let's see.
"My initial question was where is the evidence?"
So, a Jesuit priest now demands "evidence" prior to belief.
That has to be the most hilariously ironic statement of 2014, either that, or it is a demonstration of the utter imbecility of the "president" of this.... ahem.... "university".
StevenLandsburg
Thu Feb 13 2014 20:25
Though I am not a member of the Loyola community, I hope that my comments will not be out of place here. I've posted those comments at http://www.thebigquestions.com/2014/02/13/block-heads/ .
Anonymous
Wed Feb 12 2014 17:12
No opinion on Dr. Block. I have never had him in a class or meet him. However, Kevin, you can imagine every single reader of The Maroon "dismay" when we read about constant layoffs and ever lowering enrollment numbers. The only "fundamental logical mistake" is you still being in charge of Ignatius Loyola's University.
Anonymous
Wed Feb 12 2014 09:18
Wildes is just looking for reasons to get rid of faculty that oppose his rule. Open letter to Wildes, you are responsible for one of the greatest downturns in Loyola New Orleans history.
pau
Wed Feb 12 2014 06:07
@Anonymous Tue Feb 11 2014 22:38
Dr. Block does in fact have a good reputation in many circles. Those who support his opinions like him a lot. Those who oppose his opinions don't. This whole issue will likely not tarnish his reputation among those who already like him. However, I suspect it will be an annoying red herring that is brought up when people attempt to quote Dr. Block in the future.
Dr. Block's arguments were not "designed solely to gain attention." He does not even hold the opinions he is being primarily being criticized for. Dr. Block has condemned slavery for decades. But he has gone further than simply condemning slavery. He has explained precisely why he condemns slavery.
@Anonymous Tue Feb 11 2014 09:08
I have listened to Dr. Block debate. I disagree with your assessment. The debates I have heard were civil and involved logical argument. I would not call him a great debater. But I have never heard him depend "solely on insults and anecdotes."
Anonymous
Wed Feb 12 2014 04:25
Dear Father Wildes,
I have a graduate degree from Santa Clara University, a Catholic school in California.
I am shocked you have treated such an important professor who has integrity, the way you have treated Dr. Block in your open letter.
Do you hate the notions of political liberty and freedom? Or have you simply not thought about it? Did someone write the letter for you and you did not properly review it?
I never would have heard of Loyola New Orleans if it were not for Walter Block's numerous articles and speeches and his regular invitations for potential students to participate in an economics education in New Orleans which covers the whole spectrum of the subject and invites student contribution to the process. People all over the world have read these things because of him! I at age 54 and located in Europe, actually found myself last year perusing your online catalog! I then thought of referring a niece (graduate of John Caroll University in Cleveland), a young cousin, and even colleagues from Europe, to New Orleans!
I support what has been written above, that Dr. Block is one person out of thousands who would have stood up against slavery when it was occuring and actually being debated. Exactly the opposite of what the idiotic New York Times, a government and corporate propaganda mouthpiece, has attempted to imply.
Sincerely,
TWC, CPA
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Anonymous
Tue Feb 11 2014 22:38
"The good reputation of Mr. Block!?" That is the first time I have ever heard those words strung together.
I encourage all of you claiming Block is a heavy-weight of academia to search "Walter Block" on google scholar. Spoiler: the vast majority of the top hits are Walter F. Block's publications, not Loyola's Walter Block. Sure, the man publishes like crazy but the quality of journal and the impact of his writings are underwhelming. Also, he lists his articles in "The Maroon" in his CV. Come on.
I agree with Fr. Wildes, Block's arguments are designed solely to gain attention.
Anonymous
Tue Feb 11 2014 21:27
"First, he made the claim that chattel slavery "was not so bad."
No, he did not. He was making the very simple point that it wasn't the work or the conditions that made slavery wrong, but the introduction of force into the relationship between people. Without the forced association, and the threatened violence for leaving or not obeying, you have simply a job. He was injecting some humor - something which you and the other smear-mongers obviously lack - when he said that, absent the force in the relationship, it "wasn't so bad." It was just a job, working in the fields and singing songs. It was a passing remark, and perfectly understandable within the context.
I find it very hard to believe that a person such as yourself who is the president of a Catholic university is unable to read and comprehend English or that you are likewise incapable of understanding simple distinctions such as Walter Block made between the work itself and the nature of the relationship. Therefore, in exercising my own critical thinking, I must conclude that you are not stupid but rather evil. Just like that atrocious NY Times "reporter," you are all too willing to lie about others in order to smear them in public for the sake of your own agenda.
How ironic it is that you claim to be someone who is able to lecture others on critical thinking as well as ethics when you are obviously someone who doesn't give a damn about either. You parrot the overtly anti-intellectual Times hit piece, rather than deconstruct and criticize it. And then you flat out lie about someone who is supposed to be a colleague and compatriot of yours and twist his words to imply the very opposite of what he meant. One would think that you would have some tiny sense of pastoral responsibility to protect and defend the people in your own institution, not attack them without cause!
For your next piece, perhaps you should write about the commandment not to bear false witness against your neighbor. Do you recall any Catholic teaching on this commandment? I do. I recall that the Church has fully explicated the meaning of this commandment over the centuries. You ought to know that the proscription goes well beyond simple lying and ecompasses every aspect of insinuating untruth. There is no place for liars and slanderers to hide here. Every time you feign ignorance about what someone meant in order to insinuate a different meaning as a means of attacking that person, you are violating the commandment. Every time you even knowingly leave an impression that is false in order to hurt someone you are likewise guilty.
The Christian is supposed to be committed to truth at all times. What kind of example are you setting here? Do you honestly expect people to buy this nonsense that Block was actually saying "chattel slavery wasn't so bad" when his whole life has been devoted to defending human rights and opposing the introduction of force and violence into human relationships? Who are you kidding? Walter Block is one of the foremost defenders of individual liberty. So what the hell goes through your mind when you join in with some yellow journalist at the Times and start smearing this man in public? You must have something else driving you other than a concern for the truth and the good reputation of Mr. Block. What is it? Care to share it with the rest of us?
Kevinz
Tue Feb 11 2014 19:32
I am from France, and I am familiar with Dr Block's work.
I suppose I wouldn't take too much risk in assuming that he is the most read faculty member of Loyola university - by far - and by far the most popular all around the world.
Anybody who has read one of his book or is familiar with the libertarian philosophy that he defends, know that those attacks have no merit.
What i find disappointing is not that NYT "article". I couldn't care less.
What is disappointing however, is the response from Mr Wildes and some other faculty members.
Because we all know that you know, that this NYT article has no merit.
I understand that it is bad press for your university and that you care about defending it but you couldn't have chosen a worst way to do that.
You expect that most parents and future college students will take this NYT for granted and therefore you chose the easy way out. From the very start you do not promote the idea of looking at any article with a critical eye. Even if it was printed in a big journal.
Fine. I guess it makes it perfectly clear to some parents or students that your university might not be the best for them [Although, if I had a kid, I would want him to attend Dr Block's classes]
Anonymous
Tue Feb 11 2014 19:12
"too many assumptions and contradictions"?
More like too many assertions and convolutions by you.
But seriously, have you even listened to Dr. Walter Block speak even once?
Bob the Infidel
Tue Feb 11 2014 18:34
Loyola would love to fire Walter. Fact is, as much as Jesuits trump their "commitment to free inquiry," that commitment goes right out the window the moment someone makes a credible counterargument.
"Jesuitical" became an insult in the sixteenth century because of their dishonest arguments and their love for special pleading, and this is just one more example of that.
Kelly James
Tue Feb 11 2014 16:53
Dr. Wildes:
You've managed to become president of a prestigious university, so you're obviously no dummy. Therefore, I can only conclude that your misrepresentation of Dr. Block's position was purposeful. In my work, when I receive complaints regarding one of my subordinate employees, my immediate response is to reach out to my employee to ensure I am getting both sides of the story. I doubt you took the time to glance at Dr. Block's essay, much less to reach out to him personally. You seemed only too happy to throw your employee under the bus to desperately prove that Loyola doesn't support racist policies. I'm glad you don't support racist policies, but I am certainly disappointed that you apparently do support the policy of disingenuously demonizing your professors so as to appear politically correct.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
Tue Feb 11 2014 16:12
It seems that Dr. Wildes may have neglected a little critical thinking of his own. He failed to consider that Dr. Block's "not so bad" comment was clearly employing a little known rhetorical device known as sarcasm (it is in the dictionary if he needs to look it up). Sorta like "other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Robert Katz
Tue Feb 11 2014 13:49
Sayeth Kevin Wildes, University President of Loyola:
"... His [Walter Block's] second claim is an example of a fundamental logical mistake. In peaking of
discriminatory lunch counters, Dr. Block makes the mistake of assuming that because of the Civil Rights
legislation people would be compelled to associate with others against their will. The Civil Rights legislation
did no such thing.
What the Civil Rights legislation did was prevent places like Woolworth's from excluding people because of
their race. No one was forced to sit at the lunch counter. The law simply made clear that people could not be
excluded from the lunch counter because of their race."
I have not seen any of the fellows at the Mises Institute or the columnists at LRC point out the ignorance of the above mentioned statement. It is Fr Wildes who makes a fundamental logical mistake, not the honorable Walter Block:
Premise: The Civil Rights legislation would compel people to associate with others against their will.
Dr Wildes refutation of that premise: The law simply made clear that people could not be excluded ...
Well, Fr Wildes does not understand the obvious. One can't exclude (for whatever reason) is tautologically equivalent to one must associate with, and must associate with is tautologically equivalent to compelled to associate with.
It seems that Fr Wildes did a good job of supporting what he claims he opposes; or looking at it another way, opposing what he claims he supports.
Perhaps if Fr Wildes took a remedial course in logic he might learn to think straight. Then he might take a course with Walter Block to learn something about economics and ethics.
Anonymous
Tue Feb 11 2014 12:23
How in the world did this guy become President of the University???
anonymous
Tue Feb 11 2014 10:54
In reference to Dr. Wildes, in the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!"
Anonymous
Tue Feb 11 2014 09:08
Have any of you listened to Walter Block debate? He depends solely on insults and anecdotes. Debating Walter Block would be a waste of everyones' time, and it would only give him a platform to share his ideological theories.
Let him simmer in his displeasure. Maybe he will finally begin to understand that he harms Loyola and his own school of thought by using such extreme examples and sharing them with REPORTERS.
Anonymous
Tue Feb 11 2014 09:02
Amen ! In reference to the defense of Dr. Block.

Warren O'Leary
K of C Fourth Degree Knight
Tecumseh, Mi.
Nick Badalamenti
Tue Feb 11 2014 09:01
"So, by even hinting to endorse slavery enforced against someone's free will, Dr. Block seems to contradict his basic libertarian principles."
Is there any real hope for a man like Fr. Wildes to perform well in his duties if his reading comprehension is so lacking as to somehow draw the above from Dr. Block's comments?
"Block makes the mistake of assuming that because of the Civil Rights legislation people would be compelled to associate with others against their will. The Civil Rights legislation did no such thing. "
It didn't occur to Fr. Wides even once to consider the owners of said establishments, did it? (and that isn't an endorsement for involuntary slavery!)
I can see now why Loyola is having to lay off professors. Hopefully they get their academic ship in order and find the courage to take unpopular stances when logically sound to do so. Unfortunately, it requires leadership both able to understand when such logic has been put forth and is further ethical enough to take said stand.
Mark Harris
Tue Feb 11 2014 08:15
How disappointing and ironic, Reverend Wildes, that your Wikipedia biography states, "As an author, he has published numerous works on ethics and morality..."
What you've done, in your total absence of anything that could possibly be construed as "critical thinking" on this matter, is the very opposite of ethical and moral. You have single-handedly stained and damaged the reputation of Loyola University.

Letter: Faculty says Walter Block's claims were, once again, untrue and offensive
By Loyola Faculty Members
Published: Thursday, February 6, 2014
Updated: Friday, February 7, 2014 09:02

Share on email4
Dear Editors,
As Loyola faculty members in the African and African American Studies program, Center for Intercultural Understanding, Twomey Center and Jesuit Social Research Institute programs at the forefront of Loyola’s longstanding dedication to racial and social justice, we have devoted ourselves to teaching students about the violence, cruelty, and humiliation inflicted upon black people during the more than four centuries of slavery, Jim Crow segregation, and the civil rights movement and the legacy of that injustice today. Given this commitment, we are outraged over the views espoused by Loyola economics professor Walter Block in a recent New York Times article. In a Jan. 25, front-page story on the libertarian political philosophy of Sen. Rand Paul, Block not only attacks the legitimacy and constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act but also dismisses the institution of slavery as “not so bad.”

While Block might have the academic freedom to teach such ahistorical and hostile beliefs in his own economics classroom, these claims — expressed to a reporter for a nationwide newspaper article — are an insult to millions of African Americans in this country as well as to the pain and suffering incurred by both black and white people in their struggle to gain the same basic American freedoms that Professor Block enjoys today as a privileged white male.

Indeed, Dr. Block might educate himself on the reality of American slavery beyond his understanding that the lack of free association was the major problem with slavery.

“The slaves could not quit. They were forced to ‘associate’ with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory,” said Block in his “Reply to the Scurrilous, Libelous, Venomous, Scandalous New York Times Smear Campaign” on LewRockwell.com
Significant scholarship on slavery illuminates quite a different experience and set of problems related to slavery. Traders in human flesh kidnapped men, women and children from the interior of the African continent and marched them in stocks to the coast. Snatched from their families, these individuals awaited an unknown but decidedly terrible future. Often for as long as three months enslaved people sailed west, shackled and mired in the feces, urine, blood and vomit of the other wretched souls on the boat. For many, their desperation became so deep, they deemed suicide and infanticide as viable alternatives to a life of enslavement. After arriving in North America, labor, coercion and violence always occupied the same space.

While the lack of free association did indeed characterize antebellum slavery in the U.S., the ownership of humans as property is merely one of the incontrovertibly unacceptable aspects of slavery. The violation of human dignity, the radical exploitation of people’s labor, the brutal violence that slaveholders utilized to maintain power, the disenfranchisement of American citizens, the destruction of familial bonds, the pervasive sexual assault and the systematic attempts to dehumanize an entire race all mark slavery as an intellectually, economically, politically and socially condemnable institution no matter how, where, or when it is practiced.

At a time when Loyola University New Orleans is working diligently to recruit every qualified freshman student it can attract and enroll this fall, Block’s indefensible comments, printed in the national edition of the Sunday New York Times no less, hampers the university’s efforts to recruit the most accomplished and diverse students it can from across the U.S.

Moreover, this is not the first time that his disregard for socio-historical truth has proven to be an embarrassment to many of the faculty at this institution.

We the undersigned urge the university to take the long overdue and necessary steps to condemn and censure Professor Block for his recurring public assaults on the values of Loyola University, its mission and the civil rights of all Americans. In so doing, Loyola University must reaffirm our commitment to pursue truth, wisdom and virtue — and most importantly to work for a more just world.
THIS LETTER TO THE EDITOR WAS SUBMITTED BY:
Laura Murphy
Chair of the African and African American Studies Program
Assistant Professor of English
Anthony E. Ladd
Professor of Sociology
Barbara Ewell
Professor of English
Charles Corprew
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Laura Hope
Associate Professor of Theater
Kathleen Fitzgerald
Visiting Associate Professor of Sociology
Angel Parham
Associate Professor of Sociology

Ashley Howard
Assistant Professor of History
Trimiko Melancon
Assistant Professor of English

Alex Mukulich
Jesuit Social Research Institute
Patricia Boyett
Visiting Assistant Professor of History
Julie Thibodaux, J.D.

Interim Director,
Women’s Resource Center
Nicole Eggers
Assistant Professor of History
Ted Quant,
Director, Twomey Center
for Peace and Justice
Susan Weishar
Jesuit Social Research Institute
Alvaro Alcazar
Twomey Center and Loyola Institute for Ministry
Lisa Martin
Director, Center for Intercultural Understanding
Department of Communications
Judith Hunt,
Associate Dean,
College of Humanities and Natural Sciences Department of History

Recommended: Articles that may interest youSelected for you by our sponsor:
15 Foods You Should Never Buy Again (Reader's Digest)
In Jeter’s Impressive Résumé, One Thing Is Lacking (The New York Times)
You might also like:
Column: Walter Block contradicts own ideals (The Maroon)
18 employees laid off with 12 more to come (The Maroon)
Hungarian Jews protest memorial (The Maroon)
Divergence (The Maroon)




Recommended by
Facebook Comments
Site Comments
36 comments Log in to Comment
Next »
12
mattn
Sun Feb 16 2014 17:44
How profoundly sad it is that the cosigners of this statement, and undoubtedly countless others who think the same way, would besmirch a man who would undoubtedly have been an abolitionist during the era of slavery. And they do so for no other reason than they cannot comprehend what he is saying - or even worse, refuse to comprehend.
I quote the letter above:
"Significant scholarship on slavery illuminates quite a different experience and set of problems related to slavery."
And EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM was made possible because of compulsion. The ENTIRETY of the "set of problems" that you identify were only possible because of, and direct extensions of, the use of violent coercion to force people to experience them. Had that coercion not existed, those degradations would not have occurred, for people would simply have removed themselves from the situation.
One wonders what the motives of these individuals are.... What possible reason could they have to attack Dr. Block for asserting that involuntary servitude was the worst factor of slavery? Even if they disagree, is there really much benefit to be had by slamming an individual who is - by their own admission - CONDEMNING SLAVERY? Somehow I think Frederick Douglas and Rosa Parks might not have found that tactic wise.
But I'll answer my own question: I do believe I know their motive, though I suspect it is deeply buried within them and they will not admit it to themselves: Humanities departments in universities are generally very keen on using state power to force people to bend to their will. Granted, they believe they do so for the benefit of all, and to correct wrongs. But, nevertheless, the appeal to coercion is there. Dr. Block links coercion - of any kind - to slavery, and therefore to them. And that is more self-realization than they can stomach.
The cosigners of this letter are not arguing against Dr. Block. They argue against themselves.
mattn
Sun Feb 16 2014 11:33
How profoundly sad it is that the cosigners of this statement, and undoubtedly countless others who think the same way, would besmirch a man who would undoubtedly have been an abolitionist during the era of slavery. And they do so for no other reason than they cannot comprehend what he is saying - or even worse, refuse to comprehend.
I quote the letter above:
"Significant scholarship on slavery illuminates quite a different experience and set of problems related to slavery."
And EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM was made possible because of compulsion. The ENTIRETY of the "set of problems" that you identify were only possible because of, and direct extensions of, the use of violent coercion to force people to experience them. Had that coercion not existed, those degradations would not have occurred, for people would simply have removed themselves from the situation.
One wonders what the motives of these individuals are.... What possible reason could they have to attack Dr. Block for asserting that involuntary servitude was the worst factor of slavery? Even if they disagree, is there really much benefit to be had by slamming an individual who is - by their own admission - CONDEMNING SLAVERY? Somehow I think Frederick Douglas and Rosa Parks might not have found that tactic wise.
But I'll answer my own question: I do believe I know their motive, though I suspect it is deeply buried within them and they will not admit it to themselves: Humanities departments in universities are generally very keen on using state power to force people to bend to their will. Granted, they believe they do so for the benefit of all, and to correct wrongs. But, nevertheless, the appeal to coercion is there. Dr. Block links coercion - of any kind - to slavery, and therefore to them. And that is more self-realization than they can stomach.
The cosigners of this letter are not arguing against Dr. Block. They argue against themselves.
psw003
Sat Feb 15 2014 15:34
headline :Loyola professors think forced servitude is OK, as long as the force used is not excessively harsh or demeaning.
BobRoddis
Thu Feb 13 2014 16:51
I have been a libertarian since I was 22 in 1973 and have been reading Prof. Block's outstanding writings for 41 years. The fundamental concept of libertarianism is the absolute prohibition upon the initiation of force. Whatever other attributes one might think up about slavery, the most important IS THAT YOU ARE FORCED TO BE A SLAVE, YOU CANNOT QUIT, and your life and body are no longer in your control. On the other hand, if you are free to leave, and you, your family, friends and property are IN FACT all safe from the initiation of violence, you have now solved the problem of slavery. That such a simple and self evident truth must be purposefully distorted by university instructors is horrifying. As I said for years, no non-libertarian seems to be able to engage the simple (but profound) concept of the libertarian non-aggression principle.
BobRoddis
Thu Feb 13 2014 16:31
I have been a libertarian since I was 22 in 1973 and have been reading Prof. Block's outstanding writings for 41 years. The fundamental concept of libertarianism is the absolute prohibition upon the initiation of force. Whatever other attributes one might think up about slavery, the most important IS THAT YOU ARE FORCED TO BE A SLAVE, YOU CANNOT QUIT, and your life and body are no longer in your control. On the other hand, if you are free to leave, and you, your family, friends and property are IN FACT all safe from the initiation of violence, you have now solved the problem of slavery. That such a simple and self evident truth must be purposefully distorted by university instructors is horrifying. As I said for years, no non-libertarian seems to be able to engage the simple (but profound) concept of the libertarian non-aggression principle.
Anonymous
Wed Feb 12 2014 17:36
"but also dismisses the institution of slavery as "not so bad."
That is a bold faced lie. He did not - and would never (AND YOU ALL KNOW THIS!) "dismiss" the institution of slavery! He abhors the institution of slavery with every fiber of his being. He was making a distinction (I know it's a big word for you phony intellectuals to handle, but go look it up) between the WORK of the slaves and nature of the RELATIONSHIP between slave and master. His perfectly logical point here was that it was not the work but the nature of the relationship which constitutes the essence of slavery. How is it possible you all can claim not to understand such a simple point? If you are capable of grasping the point, then do you disagree with it? How would you disagree without coming off as completely irrational? You would assert that yes, indeed, working in the fields is slavery under any circumstance while the nature of the relationship between the parties has no relevance? Really? If you say he was wrong, then this is what you must hold. And if you hold this, then you are all obviously completely irrational.
How anti-intellectual can you people get to purposely ignore the point a man is making when he contrasts one thing with another?!? Are your brains too small to hold two thoughts together at the same time? If so, why are pretending to be teachers? What could people like you possibly teach anyone if you can't grasp the basic mechanics of argument?
If I worked for this faux-Catholic university and I spoke about the distinctions to be made in various acts of violence, would you accuse me then of "dismissing" violence? I can see it now. I give a simple statement which considers the same act of violence in two different contexts, one justified and one not, and you people condemn me as condoning violence! It wouldn't matter to any of you that one act was in self-defense against an aggressor while the other was an initiation of violence against an innocent party. No, you people are so incomprehensibly obtuse and simply out for mischief so much that you would claim I support violence and that I am therefore an offense to everyone who has ever suffered violence. And no amount of logic could convince you otherwise.
I thank God that I went to a real Catholic school and not one of these fake ones that are really fronts for some other agenda. I'm afraid to even look into what other garbage the president and these faculty members spew on a regular basis. This incident with Walter Block has told me all I need to know about this group.
DesertBunny
Wed Feb 12 2014 17:29
Are these learned scholars behind this letter or a pretentious mob?
Anonymous
Wed Feb 12 2014 17:00
If those flop faculty members that signed this bogus letter (which I will save and use in the future to guarantee I am never taught by any of those flukes) have the audacity to read the comments on either article... I think it is safe to say that they have been scalped repeatedly by those who are actually educated. I have never been more embarrassed to attend Loyola than I am now. I might ramble further but I think the dozens of comments here have already proven the point I would also make. Professors, please collect your wigs that we have so handily snatched at the door on the way out!
Israel Cisternas
Wed Feb 12 2014 16:49
Is this latter a complete joke? This latter pretty much sums up what i'v been saying. If your for the civil rights act of 1964 then you are for slavery. This law makes it compulsory to associate with people you do not want to associate with. You know by force. How is this any different from slavery? Lets say i refuse to follow this civil rights act law, and say well i don't want african on my property, or don't want germans in my property. Now what would happen to me? I would be imprisoned and probably beaten if i resisted arrest. I may even get shot and killed for not complying, so i say again: how is this any different then slavery? I get taxed without my permission. I only get the money from my own labour the USG 'slave masters' allow me to keep. Should i say again how is this any different then slavery?
Walter Block is a mighty ant-slavery man so i don't get why you show that you agree with him in this letter then say that he should be fired or something like that. This whole issue about getting rid of some people you don't like is childish. I can see this whole issue seems to be about 'which group of homeboys stays employed at Loyola' instead of actual true accusations about anything that makes any sense. I'm guessing the one group writing this letter wants to stay employed at loyola, and are willing to lie and smear to do it. They seem to be willing to sell their souls and kiss Sir Wildes hands. Isn't their a word for these kinds of people? Oh i know, boutlickers..
Anonymous
Wed Feb 12 2014 16:32
Wow. A bunch of lying, slandering idiots sign a letter to "censure" someone for making simple distinctions about the nature of the institution of slavery! If this is not a perfect picture of the Orwellian world we live in, I don't know what is. The true irony, of course, is that Walter Block probably stands alone among all of these nitwits who signed their names here as someone who ACTUALLY opposes involuntary servitude of every kind. I can guarantee that most or all of these "professors" will flat out deny that human beings have the right to be free and own the fruit of their labor. Most or all of these signers likely have no problem with robbing people en masse, putting them into multi-generational debt, and/or forcing them to work for others against their will. They are most likely dyed-in-the-wool statists who knowingly support every conceivable kind of trespass against individual liberty if it serves the agenda of their true god, the State.
Loyola does not seem to stand for Catholic Christian values at all. I'm sick of seeing such perversions of truth and honor at Catholic schools. If you people are truly not Catholic and not committed to Christian values, then please don't continue the farce of claiming that you are. This inexcusable witch hunt against Walter Block is absolutely disgusting. You are all such committed liars and deceivers that you can't even put your accusations against him into comprehensible English. You all know very well what the man stands for, and you can look up exactly what he said. Block is not guilty of any offense against anyone here, nor did he make any logical errors in the two points that are cited. What clearly is happening is that you are falsely accusing him based on the intentional misreading and twisting of his words.
Anonymous
Wed Feb 12 2014 15:00
Del-GA-Do has become more prestigious than Loyola New Orleans, evidence is in this letter and in enrollment. The school is slowly being purged of every administrator and faculty member which disagrees with Wildes' top down communist progressive agenda. It is just a matter of time before Wildes has the Maroon hunt down the identity of posters. The man and his puppets named in this letter have got to go if you want this university to exist in 10 years.
Anonymous
Wed Feb 12 2014 09:12
The fact that none of the ignorant jerks on the faculty who signed this libelous letter has responded to any of these comments is further proof that they are not in the least interested in honest scholarly discourse but are merely hateful political ideologues and enemies of free speech and academic freedom. Sending your kid to Loyola University-New Orleans is a form of child abuse.
JD/MBA 2010
Tue Feb 11 2014 22:09
I call for all the lazy idiots who did not even bother to read Block's essay before signing this sorry excuse of a letter to be fired. And you wonder why enrollment is down and why alumni support is near all time lows, look at the crazies teaching at the school.
Anonymous
Tue Feb 11 2014 19:21
Loyola Faculty,
Did you not do an internal investigation and listen to all sides of the story before you wrote this editorial (for instance, reach out to Professor Block and get his side of the story)?
At least read this piece and watch this video - tomwoods dot com/blog/jesuit-university-attacks-libertarian-professor-i-respond.
Kelly James
Tue Feb 11 2014 17:13
Translation of the letter:
"None of us read Dr. Block's essay, nor do we care what his actual position is. Slavery is bad, and we're all super noble for announcing from the rooftops here in the year 2014 that slavery is bad. Slavery Bad! Slavery Bad! However, disingenuously misrepresenting a professor's position so as to smear him publicly as being racist is just peachy." Kudos profs.
Anonymous
Tue Feb 11 2014 14:49
Wow, I am not even a student nor am I a liberal and I am amazed that the Loyola faculty jumped on the bandwagon to condemn this professor based on an article in the NYT where Dr. Block was misquoted and of course, part of the interview was left out to create a sensational article - similar to what the tabloids do.
Dr. Block's only "sin" is to use sarcasm. If the faculty and president had bothered to read any of this work, they would realize his statements were sarcastic and that his belief in the non aggression principle would speak for itself. The key word here is non aggression. This would mean that beatings, kidnapping, rape, forced labor, and all inhumane treatment would never have taken place. Believing in non aggression means one is against aggression. The idiot professors who cosigned this letter are reactive and thoughtless. Such ones do not make good educators as they are not critical thinkers.
Rocky K
Tue Feb 11 2014 14:00
"... to take the long overdue and necessary steps to condemn and censure ... "
Chris Rock: For Blacks, "College Sports is No Different than Slavery"
Anonymous
Tue Feb 11 2014 13:45
"...otherwise slavery was not so bad." Obvious sarcasm from Dr. Block. I think Professor Murphy is doing what is know as the logical error of "begging the question".
Anonymous
Tue Feb 11 2014 10:24
What an absolute joke. Walter Block has explicitly said multiple times that the MAIN THING WRONG WITH SLAVERY WAS THAT IT WAS COMPLETELY INVOLUNTARY. He will then go on to talk about the absolute DISGUSTING nature of forcing another human being to do something against their own will without their consent.
The fact that the New York Times published a BOGUS article to completely ruin the character of this man is absolutely unbelievable and THAT is the action which should be condemned by Loyola University, NOT the actions of Walter Block.
We seem to live in an age where it is apparently okay to completely judge people's entire character based off of MISQUOTES from an article in a newspaper.
I have studied the works of Walter Block for some time now, and he does NOT condone slavery and in NO WAY has EVER made light of the slavery era in the United States.
It is absolutely unbelievable today that those who call themselves "academics" seem to ignore the evidence presented to them in the HOURS of available YouTube lectures by Walter Block, and go with judging and condemning a man based off of a MISQUOTE in the New York Times.
And to think I was actually looking into Loyal University as a school I wanted to attend and move away from my country because I thought Walter Block teaching there proved that it was a school open to various points of view. It appears that I am wrong.
Shame on you.
Rick Miller
Tue Feb 11 2014 09:12
"The violation of human dignity, the radical exploitation of people's labor, the brutal violence that slaveholders utilized to maintain power, the disenfranchisement of American citizens, the destruction of familial bonds, the pervasive sexual assault and the systematic attempts to dehumanize an entire race all mark slavery as an intellectually, economically, politically and socially condemnable institution no matter how, where, or when it is practiced."
It would be funny if it were not so sad that these professors don't realize that all of these effects stem from Block's central point- the involuntary nature of slavery. I am glad that many are coming to Block's defense against the baseless allegations against him. These professors know they are misrepresenting Block's views, or are ignorant of his position via the Non-Aggression Principle. Either way, their actions are shameful. In light of such anti-Scholarship, one would be compelled to withdraw from any courses "taught" by these professors...

Dear President Wildes,
Anyone who knows Walter Block could not – by any stretch of the imagination – believe he would hold the view that slavery was not “so bad.” There is some absurdity in having to make such an obvious point – not only because nobody today would condone slavery (even though in the past many did, including Aristotle), but because the condition of slavery is an extreme violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, the core value of the libertarian philosophy that Prof. Block has dedicated his university career and his life to expounding.
Nonetheless, this slanderous accusation against Prof. Block, made in the context of a NY Times hit piece, seems to have been taken seriously by some. I am disappointed to find that the President of Loyola University is among this group. However, I am not writing to take you to task for your unwarranted attack on Prof Block. Rather, in the spirit of dialogue which leads to increased understanding, I would like to invite you to familiarize yourself with his actual writings and with libertarian scholarship more generally, instantly available to you through free pdfs on the Ludwig von Mises Institute website (mises.org).
As a faculty member at Columbia University (Walter Block’s alma mater), I am pleased to add that he will be giving two talks on our campus next month hosted by the Columbia College Libertarians. I am copying the information below, since the talks will be available via web cam for all those unable to attend. (I shall gladly provide the web cam link closer to the date when it has been set up). I hope you will take advantage of this opportunity to hear one of your most prolific and esteemed faculty members.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Cavallo
Professor of Italian
Columbia University


From: Joe Horton [mailto:jhorton@uca.edu]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:16 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Slavery Controversy

Walter,

I hope life is treating you well. I only just heard about the NY Times and the President of Loyola denouncing you and misunderstanding what you were saying. I guess I am not well informed. Hasn't the President of Loyola denounced you before? Perhaps it is just for PR purposes. All this reminds me of the attacks on Robert Fogel over Time on the Cross. He was arguing that slavery was horrible, but profitable so it would not self destruct as some people had claimed.

Anyway, I do hope the President's bark is wore than his bite. I count the misuse by the NY Times to be an honor for which you are very deserving.

As always I wish you the best in this.

Your friend,
Joe Horton

From: Irven Hill [mailto:irven51@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:31 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: This is the least I could do

Fr. Wildes,

My name is Irven Hill. I am no scholar. I am a an owner of two successful small businesses in eastern Idaho. My circumstances don't allow me time to attend formal University education. But I have a great love of learning, especially in logic, history, economics and libertarian philosophy. I truly appreciate the contribution of Walter Block, who is willing to take his scholarship and teaching outside of a brick and mortar building and make it available to myself and many others like me, who love to learn but need an alternative means of doing so.

Interestingly, Walter Block is the only professor I know of from Loyola University. I have never heard of any other professor of anything from Loyola. Prof. Block has authored books; hundreds of peer reviewed articles and various other thought provoking information that many others at Loyola, or any university for that matter, could only dream of.

Everyone I know, knows the name Walter Block. Not because he's the only scholar I read, quote, or agree with; but because he manages to put his finger on, pin down and put in print or on record, the very things many of us have thought about abstractly or randomly, but couldn't quite nail down.

The economic thoughts and scholarly writings of Walter Block, more so than any other economist have helped me be more successful in my business endeavors and influencing others in economic thought. Perhaps most amazingly, outside of a few of Prof. Blocks books I have purchased, it was all free.

For all of this, the least I can do is write a letter in defense of Prof. Block and the outright misrepresentation(flat out LIES in my opinion)of the man by the New York Times. To judge him by distorted words of the NYT is disgraceful and dishonest. His views aren't and haven't ever been any secret. You and the faculty at Loyola know this. The NYT knows this. Everyone who has read or heard Prof. Block knows this.

Now it's time to do the right thing. Don't you think?

Sincerely,
Irven Hill
Rigby, Idaho

From: Ed Smith
To: TDilo
Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 11:54 am
Subject: re: enemies of freedom
Tom:

Thought I'd share with you the letter I sent to Fr. Wildes.

The Five College community (Amherst/Northampton) has got to be the PC
capital of the known world. Though this is one of the safest places
anyone could hope to live, we are daily bombarded with the terrors of
living in a "rape culture" of "white male privilege." As men are
presumed to be active or potential rapists, incoming male students (and,
perhaps, junior male faculty) are compelled to complete a course of
workshops in (are you ready?) "non-rape training." The definition of
rape has been expanded to include what used to be sexual assault while
sexual harassment (an expellable/dismissible offesnse) includes such
behavior as staring, gawking, leering and making the "victim" feel
uncomfortable. When it comes to rape and sexual harassment, males (we
really aren't men anymore) are expected to know when yes means no and,
furthermore, we are to realize that sexual relations (however defined)
with a woman or a transgendered person or a gay male, if they happen to
be under the (unspecified) influence of drugs or alcohol, is rape as
these individuals, being "under the influence," are thereby incapable,
for that reason, of giving consent. There is also retroactive revocation
of consent or "morning after rape." The "if you see something, say
something" campaign urges us to call 911 if we observe that a "sexual
confrontation" may be taking place (like a group of young men and women
chatting outside a local pub).

The result, as you can tell, is to intimidate and neuter men, mostly
young men, particularly white heterosexual young men in furtherance of
the agendas of the race and gender constituencies.

Walter would no doubt have been accused of "cultural rape" and, if
tenured, he would be harassed, boycotted, subjected to professional and
social ostracism and would possibly run the risk of bodily harm if he
were to show his face in town.

But for all the talk of "white male privilege," some of it conducted by
MAVAW (pronounced may-vaw), Men Against Violence Against Women, I've yet
to see or hear of a single white male quitting his job in favor of a
woman or minority person, volunteering to become homeless and to give up
his digs for a homeless woman or minority person or making any kind of
personal restitution on account of his bewailed "white male privilege."
That's for other, less politically hip white males to do.

I'm telling you, the worst greenhouse gas around here is hypocrisy so
thick you could cut it with a knife -- if you could pass the
knife-control background check.

Ed Smith
---------------------------
Dear Fr. Wildes:

I'm writing to you from Amherst, Massachusetts. Perhaps nowhere, during
the antebellum years, did abolitionism enjoy such steadfast support.
Abolitionist meetings were held at the Dickinson and Huntington
homesteads. Vehement condemnations of slavery were published in the
Springfield Republican. A statue of Henry Ward Beecher, famed for his
anti-slavery sermons, adorns the Amherst College campus. Lincoln is said
to have remarked to Rev. Beecher's daughter, "So you're the little lady
whose tale started this war."

Sixty miles to the east, in Concord, Henry David Thoreau, in his essay,
"Slavery in Massachusetts," excoriated the Massachusetts legislature for
willingly, if reluctantly, enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law. Some years
earlier, the first slave in the U.S. to sue for his freedom resided in
Barre, Massachusetts; and though the suit failed, the court's
sympathetic opinion laid the basis for the abolition of slavery in
Massachusetts, the first state so to do.

These observations will be familiar to you and to the members of
Loyola's faculty. I mention them because I believe that Prof. Block
would qualify as a classical abolitionist and would have been recognized
as such by his abolitionist peers whose views precisely mirrored Prof.
Block's own. The gravamen of Prof. Block's argument is quite logical. A
relationship entered into voluntarily, with neither party under
constraint to the other, harms neither, which, of course, is not the
case with slavery. One may disagree with such an assertion. I have
reservations about it. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the discussion
ought to take place on that level, not on the level of the ad hominem
which only strengthens an opponent's position.

The faculty's letter doesn't allege that Prof. Block endorses slavery.
The letter alleges that Prof. Block appears insensitive to the
dehumanizing context in which the institution of slavery exists,
American slavery in particular, and that his comments seem anachronistic
and intemperate by today's standards. In that light, it seems to me
that the feelings that such a reaction arouses were better communicated
in private and not in the public forum where opportunities for
misunderstanding abound.

Yours truly,

Ed Smith



-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Wardle [mailto:chrisjwardle@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:10 AM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: In support of Walter Block

Dear Kevin

In your failure to support Walter Block you have brought discredit on yourself and your institution in the eyes of the world. That you should bow to the illogical and "politically correct" arguments put forward in recent letters and press articles is a disgrace to academic integrity.

The attacks on Rand Paul are obvious attempts to damage him ahead of a likely Presidential run in 2016, very much like those directed at his father in 2012, a campaign I followed very closely from over "The Pond". That you should involve yourself in such partisan attacks, and in the process disparage one of your colleagues, is, given your position, shocking to me.

Yours sincerely

Chris Wardle
England


From: ssglx2002@aol.com [mailto:ssglx2002@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:04 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: You Have My Support

Dr Block,

I've caught wind of the hit piece in the NYT against Rand Paul and many of my favorite people in the Libertarian community. I have listened to many podcasts by youself over the last few years and I've said to many of my friends that you're my favorite economist and one of my favorite commentators. You are wonderfully gifted in refuting and shattering the politically correct attitudes that hide the truth and cause severe damage to our society and country, and I am grateful for it.

I wonder what I can do to counter the folks at the NYT and your own university who hold such sway with the public, and even some of my own loved ones.

Chris Allan

From: Guy Fiore [mailto:gtfiore@att.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 9:09 PM
To: letter@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; "'jlhunt@loyno.edu.'"@neo1.loyno.edu; "'pres@loyno.edu.'"@neo1.loyno.edu
Subject: Professor Walter Block

To President Wildes and the faculty members who have criticized Professor Walter Block:

What a disgraceful pack of hypocrites you all are!! It's obvious that you are purposely mischaracterizing Professor Block's statements, which are both sensible and thoughtful, because they challenge your elitist, PC views. It's beyond me how such a good and decent man, and a true intellectual, can tolerate associating with frauds like you. You are not educators, but propagandists, intent on brainwashing impressionable students with your hateful ideas and views. Typical of lefty academics (and in stark contrast to Professor Block), there is not a shred of intellectual honesty in any of you. Of course you will never apologize, because that would be the decent thing to do. But thankfully, what you have meant for evil will turn out for good, since your malicious attack has not gone unchallenged and the shameful truth about what you really are, rather than what you pretend to be, is revealed to all.

Guy Fiore
Brookfield, CT


From: Guy Fiore [mailto:gtfiore@att.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:22 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: NYT smear

Dear Walter,

I just wanted to say how sorry i am for all that you have had to endure concerning the NYT interview. It never ceases to amaze me how malicious and vile these statists can be! But it warmed my heart (ok, it brought tears to my eyes!) to read Tom Woods' and others letters supporting you, and I hope you will be encouraged knowing that there are many of us that love and appreciate you. You are a great educator and a good, kindhearted person.

Sincerely,

Guy Fiore

From: Harold Baker [mailto:haroldbaker900@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:45 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu; wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Dr. Walter Block

This is in support of Walter Block. It seems that some of Walter’s fellows at Loyola have criticized him in the student newspaper, saying that he is for slavery and against minorities. For someone to make these accusations against Walter Block only proves one thing. You don’t know him.

The criticisms against Walter stem from a recent New York Times article about Rand Paul. This article is obviously a smear piece to discredit Rand Paul so as to hamper any chance he might have of winning a presidential election.

Walter’s critics have fallen under the spell of yellow journalism’s siren song. No thinking person should attack someone based on what he or she reads in the paper, even more so when the writers exhibit an agenda and a callous disregard for facts.

The evidence against Walter is, firstly, a quote, written without context, that the slaves didn’t have it “that bad.” Assuming that Walter’s critics have read his response to the Times article, it would appear that they are a humorless lot, failing to recognize irony when they see it. Any man who holds the natural right of self-ownership as highly as Walter does would be incapable of supporting slavery in any form.

Secondly, we have the lunch counter issue. If humans have the natural right to freely associate with whomever they choose, as Walter believes, then it is a violation of that right for government to dictate the terms of association. To be free is to be free of governmental coercion in violation of our natural rights. Walter Block does certainly believe that all humans have the right of free association and that governmental coercion in this area is unacceptable.

If you love freedom, you should support Dr. Block.

Harold Baker
Mobile, Alabama

Man has only one tool to fight error: reason. - Ludwig von Mises

From: sculpturelessons . [mailto:gibsonsculpture@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2014 8:51 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: support slavery?

To the Editors of the Maroon in Defense of Walter Block

This letter is in defense of the exceptional economist and Libertarian Professor Walter Block. The controversy was created by a misquote in a recent article from the New York Slime. Anyone who knows Walter or takes the time to read his work respects what a fine person he is. He represents liberty and freedom from oppression, especially slavery.

I have been able to attend his Human Action Seminar for 2 years. It has been a very rewarding learning experience. it is an privilege to get to know Walter. His is a valuable asset to Loyola. They are fortunate to have him teach here.
Steve


-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Bailey [mailto:carlb@me.com]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 6:07 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Forgiveness

Dear Dr. Block,

I applaud you for your articles for both their clarity and integrity. I always enjoy reading them and have more than once been educated by your position on the question at hand.

I write this short mail to make a brief comment on your "slavery" flap you are having with your University President. In the last mail I read in this continuing dialogue on this issue with third parties, you said you would be happy to forgive the President for his error of taking your comments out of context, or rather misquoting what you actually said. You wrote that you would forgive him as soon as he apologized to you.

I assume you meant that you would announce to him your forgiveness as forgiveness, as i see it, is something we do for ourselves first and foremost and should never be conditional requiring an apology. In this light, one should forgive the offender as soon as the offense is perceived.

Again, keep up the good work in educating us all regarding how we should relate to each other in "this world"/

Sincerely,

Carl Bailey


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Delaney [mailto:r.delaney7@icloud.com]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:41 AM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Inquistition of Walter Block

Rev. Wides,

As a president of Loyola University New Orleans, Catholic Priest and scholar in the field of Philosophy you have a responsibility to act accurately and compassionately. You are not doing so in the matter of the New York Times article on Walter Block. As I'm sure Jesus Christ would do, you should gather all the facts and not take selected potions of quotes to misrepresent Walter Block's position on slavery before SLANDERING him! What kind of example are you setting for the students that you are training by committing an injustice towards a member of your community. Please rectify your improper actions by making a public apology to Block for bearing false witness against him. Thank you for your consideration.

Tu Ne Cede Malis Sed Contra Audentior Ito

Bob Delaney

From: trutherator
To: TDilo
Sent: Mon, Feb 17, 2014 6:33 am
Subject: Walter Block
Tom,

Thanks from here, for your heated defense of Walter Block.

As a Bible-believing Christian, thanks for blasting away at the treason
of the Jesuits against the principles that Christ himself taught.
Plotters and blasphemers from the beginning to the end. Dan Brown was
more wrong than wrong about the Biblical canon, but his portrayal of the
Jesuits was pretty right on. Fellow missionaries I worked with have had
encounters with them. (But beware of such as Dan Brown, a disinformation
agent in his own right for a shadowy few who are just as bad).

I had my own encounter with a Jesuit priest when I was in the Dominican
Republic. He was furious that we were sharing the Bible with his next
little flock of "twelve" he was training up to infiltrate the
institutions of political power in that country. (That's one of their
methods).

Another tactic for power they use is to infiltrate Protestant churches,
as in the story of the former and repentant Jesuit priest Alberto Rivera.


From: Thomas Woods [mailto:woods@mises.org]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 12:55 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; Charles Corprew; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; letter@loyno.edu; walter block
Subject: Columbia University Professor Defends Walter Block; Invites Him to Speak at Columbia

Man, did you guys step in it.

Columbia University's Jo Ann Cavallo has weighed in against Loyola, and announces that Walter has been invited to give two lectures there:

"As a faculty member at Columbia University (Walter Block’s alma mater), I am pleased to add that he will be giving two talks on our campus next month.... The talks will be available via web cam for all those unable to attend. I hope you will take advantage of this opportunity to hear one of your most prolific and esteemed faculty members."

David Henderson of the Hoover Institution has now written this public letter, which also embarrasses you: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/02/no_author/should-walter-block-forgive-the-president-of-loyola-u/

Well-known economist Steve Landsburg -- author of the classic work The Armchair Economist -- has jumped in, with a hilarious letter that also embarrasses you: http://www.thebigquestions.com/2014/02/13/block-heads/

On the hilarious faculty letter, Landsburg writes, in part: "Nevertheless — that is, even though they agree with him — the yahoos go on to denounce Walter’s words as “untrue and offensive” — and to call for his condemnation and censure — because — well, as far as I can tell, because a certain kind of person just loves getting high on the euphoria of outrage, though God knows there are enough real outrages in the world that it’s hard to see why people feel like they’ve got to manufacture them."

How he deals with Fr. Wildes just has to be read: http://www.thebigquestions.com/2014/02/13/block-heads/

Father Wildes, you now have one of the country's best-known economists laughing at you. Meanwhile, one of the most-read websites in the world is calling Loyola "Fascism University."
Time to dress the wound and just apologize to Walter, as a local Lutheran pastor has urged you to do.

Cordially,
Tom Woods


From: Kenny Tsao [mailto:tsao.kenny@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 7:55 PM
To: letter@loyno.edu
Subject: Response to Dr. Block's Critics

I'm aware that I'm basically telling a bunch of people with PhDs that they are wrong. Nonetheless, please consider publishing this article in The Maroon.

Thanks!


Dear Editors:

One of the goals of any institution of higher education is to cultivate critical thinking. In my opinion, as an educator, one could not start teaching critical thinking skills soon enough. Although, much of society today runs on emotions, and, while emotions are important, they are usually the enemy of critical thinking. I am not asserting whether one is more important than the other- that would be a discussion for another day- but it is generally true that high levels of emotions and high levels of critical thinking do not happen at the same time. In fact, this is a basic lesson we learn in conflict resolution.

When Dr. Walter Block seems to assert that slavery is “not so bad,” one would expect emotional responses from the readers. Maybe the author of the article played his words in a way to elicit that response, or maybe all he had to do was quote Dr. Block. Either way, someone was going for an emotional punch in the stomach, and it was successful. And that is a good thing; eliciting emotional responses from your readers keeps them interested. But, if readers become too emotionally riled up, do not expect them to come to difficult, logical conclusions.

As a Libertarian, Dr. Block believes in the non-aggression principle. Its musings are pretty straightforward, if not obvious from its name. Essentially, do whatever you want, but do not cause unsolicited harm to others or their properties. Actions in which one should not engage include initiating assault, theft, coercion, and more.

If you ask Dr. Block, “Was the enslavement of minority groups in America so bad?” his answer would probably be along the lines of, “Yes! It was horrible!” Everything associated with that institution in American history, including, but not limited to, coercing non-Whites to work as free servants, restricting their liberties, and violently assaulting them, either as punishment or for one’s own amusement, goes against the non-aggression principle!

The problem is that this is not what is being debated. Dr. Block has a specific example of slavery which he thinks is “not so bad” that I recall him using, not only in his classes, but also in his writings. He says, hypothetically, what if your son required an expensive medical operation to save his life, but you could not afford it, but a rich man says to you that he will pay for that operation if you sign your life away to be his slave.

I do not want to assume what the conditions for minority American slaves were (everyone seems emotional enough as it is), so let us say that I was the ridiculously rich man in the story and you were my potential slave. These would be the conditions to which you would sign your life:

No running away.
Food is to be served at the times that food is supposed to be served.
Additional food will be served frequently and at my request, including, and especially, in the middle of the night.
You could be subjected to physical punishment if I deem it necessary.

And there would probably be more conditions about all the ways I can mistreat you. But, out of love for your son, you sign it anyway! Two adults just engaged in a non-coerced, beneficial (in both of their minds) business transaction, no different than the contract you signed about mowing my ridiculously huge lawns every Saturday in exchange for an Xbox One. Just imagine the taxes I am going to have to pay on this!

Now, there are many arguments one might be able to make against this type of business practice. Regardless, despite how one feels about the ethics of what I offered in this scenario, to say anything other than that two people voluntarily came to an agreement on the exchange of goods and services is to undermine the free will of these characters. More so, one would be undermining the free will of these characters by imposing one’s own moral values over their values, further undermining these characters as individuals. Furthermore, supporters of laws preventing this type of business could be said to support the limitation of total freedom. Hence, some Libertarians use a similar model of argument (albeit more eloquently than I can demonstrate) to assert that it is actually everyone else who is in favor of the principles of coerced slavery.

Now, before you start harassing me about my assertions about imposing moral values on others and whatnot, regard that I have not asserted whether certain moral values are good are bad, or which should or should not be imposed. Even my mention of the non-aggression principle, which, itself, is just another moral axiom, was only used as a reference. No, morals are irrelevant to this particular argument. It is a good argument to have, but if you wish to have that argument, have it with someone who is also looking to have that argument.

A more common, but related, debate is on the legalization of prostitution.

Many critics of Dr. Block’s assertion about slavery make compelling arguments about the horrors of the enslavement of minorities in American history. They argue, often validly and with substantial evidence, that what we had in the past was definitely the opposite of “not so bad.” Then, they assert that, therefore, slavery is bad, and Dr. Block is wrong and evil for saying otherwise.

Do you see the problem with this type of argument? Here is another example. I posit that running is a great way to lose weight. I show photos of my friend who has lost a substantial amount of weight after taking up running. Someone disagrees and links me to an article that talks about the surprisingly high rate of injuries runners suffer yearly and calculates for the me the expenses associated with treating these injuries, including medical bills, time, effort, and emotional turmoil, which could affect work performance. Therefore, he concludes, one should not take up running to lose weight.

The disconnect is that proving that running injuries cause economic loss does not prove that running is a horrible way to lose weight. In fact, I said nothing about running injuries in the first place. This person tried to prove me wrong by bringing up a somewhat related, but misrepresented, premise and proving that wrong in order to say that my original, related premise is wrong for the same reason.

Similarly, many of Dr. Block’s critics have managed to insist that because the enslavement of minorities in American history was bad, that slavery is bad, and Dr. Block is a bad man for supporting slavery. Although, Dr. Block never said anything about supporting the coercion of minorities as slaves in American history. Proving the somewhat related premise, which the critics brought up, that the racism associated with slavery in the past was bad, does not prove the original premise, which was whether slavery is or is not so bad.

Once again, I have not made any assertions about what is good or bad. Rather, I am trying to point out mistakes in logical reasoning that has probably been caused by high levels of emotion. This type of argument is called a straw man argument and is often used to distract from the original argument (not surprisingly, you may catch politicians using it). Now, I do not think that the people who made these arguments were doing it to distract from the original point; instead, I think it was a mixture of emotional responses and extraordinary misunderstanding. And, as we are quite aware, Dr. Block is good at eliciting emotional responses in his writings.

The second point on which Dr. Block was attacked for his assertions of how the Civil Rights Act undermines free association. Critics seem to want to argue that racial discrimination was unjust and bad, and, therefore, the Civil Rights Act did a good thing by eliminating discrimination.

Unfortunately, that is not a relevant argument. The argument is whether or not the Civil Rights Act forced people to interact with those with whom they wished not to interact. A question to attack may be “How could a law that forces private business owners to not exclude a category of people with whom they wish not to associate, not be an underminer free association?” It is as if there were a law stating that one could not get married until one has had intimate relationships with an equal number of men and women, despite what one’s romantic preferences may be. No discrimination, right?

Ignore, for a moment, all your feelings about the ethics of segregation and discrimination. Remember, proving whether or not discrimination is bad does not prove whether or not the Civil Rights Act undermines free association.

As for whether or not racial discrimination was actually bad, Dr. Block makes that argument from an economic standpoint. Whatever conclusion you draw from reading and debating that point, it is irrelevant to whether or not the Civil Rights Act undermines free association.

Critical thinking often involves going against what our initial, emotional responses are. Thinking outside of the box often involves listening to others’ more radical, and often controversial, views and evaluating their arguments deductively. It is important to have emotional responses to that about which we are passionate, but it is also important that those emotions do not hinder our abilities to form relevant, valid arguments. Remember, just because you are offended does not mean you are right. Please, for the sake of higher education, feel free to attack Dr. Block’s silly Libertarian ways, but be weary about approaching him with fallacies (I hear he has a degree in philosophy as well). I look forward to any follow-ups either to this letter, but especially to Dr. Block’s letters.


Sincerely,
Kenny Tsao
tsao.kenny@gmail.com
Loyola Alumni, 2013

From: John Lind [mailto:jtfreespeech@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 8:26 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Abortion-libertarian joint property right argument

Professor Block, my name is John Lind and I recently wrote an article and posted it on TowardsLiberty.com on the competing rights of the fetus and the pregnant woman.

My conclusion is that there is a libertarian argument, based only on property rights, that the woman and the fetus have joint property rights during the pregnancy and that the woman cannot evict the fetus during pregnancy.

I base my conclusion on the fact that the fetus never crossed a boundary line and is therefore not a trespasser.

I have attached the article in case you are interested in reviewing. I would definitely be interested in your thoughts as I think it is a somewhat different way of viewing the issue than I have seen previously.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

John Lind

P.S. I know that you are an atheist but I wanted to let you know I've been praying for you during your recent struggle with the misquotes in the newspaper article.


From: Maria Cristina Nieves Gimenez de los Galanes Ca [mailto:mng2113@columbia.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:49 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: letter@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu
Subject: Fwd:


Dear President Wildes,
I have been following the various on-line responses pointing out the blatant errors in both the original NY Times article distorting Dr. Block's views and in your published statement further maligning his character. Applying Bastiat’s lesson of the broken window, I realize that all of the people who wrote in defense of Dr. Block might have spent their time in various other fruitful endeavors, had such replies not been necessary. However, the logical argumentation and the passion for truth evident in their letters were instructional and inspiring, not only for exposing the biases of mainstream media and academia, but also in demonstrating that intellectual integrity and human decency still exist. I do wonder, though, whether you took the time to read and reflect on them. If so, I’d have thought you would have issued a retraction by now.
In any case, I wanted you to know that although I am really happy as a student at Columbia University, there is one reason I envy students at Loyola: they can take economics classes with Walter Block! Unfortunately, students at my university do not have the opportunity to learn about Austrian economics from their professors, whereas, thanks to Dr. Block, Loyola University is at the cutting edge of this discipline. I am therefore grateful that Dr. Block graciously accepts invitations to give talks on our campus whenever he is in New York and is very generous with his time, ever ready to share his knowledge and discuss the finer points of economic and political theory. In short, Dr. Block is not only a gentleman and a scholar, but also a truly inexhaustible teacher.
Sincerely,
Cristina Cavallo
Columbia College '14


-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Smith [mailto:ed@elderlex.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 1:54 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: FW: Acceptance of Manuscript (#1112-IJHPM (R2))

Walter:

Thanks for the news You're very kind to give us all equal credit. I'd love to work with you again if and when the opportunity presents itself.

Meanwhile, I'm gratified to see the outpouring of support you're getting from such a wide variety of sources on the heels of the Times scandal and Fr. Wildes' clumsy response. I'm guessing that, in his position, he feels the need to play to the trustees and the university's major donors and that he may also want to keep the loudest and most troublesome voices on the faculty and student body mollified. As I mentioned in a note to Tom DiLorenzo, in reply to his excellent commentary about this whole business, there are places where you'd be hounded out the door for what the Times says you said; and what's sad, apart from the hounding itself, is that so many of those who'd be shouting, "Off with his head!"
wouldn't have taken the time to read and think about what you actually said and what, over the years, you've stood for.

I guess you must be used to this kind of thing. Fortunately, you have more supporters who value you and respect your work than you may realize. If it's any consolation, even Henry David (Thoreau), the most libertarian among the Transcendentalists and the one whose words have most forcefully stood the test of time, more so than Emerson himself, took his share of flak from the Concord establishment that didn't take kindly to those who dared to challenge the good opinion they had of themselves.

Best wishes,

Ed

From: Marcus Epstein [mailto:marcusepstein@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 2:02 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Alfred Avins

Prof Block,
Hope all is well, Sorry to see all the attacks against you, but I'm sure you'll weather them.. Just thought you might like this quote I came across.

Alfred Avins, the late attorney, who was also a Jewish columbia alum, who reprsented Heart of Atlanta in the famous suit. wrote something very similar to what you got yourself in trouble for, so I thought you'd be interested in the quote:

" A waitress can no more be required to wait on all persons who come into her shop without discrimination than a cotton picker be required to pick cotton for all who want his services without discrimination"

best,


--
Marcus Epstein

From: Tom Mullen [mailto:tom@tommullen.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:59 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Limited Liability Question

Dr. Block,

Thank you for the links. I will read and let you know what I think. I've been following the fallout from the NY Times story. It's hard to believe anyone with a real interest would take the piece seriously, but it's unfortunate that it will be effective with those unfamiliar with you and Mises Inst.

Sent from my iPhone

**++

From: Drew Brekus [mailto:drewblue142@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 1:05 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: permissions

Response to Faculty of Loyola New Orleans

Dear “Loyola Faculty Members” I can not help but notice that you are taking a quote by Professor Block out of context, and then using this misrepresentation to attack Professor Block's character. This is horrible, being that Professor Block is a great man. I am a student who is going to enroll into Loyola New Orleans for the Fall of 2014 semester as a double major in History and Business Economics. When I visited Loyola, I went to Professor Block microeconomics class. He signed my copy of his book, Defending the Undefendable, and invited me to dinner with some students. He is one of the main reasons why I want to come to Loyola New Orleans. I must defend him to repay his kindness, and in pursuit of the truth which is of the highest priority.
Besides your assumption of the 1964 Civil Rights Act's, “legitimacy and constitutionality” you take his quote, “The slaves could not quit. They were forced to ‘associate’ with their masters when they would have vastly preferred not to do so. Otherwise, slavery wasn’t so bad. You could pick cotton, sing songs, be fed nice gruel, etc. The only real problem was that this relationship was compulsory,” and take this to mean that Professor Block, “dismisses the institution of slavery”. On the contrary, Professor Block is merely talking about the job of picking cotton in the 19th century. Such a job in America was in fact much better than most jobs available in Africa in the 19th century. The enforcement of Blacks to, “associate” with their employers, slave owners, is what made this seemingly great job turn into such a horror. In essence, what Professor Block said was that slavery is immoral, cotton picking is not.
Next you claim that Professor Block has the “academic freedom” to teach “ahistorical and hostile” beliefs in his own classroom. Well first, he does not teach ahistorical and hostile beliefs in his own classroom to my own knowledge. Being in his class once, I can say he said nothing of the sort there. However if you would like to support your claims it would be nice if you brought people to confirm that Professor Block teaches “ahistorical and hostile” beliefs. Second, Professor Block does not believe in academic freedom, mostly because it is a fallacious concept. He has written an entire chapter in his book Defending the Undefendable condemning the belief that there is some sort of special relationship between a teacher, employee, and his superior e.g. principle, or the employer, that requires the employer to allow the employee to do something of which he doesn't approve of. Such a special relationship is preposterous, there is no grounds to say that people entering into a voluntary contract must abide by this condition.
Later in the same paragraph you claim that Professor Block is a “privileged white male”. Being a white male, I have never seen these privileges. I would like to obtain them as soon as possible however, and I'm certain, he can correct me, that Professor Block would like such privileges as well. I would prefer if you would email said privileges to me, and as soon as possible. I've gone long enough without these privileges and its time that you right this wrong.
It seems also that the writers do not understand the definition of slavery. I will provide it to you however, slavery should be defined as the use, or threat, of force against an individual to attempt to treat said individual as property. There are varying degrees of slavery, however the highest kind is of the kind that Blacks underwent in the South. It is important to note that given this definition, slavery is the “lack of free association”. That is the biggest problem with slavery, slavery itself. You state that the problems with slavery were kidnapping, enforcement to go on cramped, unhygienic ships through the Middle Passage, and “labor, coercion, and violence”. However, we must ask ourselves the question, did the slaves voluntarily choose to be kidnapped, go on dangerous, unsanitary voyages across the Atlantic, be whipped, or work in cotton fields? The answer is no, that is why slavery is immoral. Everything you listed is the rejection of the axiom of voluntary association, and thus Professor Block is correct to state that the rejection of the libertarian axiom of voluntary association was the greatest problem of slavery.
Last, is your claim that Professor Block is dissuading freshman from attending Loyola New Orleans. I am evidence of the contrary, I want to come to Loyola largely because of Professor Block. I can't wait to learn economics from him and the rest of the economics faculty.
Since you are investigating so many people to see if they are racist, I think it only proper for me to file a complaint against this man. The man states, “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” This blatant racism should be immediately condemned, therefore I ask that you write a letter condemning the speaker, Abraham Lincoln, for being a blatant racist. Professor Block is completely innocent, we should spend our time to once and for all convict Abraham Lincoln.



From: Alex Aragona [mailto:alexarag@rogers.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:15 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu; lmurphy@loyno.edu; aladd@loyno.edu; bewell@loyno.edu; ccorprew@loyno.edu; llhope@loyno.edu; kfitzger@loyno.edu; aaparham@loyno.edu; Ahoward2@loyno.edu; tmelanco@loyno.edu; mikulich@loyno.edu; pbboyett@loyno.edu; jathibod@loyno.edu; eggers@loyno.edu; quant@loyno.edu; sweishar@loyno.edu; aalcazar@loyno.edu; lmartin@loyno.edu; jlhunt@loyno.edu
Cc: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Regarding The Outrage Over Dr. Walter Block's "Comments"

Dear Faculty Members,

I am a university student in Canada majoring in both Business and Economics. I have been studying many schools of economic thought for some time now and have put many hours into watching some of Walter Block's full lectures on YouTube

It is quite clear to that Dr. Block in NO way supports slavery or intends to make light of the slavery era in the United States. The fact that the New York Times quoted him completely out of context to paint him in a light that seemed to say he was down-playing slavery is absolutely unacceptable by them and does, in my opinion, qualify as character defamation. They have successfully painted a picture to the public of a racist economic school of thought and a racist political school of thought; not to mention, a picture has been painted of a racist individual.

When I was researching this issue further I cam across an open letter from faculty at Loyola University. I'm not sure if you've seen its publication but here is the link:

http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6713/letter-faculty-says-walter-block-s-claims-were-once-again-untrue-and-offensive-1.2854769#.Uvo-yfbY_qQ

From what I have seen, I believe that faculty members at Loyola are making public conclusions about Walter based off of false or misleading/misrepresentative information which means that this is indeed a slippery slope of character defamation for faculty members as well.

As a Canadian student with an international perspective on America and its universities, it is clear to me (and many of my friends who are of all political stripes, and some are even training to be journalists) that the NY Times misrepresented Walter Block and so have his own colleagues at Loyola University.

It is quite depressing for me to see, as an aspiring university student, the off-hand and unjustified remarks that come from people who have worked most of their lives as academics, or surrounded by academic establishments. It seriously leads me to question the integrity of some of the people making the allegations about Walter block; are people honestly doing their research, or do they have their own agendas? Sadly, the public display of knee-jerk reactionary behaviour from Loyola faculty seems to indicate to many that the latter is true, but I would personally reserve judgement on specific people until I actually know the facts about them, not just some quotes from a New York Times article that reeks of bias.

I'm not necessarily sure how this will play out for Dr. Block in weeks to come but I feel that it is important for everyone involved at Loyola University to know that a politically biased article in NY Times is one thing, but the respect that the University is losing because of an attack on one proffessor based off of an article that reeks of misquotations and character defamation is another.

It saddens me to see the outrage over a bunch of misquotations and out of context discussions.

Thanks for reading,

Alex Aragona


**

Adams, Devinn. 2014. “Professor accuses New York Times of libel.” February, 20; http://www.loyolamaroon.com/2.6710/professor-accuses-new-york-times-of-libel-1.2857201#.UwZkdxb99zo

Morris, Robert. 2014. “Professor’s defense of segregated lunch counters creates controversy at Loyola University.” Uptown Messenger. February 20; http://uptownmessenger.com/2014/02/professors-defense-of-segregated-lunch-counters-creates-controversy-at-loyola-university/

Cavallo, Christina. 2014. “Columbia Student Defends Walter Block.” February 20;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/columbia-student-defends-walter-block/

**

From: Jure Gubanc [mailto:juriuskamnik@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:25 AM
To: Walter Block; walter block
Subject: defending walter

DEFENDING THE UNDEFENDABLE: Legalize Walter Block's freedom of speech! By Jure Gubanc

I am writing this letter of support for prof. Block. A man that I don't know in person, but am certain that intellectually, I know much more about him than any of his critics. I am a student from Slovenia, far from US, but his words and illuminating thinking reached mine, what proves that he is an authority in philosophy of freedom. His struggle of a lifetime can be best explained as a fight for voluntarism, unique position among modern academics, which he takes to logical conclusion all the time. Walter Block, radical voluntarist is defending any human condition as long as it is free, and criticizing every coercive, compulsory human condition no matter where or when it existed. For a radical, logical voluntarist as prof. Block, race, class or era of perpetrators actions are of no importance. No social worker or ‘’civil ‘’servant ever offered us intellectual ammunition and defense for beaten or stigmatized marginal parts of society. Well, Walter did. And in a manner of the finest social scientist in the confines of this great liberal-voluntarist tradition, he leaves his own convictions, opinions and tastes behind, when he studies human action. What matters for him is peace and mutual cooperation among human beings. That makes recent critiques of his ideas a bit strange. To clarify the problem and all the fuzz that some academics and journalists made, I will solve the problem of Walter’s alleged support of slavery in logical manner, for this is the only way we can find truth, and pay homage to his logical work at the same time. So, let me begin.
It logically follows from all that we know about Walter’s philosophy that the only way someone can doubt about his good will and speculate about a possibility of positive opinion of slavery is if his critics:
1. are not familiar with his lifetime work, and do not bother to take enough time to understand libertarianism, which is intellectual dilettantism, and should be intellectually punished
2. Walter made a big logical mistake in deduction, since compulsory slavery is not compatible with libertarianism. So he should revoke his statement or change his believes to David Duke’s
3. or, critics are intellectually unfair, they know Walter’s position and they can understand his interview in NYT as normally developed adults, and are also aware that they took his words out of context. But…. their own public image and political calculations mean to them more than truth and suffering that they make upon individuals (in this case Walter)
Since Walter explicitly said in his NY Times article, that the problem with slavery is compulsion, we can exclude number 2 from our list of possible solutions and answers. Walter made no mistake and logically followed NAP- non aggression principle, since he opposed slavery because it’s done compulsory. Second, since Walter spent a lot of time with NYT reporter, and told him his position about aggression and NAP, we can reasonably believe that this reporter understood the basic position of Walter’s philosophy. We do not have this knowledge about his critics in academia. They might never met Walter, or read any page of his books. But since the real ‘’persona non grata’’ in our problem is actually the messenger- who lost the meaning of Walter’s thinking with translation, and this messenger is NYT reporter, for whom we at least know, that he knows basics of libertarianism and NAP, we can as people of good will, exclude nr. 1 too. We indeed can reasonably say, that someone who writes for NYT should have enough deductive power to understand if someone is libertarian in strict NAP tradition, slavery is idea against which he devotes all his energy to fight. The problem with academics who denigrated Walter for his words that ‘’after all slavery was not so bad’’, is that they should respect intellectual discovery and endeavor. They should read and study the person they find wrong, and then destroy this persons believes. Everyone can get impression that reporter knew more about Walter’s philosophy than his academic colleges. We can conclude then, that reporter is close to nr. 3, while academic critics are even worse, they are nr.1 and 3, ignorant about persons ideas they attack and deliberately evil. Since Walter explicitly said that problem with slavery is compulsion, everyone who criticizes him for alleged support of system which he explicitly said he does not support, and makes his criticism on his later words that ‘’slavery was not that bad after all’’ builds his critique of Walter for conditions that slaves lived in, not the institution itself. It means that critics completely IGNORED Walter’s explicit statement about the problem of institution of slavery. They in fact focused only on his words about the conditions in which slaves lived in. This horror actually shows us that Walter’s critics do not bother the fact that slaves lack freedom of choice. They regret only the conditions of slaves. We can understand from this, that these critics blame slaveholders for slave’s conditions, but not the very existence of institution in the first place.
Ms. Murphy then makes an argument related to black people. We can discard all she says because Walter never mentioned black slaves, he gave example of slavery not in concrete, but abstract terms, to show the example of NAP violation. Ms. Murphy although a professor, is obviously unaware that slavery has nothing to do with racism or black people. The very word itself originates from the word slav, term for Slavic people, which were often used as slaves by their Germanic and Ungro neighbors. She and rev. Wildes both make the same mistake regarding the Civil Right Act 1964. US constitution never mentions black people anywhere. It also never mentions white people. US constitution talks only about The People. Right and freedoms granted by founding fathers are given to the people. Therefore existence of slavery is simply unconstitutional, as Civil Right Act is. It gives freedoms where freedoms are already given, which usually means that it gives different treatment for some groups at the expense of others. I simply cannot understand how a man of such high position as Mr. Wildes is unable to understand that freedom to cooperate also implies freedom not to cooperate. Ms. Murphy also depicts Walter as ‘’privileged white male’’, while at the same time she is unaware of the fact that she advocates privilege, since privilege implies special treatment by external force, and is certainly not earned. They both seem unaware that slavery is in fact characterized only by lack of free association. If association is free, slavery has no meaning and is a contradiction in itself as Murray Rothbard observed. Some more educated readers might observe that Prof. Block does advocate version of slavery, voluntary one. But this condition might be understood as a way of complete devotion, situation where individual trades his own will and decision making in exchange for money or services of guidance. In this case, individual who is competent enough to declare himself incompetent, chooses to follow orders from and individual he regards as better decision maker. There are many cases of this ‘’voluntary slavery’’ and this situation is in no way radical or strange. Many cultists, religious fanatics, guru followers or servants for money completely obey individuals for whom they think poses superior knowledge.
Since both made unsound arguments, Ms. Murphy about never mentioned African slaves, Mr. Wildes about freedom of discrimination, they both should be held accountable for their character assassination. Actually in the spirit of fair intellectual stance, both should accept a debate offer, since accusations like that against individual are very harsh, any confident academic must be able to defend his accusations in person. They should make an economic bet- if his critics through careful examination show that Walter is indeed a racist, than he should stop writing about that issue. But if they fail to convince the jury and participants in a debate- all his academia critics should publicly apologize in sign their names as they did when they were complaining. And there is another thing here. If his critics are unwilling to debate Walter, they made accusations without foundations. They simply lost their criticism, and should be condemned by every blogger or small fish like me for their character assassination.

From: Joe Horton [mailto:jhorton@conwaycorp.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 3:00 PM
To: pres@loyno.edu
Cc: Walter Block
Subject: Walter Block

3 Covewood Dr., Conway, AR 72034 Feb. 22, 2014
To Whom It May Concern:
I wish to join those who have written to you supporting Dr. Walter Block. I am an economics professor who has known Dr. Block and his professional work for many years. Loyola of New Orleans is fortunate to have Dr. Block on its faculty. He is a world renowned and respected economist. The criticism of him seems to be based on a New York Times story which misinterprets a very brief statement from a long interview which lasted several hours. It is typical of Walter to generously give his valuable time in community service trying to explain the economic way of thinking to an apparently economically uneducated New York Times reporter.
Dr. Block was explaining not just that slavery was bad but why slavery was bad. Given that the New York Times reporter was his audience, he probably erred in using sarcasm. He was arguing that it is not inherently bad to pick cotton. What is bad is that slaves were forced to pick cotton and to do everything else their masters required them to do. The force used was often extreme and even sadistic, but Dr. Block assumed his audience knew that so he merely emphasized that it is force that is the distinguishing characteristic of slavery which makes slavery so reprehensible.
I am reminded of Robert Fogel’s excellent book Time on the Cross. At the time there was great controversy and claims that Fogel was defending slavery when in fact he was explaining how extremely horrible it was and that it would not just go away because it was profitable to the slave owners. In time the importance of his work was recognized with the Nobel Prize in Economics.
I am confident that one who takes the time to understand Dr. Block’s exposition, not just the Times brief parody, will see that the horror of involuntary servitude is the very point of what he says.
Sincerely,
Joseph Horton

No comments:

Post a Comment