With his permission, I excerpt portions of an email exchange
with Walter Block:
Block: Dear
Mosquito:
In this excellent article of yours: Mosquito, Bionic. 2015.
"Wine
Spritzer Libertarians" May 10; You say this: "Is there such a
thing as a libertarian education policy?
Yes. It is the responsibility of
the parents (although Rothbard and Block might disagree)."
I think you are right that this is Murray's view. But it
isn't mine. At least as far as I know. Could you please give me a cite to one of
my pubs where I deny parental responsibility for education?
BM: Mr. Block
Thank you for the kind note.
I made this statement based on an assumption, as I have not
read anything that you or Rothbard wrote directly regarding a parent's
responsibility to educate a child.
My assumption? In
somewhat different ways, both you and Rothbard strongly state that a mother has
no responsibility toward her unborn child.
I assumed that as this is true for you, why on earth would you believe
that the parent has any responsibility to educate (or even raise/feed) the
child? As my statement was based on an
assumption, I conditioned it with the word "might."
If necessary, I will get exact quotes of yours and build a
more thorough reply - and will ask your permission to post all of it on my blog
(including your original email).
As always, kindest regards
Block: Dear
Mosquito:
Blog away.
I directly counter the view that "the mother has no
responsibility toward her (young) child." I explicitly state that she has
an obligation, if she doesn't want to care for it, to bring it to an orphanage,
or some other such place (church, hospital) that will care for it. I say this
here:
[Block goes on to list 8 – 10 cites on this point]
In my view, the mother has the responsibility toward her
unborn child not to murder it. Although, she may evict it, even if it will die
as a result.
I say this in dozens of my publications on abortion:
[Block lists dozens of cites on this point]
BM: Mr. Block
“In my view, the mother has the responsibility toward her
unborn child not to murder it. Although, she may evict it, even if it will die
as a result.”
This distinction always has and always will remain lost to
me – to evict even if death is certain is murder; to evict into an environment
where the child is helpless to survive is murder. This demonstrates no responsibility from
mother to child – very clearly.
I will gladly post your objection and comments at the
subject post – however, I will disagree with the logic; this doesn’t mean I am
right, of course, but I will disagree nonetheless.
Block: Dear
Mosquito:
Ok, we only agree on 99% of everything. That's pretty good.
-----------------------------------------------
Thus ended the dialogue.
“Pretty good”?!?!?!?
That’s great – for me; I am quite humbled by his comment.
I apologize to Mr. Block for misrepresenting his position; as
mentioned above, I still do not – and cannot – understand his distinction regarding
eviction / murder. Nevertheless, I
should have been more careful.
Beyond all of this, I will take 99%!
bionic mosquito,
ReplyDeleteYou have arrived. I know that you have placed a giant premium on forming your own opinions before reading the words of the giants(?). Perhaps now is the time. You have done very well on your own, and you have had time to develop your own opinions independently. I can't think that they will sully you at this late stage. Is this the time to indulge yourself; to read the thoughts that proceeded yours? (Maybe...)
Regards, and you are doing so well without my opinion,
gpond
gpond, I am so glad that you continue to check in on occasion.
DeleteSlowly these get worked in. I will come across reasons or recommendations for such things, and then follow through.
For example, here is a recommendation from David Gordon:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-bionic-mosquito-on-bleeding-heart-libertarians-and-education/
The problem is that I have so many things to read, and never enough time. My bookshelf has fifteen or more books waiting to get cracked open for the first time - and I keep ordering more in the mean time.
If by "on occasion" you mean every day, then yes, I check in on occasion.
DeleteA distinction without difference is nonsense. There is no difference between "eviction which knowingly and intentionally results in death" and "murder". None at all. Block, methinks, has spent too much time in the toxic waters of tax-funded universities.
ReplyDeleteIf he says you and him agree on 99% of things, he's the one that comes in second.
Hear hear. I check in more and more. I have been following Mr. Mosquito as his intellectual interests seem to align 99% with my own.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, I see him working in the tradition of Rothbard, Hulsman, Woods, Hoppe and Rockwell. Reconceiving history with the insights of Austrian economics and causal-realist methodology. Rothbard lit the way in works like his History of Economic Thought.
I hope you at some point are able to make a career out of your intellectual interests. But that is a selfish hope. :)
"...make a career out of your intellectual interests."
DeleteI hope not - then I would have to answer to customers and the like!!!
There *is* a distinction between "eviction" and "murder".
ReplyDeleteMurder is the direct action with the specific INTENT of rendering a person dead.
Eviction in this context is an action with the intent of removing an unwanted foetus from one's own property (body).
The difference lies in the intention behind the action. One intention is for killing a person; the other is for claiming complete ownership of one's own body by evicting a person from it that she no longer desires to be there.
People who oppose abortion fail to see this distinction because they fail to see the true nature of slavery and ownership of one's own body. From a sentimental point of view, they see the fetus as having a right to life (which by the way, is not a first principle in libertarianism). But just as a starving man's right to life cannot mean he has a claim to food that needs to be provided by another, an unborn child's right to life cannot mean he/she has a claim to a woman's nurturing body for a full term of 9 months. Either the woman owns her own body or she doesn't. Another cannot own it. That is why "eviction" means taking control of one's own body and NOT murder. The latter would suggest the unborn child has a right to the woman's body, and a right not to be evicted from another person's property.
Eviction is in line with the foundations of libertarianism: private property rights and the non-aggression principle. To evict an unwanted party from one's own body is a form of self-defense, not aggression, as no person can have a right to presence in another's body, but people most certainly have a right to 'evict' a person from their own property.
Like the distinction of evicting someone from a plane without a parachute at 30,000 feet - I never intended murder. The plane, after all, is my property.
DeleteBlock is wrong about ownership of the womb during the term, see here:
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2014/12/libertarians-and-abortion.html
"From a sentimental point of view, they see the fetus as having a right to life (which by the way, is not a first principle in libertarianism)."
DeleteTotally wrong. Not from a sentimental point of view, but a principled one.
First libertarian principle is self-ownership, or control of body, or property right in one's self. From which prohibition of aggression is derived.
So to say that no man has a right to his life essentially rejects self-ownership and thus rejects the sole foundational principle of libertarianism.
Block's evictionism is his attempt to square libertarianism with atheism. What the Moderate One fails, either willfully or not, to understand is, you can be pro-life, voluntarily of course, and not defer to a higher deity(s), AND be a libertarian. I believe it will be the final petard the mutants will hang him from, unfortunately. I get the intention of the theory, I just don't see it as logically consistent or morally supportable as Dr. Block seems to believe.
There is a right to not be subjected to lethal violence, which is what "evictionism" is. That's a negative right, natch. Note that Block is not and to my knowledge has never argued that a fetus is not human. That's what I find so mind-bending about this whole thing. Yes, he admits, it is human and in full possession of all human rights - including, presumably, the right not to be killed. But, so what, if you find it inconvenient then kill it anyway!
DeleteAs for intent... next you're going to tell us it's possible to kill someone in cold blood "lovingly".
Block accepts that the unborn child is human from the moment of conception.
DeleteThis logic doesn't follow:
Delete"There *is* a distinction between "eviction" and "murder".
Murder is the direct action with the specific INTENT of rendering a person dead.
Eviction in this context is an action with the intent of removing an unwanted foetus from one's own property (body).
The difference lies in the intention behind the action. One intention is for killing a person; the other is for claiming complete ownership of one's own body by evicting a person from it that she no longer desires to be there. "
So what stops a mother from evicting a 1 or 2 year old from her home? If the mom possesses ownership of the home and no longer desires the child to reside there, then with this logic, a mother would have the ability to evict the child as long as the underlying intent wasn't to murder the child. It doesn't matter if the child subsequently dies.