tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post1714475034670312874..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Reframing the Non-Aggression Principlebionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-79947364343240607532019-12-31T13:07:02.373-08:002019-12-31T13:07:02.373-08:00ATL, what I meant to suggest by Walter writing the...ATL, what I meant to suggest by Walter writing the book is that he would say as long as everything is captured beforehand in a voluntarily agreed contract, then these various restrictions / stipulations will fit in a libertarian framework. My response is that not all eventualities can be captured beforehand, to which he would reply that there would be some sort of final arbitration clause to clean up the mess.<br /><br />But it seems so much simpler to me if "how things are done around here" (the culture and traditions) are generally respected and well-known.<br /><br />In any case, C. Jay is on the right track, and he has far more depth institutionally than I have. To the extent my dialogue with him and other writing that I do helps to move things along, that would be great.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-49308666332069414362019-12-31T08:57:23.762-08:002019-12-31T08:57:23.762-08:00True. More is needed, specifically something conta...True. More is needed, specifically something contained within the culture, custom and traditional faith of Western Christianity I would say. <br /><br />There is a vacancy, as far as I'm aware, for a book which 1) details how this 'more' can be reconciled within a libertarian political framework (providing a few theoretical examples based on historical approximations) addressing both 2) why this political theory of governance is best for enjoying and preserving a society with 'more' and 3) why this 'more' is so necessary to achieving and maintaining this sort of political order. So regardless of whether this 'more' is your means or your end it is vitally important and intertwined with the pursuit of liberty and should be upheld and defended with great courage and conviction.<br /><br />But Walter wouldn't be the one to write that book. It's not what he knows. That's up to someone like you! Well I think your first book does a good job of handling #3. Perhaps your continuing discussions with C.J. Engel will stimulate a book on #1 and #2?<br /><br />Or maybe it will lead you to abandoning libertarianism altogether. Either way, I'll still respect your opinion and the great discussions you inspire here at the blog.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-54464430824061985782019-12-30T08:33:45.485-08:002019-12-30T08:33:45.485-08:00I believe Walter could write on all of these stric...I believe Walter could write on all of these strictly from a private property angle. However I am not sure that this is enough: everyone who has entered into a complicated contract knows that not every eventuality can be covered and that the goodwill of all parties is necessary when it comes to future interpretation of unexpected events, etc. Goodwill meaning, in this context, common cultural and traditional grounding.<br /><br />This is where I have been struggling through, and now where it appears Engel also is - per my comments here:<br /><br />http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2019/12/an-open-letter-to-c-jay-engel.html bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-23973800705985146382019-12-30T08:16:47.670-08:002019-12-30T08:16:47.670-08:00"I much prefer Jesus"
Yeah sorry Joe, ..."I much prefer Jesus" <br /><br />Yeah sorry Joe, I'm going to have to agree with Roger here. Jesus' story (and reality) is, and this may be an understatement, a bit more compelling.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-38003332323901682092019-12-30T08:14:52.048-08:002019-12-30T08:14:52.048-08:00Okay that makes sense.
I wonder if he's goin...Okay that makes sense. <br /><br />I wonder if he's going to take us up on writing the "Undefending the Defendable" book, wherein he would show (with logic based solely on the NAP) how free trade, *open immigration, religious freedom, freedom of speech, sound money, recreational drugs, prostitution, and other conditions or behaviors generally considered part of a libertarian society could be effectively curtailed or outlawed.<br /><br />* I don't believe open immigration is the libertarian position, but many do, including Block, so I think it would be a worthwhile chapter in the book.A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-10543095089024846512019-12-28T10:23:39.529-08:002019-12-28T10:23:39.529-08:00I do believe Walter recognized that Joe's kill...I do believe Walter recognized that Joe's killer would have to face the consequences of his action. Maybe I mis-read some of his comments on this.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-66418816319317768312019-12-28T09:18:28.657-08:002019-12-28T09:18:28.657-08:00"Shall we do evil so that good may come?"..."Shall we do evil so that good may come?"--Paul, an apostle<br /><br />This "situational ethic" puts a whole different light on the idea that one man should die in order to save the whole world. Kudos to ATL for recognizing that. Let's hear it for Joe, the newest reincarnation of Jesus the Christ!! <br /><br />What would have transformed this hypothesis into a world-changing dynamic is that Joe, knowing that he must die, would simply volunteer to sacrifice his life in order that the rest of humanity could live. He could give his life instead of having it taken from him. Joe could forgive his killer(s) as he was dying, knowing that his sacrifice was not in vain and that redemption for the murderer(s) was possible. <br /><br />This raises the question. What was Joe doing with his life that would concern the Martians so greatly? There is only one possible answer--he was an existential threat to the established system of power and control, again a direct resemblance to Jesus. What astounds me is that Walter Block, perhaps unknowingly, would promote such an obvious comparison to Christianity. Wonders never cease!<br /><br />On a more mundane level, this smacks of the "greater good" belief so common among men. We have to weigh the benefits against the costs and determine the best course of action in order to maximize the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Inevitably, under such a system, someone has to pay the price whether he wants to or not. Individual rights do not matter, only societal obligations. This concentrates power into the hands of those who can convince the most people that their determination of the greatest good is the correct one. This determination is always in flux and it always causes loss, pain, and hardship on the part of those who are not asked, but told that they must sacrifice. For the good of everyone else, of course. <br /><br />I much prefer Jesus. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Rogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08156823478509665137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-71279724701727705022019-12-27T13:07:32.406-08:002019-12-27T13:07:32.406-08:00Very interesting read!
I agree with you that from...Very interesting read!<br /><br />I agree with you that from a moral perspective, a Christian one anyway, killing one innocent to save the rest is wrong.<br /><br />But I think this is an instance where the NAP can easily handle whether or not Joe's killer (the murderer) should be punished. The NAP basically says that you forfeit your rights to the extent you deprive another of his. If you kill an innocent, you've deprived them of their rights completely, and thus forfeited completely your own. It doesn't say anything about it being okay when it might save the lives of other adjacent people. In fact, Rothbard refutes this position explicitly in one of his essays on war when he explains why you can't kill innocent third parties in the attempt to bring a guilty party to justice.<br /><br />In Block's wacky scenario, the man who killed Joe would be guilty of murder and should be punished according to whatever legal codes/associations protected Joe.<br /><br />In short, yes the murderer should be punished even though he saved many people. The ends don't justify the means. He aggressed against another, therefore he is punished. This is as rudimentary as it gets in the libertarian playbook. That Walter would get this wrong is unbelievable.<br /><br />What's more, by Block's logic, unless I'm mistaken, we should celebrate Judas, Caiaphas, and Pilate for their roles in murdering the innocent Jesus, and thereby saving the rest of mankind (should we be wise enough to accept him as our Lord and Savior)<br /><br />The correct solution to Walter's problem from a strict adherence to the NAP (if the Martian's word could be trusted and their military superiority was absolute) is that someone would sacrifice himself by killing Joe and then accepting the just punishment for the aggression.<br /><br />Of course, I'm of the mind to just say "F___ off Martians! Come and get Joe!"<br /><br />Merry Christmas!A Texas Libertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02980539931923054404noreply@blogger.com