on immigration and the wellfare state. Both Friedman (and many libertarians) and Bernie Sanders BOTH agree that open immigration and the welfare system are incompatible and therefore, immigration restrictions should be imposed in the present. Friedman and libertarians would argue that immigration restrictions should remain until we get rid of the welfare state, and Bernie said that we should limit immigration in order to PRESERVE the Welfare State. I think Bernie's logic is more sound. Further, I think that open immigration may be the only way to actually get rid of the welfare state!
@@huntercarlson1619 you missed the point. Block says his argument for Israel is not libertarian but classical liberal. I’m saying he should give his “classical liberal” take on immigration because he punted on Rekt’s question about how to deal with it in real life.
"I can't apply libertarian theory to the immigration question because its just too far removed from libertarianism, now let me tell you how the state of Israel has a more valid claim to the land than the people already living there"
How did “the people already living there” get there though? The contention, I believe, and likelihood im sure is by taking it from the people who had been living there before them. Its like its people doing horrible things to each other all the way down.
You're misrepresenting what he said. He said the Israelis and Palestinians are approaching the issue collectively. They are setting the terms, not him. His answer could very well be different if the issue was addressed on an individual basis.
So if discrimination is deemed illegal in the future should someone who could potentially prove that Walter discriminated against them be entitled to his property or money?
I haveve some objections to Block's application of a libertarian law code in the given scenario. Firstly, when dealing with past misappropriation, it is important to recognize that the present owner of a stolen good, who acquired it in good faith without knowledge of the theft, should not be compelled to return the property. In this case, the criminal who committed the theft should bear the responsibility of providing compensation to the victim. The resolution of this situation would ideally be determined through arbitration, which would consider the rights and claims of both the past and present owners. Compensation can be calculated based on the market value of the stolen good, applying a discount rate to account for the past misappropriation, and an additional penalty of a fifth. If a deadlock occurs, a fair solution may involve a bidding war, with the criminal being held accountable for the resulting fine. Secondly, in the case of a present crime where compensation is owed, the principle of 'tooth for a tooth' implies that the perpetrator should provide compensation that is proportional to the harm caused. However, it is crucial to avoid imposing a punishment that exceeds the harm caused, as it would violate the principles of individual rights and property rights. Therefore, if the criminal cannot pay the full amount of compensation, it would be unjust to force him into slavery. Instead, a more reasonable approach would be to consider him a bondservant, with his productive output utilized to generate income for compensating the victims. The division of his productive output can be determined through arbitration, taking into account a fair discount rate or other appropriate measures. It is vital to respect the principle of proportionality in punishment and not impose undue burdens on the individual. Bankruptcy provisions can safeguard against excessive liabilities, ensuring that he only owes what he can reasonably pay. In both scenarios, the goal is to strike a balance between the rights and claims of the victims and the principles of proportionality, individual rights, and property rights. The involvement of arbitration provides a mechanism for reaching fair resolutions that consider the specific circumstances and the principles of libertarian law. It is important to acknowledge that the precise application of these resolutions may vary depending on the jurisdiction, legal system, and the specific principles adopted within the framework of libertarian law. The overarching objective is to uphold justice, restitution, and respect for individual rights.
I also find it intellectually dishonest to discredit Hans's collective trust arguments about government land while also claiming the Jewish ethnostate has a collective right to commit property violations in Palestine. Does this mean the same case applies to white and natives inAmerica? I have a feeling his answer is much closer to Ann Rand than he would admit outright. No ethnic group has any claims on any general territory. Only specific persons have specific claims on specified plots of land, and those claims are not provable in a court of law. They are certainly not to be proven at the end of a bayonet. If jews want to buy land in Palestine, that's their prerogative. It isn't a goal of libertarians to defend genocides which benefit their ethnic propagation, only to defend their liberty through property rights.
Block is intellectually dishonest. His views on Israeli vs Palestinian property rights exhibit his obvious bias. One groups freedoms should not trump another’s. Regardless of race, or politics.
What if a black guy could prove that someone whose family came to the United States after slavery, from another country, took part in the slave trade? For example say they owned one of the ships that transported slaves, are they to pay reparations or hand over their property? It sounds like an international law issue, we might need a world Court lol
I wanted to share links but the Mises Institute or YT doesn't allow me to share them. This discussion is over. Google "antiwar What Did the West Promise Russia on NATO Expansion?" Article by Ted Snider. There you can also find the link to the declassified documents.
@@chefdenker704 Keyword here is "promise". Of course nobody wanted any tension and everybody had high hopes for Russia in early 90s. While we're on the topic, Russia promised to respect Ukraine's borders, in writing. Do you have an answer how Europe's security can be ensured? Are you going to argue that Russia doesn't have an imperialist bone in its body and everything is NATO's fault? Or are you going to say that it shouldn't matter to the US if Russian tanks are on the streets of Warsaw, because Washington in the 1700s warned you to avoid entangling alliances? Also, remember when Russia committed a few hundred thousand war crimes in Chechnya? Was the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria on the verge of joining NATO?
@@Rockownz5150 I responded to a specific claim here, which was that there was no promise of expanding NATO or at least there is no proof and, as the unclassified documents show, this claim is wrong. As simple as that. Russia is a great power but not revisionist. It is clearly a status-quo power. However, the US and its NATO allies are imperialist revisionist powers who moved their offensive military alliance to the doorsteps of Moscow. If you think you can expand a military alliance towards another great power without any repercussions, you are clueless. Whether it was Napoleon, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, any great power that tried to dominate another great power had to learn it the hard way. I am not surprised what happened and if I were Putin I would have not acted in a different way.
@@chefdenker704 So Estonia with its zero tanks, jets and a population of 1.5 million is a threat to Russia? Estonian mfers just don't want to be invaded, again. Was the correct position then (and now) to just let Putin take what he wants? Or is the idea here that Russia wouldn't have wanted to invade anybody, ever? Before Ukraine, there was virtually zero NATO presence in Eastern Europe, now Germany is planning to have a permanent brigade (4000 troops) in Lithuania. Putin can now enjoy Finland and Sweden in NATO, too.
Mr. Block, if you don't understand in international affairs, don't amplify communist propaganda that there was a promise made by NATO, that they will not enlarge on East. Even M. Gorbachev have said that there was no such agreement between NATO and Russia (USSR), however he was also not comfortable with the enlargement of NATO.
The man, the myth, the legend. I was just wondering what my sensei Walter was up to.
Dont be fooled by the citations hes got
Hes still Walter, Walter from the Block
Many praises, Mr. Block!!
These two men need to have more podcasts together.
oof, comment did not age well.
@@LysanderSpooner-ie7gg Totally. That's too bad
Walter Block is great. Saw him in person November of last year at a Ron Paul Institute event with my wife. It was awesome.
Wow it's been too long since I've heard from Block. Please get him more air time, LvMI!
There should be absolutely zero reparations for something that took place 150 years ago.
on immigration and the wellfare state. Both Friedman (and many libertarians) and Bernie Sanders BOTH agree that open immigration and the welfare system are incompatible and therefore, immigration restrictions should be imposed in the present. Friedman and libertarians would argue that immigration restrictions should remain until we get rid of the welfare state, and Bernie said that we should limit immigration in order to PRESERVE the Welfare State. I think Bernie's logic is more sound. Further, I think that open immigration may be the only way to actually get rid of the welfare state!
The Federal Reserve & the IRS are mostly to blame for class division, the diminishing of the middle class and poverty.
Walter Block should write the Classical Liberal Case for Closed Borders
Classical zionist (kosher fascist). But I think Hoppe does a much better job
@@huntercarlson1619 you missed the point. Block says his argument for Israel is not libertarian but classical liberal. I’m saying he should give his “classical liberal” take on immigration because he punted on Rekt’s question about how to deal with it in real life.
"I can't apply libertarian theory to the immigration question because its just too far removed from libertarianism, now let me tell you how the state of Israel has a more valid claim to the land than the people already living there"
I was going to write this comment but it’s addressed at the very end. His argument for Israel is admittedly not libertarian.
How did “the people already living there” get there though? The contention, I believe, and likelihood im sure is by taking it from the people who had been living there before them. Its like its people doing horrible things to each other all the way down.
You're misrepresenting what he said. He said the Israelis and Palestinians are approaching the issue collectively. They are setting the terms, not him. His answer could very well be different if the issue was addressed on an individual basis.
The list following 15:49 sounds like a bunch of divorce lawyers came up with it.
Some folks dont want work.......... at all. Some folks have lower IQ's and cannot be Doctors, for example.
So if discrimination is deemed illegal in the future should someone who could potentially prove that Walter discriminated against them be entitled to his property or money?
I haveve some objections to Block's application of a libertarian law code in the given scenario. Firstly, when dealing with past misappropriation, it is important to recognize that the present owner of a stolen good, who acquired it in good faith without knowledge of the theft, should not be compelled to return the property. In this case, the criminal who committed the theft should bear the responsibility of providing compensation to the victim. The resolution of this situation would ideally be determined through arbitration, which would consider the rights and claims of both the past and present owners. Compensation can be calculated based on the market value of the stolen good, applying a discount rate to account for the past misappropriation, and an additional penalty of a fifth. If a deadlock occurs, a fair solution may involve a bidding war, with the criminal being held accountable for the resulting fine.
Secondly, in the case of a present crime where compensation is owed, the principle of 'tooth for a tooth' implies that the perpetrator should provide compensation that is proportional to the harm caused. However, it is crucial to avoid imposing a punishment that exceeds the harm caused, as it would violate the principles of individual rights and property rights. Therefore, if the criminal cannot pay the full amount of compensation, it would be unjust to force him into slavery. Instead, a more reasonable approach would be to consider him a bondservant, with his productive output utilized to generate income for compensating the victims. The division of his productive output can be determined through arbitration, taking into account a fair discount rate or other appropriate measures. It is vital to respect the principle of proportionality in punishment and not impose undue burdens on the individual. Bankruptcy provisions can safeguard against excessive liabilities, ensuring that he only owes what he can reasonably pay.
In both scenarios, the goal is to strike a balance between the rights and claims of the victims and the principles of proportionality, individual rights, and property rights. The involvement of arbitration provides a mechanism for reaching fair resolutions that consider the specific circumstances and the principles of libertarian law.
It is important to acknowledge that the precise application of these resolutions may vary depending on the jurisdiction, legal system, and the specific principles adopted within the framework of libertarian law. The overarching objective is to uphold justice, restitution, and respect for individual rights.
I also find it intellectually dishonest to discredit Hans's collective trust arguments about government land while also claiming the Jewish ethnostate has a collective right to commit property violations in Palestine. Does this mean the same case applies to white and natives inAmerica? I have a feeling his answer is much closer to Ann Rand than he would admit outright. No ethnic group has any claims on any general territory. Only specific persons have specific claims on specified plots of land, and those claims are not provable in a court of law. They are certainly not to be proven at the end of a bayonet. If jews want to buy land in Palestine, that's their prerogative. It isn't a goal of libertarians to defend genocides which benefit their ethnic propagation, only to defend their liberty through property rights.
Where's episode 2?
th-cam.com/video/gpV15tY6gqU/w-d-xo.html
I was wondering the same thing.
Block is intellectually dishonest. His views on Israeli vs Palestinian property rights exhibit his obvious bias. One groups freedoms should not trump another’s. Regardless of race, or politics.
Its a Jew thing. Hes great on other stuff
Nah, the Jewish claim to that land goes back further.
I'll be honest this is the first time I've ever heard of ex post facto law. It sounds insane.
Umm? Where is episode 2?
th-cam.com/video/gpV15tY6gqU/w-d-xo.html
Block said that something legal would be declared illegal...... then the punishment begins ??????
What if a black guy could prove that someone whose family came to the United States after slavery, from another country, took part in the slave trade? For example say they owned one of the ships that transported slaves, are they to pay reparations or hand over their property? It sounds like an international law issue, we might need a world Court lol
Horowitz is the man!
you must surely mean "INDEFENCEABLE" - not "undefendable"
I was with him until the Isreal argument.
the promise not to move east has been denied, and there seems to be no proof. I don't know
I wanted to share links but the Mises Institute or YT doesn't allow me to share them.
This discussion is over.
Google "antiwar What Did the West Promise Russia on NATO Expansion?" Article by Ted Snider. There you can also find the link to the declassified documents.
@@chefdenker704 ok
@@chefdenker704 Keyword here is "promise". Of course nobody wanted any tension and everybody had high hopes for Russia in early 90s. While we're on the topic, Russia promised to respect Ukraine's borders, in writing.
Do you have an answer how Europe's security can be ensured? Are you going to argue that Russia doesn't have an imperialist bone in its body and everything is NATO's fault? Or are you going to say that it shouldn't matter to the US if Russian tanks are on the streets of Warsaw, because Washington in the 1700s warned you to avoid entangling alliances?
Also, remember when Russia committed a few hundred thousand war crimes in Chechnya? Was the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria on the verge of joining NATO?
@@Rockownz5150 I responded to a specific claim here, which was that there was no promise of expanding NATO or at least there is no proof and, as the unclassified documents show, this claim is wrong. As simple as that. Russia is a great power but not revisionist. It is clearly a status-quo power. However, the US and its NATO allies are imperialist revisionist powers who moved their offensive military alliance to the doorsteps of Moscow. If you think you can expand a military alliance towards another great power without any repercussions, you are clueless. Whether it was Napoleon, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, any great power that tried to dominate another great power had to learn it the hard way. I am not surprised what happened and if I were Putin I would have not acted in a different way.
@@chefdenker704 So Estonia with its zero tanks, jets and a population of 1.5 million is a threat to Russia? Estonian mfers just don't want to be invaded, again.
Was the correct position then (and now) to just let Putin take what he wants? Or is the idea here that Russia wouldn't have wanted to invade anybody, ever?
Before Ukraine, there was virtually zero NATO presence in Eastern Europe, now Germany is planning to have a permanent brigade (4000 troops) in Lithuania. Putin can now enjoy Finland and Sweden in NATO, too.
Mr. Block, if you don't understand in international affairs, don't amplify communist propaganda that there was a promise made by NATO, that they will not enlarge on East. Even M. Gorbachev have said that there was no such agreement between NATO and Russia (USSR), however he was also not comfortable with the enlargement of NATO.
But he won't name the Jew.
blah blah blah not gonna do anything about it.
next.