About the yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, that is not a free speech issue. it is about contract. When you are in a theater, or any other business open to the public, the owner expects you to act a manner that doesn't disturb his business and to buy something. Doing otherwise is a breaking that contract.
I agree with his points, but I disagree that people blackmailing, hating, etc. should be considered heroic. They should be merely tolerated, their rights being protected. They should NOT be supported by revering them as heroes, and on the contrary, should be reviled and ridiculed when you believe their actions are immoral.
Block only thinks doing these things are heroic because people have to risk so much in order to practice individual liberty. If these activities were legal, they would not be heroic. In a society where every potentially offensive or unpopular behavior is banned, there is no opportunity for morality. Morality can only exist in the environment of choice. If slander, for example, were legal, it would be a reflection of the individual's morality, which should be identified as far from heroic. A point I sense you agree with.
This is going to be a paradise for stalkers and psychos. 'Dude, it's a free country. I can follow you all day as long as I'm not on your property.' People are gonna feel so free all day long...
Of course they can do so now if so inclined. As Ed Snowden pointed out, the government has been stalking us all for years. And to them, your property means nothing at all.
Of course you'd be in favor of getting rid of anti-psycho laws, judging from your avatar. Hah! I take it that most libertarians get opposition from bigger government liberals. I'm not a friend of more government, definitely not that kind of government but I also find that the libertarian ideal is not really my direction.
Orochicinq Criminality should be limited to violations of personal, property or civil rights. A free society requires toleration for other who behave in ways that we may not like or do not condone but fall short of that definition of crime. If liberty can be trumped because of majority vote then we have descended into a nation governed by mob rule rather than the one our founders designed to protect individual rights. Advocate reason not force. Advocate morality, not criminality.
Except everything is private property and the mall or road he followed you on could kick him out for this activity. Which is actually more than the gov't will do, they'll just give you a piece of paper saying that your stalker can't come with in a 100 ft. of you and if he's truly psychotic, hes not going to give a shit.
fzqlcs If Jack is smarter and more powerful than Johnny and Jack doesn't like Johnny for some reason then Jack will find ways to ruin Johnny. He will find ways in that free society to make Johnny poor and become ostracized. So much for tolerance. See, Jack smiles and speaks of tolerance but Jack isn't an idiot he knows it's just about pretending. Morality... You just have to advertise yourself as being the morally superior one. Morality is what works. Mob rules, yes. That is because of the bell-curve, the majority is intellectually inferior, not by education, but by birth. It's naive to think that that would not be exploited by the few who are superior in certain traits. A libertarian society would favor a hidden hierarchy. Ever played Risk, or some other board game? There are the official rules and there are the alliances which are forged in secret, outside the official rules and view of the public.
What Libertarians don't get is the reality that humans are not free, we are bound. We are bound in this way. We are not free to think, say and do whatever we like without consequences. When our thinking and actions are out of whack with the wisdom of the universe, that has a negative affect on us, especially our psycho/spiritual wellbeing. That alone keeps order more than any economic ideology.
I appreciate your love of liberty. I also respect your candor to break out of the normalcy bias. However, I think liberty can be well served - better served without the need for the extreme departure from the accepted norms. People have a natural right of privacy. How did the blackmailer come on the true information about the rubber duck? If it was via some violation of a privacy right it is both a crime under Natural Law and punishable with little or zero threat to the broader state of liberty. What if the blackmailer came upon this info as a result of a admission under a contract of silence? Also as you state free speech is not a natural right. The man protesting God knows what about dead soldiers should have this right under the protection of the 1st Amendment or under any hypothetical codified law protecting speech - even though it may likely be a crime under Natural Law (but not self-evident to me at least). However, the parents/wife/family of the dead soldier absolutely have the right to bury their loved one in peace. Therefore, I think it prudent to allow such hate speech but not at the funeral or along the funeral procession rout where the family can be directly assaulted by such speech. It is quite illegal under natural law to falsely slander or libel someone. However, state restrictions on speech are very very dangerous, so free speech as a pseudo-right granted by codified law such as the first Amendment may be prudent. However, even under such codified rights (Bill of Rights) free speech is still difficult to leave completely unchecked - such as shouting fire in a crowded theater. What about calls for violence or calls to enact act criminal laws such as for slavery? What about making a false accusation of rape in court. What about a women inciting some one to anger by claiming that she was raped to an over emotional violent lover? What if her lie resulted in violence against the victim of the lie? Is it OK to lie to a mother about the whereabouts of a lost child - what about lying to police about the whereabouts of a lost child. There may need to be some extent to the limits on speech. I see speech as similar to a firearm and words as similar to bullets. I have a right to a BEAR a firearm and to use bullets, but not to use the bullets in just anyway I choose - same for speech and words. The non aggression principle covers most crime but their are other ways to commit crime that may not neatly fit the non aggression principle. How such crime is best addressed is a separate but related topic.
i am strongly disagree with the notion of murder being executed.. first of all, we cannot tell for sure, if someone is indeed guilty, even if he/she confest his crime. cus it is always possible that he/she is a pawn and his family is under threat of death and so on. keeping that someone alive, would make sure, we do not make the wrong choise. if the judge made the wrong call, would he then be executed too? then about the family of the dead. they do not have the right of the victim life.. otherwise, it would be called slavery.. the most, we can do it, to make sure the perpetrator to work (humanely) in the prison and then, the money be sent into support the life of the young one. until they grew of age..
Walter Block doesn't explain very well that, for example, blackmailing someone with a picture that was taken under illegal circumstances is still illegal in a libertarian society.
I see so many comments here talking about *morality*, that you people think you know what is objectively moral and immoral. What is your evidence of such a thing? Why is killing somebody immoral as opposed to voluntary exchange? Who gets to determine what this objective moral standard is? I cannot stand it when I hear people say "This is moral" You are basically saying your argument is correct because you say so, not because of any objective proof.
I can already see where this idiotic argument will go. I can say that if you kill me, I am affected negatively and if you and I are involved in voluntary exchange, both of us will benefit. Then you will say that "benefit" and "negative" are relative and morality is subjective. Go ahead and fuck off already.
jimlovesgina But its objectively true. Do you actually have an argument to refute it? Can you prove one is objectively morally correct? No you dont. You only have subjective arbitrary emotional responses. This is literally no different from how the Left operates. Not based on facts, logic, or reason, but by pure emotion. If you cant defend your position, dont bother responding, somebody more capable will surely pick up the slack
If I don't want to die then it is not a voluntary exchange. I don't see a problem with someone contractually wanting someone to take their life if they voluntarily want it.
Sean Marsh Im not sure if you're responding to me or not but, I am challenging anybody here to actually PROVE using facts, logic, and reason, that there are certain things in this world which are *moral* and certain things in this world which are *immoral*. I argue that nobody cannot. Yet you people continue to give your ideas some degree of superiority over others by deeming it moral, and saying that anything else is immoral. Its basically saying "My position is better than yours because I say so" which is not an argument. Hell I want to live in a free market society as well, however I dont make the irrational leap all of you people make by then claiming it is *moral* when I dont have any evidence to prove it
superlucci I'm 100% with you. This argument will drag us to a religious debate, no doubt, which will go beyond the scope of the video, but you are completely right on principle.
Good point on Capital Punishment. But regarding slander/libel, what if one company hired agents to be customers of another competing business and to collude in developing a lie against that business. With say ten, albeit false witnesses, all declaring the same lie, I'm not sure how that would secure the reputation of the business. Would people be willing to risk checking out the service in order to falsify the claim? Perhaps some best customers could comment in a ratings section on the web...?
Companies can retaliate with the same tactics in return and since any competitor can do it to another, these sorts of libel won't be taken serious with out some evidence. Plus you can have ratings agencies. Its not like the gov't provides some magical solution to this problem anyways.
Thank you for highlighting some bad implications of libertarianism. What libertarianism don't get about their doctrine is that this docrtine is no more natural or pure than other political theories. They like to promote freedom, but they fail to see that most aspects of society today, have indeed come about as a result of freddom. When humans form societies, and the rulers make rules which the ruled have to follow if they are to avoid jail, what part of this process isn't freedom? My point is: liberty is really all around us.
It's paradoxical to promote acceptance by using force against hate groups, because you're creating prejudice against people with prejudice.
About the yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, that is not a free speech issue. it is about contract. When you are in a theater, or any other business open to the public, the owner expects you to act a manner that doesn't disturb his business and to buy something. Doing otherwise is a breaking that contract.
I agree with his points, but I disagree that people blackmailing, hating, etc. should be considered heroic. They should be merely tolerated, their rights being protected. They should NOT be supported by revering them as heroes, and on the contrary, should be reviled and ridiculed when you believe their actions are immoral.
Block only thinks doing these things are heroic because people have to risk so much in order to practice individual liberty. If these activities were legal, they would not be heroic. In a society where every potentially offensive or unpopular behavior is banned, there is no opportunity for morality. Morality can only exist in the environment of choice. If slander, for example, were legal, it would be a reflection of the individual's morality, which should be identified as far from heroic. A point I sense you agree with.
fzqlcs Ah yes, I understand now, thanks.
This is going to be a paradise for stalkers and psychos. 'Dude, it's a free country. I can follow you all day as long as I'm not on your property.'
People are gonna feel so free all day long...
Of course they can do so now if so inclined. As Ed Snowden pointed out, the government has been stalking us all for years. And to them, your property means nothing at all.
Of course you'd be in favor of getting rid of anti-psycho laws, judging from your avatar.
Hah!
I take it that most libertarians get opposition from bigger government liberals. I'm not a friend of more government, definitely not that kind of government but I also find that the libertarian ideal is not really my direction.
Orochicinq Criminality should be limited to violations of personal, property or civil rights. A free society requires toleration for other who behave in ways that we may not like or do not condone but fall short of that definition of crime. If liberty can be trumped because of majority vote then we have descended into a nation governed by mob rule rather than the one our founders designed to protect individual rights. Advocate reason not force. Advocate morality, not criminality.
Except everything is private property and the mall or road he followed you on could kick him out for this activity. Which is actually more than the gov't will do, they'll just give you a piece of paper saying that your stalker can't come with in a 100 ft. of you and if he's truly psychotic, hes not going to give a shit.
fzqlcs If Jack is smarter and more powerful than Johnny and Jack doesn't like Johnny for some reason then Jack will find ways to ruin Johnny. He will find ways in that free society to make Johnny poor and become ostracized. So much for tolerance. See, Jack smiles and speaks of tolerance but Jack isn't an idiot he knows it's just about pretending.
Morality... You just have to advertise yourself as being the morally superior one. Morality is what works. Mob rules, yes. That is because of the bell-curve, the majority is intellectually inferior, not by education, but by birth. It's naive to think that that would not be exploited by the few who are superior in certain traits. A libertarian society would favor a hidden hierarchy.
Ever played Risk, or some other board game? There are the official rules and there are the alliances which are forged in secret, outside the official rules and view of the public.
What Libertarians don't get is the reality that humans are not free, we are bound. We are bound in this way. We are not free to think, say and do whatever we like without consequences. When our thinking and actions are out of whack with the wisdom of the universe, that has a negative affect on us, especially our psycho/spiritual wellbeing. That alone keeps order more than any economic ideology.
The argument against capital punishment is one of uncertainty. We shouldn't have the death penalty because our information is imperfect.
I appreciate your love of liberty. I also respect your candor to break out of the normalcy bias. However, I think liberty can be well served - better served without the need for the extreme departure from the accepted norms. People have a natural right of privacy. How did the blackmailer come on the true information about the rubber duck? If it was via some violation of a privacy right it is both a crime under Natural Law and punishable with little or zero threat to the broader state of liberty. What if the blackmailer came upon this info as a result of a admission under a contract of silence? Also as you state free speech is not a natural right. The man protesting God knows what about dead soldiers should have this right under the protection of the 1st Amendment or under any hypothetical codified law protecting speech - even though it may likely be a crime under Natural Law (but not self-evident to me at least). However, the parents/wife/family of the dead soldier absolutely have the right to bury their loved one in peace. Therefore, I think it prudent to allow such hate speech but not at the funeral or along the funeral procession rout where the family can be directly assaulted by such speech. It is quite illegal under natural law to falsely slander or libel someone. However, state restrictions on speech are very very dangerous, so free speech as a pseudo-right granted by codified law such as the first Amendment may be prudent. However, even under such codified rights (Bill of Rights) free speech is still difficult to leave completely unchecked - such as shouting fire in a crowded theater. What about calls for violence or calls to enact act criminal laws such as for slavery? What about making a false accusation of rape in court. What about a women inciting some one to anger by claiming that she was raped to an over emotional violent lover? What if her lie resulted in violence against the victim of the lie? Is it OK to lie to a mother about the whereabouts of a lost child - what about lying to police about the whereabouts of a lost child. There may need to be some extent to the limits on speech. I see speech as similar to a firearm and words as similar to bullets. I have a right to a BEAR a firearm and to use bullets, but not to use the bullets in just anyway I choose - same for speech and words. The non aggression principle covers most crime but their are other ways to commit crime that may not neatly fit the non aggression principle. How such crime is best addressed is a separate but related topic.
i am strongly disagree with the notion of murder being executed.. first of all, we cannot tell for sure, if someone is indeed guilty, even if he/she confest his crime. cus it is always possible that he/she is a pawn and his family is under threat of death and so on. keeping that someone alive, would make sure, we do not make the wrong choise. if the judge made the wrong call, would he then be executed too?
then about the family of the dead. they do not have the right of the victim life.. otherwise, it would be called slavery.. the most, we can do it, to make sure the perpetrator to work (humanely) in the prison and then, the money be sent into support the life of the young one. until they grew of age..
Empirical evidence is a thing to determine rape and murder.
Walter Block doesn't explain very well that, for example, blackmailing someone with a picture that was taken under illegal circumstances is still illegal in a libertarian society.
I see so many comments here talking about *morality*, that you people think you know what is objectively moral and immoral.
What is your evidence of such a thing? Why is killing somebody immoral as opposed to voluntary exchange?
Who gets to determine what this objective moral standard is?
I cannot stand it when I hear people say "This is moral" You are basically saying your argument is correct because you say so, not because of any objective proof.
I can already see where this idiotic argument will go. I can say that if you kill me, I am affected negatively and if you and I are involved in voluntary exchange, both of us will benefit. Then you will say that "benefit" and "negative" are relative and morality is subjective. Go ahead and fuck off already.
jimlovesgina But its objectively true. Do you actually have an argument to refute it? Can you prove one is objectively morally correct?
No you dont. You only have subjective arbitrary emotional responses. This is literally no different from how the Left operates. Not based on facts, logic, or reason, but by pure emotion.
If you cant defend your position, dont bother responding, somebody more capable will surely pick up the slack
If I don't want to die then it is not a voluntary exchange. I don't see a problem with someone contractually wanting someone to take their life if they voluntarily want it.
Sean Marsh Im not sure if you're responding to me or not but,
I am challenging anybody here to actually PROVE using facts, logic, and reason, that there are certain things in this world which are *moral* and certain things in this world which are *immoral*. I argue that nobody cannot.
Yet you people continue to give your ideas some degree of superiority over others by deeming it moral, and saying that anything else is immoral. Its basically saying "My position is better than yours because I say so" which is not an argument.
Hell I want to live in a free market society as well, however I dont make the irrational leap all of you people make by then claiming it is *moral* when I dont have any evidence to prove it
superlucci I'm 100% with you. This argument will drag us to a religious debate, no doubt, which will go beyond the scope of the video, but you are completely right on principle.
This is a perfect example of "fundamentalist" libertarianism.
Absolutists make me throw up in my mouth a little.
Yeah, there are no absolutes, except for that absolute.
kathy kelly
I neither said nor implied that my comment was "absolute" in any sense. I was merely stating my opinion.
ClumsyRoot you said absolutes make you throw up.
kathy kelly It's merely my opinion; nothing absolutely true about it.
Good point on Capital Punishment. But regarding slander/libel, what if one company hired agents to be customers of another competing business and to collude in developing a lie against that business. With say ten, albeit false witnesses, all declaring the same lie, I'm not sure how that would secure the reputation of the business. Would people be willing to risk checking out the service in order to falsify the claim? Perhaps some best customers could comment in a ratings section on the web...?
Companies can retaliate with the same tactics in return and since any competitor can do it to another, these sorts of libel won't be taken serious with out some evidence. Plus you can have ratings agencies. Its not like the gov't provides some magical solution to this problem anyways.
I suppose
YAY! Love me some Walter Block!
good stuff
Axiom and hero do not mean what this man thinks they mean.
Thank you for highlighting some bad implications of libertarianism. What libertarianism don't get about their doctrine is that this docrtine is no more natural or pure than other political theories. They like to promote freedom, but they fail to see that most aspects of society today, have indeed come about as a result of freddom. When humans form societies, and the rulers make rules which the ruled have to follow if they are to avoid jail, what part of this process isn't freedom? My point is: liberty is really all around us.