Hi Sergio. I'm not coming to argue; but perhaps to answer. The fat shamer would have his right to express his opinion; even if it was incorrect. The rip-off sellers would have to return at least equal value, for any misrepresented product. And the tax evader is simply protecting his rightful property from a gang of thieves. If the thieves STILL seize by force; then welcome to the real world. See, all this stuff is legal theory; and is offered for intelligent consideration.
Agreed. In addition, fat shaming is an important form of social regulation that encourages people to avoid a dangerous lifestyle that produces many bad health and economic effects for the fat individual and even for society as a whole. On the other hand, I've read and heard very good arguments for rip-off products, even that the original brand itself benefits from some sort of free advertising that the rip-off creates.
@@TerryMarineBMF I disagree about the rip-off sellers. They should be able to get away with misrepresentation. 'Caveat emptor' (let the buyer beware), right? They are not violating the non-aggression principle, right? You're the sucker who agreed to buy from them, right? They didn't force you, right? If they continue to rip people off, then they will either get a bad rep and lose their customers, or get a solid kicking one day, both of which will teach them a lesson and serve justice. Rip-off sellers are neither (9:32) 'initiating violence against other people nor their property'. A dishonest cop could give them a good kicking, for example.
@@sergio_botero you can simply choose to diassociate with fat shamers and for tax evaders, that's like evading armed robbers, since taxes are armed robbery.
Couple of points: 1. In the TV theft example, the amount of compensatory TVs should really be expressed as x>(1/(probability of detection and capture) so if Walter is able to expect that he will be able to successfully steal 90% of TVs without any consequences, then the compensatory number of TVs for every capture needs to be greater than nine in order to reduce his expectancy value for TV theft as a whole below zero. In Walter's example of a single compensatory TV in addition to the returned TV, TV theft would still be a profitable enterprise if he was able to maintain a successful theft rate of >50%. 2. Re Capital punishment, a key point that Walter omits, is that a whole life sentence, or even a sentence that is so long that the convict has no plausible expectation of release, is a de facto death sentence. Instead of death by lethal injection or whatever, it is simply a sentence of death by confinement. As such, almost all jurisdictions all over the world have the death penalty, the only difference is that some call it what it is, whilst others call it life without parole.
Walter is wrong on one tiny issue... the "Good Samaritan laws" do not obligate you to help. It protects you legally for anything that might incur during the act of trying to help... for instance you try and help someone out of a burning car but you end up tripping and throwing the person off a cliff, you are not liable for the persons death. As a libertarian I think these laws are good, its actually a law that seems to "repeal" laws in this circumstance.
But this insurable doesn't work because it can be analyzed individually and you have a control about your health, it isn't complete, but it exists. I can't protect myself to feell ill in the morning, because I'll tell my agency I am feeling ill every morning. And it'll breake in a free market. In this video, Hoppe explains what is insurable and non insurable th-cam.com/video/RUgLUgw-O-U/w-d-xo.html
I agree with walter about discrimination but his bus example doesn't really work because the bus seating came about through legislation so any other bus company that starts up would have to discriminate by law anyway.
He makes that point. Due to Jim Crowe laws competition was unable to fit that need in the market. In the abstract does bus company A have the right to discriminate, yes they do. If in doing so they alienate customers bus company B can open and serve them. The discrimination in fact was govt forced, not a choice of bus company A.
9:32 - Libertarianism doesn't prohibit all bad things. Libertarianism is a theory of what law should be, and what it says is: you can do anything you damn well please just do NOT INITIATE VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE OR THEIR PROPERTY (OR THE THREAT THEREOF). They are acts which violate the non-aggression principle.
No right to life? Sorry, i would have to disagree. The reason you have a right to life is because someone else doesn't have a right to take it from you or deprive you of it except in defense of self or another's life.
If you read just one chapter then watch him speak just one minute, that's all it takes to ask, "What? How are these are the same people?" BTW _definitely_ do not see his animal rights stances
Oh my. That would really provoke the statist sensibilities. The soldiers who take it upon themselves to suppress the stolen valor when they are in civil. They are basically guys who murder people abroad, bully people at home and feel righteous about it. I fucking hate these stolen valor videos lol.
@@GeorgWilde Defend child trafficking. That would really make those statists angry. I know your Ancap position inside and out. When you realize that it’s necessary to fight to defend your borders from invasion and subjugation by the enemy, then you’ll see not all war in history or today is like the wars the US fights, which are all in service of the devil. You have right to defend yourself. You have a right to defend others. This is the basis which we derive justification from.
Aren’t you destroying your whole system by writing a book detailing how, under your ethical framework, all these things which the majority of society rightly considers bad, are perfectly fine in your view. Do you actually believe the account you give in your book serves as a justification for the behaviors you listed. First you would need to provide a justification for why we should believe your libertarian presuppositions. How do you get past Is/Ought dilemma. You can’t this system is self-defeating.
The first book from Walter Block he is discussing featured heavily in Peter Schwartz's article Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty. It is typical of Rand's followers, inaccurate, uncompromising and slanted. Knowing the history of Block & Rand's Collective as described in this lecture series - I can definitely see a personal issue behind it.
This was so fun to listen to, I'm not too sure if I completely agree with him on privacy like we do have the right to bodily privacy, but in public if someone chooses not dress properly and peeping Tom looks that's her fault. So, we do have the right to privacy in some sense.
You have no right to privacy, want privacy? you have to make it in your own private property, if I can use a machine to look inside your house that is my right
@@voluntarism335 That's not an apples to apples comparison. I was referring to a person who dresses revealing and goes into public or a workplace, when I wear raveling clothes say a stringer to flex my gains, I know that there is a chance I'm benefiting a perv. I don't see why it's different for women. Granted I want girls to admire me. For the record those devices exist you're most likely using one right now. Yeah the feds spy on your phone Snowden has revealed all of this. Also with the house comparison you have tools to protect you privacy and if you don't use them that's on you. Lets say me and some girl "have fun" and I choose not to close the windows can I blame creepy Tom for watching? Keep in mind I know there is a chance he might be looking.
@@countlessbathory1485 hacking onto someone's server or phone is a breach of private property rights, you can blame the peeping tom if you want since that's a shitty thing to do. To be fully consistent with libertarian principles you cannot use a vpn to bypass Netflix's region blocking since you're using their servers to watch their content on and using a vpn to bypass that is a breach of contract, however I don't give no craps and use a vpn anyways and I don't care nor feel guilty I only take libertarian principles so far before I lose any care.
@@voluntarism335 oh yeah I agree I'm not celebrating peeping Tom's actions. Plus, behaving like an obnoxious perv won't benefit anyone in the social marketplace. Although his existencs indirectly helps us by reminding us to dress appropriately and be cautious of privacy. The Netflix argument is interesting but if you do feel guilty why not use a torrent site? It's not theft sinec property isn't stole and the material uploaded was done so with the owners consent.
@@countlessbathory1485 I don't feel guilty for using a VPN, I'll pay their monthly subscription but I'll still use a VPN anyways, if I were to be consistent I would also have to stop using Adblock because that is doing the same thing breaching contract with the website owner who runs their own server or is paying to be on a server and I'm just straight up breaking their terms and conditions just by using adblock. I mean if you're using Adblock would you stop using it? Would you stop using a VPN to bypass netflix region blocking? I wouldn't.
What if one of your voluntary guardianless child sex slaves accidentally drops an Apple on the floor which unbeknownst to no one is actually a secret lever to your private nuclear detonation button and it blows up the entire city while you were away in vacation. Who is responsible ?
Walter Block has gained a reputation (in my mind) for making weak, specious arguments, but I think the privacy argument takes the cake. After arguing that consenting adults can violate each other's rights to life if they agree to join a death game ("God bless 'em"), to say there "is no right to privacy" because consenting adults can choose to be looked at in public is as specious as it gets. So, if he's going to be a "consistent libertarian" as he always likes to say, there must be no right to life, either, because people can choose to die. It's a non-argument. Obviously privacy is, at least, something you can choose to worry over or not to worry over. Time constraints aside, it's a silly dismissal of the question rather than an answer. He didn't even say "buy a curtain," just made a joke about public speaking.
No one has a right to life, we only have the right not to be killed against our consent. He also made that clear. You thinking its "specious" is not an argument. "Right to life" or "right to privacy" would both constitute a positive (invalid) right demanding others to keep you alive, or obscure when not on your own property. This is not even remotely strange or false. A curtain falls under private property by the way, did you really need that pointed out? Block is arguably the MOST consistent libertarian thinker out there
So if you, not having a curtain, change in front of your window, as you please, are seen by me, passing by on say a public sidewalk. I'm then violating libertarian law if i see, gawk or otherwise observe? All rights of privacy would stem from property rights, making any determination of a violation a property rights determination.
The part where he talks about Rosa Parks and claims segregation in the south wouldn't have been a problem if bus companies could compete in a free market (paraphrasing) was possibly the stupidest most ahistorical thing I've ever heard.
Actually he is right. It would not solve racism but it would let black people to create a buss service business where blacks are not discriminated against .
For the next sequel Walter should consider the fat shamer, the rip-off product salesman or manufacturer, and most importantly, the tax evader.
Hi Sergio. I'm not coming to argue; but perhaps to answer. The fat shamer would have his right to express his opinion; even if it was incorrect. The rip-off sellers would have to return at least equal value, for any misrepresented product. And the tax evader is simply protecting his rightful property from a gang of thieves. If the thieves STILL seize by force; then welcome to the real world. See, all this stuff is legal theory; and is offered for intelligent consideration.
Agreed. In addition, fat shaming is an important form of social regulation that encourages people to avoid a dangerous lifestyle that produces many bad health and economic effects for the fat individual and even for society as a whole. On the other hand, I've read and heard very good arguments for rip-off products, even that the original brand itself benefits from some sort of free advertising that the rip-off creates.
@@TerryMarineBMF I disagree about the rip-off sellers. They should be able to get away with misrepresentation. 'Caveat emptor' (let the buyer beware), right? They are not violating the non-aggression principle, right? You're the sucker who agreed to buy from them, right? They didn't force you, right? If they continue to rip people off, then they will either get a bad rep and lose their customers, or get a solid kicking one day, both of which will teach them a lesson and serve justice. Rip-off sellers are neither (9:32) 'initiating violence against other people nor their property'. A dishonest cop could give them a good kicking, for example.
@@sergio_botero you can simply choose to diassociate with fat shamers and for tax evaders, that's like evading armed robbers, since taxes are armed robbery.
My first book on libertarianism and I'm very happy it was the first. Thank you, Mr. Block!
Walter keeps hitting those questions out of the park 😀
I love the way he analyzes, I plan to read all his books, papers and articles 🙂✌️
Logic is fun.
Thank you for educating all of us as it can only better our society in a fruitful way for all of us.. and our kids alike..
A contract, by definition, cannot be implicit. I won't quote Hoppe, but I probably should.
Couple of points:
1. In the TV theft example, the amount of compensatory TVs should really be expressed as x>(1/(probability of detection and capture) so if Walter is able to expect that he will be able to successfully steal 90% of TVs without any consequences, then the compensatory number of TVs for every capture needs to be greater than nine in order to reduce his expectancy value for TV theft as a whole below zero. In Walter's example of a single compensatory TV in addition to the returned TV, TV theft would still be a profitable enterprise if he was able to maintain a successful theft rate of >50%.
2. Re Capital punishment, a key point that Walter omits, is that a whole life sentence, or even a sentence that is so long that the convict has no plausible expectation of release, is a de facto death sentence. Instead of death by lethal injection or whatever, it is simply a sentence of death by confinement. As such, almost all jurisdictions all over the world have the death penalty, the only difference is that some call it what it is, whilst others call it life without parole.
In your point 2 I believe it's addressed in specifically corallating to executions vs simply the death penalty being on the books.
@@readrothbard153 They at least have the opportunity to have the ruling overturned while they wait to die...
“HEY HEY HEY SHUTUP! It’s my turn!”
Walter is wrong on one tiny issue... the "Good Samaritan laws" do not obligate you to help. It protects you legally for anything that might incur during the act of trying to help... for instance you try and help someone out of a burning car but you end up tripping and throwing the person off a cliff, you are not liable for the persons death. As a libertarian I think these laws are good, its actually a law that seems to "repeal" laws in this circumstance.
The best laws are, indeed, negative laws.
But this insurable doesn't work because it can be analyzed individually and you have a control about your health, it isn't complete, but it exists. I can't protect myself to feell ill in the morning, because I'll tell my agency I am feeling ill every morning. And it'll breake in a free market. In this video, Hoppe explains what is insurable and non insurable
th-cam.com/video/RUgLUgw-O-U/w-d-xo.html
Looking good mr. block!
Dexter Morgan Why do you assume a complement isn't sincere? Walter Block looks good for a 74 year old man.
LOL, Walter Block is funny asf.
I agree with walter about discrimination but his bus example doesn't really work because the bus seating came about through legislation so any other bus company that starts up would have to discriminate by law anyway.
He said something really similar when he pointed out that no other bus company emerged because the public transport sector is so regulated
He makes that point. Due to Jim Crowe laws competition was unable to fit that need in the market. In the abstract does bus company A have the right to discriminate, yes they do. If in doing so they alienate customers bus company B can open and serve them.
The discrimination in fact was govt forced, not a choice of bus company A.
9:32 - Libertarianism doesn't prohibit all bad things. Libertarianism is a theory of what law should be, and what it says is: you can do anything you damn well please just do NOT INITIATE VIOLENCE AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE OR THEIR PROPERTY (OR THE THREAT THEREOF). They are acts which violate the non-aggression principle.
O joker do Heath Ledger deve estar se sentindo felliz com existencia dessa ideia maravilhosa do Walter Block.
No right to life? Sorry, i would have to disagree. The reason you have a right to life is because someone else doesn't have a right to take it from you or deprive you of it except in defense of self or another's life.
If you read just one chapter then watch him speak just one minute, that's all it takes to ask, "What? How are these are the same people?"
BTW _definitely_ do not see his animal rights stances
Defend stolen valor. That'd be hilarious.
Oh my. That would really provoke the statist sensibilities.
The soldiers who take it upon themselves to suppress the stolen valor when they are in civil. They are basically guys who murder people abroad, bully people at home and feel righteous about it. I fucking hate these stolen valor videos lol.
@@GeorgWilde Defend child trafficking. That would really make those statists angry.
I know your Ancap position inside and out. When you realize that it’s necessary to fight to defend your borders from invasion and subjugation by the enemy, then you’ll see not all war in history or today is like the wars the US fights, which are all in service of the devil. You have right to defend yourself. You have a right to defend others. This is the basis which we derive justification from.
wow i totally disagree with block's case for the death penalty. it is a bit strange, imho.
It seems he simply forgot to finish his thought when first bringing it up. Tom Woods prompts him to elaborate at 47:20.
Aren’t you destroying your whole system by writing a book detailing how, under your ethical framework, all these things which the majority of society rightly considers bad, are perfectly fine in your view.
Do you actually believe the account you give in your book serves as a justification for the behaviors you listed. First you would need to provide a justification for why we should believe your libertarian presuppositions. How do you get past Is/Ought dilemma. You can’t this system is self-defeating.
Wunderbar
that is a hard pill to swallow
his justification for death penalty was weak.
The first book from Walter Block he is discussing featured heavily in Peter Schwartz's article Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty. It is typical of Rand's followers, inaccurate, uncompromising and slanted. Knowing the history of Block & Rand's Collective as described in this lecture series - I can definitely see a personal issue behind it.
*HEYHEYHEYHEYHEYHEYHEYHEY*
'He's unhappy, because he's dead.'
This was so fun to listen to, I'm not too sure if I completely agree with him on privacy like we do have the right to bodily privacy, but in public if someone chooses not dress properly and peeping Tom looks that's her fault. So, we do have the right to privacy in some sense.
You have no right to privacy, want privacy? you have to make it in your own private property, if I can use a machine to look inside your house that is my right
@@voluntarism335 That's not an apples to apples comparison. I was referring to a person who dresses revealing and goes into public or a workplace, when I wear raveling clothes say a stringer to flex my gains, I know that there is a chance I'm benefiting a perv. I don't see why it's different for women. Granted I want girls to admire me. For the record those devices exist you're most likely using one right now. Yeah the feds spy on your phone Snowden has revealed all of this. Also with the house comparison you have tools to protect you privacy and if you don't use them that's on you. Lets say me and some girl "have fun" and I choose not to close the windows can I blame creepy Tom for watching? Keep in mind I know there is a chance he might be looking.
@@countlessbathory1485 hacking onto someone's server or phone is a breach of private property rights, you can blame the peeping tom if you want since that's a shitty thing to do. To be fully consistent with libertarian principles you cannot use a vpn to bypass Netflix's region blocking since you're using their servers to watch their content on and using a vpn to bypass that is a breach of contract, however I don't give no craps and use a vpn anyways and I don't care nor feel guilty I only take libertarian principles so far before I lose any care.
@@voluntarism335 oh yeah I agree I'm not celebrating peeping Tom's actions. Plus, behaving like an obnoxious perv won't benefit anyone in the social marketplace. Although his existencs indirectly helps us by reminding us to dress appropriately and be cautious of privacy. The Netflix argument is interesting but if you do feel guilty why not use a torrent site? It's not theft sinec property isn't stole and the material uploaded was done so with the owners consent.
@@countlessbathory1485 I don't feel guilty for using a VPN, I'll pay their monthly subscription but I'll still use a VPN anyways, if I were to be consistent I would also have to stop using Adblock because that is doing the same thing breaching contract with the website owner who runs their own server or is paying to be on a server and I'm just straight up breaking their terms and conditions just by using adblock. I mean if you're using Adblock would you stop using it? Would you stop using a VPN to bypass netflix region blocking? I wouldn't.
Brilliant XD
Misers help.They preserve the value of money .
What if one of your voluntary guardianless child sex slaves accidentally drops an Apple on the floor which unbeknownst to no one is actually a secret lever to your private nuclear detonation button and it blows up the entire city while you were away in vacation. Who is responsible ?
Walter Block has gained a reputation (in my mind) for making weak, specious arguments, but I think the privacy argument takes the cake.
After arguing that consenting adults can violate each other's rights to life if they agree to join a death game ("God bless 'em"), to say there "is no right to privacy" because consenting adults can choose to be looked at in public is as specious as it gets. So, if he's going to be a "consistent libertarian" as he always likes to say, there must be no right to life, either, because people can choose to die. It's a non-argument. Obviously privacy is, at least, something you can choose to worry over or not to worry over.
Time constraints aside, it's a silly dismissal of the question rather than an answer. He didn't even say "buy a curtain," just made a joke about public speaking.
No one has a right to life, we only have the right not to be killed against our consent. He also made that clear. You thinking its "specious" is not an argument. "Right to life" or "right to privacy" would both constitute a positive (invalid) right demanding others to keep you alive, or obscure when not on your own property. This is not even remotely strange or false. A curtain falls under private property by the way, did you really need that pointed out?
Block is arguably the MOST consistent libertarian thinker out there
@@CalyPTratus You do actually have positive rights. But they are irrevocable. I’m a Christian and that is my standpoint.
So if you, not having a curtain, change in front of your window, as you please, are seen by me, passing by on say a public sidewalk. I'm then violating libertarian law if i see, gawk or otherwise observe? All rights of privacy would stem from property rights, making any determination of a violation a property rights determination.
22:20 wtf is this degeneracy
Libertarianism
Cope
it's funny, but full of fallacies
Such as?
Hey it's the self proclaimed king of the blacks. What a dbag
Yikes! This is insanity!
Great argument
Do elaborate…
The part where he talks about Rosa Parks and claims segregation in the south wouldn't have been a problem if bus companies could compete in a free market (paraphrasing) was possibly the stupidest most ahistorical thing I've ever heard.
I don't think you know what "history" means.
Brainlet.
I'm sure Jim Crow **laws** were not an intervention in the free market
Actually he is right. It would not solve racism but it would let black people to create a buss service business where blacks are not discriminated against .
This is a very good reductio for anarcho-capitalism... Just seems morally repugnant to me.