≡ Menu

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2020 8:17 PM

To: ‘Josh Klenoff’ ; ‘Michael Edelstein’

Cc: ‘Malcolm Greenhill’  ‘Mort Kantor’ ; ‘David Pressman’

Subject: RE: Anti-Mask

Dear Josh:

My writing on this might be of interest to you.

Block, Walter E. 2020. “A libertarian analysis of the Covid-19 pandemic.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1; https://jls.scholasticahq.com/article/17836-a-libertarian-analysis-of-the-covid-19-pandemic?auth_token=1jZ-UoctwxQnkYZLFJZR

Best regards,

Walter

From: Josh Klenoff

Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2020 7:51 PM

To: Michael Edelstein

Cc: Denise, Ken Rosenblum, Larry, Golden ; Malcolm Greenhill ; Walter E. Block ; Mort Kantor ; David Pressman

Subject: Re: Anti-Mask

How interesting! If you have any questions, please share them with me. I’m hosting a Covid debate on Monday between, on the one hand, an epidemiologist in favor of collective action over individual rights, and on the other hand, the head of Pandemic Analysis Group, in favor of individual rights over collective action.

Once again, please share any questions you’d like me to ask our debaters.

The epidemiologist, in sharing some of his basic thinking with me, said:

1. during WWII, England forced people to keep lights off when sirens rang. Should people have been free to turn lights on? That would have gotten people killed. Bombs are dropping with Covid.

2. 9/11, we passed the Patriot Act to prevent more bombings and atrocities. Covid is far worse than 9/11.

3. Quarantine in the 14th century came to mean merchants would dock in Venice and before being permitted to leave their boat, they needed to wait on their boat 40 days. Only if people weren’t dying could Venice residents believe that they were free from the plague. This was essential.

He also spoke of Rousseau’s social contract and how during healthy times, the U.S. has a better health system than Canada, but during wartime or Covid, Canada is better than the U.S.

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 7:47 PM Michael Edelstein wrote:

Scott ODecember 5, 2020 at 11:38 AM

I believe that masks help spread the virus faster, given that we know they do not block aerosols or isolated viruses. First, they encourage people to get closer to each other as a substitute for distance (though it is disputed whether distance is any help). Second, the mask of an infected person collects the virus as that person breathes. Then that person turns to another and speaks, and as the mask is not designed to contain that velocity of air, some of the collected virus is sent towards the other person along with the virus in that exhalation, enhancing the likelihood of transmission.

FarodekDecember 5, 2020 at 2:51 PM

I’ve read a couple papers now, showing that masks can force droplets to split up into aerosols as the pressure forces them through the openings.

Dear :

Best regards,

Walter

Share

4:09 pm on April 16, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Gary Johnson LP Candidate for President

From: vonuvonu

Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2020 2:43 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Shane Hazel should be a libertarian Ross Perot?

Shane Hazel should be a libertarian Ross Perot?

That might make sense if Gary Johnson were more than an accidental libertarian.

Regards,

Bill Fargo

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2020 4:00 PM

To: ‘vonuvonu

Subject: RE: Shane Hazel should be a libertarian Ross Perot?

Dear Bill:

When Gary Johnson started to run on the LP ticket, he had never so much as even heard of Murray Rothbard.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

4:05 pm on April 16, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Open Letter to Georgia Libertarians

From: Buck Johnson

Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2020 8:13 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Georgia

Dr Block,

I have been a fan and consumer of much of your work for many years. I wanted to compliment you on your recent piece (that I found on LRC), “Open Letter to Libertarians in Georgia”.

Block, Walter E. 2020. “Open Letter to Libertarians in Georgia.” December 5; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/12/walter-e-block/open-letter-to-libertarians-in-georgia/

Reprint: http://www.varight.com/news/dr-walter-blocks-answer-to-those-who-want-to-boycott-the-georgia-elections/

The points you made are not only valid, they’re of the utmost importance right to now. I’m sure that you’ll receive plenty of pushback but I wanted to thank you for writing it.

Thank for what you do.

Cordially,

Buck Johnson

Death To Tyrants

Anti-Warfare, Anti-Welfare, Pro-Liberty Past guests include: Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Paul Gottfried, Lew Rockwell, Jeff Deist, Scott Horton, Ilana Mercer and more.

From: Walter Block

Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2020 2:36 PM

To: ‘Buck Johnson’

Subject: RE: Georgia

Dear Buck:

Thanks for your kind words.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

3:56 pm on April 16, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

From: Ben Veal

Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2020 12:49 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Counter-arguments you could have made in your debate with Richard Wolff

Dear Prof Block,

I watched with interest your online debate with Richard Wolff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiiOSDvcDT0

Sorry if this is teaching grandma to suck eggs, but I was a bit irked that you didn’t pick Prof Wolff up on a couple of things:

At one point Prof Wolff was arguing that the employer has far more power over the employee in any wage negotiation, and your counter argument was that this is not always the case, and the employee is always free to leave the job and look elsewhere for employment. To which he responded that it’s almost always the case that the employer has more power than the employee, even if there are a few exceptions.

A point that I think you should have made, is that it’s also almost always the case that there are many more employees than employers, and the employer is subject to the aggregate negotiating power of ALL the people she/he wants to employ; if the working conditions are too poor, or wages are too low, then nobody will want to work for the employer, and he/she will go out of business.

Another argument that I think you missed was a counter to Prof Wolff’s argument about the rich getting rich at the expense of the poor. This line of thought seems to be based on relative rather than absolute wealth, i.e. when somebody gets richer it’s automatically the case that other people become relatively poorer in comparison. But in terms of human well being (envy aside) what really matters is absolute wealth, which seems to increase faster (across all classes) in capitalist economies.

Once again, I realise that you’re probably aware of those points, but I just wanted to make sure, in case you are in any more debates like this in the future.

Regards,

Dr. Veal (econometrician).

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2020 2:20 PM

To: ‘Ben Veal’

Subject: RE: Counter-arguments you could have made in your debate with Richard Wolff

Dear Ben (if I may):

Excellent points. I’ll try to do better in future, thanks to you.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

3:55 pm on April 16, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Letter 1

From: Klaus Schmidt

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:16 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: “Morality” with regard to the initial of force

Dr. Block,

My name is Klaus Schmidt and I’m an Ancap who is a great fan of your work. You’ve always stated that capitalism is an amoral system and is not concerned with moral beliefs. My question is, would determining when it’s acceptable to aggress against another individual be included in the realm of “morality”? I’ve read so much of your work but have yet to come across an explanation and my guess is that the conduct of how we deal with aggression has more to do with ethics as opposed to morality. It seems that other writers may have gotten this confused? I know Michael Huemer made a comment about that in an article regarding your view on animal rights. Clarification on this would be greatly appreciated.

All the best,

Klaus

Letter 2

On Monday, November 30, 2020, 01:59:30 PM PST, Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear Klaus:

Thanks for your kind words. They mean a lot to me.

My view is not that that capitalism is an amoral system. Rather, it is that Austrian economics is. In contrast, libertarianism deals with aggression. I am an Austro libertarian, but the two strands are very different. I also love Mozart and chess, and, again the two are very different.

Best regards,

Walter

Letter 3

From: Klaus Schmidt

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 10:43 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Re: “Morality” with regard to the initial of force

Dr. Block,

Your distinction is well taken. I think I may not have phrased the question correctly and I can do better. Here’s an except from your article Libertarianism and Libertinism:

“As a political philosophy, libertarianism says nothing about culture, mores, morality, or ethics. To repeat: It only asks one question, and gives only one answer. It asks, “Does the act necessarily involve initiatory invasive violence?” If so, it is justified to use (legal) force to stop it or punish the act; if not, this is improper.”

So when discussing when it is justified for you to coercively punish someone for an action, does that fall under the purview of justice, morality, ethics, or something else? Some would say that “justice” falls under an ethical or moral principle. Suppose I say it is not acceptable for you put your hands on me and/or punish me for stealing from you (maybe an advocate of the belief that free will doesn’t exist, we can’t control our actions, and therefore retribution is unjust). Would that not lead to an argument revolving around morality or ethics? Then there would have to be a concession that libertarianism does say something about morality or ethics regarding this one stance of when punishment is acceptable.

On a completely unrelated note I very much enjoyed your debate with Dr. Richard Wolff recently and he had a long debate with David Friedman a few weeks ago that I think you’d enjoy (if you haven’t seen it). There will be at least one more between the two shortly from what I understand. A deontological approach to a debate with Wolff would prove far better, but this was good. It’s a curious thing when Dr. Wolff’s focus of his “socialism” revolves around democratic ownership within the workplace. He believes it’s difficult for these co-ops to function under current “State capitalism”. Without the State would his utopia prevent firms from operating under any type of hierarchy if it were voluntary? He talks about the oppression of the employee, but it’s a rather interesting concept if he then believes only these co-ops should exist. His ideology clearly has some form of compulsion pitted against the worker. Anyway, here’s the link    : Dr Richard D Wolff Vs Dr David D Friedman | Socialism Vs Capitalism Debate

Dr Richard D Wolff Vs Dr David D Friedman | Socialism Vs Capitalism Debate

Thanks,

Klaus

Dear Klaus:

I offered to debate Wolff in a series on different topics. He declined.

Here are my views on free will:

Block, Walter E. 2015. “Free will, determinism, libertarianism and Austrian economics” Dialogue, Issue 3, p.1; http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/110798998/free-will-determinism-libertarianism-austrian-economicshttp://www.academia.edu/27719232/Rejoinder_on_Free_Will_Determinism_Libertarianism_and_Austrian_Economics

Van Schoelandt, Chad, Ivan Jankovic and Walter E. Block. 2016. “Rejoinder on Free Will, Determinism, Libertarianism and Austrian Economics.” Dialogue, Issue 2; http://www.uni-svishtov.bg/dialog/title.asp?lang=en&title=565http://141.164.71.80/exchange/walterblock/Inbox/RE:%20Rejoinder%20on%20Free%20Will,%20Determinism,%20Libertarianism%20and%20Austrian%20Economics.EML/1_multipart_xF8FF_2_p565__DialogueBook2eng2016_81_95.pdf/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/p565__DialogueBook2eng2016_81_95.pdf?attach=1;

http://www.uni-svishtov.bg/dialog/title.asp?title=565

Best regards,

Walter

Share

6:10 am on April 13, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Dear Gregg:

Thanks for this fascinating analysis of yours. I don’t agree or disagree with it. I’m not sure. I believe in the division of labor and specialization, and this data is a bit out of the realm I usually operate in. In other words, I’m too lazy to delve into this with the limited effort I can call upon. Sorry.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Gregg Goodnight

Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 9:38 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Your WSJ Writeup, 11/28/20

Dear Professor Block,

I read your article in Saturday’s WSJ ‘Libertarians Spoil the Election’ and have a few thoughts for your consideration.

First a few facts; swing state votes for the Libertarian candidate for presidency were down 52% in 2020 versus 2016 despite the total vote count being up by 16.2%  (see attached file). The total margin of Biden over Trump in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Wisconsin (as of 11/23/20) was 125,689. This amount was about one-half of the total reduction in Libertarian votes in these four states (253,548). So on the surface, perhaps the Libertarians did spoil the election.

If the vote totals are accurate, what possible explanation could be given for this huge shift in voting preference? I have not heard a reasonable explanation.

Perhaps you have seen analyst Edward Solomon’s YouTube on his excellent analysis of the Smartmatic software used in Philadelphia (see link below)? This is very interesting and compelling for me. This YouTube explains the Smartmatic algorithm used to distribute (not count) votes in Philadelphia. While it takes about 30 minutes to understand the scheme, here is its essence:

1) Total were votes counted in real time and time tags assigned to voting totals

2) In the algorithm that was used, a certain number of votes were attributed to Trump, up to a maximum number

3) Then a ratio was then used to assign Biden votes from the total (such as 18:1 vs Trump)

4) The residual votes (Total minus Biden minus Trump) assigned to the Libertarian party

5) Every time the voting total was updated, the algorithm would transfer the voting ratio to other precincts so that the fact that the voting was rigged wasn’t so obvious.

In effect, the algorithm effectively assigned Libertarian votes to Biden, comprising a significant part, if not all of the margin of victory to him.

Do you agree?

Regards,

Gregg Goodnight

Pearland, TX

See: https://welovetrump.com/2020/11/21/genius-patriot-edward-solomon-discovered-the-exact-dominion-algorithm-that-transferred-millions-of-votes-video/?

Share

6:09 am on April 13, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Donald Trump and Libertarianism

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 7:09 PM

To: ‘David Chávez Salazar’

Subject: RE: Hello Professor Block

Dear David:

Thanks for your kind words. I really appreciate them.

Trump is very good on reducing regulations, taxes and creating peace in the Middle East; he is bad on protectionism, deficits. I vastly prefer him to Biden who is a socialist.

If populism helps promote liberty I favor it to that extent. If Biden wins in 2020, this is still a question, I hope Rand Paul becomes president in 2024.

Best regards,

Walter

From: David Chávez Salazar

Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 5:18 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Hello Professor Block

Dear Professor Block:

1. I hope you are well. I am pleased to announce that the webinar we organized a few months ago on the wage gap has been the cornerstone for a “Blockean” movement in Chile. From the bottom of my heart I want to express my gratitude to you for the friendship that we have established in these years.

2. I would like to talk a little about politics. It is outrageous what has happened in the United States with this very fraudulent election. I have a slightly crazy idea: I would like to try the possibility of interviewing President Trump for an editorial project I have in mind. However, professor, I would like to ask you a couple of questions: what is your opinion about Trump? And what is your opinion regarding populism as a means of struggle for libertarianism?

Thank you.

Best regards,

David

David Chávez Salazar

CEO

Libertas Phyle

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Share

6:07 am on April 13, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

International Trade

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 6:33 PM

To: ‘Jon Trollston’

Subject: RE: Private law and international trade.

Dear Jon:

That’s quite a few good questions.

All voluntary trade is mutually beneficial in the ex ante sense, intra national or international. It would bring costs down since there’d be more goods and services, thanks to a greater specialization and division of labor. Under anarcho capitalism transactions and all other costs would be lower than under statism and central planning. I presume payment could be made in whatever the free enterprise money is: gold, crypto currency, or something else.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Jon Trollston

Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 9:35 AM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Private law and international trade.

Hello mister block, i am looking for sources on how costs would be distributed concerning international trade in a private law society.

My question is would we expect to see higher costs at say the post office? Given that the government would no longer produce law and police? Would it be the case that whatever firm protects me would communicate with whatever firm protects the seller or buyer in the case of a dispute? Would this even be feasible in terms of transaction costs? What are the costs that all participants are bearing here for this transaction to happen? Am i correct in assuming the issue of payment is a non issue? Given that we can bring in a website like paypal or some other form of escrow like it’s done with crypto payments.

Thank you in advance.

Share

6:03 am on April 13, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

The Use of Violence, and Libertarianism

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 5:11 PM

To: ‘Sebastian Ortiz’

Subject: RE:

Dear Sebastian:

Thanks for sharing with me your important thoughts.

I’m a firm believer in specialization and comparative advantage. I’m into peaceful protest not violence, except when it comes to shaking that last bit of ketchup out of the bottle. Then, watch out!

Best regards,

Walter

From: Sebastian Ortiz

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 12:28 AM

Subject:

Juan Sebastian Ortiz Madriz

From the standpoint of human psychology and political science:

The extreme naivety and stupid, neophyte intellectual arrogance of libertarians comes from thinking that statism is the result of bad ideas and not of violent action, and that the sheeplike compliance of statist joes with violent people is essentially different from the reason why they, the libertarians try to counter violent action with peaceful argument: cowardice.

If anything the difference at any given time is that the violent in power are the most intelligent among the violent and that the violent in jail are the least intelligent among violent and that the majority inside and outside of jail (which under statism isn’t much different) are simply those who are either less intelligent or equally intelligent and less violent.  To have the arrogance of saying “I, innocent, condemn your injustice.” is worthy of a ten year old who has watched too many fairy tale movies.  Whoever wants to implement a “more just” system to their own whim will first have to prove to be more violent and intelligent than those who he aims to overthrow.  That is how it’s always been and there are serious doubts cast on whether it’ll be different in the future, it certainly isn’t these days.

Share

6:03 am on April 13, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Morality and Libertarianism

From: Klaus Schmidt

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:16 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: “Morality” with regard to the initial of force

Dr. Block,

My name is Klaus Schmidt and I’m an Ancap who is a great fan of your work. You’ve always stated that capitalism is an amoral system and is not concerned with moral beliefs. My question is, would determining when it’s acceptable to aggress against another individual be included in the realm of “morality”? I’ve read so much of your work but have yet to come across an explanation and my guess is that the conduct of how we deal with aggression has more to do with ethics as opposed to morality. It seems that other writers may have gotten this confused? I know Michael Huemer made a comment about that in an article regarding your view on animal rights. Clarification on this would be greatly appreciated.

All the best,

Klaus

Dear Klaus:

Thanks for your kind words. They mean a lot to me.

My view is not that that capitalism is an amoral system. Rather, it is that Austrian economics is. In contrast, libertarianism deals with aggression. I am an Austro libertarian, but the two strands are very different. I also love Mozart and chess, and, again the two are very different.

Best regards,

Walter

Dear :

Best regards,

Walter

Share

4:00 am on April 9, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }
RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Google+
http://walterblock.com/page/2/
Twitter