≡ Menu

From: Max

Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 9:37 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Synthetic A Priori Question

Hi Walter,

My name is Max. I’m an educator/writer from Los Angeles, I’ve been a libertarian for about 10 years, and I’m a big fan of your work. I watched the debate between yourself and David Friedman and thought you did a great job. Since then, I’ve been arguing with David on Facebook about his odd views about negative time preference.

While I’d firmly call myself an Austrian, I did start to question something when you were talking about synthetic a priori statements. You gave a non-economic example of “Parallel lines can’t cross,” although this example immediately seemed to me like a regular a priori tautology because the rule of “not crossing” is necessarily contained in the definition of “parallel.” Am I missing something here? Similarly with the building block of Austrian economics, the statement “Man acts” could arguably also be a tautology because I would think that acting is a necessary component of the definition of a human being as it’s being used in such an economic statement. So as you can see, I’m not completely convinced now about whether synthetic a priori’s exist, and I’d love to know where you think I might be going wrong.

I think one of the fundamental ways you defined synthetic a priori as opposed to something like a tautology is that it “tells us something about the real world,” and yet, I think tautologies can also tell us new information about the real world. When we break down a word into different words or phrases, we tend to elucidate meaning (meaning that can enrich our understanding of the world). For example, even a tautology we could agree on, “all bachelors are unmarried,” gives us information about the real world to those who don’t already know what a bachelor is. In the realm of morality, I believe we can derive the NAP and property rights from tautological statements about humanity.

I hope this rant doesn’t seem too abrasive. I’m still a big fan, and right now, whether I believe synthetic a prioris exist or not, I still think Austrianism and praxeology itself are sound.

Hope your semester is going well and even if you don’t have the time to answer, thank you for taking the time to read this.



From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 10:18 PM

To: ‘Max

Subject: RE: Synthetic A Priori Question

Dear Max:

Not abrasive at all. If abrasive, then abrasive is a good thing!

I might be wrong on parallel lines. I’ll have to think about that one.

Yes, tautologies tell us a little bit about the real world: but only how we use language.

Whereas, in sharp contrast, synthetic aprioris tell us much more than mere definitions. I don’t think “man” is defined as being an “actor.” Man is just a species. Ants, too, are a species, and, yet, I don’t think they act, choose, etc. Rather, they are driven by instincts. A straight line is the shortest distance between two points does more than tell us how words are defined. Even David Friedman is confused on this issue, thinking it has something to do with Euclid. The minimum wage creates unemployment for workers with productivities specified by that law certainly says more than how words are used.

Best regards,


The post Praxeology, Synthetic Apriori appeared first on LewRockwell.

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

From: David

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 7:32 AM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Question about evictionism

Dear Walter,

Yesterday in Colombia abortion was legalized up to 24 weeks of gestation. I am neither “pro-life” nor “pro-choice,” and I know a bit about your theory of evictionism. You claim that two facts must be distinguished in abortion: the expulsion of the fetus from the mother’s body and the fetus´ death. Evictionism defends the former, but not the latter. Likewise, you argue that this expulsion should be done in the most gentle way possible.

In this regard, I have some questions. In the first place: the only way to carry out this eviction would be through advanced technologies such as artificial wombs, however, as long as these technologies do not become widespread, how could this gentile eviction be ensured?

On the other hand, in the case of Colombia’s almost total legalization of abortion, would an evictionist be for or against?

Thank you.

Best regards,


Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 9:41 AM

To: ‘David

Subject: RE: Question about evictionism

Dear David:

1.Right now, with no advanced technologies, the evicted fetus of less than 6 months old will die, the evicted fetus in the last trimester can live. Advanced technologies will decrease the age of the fetus necessary to live. For example, with them, the fetus in the last 4 months can live, not only the last 3 months.

2.The evictionist opposes abortion. Abortion = evictionism + murder.

This book is relevant to your question:

Block, Walter E. 2021. Evictionism: The compromise solution to the pro-life pro-choice debate controversy. Springer Publishing Company.


For reviewers: https://www.springer.com/gp/reviewershttps://www.springer.com/gp/instructors/textbook-copy-request-us/17556774;





A unique perspective to the pro-life, pro-choice debate. Explores themes of property rights in relation to human life and rights. Offers a balanced debate on the topic of human rights.

Best regards,


The post Abortion and Evictionism appeared first on LewRockwell.

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

From: Mario

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 11:18 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Question

Greetings Professor Block, I am a Lebanese libertarian and adherent to the Austrian school of economics. I write for Ici Beyrouth and am trying to spread libertarian – or anarcho-capitalist – ideas in Lebanon.

I would like to ask you the following question: What gives a country a good reputation, in your opinion? Protection of private property and minimal government intervention play a significant role, but is it enough?

Thank you.

Dear Mario:

I can’t think of much more to promote a good reputation than protection of private property and minimal government intervention. Oh, yes, there are dozens of other things: sound money, no economic regulations, free trade, no licensing, no minimum wages, no rent controls, etc., but these are merely logical implications of protection of private property and minimal government intervention.

Perhaps this book of mine is relevant to your question:

Gwartney, James, Robert W. Lawson and Walter E. Block. 1996. Economic Freedom of the World, 1975-1995; Vancouver, B.C. Canada: the Fraser Institute (308 pages);  http://www.amazon.ca/Economic-freedom-world-1975-1995-Gwartney/dp/0889751579/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336605884&sr=1-1http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/pdf/catalogue.pdf; isbn: 0-88975-157-9;


info@fraserinstitute.orgpublications@fraserinstitute.org ^

Best regards,


The post National Reputation, Libertarian – Style appeared first on LewRockwell.

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share
{ 1 comment }

Hi Walter Block,

Your cloud recording is now available.

Topic: walter block’s Zoom Meeting

Date: Feb 22, 2022 01:02 PM Central Time (US and Canada)

You can copy the recording information below and share with others:

https://loyno.zoom.us/rec/share/w60jGEl4PQ_Q4fiNb8FDedtLUTQrt8OpzJHv2sahEZSCrD6gjp7V8UAMjA_-WDjd.ZDN_8n2Ic7Q3Y9-n (Passcode: u7rG*C5b)

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

The post On The Minimum Wage Law appeared first on LewRockwell.

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Recently, a colleague of mine at Loyola University New Orleans invited me to give a guest lecture to her class on business ethics. Here ‘tis (use the passcode!):


(Passcode: BR9iGsR=)

See the important question asked of me by Anthony Cesario, at the very end, and my answer to it.

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

The post Guest Lecture on Business Ethics appeared first on LewRockwell.

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

From: Garrick

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 7:57 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Questions on privatization of land from a follower


I hope you are having a great week. I wrote this email with the intention that you could clarify a bit some aspects of privatization on land that I don’t think have been directly assessed. I am a follower of the ASC and a big fan of yours, I haven’t read your books yet but I have seen your great conferences; either way, by the title in your books I see that you have covered almost all aspects of privatization of natural resources following the logic stated in the ethics of liberty, I see that you have specifically applied the ethics to different scenarios with different characteristics (oceans, highways etc).

I wanted to ask you on some specific types of land and how would the logic of privatization work in those cases. I don’t think these specific types of land have ever been discussed, and if they have been I would really like if you could give me some references for me to research a bit more.

In this case I’m talking about Volcanoes, Mountains, Valleys, mountain ranges and old pyramids, things that naturally are consider as natural heritage. Would the privatization of land in this cases be anything special? how would it be done? How to argue that they belong to everyone as they are national heritage? How would the negative externalities of owning some of these types of land be solved?

Best regards, that’s all for now, I hope to hear from you soon,

Dear Garrick:

I don’t see why the privatization process of any of these things, Volcanoes, Mountains, Valleys, mountain ranges and old pyramids, would be different from that of ordinary land or water.

Here is my series of books on privatization:

Block, Walter E. 2009. The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors; Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute; https://store.mises.org/Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Human-and-Economic-Factors-The-P581.aspxhttp://www.amazon.com/Privatization-Roads-And-Highways-Factors/dp/1279887303/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336605800&sr=1-1; available for free here: http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdfhttp://mises.org/daily/3416http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/radical_privatization.pdf; audio: http://store.mises.org/Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Audiobook-P11005.aspxhttp://www.audible.com/pd/Business/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Audiobook/B0167IT18K?tag=misesinsti-20http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=bf16b152ccc444bdbbcc229e4&id=6cbc90577b&e=54244ea97d;


Block, Walter E. and Peter Lothian Nelson. 2015. Water Capitalism: The Case for Privatizing Oceans, Rivers, Lakes, and Aquifers. New York City, N.Y.: Lexington Books, Rowman and Littlefield; https://store.mises.org/Water-Capitalism-The-Case-for-Privatizing-Oceans-Rivers-Lakes-and-Aquifers-P11051.aspxhttps://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498518802/Water-Capitalism-The-Case-for-Privatizing-Oceans-Rivers-Lakes-and-Aquifershttps://mises.org/library/case-privatizing-oceans-and-rivers

scathing review: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1SMO4B0T1AWM5/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1498518826https://store.mises.org/-P11051.aspx

Nelson, Peter Lothian and Walter E. Block. 2018. Space capitalism: the case for privatizing space travel and colonization. Palgrave Macmillan; https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-74651-7https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/3319746502/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&condition=new&qid=1531187909&sr=8-1&linkCode=sl2&tag=economicpolicyjournal-20&linkId=959e913e476f48b289a16223d557a826http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2018/07/new-walter-block-book-space-capitalism.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29https://filling-space.com/2019/01/18/space-capitalism-laissez-faire-in-the-heavens/

Best regards,



9:41 am on January 28, 2022

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share


From: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 10:19 AM

Cc: ‘Alan

Subject: RE: video

I am making him anonymous to save him from possible embarrassment. He was very helpful to me when I was a student, and my appreciation for him is far greater than the discomfort he now gives me.

From: Walter Block [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 4:34 AM

Cc: Alan

Subject: FW: video

Dear R:

My colleague Alan and I have just finished publishing our very pro Israel book. Briefly, its thesis is that this country is more than justified in its treatment of the Arabs, Palestinians, vis a vis land claims.

Block, Walter E. and Alan Futerman. 2021.  The Classical Liberal Case for Israel. With commentary by Benjamin Netanyahu. Springer Publishing Company;


ISBN_978-981-16-3952-4 [Print]; 978-981-16-3953-1 [ebook]

for book reviewers: https://www.springer.com/gp/reviewers

To purchase: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-16-3953-1




Offers a unique perspective on the State of Israel based on classical liberalism and libertarianism. Provides a thorough understanding of Israel’s origin and development. Explores different topics on Israel, including Anti-Zionism

As you can imagine, we are very pro Israel. But we now want to “attack” Israel for undermining its economy with all sorts of needless regulations. Our thought is that this country can better protect itself against its enemies with a strong economy, rather than continuing to shoot itself in the foot, and higher up, with socialism, etc.

But we need a third co author, one who is intimately familiar with all of the Israeli deviations from free enterprise. We two are not.

We would be delighted if you would be our third co author. If not, perhaps you can recommend someone who would be appropriate.

We have already written a chapter on housing intended for this book.  See attached.

Best regards,


From: R

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 1:30 AM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>;

Cc: Alan

Subject: RE: video

Dear Walter,

I am afraid I am going to disappoint you. Reading your letter I feel I disagree with you both on politics and economics.  Last year the Falk Institute published a comprehensive review of the Israeli economy over the last 25 years. It was published by Cambridge University Press and it is called “The Israeli Economy 1995 – 2017 – Light and Shadow in a Market Economy”. I suggest you read it to get a better view of the strength and weaknesses of Israel from the economic perspective.  If you decide to continue with your project you may perhaps find among the authors of the various chapters somebody who knows something on the Israeli Economy and is more inclined to your views and your research strategy (Neither Griliches, Becker nor Mincer stated the conclusions of their research before they looked at the data). Yours, R

Dear R:

Sorry to disappoint an old favorite teacher of mine.

Thanks for that lead. Alan and I will follow up on that and are very grateful to you for it.

Mary Tyler Moore, in her tv show, used as a motto, “Love is all around us.” I say that “the evidence is all around us that Israel still has strong vestiges of its early interventionistic, socialistic economic policies.”

Here’s one bit of evidence for this claim that I had a bit to do with gathering:

Gwartney, James, Robert W. Lawson and Walter E. Block. 1996. Economic Freedom of the World, 1975-1995; Vancouver, B.C. Canada: the Fraser Institute; http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/pdf/catalogue.pdf; isbn: 0-88975-157-9

This book ranks the economic freedom of many countries. Israel does not come off too well.

When and if you do research on the minimum wage, rent control or free trade, would you be willing to “state … (your expectations regarding) the conclusions of (your) research before (you) looked at the data?” I’ll betcha you would. That is all I did. Neither of us was born yesterday. Even logical positivists, to say nothing of Austrian economists like me, should be willing to do so.

Another bit of evidence: “The Good Cop,” an Israeli television show which is one of the funniest comedies ever made. If you haven’t yet seen it, you absolutely MUST do so. This was the inspiration for our chapter on housing. They also illustrated the effects of egg marketing boards. If you aren’t aware of it, and follow through on my suggestion, you’ll owe me big. And in this way I can repay you to a teeny tiny amount for being my teacher.

I’m disappointed in a few of my former students. I hope and trust you’re not too disappointed with me for not following the “research strategy (of) Griliches, Becker nor Mincer.” By the way, I’ll betcha neither they nor you really follow this head in the sand research strategy.

Best regards,



9:39 am on January 28, 2022

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

A former student of mine, who wishes to remain anonymous, gave me a grant of $100,000 to give to my present students. Here is part of a correspondence I had with AJ Cesario, one of my present students to whom I was able to financially support.

Dear AD:

It is thanks to you that I was able to financially help AJ, one of the very best students I’ve ever had in my 50+ years of teaching.

I and the entire Austro libertarian movement owe you a great debt of gratitude. I have no doubt that AJ in the coming years will make an important contribution to liberty and good economics. He’s only a senior in college and look at his present publication record:

For contrast, my first publication was after I got my phd.

1. Cesario, Anthony J. 2019. “Block Vs. Parr Debating Abortion: A Summary.” The Review of Social and Economic Issues, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 81-104; http://rsei.rau.ro/images/V2N1/5-Anthony%20Cesario.pdf

2. Cesario, Anthony J. 2020. “The School of Salamanca’s Reconciliation of Economics and Religion.” Studia Humana, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 6-15; https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/sh/9/2/article-p6.xmlhttps://doi.org/10.2478/sh-2020-0008

3. Cesario, Anthony J. 2021. “Reconciling the Irreconcilable: A Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Animal Rights Debate.” Studia Humana, pp. 1-33; http://studiahumana.com/art,35,-Reconciling-the-Irreconcilable:-A-Property-Rights-Approach-to-R.html

4. Cesario, Anthony J. 2022. “Walter Block vs Jakub Bozydar Wisniewski Debating Abortion: A Summary.” MEST Journal (MESTE) 10(1): 12-30; https://www.meste.org/ojs/index.php/mest/article/view/1224/1339; doi:10.12709/mest.

5. Cesario, Anthony J. 2021. “Block Vs. Feser Et. Al. Debating Abortion: A Summary.” The Review of Social and Economic Issues, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 93-123; http://rsei.rau.ro/index.php/last.htmlhttp://rsei.rau.ro/images/V2N3/Anthony%20J.%20Cesario.pdf

6. Cesario, Anthony J. Unpublished. “Teaching Economics Through Fiction.”

7. Cesario, Anthony J. Unpublished.  “First Principles”

8. Cesario, Anthony J. Unpublished.  “Security In A Free Society.”

9. Cesario, Anthony J. Unpublished. “Evictionism: The Libertarian Answer to the Abortion Controversy”

10. Cesario, Anthony J. Unpublished. “Price Gouging”

11. Cesario, Anthony J. Unpublished.  “Block Vs. Akers Et. Al. Debating Abortion: A Summary.”

This kid is BRILLIANT and really HARD WORKING. He has no parental financial support. Thanks to you and your trust in me, his career is not suffering for lack of funds.

Best regards,



5:44 am on January 28, 2022

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Here is Randy Barnett, Part I:


Randy Barnett Mis-assesses Murray Rothbard – LRC Blog LewRockwell.com

From: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 11:58 AM

To: ‘Mike

Subject: RE: your LRC Blog item about Murray/Barnett

Dear Mike:

What a lovely letter. Thanks.

Yes, Murray and a lot of his early followers and friends of his fell apart from each other. But, in my experience, he never broke with them. Rather, they broke with him.

Several of my own former students have done off to the dark side. Became beltway, as opposed to Rothbardian libertarians. Some broke with me, to my great unhappiness. But I follow Murray on this as on most things: I never broke with them, nor have any intention of ever doing so.

I’m a big tent kind of guy. Even the beltway libertarians are on the same side as us, at least compared to the Bidens of the world.

Best regards,


From: Mike

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 10:54 AM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: your LRC Blog item about Murray/Barnett


You are absolutely correct in your response to Randy Barnett’s claim (in 2004!) that Murray demanded complete agreement with him or would somehow reject further contact.

One of the guiding aspects of libertarians is that we all sometimes disagree on various points.

While in some academic debates or strings of argumentation one might finally decide to abandon a forum or reply, just to focus on other things, Murray certainly didn’t require agreement to be in his circle or be considered worthy of debate.

I personally had several disagreements with him (mainly over political direction -*- of libertarians) yet we remained cordial and in contact to his very end.

He could be very sharp in argumentation and didn’t suffer fools lightly (at times, other times he delighted in spotlighting them) so some who were thin skinned didn’t take to his contrary opinions with much grace.

I am not sure why Barnett’s nearly two decade old view is worth rebuttal at this point. There was and is no “Rothbard cult” and he would have been the first to reject such a silly notion.

(-* -) – The two which stand out to me are 1) whether or not the LP was a good idea, I was pro and he was initially con, and 2) the idea of an organized Republican Party political caucus; he was initially negative, I was working on it. Subsequently Murray became an LP member and served on the LNC. He never formally endorsed the Republican Liberty Caucus but was the main speaker at the initial 1992 RLC convention in Houston. Also a huge supporter of Ron Paul’s return to politics.

PS – I recall him telling me the story of the time in Las Vegas when a student was arguing about some issue and claiming that the student’s view was the “Rothbardian” one. Murray cackled when he told me, “But I am Rothbard!”

Best regards,


Katy TX


5:42 am on January 28, 2022

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Here is Flagpole, Part IV:


Please, no mas on the flagpole. I’m getting tired of this one!

From: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 8:28 AM

To: ‘Daniel

Subject: RE: The Flagpole

Dear Daniel:

Proportionality is the proper criterion for punishment. But we are not now talking about punishment. We are talking about self-defense, where it does not apply.

Best regards,


From: Daniel

Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 1:19 AM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject: The Flagpole

Isn’t there a matter of proportionality at issue here?  Given the flagpole holder is trespassing shouldn’t the owner’s response be proportionate to the threat?  It is difficult to see how one holding onto a flagpole for dear life poses any threat to the owner that would warrant their being shot, which may itself kill the flagpole holder or cause him to fall to his death. Practically, if the owner didn’t want to allow the flagpole holder to enter the owner’s window wouldn’t it be reasonable for the owner to call the fire department to rescue the holder with a crane truck?  This rule of reasonableness should apply else one is driven to accept that a property owner could shoot any kid that crossed a corner of his property walking to school. It would be quite a stretch to claim the kid crossing a corner of some guy’s front yard is such a NAP violation that killing kids is an acceptable response.


Dear Chris:

Thanks for sharing these important points with me. However, they are a bit, to my way of thinking, off the main point. Which is, this is an attack on the Rothbardian viewpoint on the importance of the NAP. Does that woman have the right to shoot the flagpole holder for trespass?

Best regards,


From: Chris

Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 5:56 PM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject: Fw: Flagpole Challenges; Wisdom Applied (Preventatively, at Occurrences, and so Forth)?

*find fight

From: Chris

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022, 08:02:14 PM EST

Subject: Fw: Flagpole Challenges; Wisdom Applied (Preventatively, at Occurrences, and so Forth)?

*Imago Dei reference

From: Chris

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022, 07:57:11 PM EST

Subject: Flagpole Challenges; Wisdom Applied (Preventatively, at Occurrences, and so Forth)?

Greetings Walter,

I am forwarding some notes in case something useful/profitable- at least in part- may be among thoughts recorded here:

Of course, the matter in reference (and such variables and variations) would/could be bad for business for the apartment complex owner (+ any insurance company/companies which may [be obligated to] cover the fall, the reputation (and further consequences) of the one who prevented safe escape (means of rescue), the community in uproar, etc.)- maybe good for business for media sensationalism.

I suppose if everyone in a community hated the person (or was unknown/”a nobody” to others, an enemy, etc.), this may influence the perceptions of- at least- some (i.e., got what he deserved, even if not related in occurrence to evil doing/heinous activity; “caught up with him”; perceived “karma”/reap the whirlwind/so-called “Kennedy curse”, etc.).

One might expect the owner (or owners) would like to prevent such costly events (financially and otherwise)- as well as most old ladies may not be “froggy”/jumpy for opportunities to shoot men down (e.g., “Cocaine Blues”). Apartment renters/owners may also be (at least generally) inclined toward having secure and danger-preventative balcony guard rails (if balconies are present/used).

There is a [referenced] saying, “The best way to win a fight (generally speaking) is to prevent it from ever taking place.”

And another: “Every bullet  (” ”’; my insert here) you fire will have a lawyer attached to it.”

Various wise means (including precepts, plans, means and modes, etc.) could prevent such escalated occurrences from ever taking place.

If a once in a decade, century, or millennium (for examples) event is wisely planned for preventatively, such events may not occur at all (out of proper minds, hands, and provision), or at least less often. Astute observers (not only actuaries calculating odds with varying parameters) may recognize, without experiences of deaths, that lives were [potentially] saved/protected.

Clear communication could also be a pervading element throughout- situational awareness and chameleon adaption to “rules of the game” as well.

Deuteronomy 22:8 [NKJV]: “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.”

There is a way of thinking about the “spirit of the law,” when building and finding buyers, so as to prevent (or minimize to virtually zero probability) business fiascos, deaths, etc. in the first place- not that all will recognize or accept such (without leader/community acceptance, underpinnings may not be utilized to a large degree).

I want reference such spirit in reference to “the Rothbardian tradition” in case it may be taken as blasphemous, but I think you may get my point regarding your proposing and evangelism toward libertarianism (“one true faith” reference, whether tongue-in-cheek)- the spirit of the law in reference to intention. Those who don’t understanding the communication of Rothbard may also misinterpret his positions/intentions, to their own degrees of not understanding (i.e., “Read Rothbard”).

I reference/frame under the underpinnings/umbrella of the spirit of the law (new covenant context), as previously referenced in regards to the series on “Caveat Emptor”. I will leave my framework position there for clarification purposes, as you already are aware.

If the apartment complex owner fixes the balconies of the higher floors in such ways as to make the probability of persons falling by accident virtually zero, this may come up as often as zero times to once every ten years, 100 years, (1000 years [?]) etc. within a community (even among high-population cities, yet maybe a bit more frequent in occurrence).

Other means, he/she may still fall (e.g., attempted suicide (another, + here), mafia/gang/hitman/activity, intelligence/state/military/mercenary operation/activity, nagging spouse thrown over, drug use frenzy/stupor, idiotic rail climbing/jumping, building on fire (no ladder/escape [?]), etc.

If the complex owner(s) find(s) that the area has/have many suicide jumpers, nets could be used, or/along with more extensive guard rails, etc.

Ways to reduce suicidal ideations/suicide/suicide attempts may also be considered (why so many in some places [?]; e.g., Apple in China, numbers in lock-down, post-war, hopelessness [mindset], etc.).

Discussions (conventions, golf course dialogue, etc.) could be made with other complex owners, engineers, insurance agents/agencies, actuaries, etc., regarding wise practices (although not all (yet some may be both- and some further targets) may be intending wisdom (the wisest plan)- rather cost efficiency (which does not always mean/surrender to cutting corners), laziness, bad hiring choices/selections, etc. may be considered and implemented.

wise strategies (even long-term success (considered) strategies; not cutting corners to temporarily pull “fast ones”) may/would decrease scenarios down to super rare (to zero occurring) events (parachuting in high wind (hanging from balcony), tornado picked up and through person onto a balcony, launched from parade cannon onto a balcony, sleep walking, extreme phobia inside threats, etc.).

Preparation meets (shut-down prevention) opportunity.

A hotel complex owner may not even risk building high structures individuals could fall from if previous owners lose too much revenue (+ reputation, heartache, etc.) from such events. Who wants to be the/a business owner known for “death apartments” or “death” hotel?

A number of such rare/unplanned occurrences may not have been adequately prepared beforehand via preventive measures.

Some countries (via communism et al.) have killed off those capable of strategic planning to prevent catastrophes/deaths.

The person kicked out in negative degree weather would be expected (as practice) to have self-preserving preventive aids in such an environment where people were known/suspected to not be “good Samaritans, rather ones who may plausibly cause harm/abandonment and/or lead to its end effects.

No provisions for innocent/helpless/(genuinely; non-lazy) mentally and/or physically deficient/lacking (unable to help one’s own self; Father/grandfather drops toddler (rescue/save or kick/cut [hands]/stab/shoot/force off rail, etc.), wittingly or otherwise? Cf. previous email regarding voluntary [free] actions of the virtuous woman (Proverbs 31) as opposed to gov’t force, welfarism, etc.

By this, I mean especially in areas were danger is a plausible scenario. I wouldn’t expect someone’s own grandparents/relatives/genuine friend(s) to (commonly) off ’em in a [winter] storm intentionally/non-accidentally (unless persons were attempting to kill/severely harm a relative/friend or such/do away with, or were acting without discernment (neurotic, etc.[?]) of circumstances).

Who knows [?], maybe at minimum a few earn/reap their own kick out (e.g., committed grievous harm to a property owner/dweller, etc.) before rather than after the storm (even if previously invited).

Mercy vs immediate danger/threat.

Maybe someone who invites a neighbor onto/into his property voluntarily, knowing weather conditions were changing negative, might have different outcome expectations, judicially speak (e.g., setting up someone/plotting for someone’s demise, to be stranded/offed/abandoned in dire circumstances).

But we could hear seemingly infinite variations (e.g., three year old fail from balcony, infant left in the storm, old lady stepped on/cut/shot/forced off fingers of person (adult or child)- or potentially an animal/pet- gripping onto a balcony/flag pole for dear life, The Lion King/Mufasa’s demise (by the hands and plotting of his own brother Scar), etc.). In a society toward concerns for and goodwill toward (especially innocent) others, utilizing fitting discernment and wise measures of prevention, we may expect zero to very few occurrences. Iron sharpening Iron (and learning from unfortunate errors, events, harms, etc.), and wise persons (engineers, business owners, developers, elders, planners, etc.) devising and implementing such measures (including precepts, plans, means and modes, etc.), even in private (non-state apparatus) agreements- an anarchist town/community/island- to make situations better than before/more desirable/more sound/more profitable/more efficient (etc.).

In dangerous areas (areas with plausible/expectant scenarios of such; c.f. The Rifleman, The Wild West/Tombstone (etc.)), potential bearing and actuarially speaking, we may carry big sticks (gun, knives, other armaments, bear spray, all the above or some, +/etc.), as deterrents, for defense (if such defense need be for protection, ward off takeovers, etc.), etc.- otherwise we may carry because we so choose (as free men, preparedness, tools, defense-ready, hunting, all the above, etc.).

I would prefer to live around others with views toward preventing such (Scar vs Mufasa activity; enemies in the gates; danger/dangerous/evil ones abounding) from ever occurring (or giving the opportunity or foothold) while maintaining attitudes toward freedom, anti-tyranny, care for neighbors, rightness, etc.

I think wise persons rightly focused could provide some reasonable (even wise and prudent) solutions and parameters in advance of such occurrences. Men discussing as men and such, what may be wise, profitable, etc.

Or build where people believe in the spirit [of] such as this (at least in spirit, not [necessarily/particularly] in reinstituting means of being sold, but in restitution measures (family-wise, etc.)):

Exo 22:2

“If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Exo 22:3

“If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

…and let other places “go to hell”- so to speak- at least until minds, hearts, etc. change and act in good “Samaritan” ways (or at least don’t kill one another so easily)- i.e., why build in Sodom and/or Gomorrah (places where green grass [and businesses] are ruined/turned into salt?). Caveat emptor for one building or buying in such [dangerous] places/communities; otherwise, much work may be futile in chaos until cleared out/ended..

And for the $100: The lady (example in reference) may be like Buffett wanting a million USD (a life’s worth of income for many; potentially some would fall into lifetime servitude) for a fill of water in the desert. If we can reduce scenarios to zero/virtually zero, (applying wise practices) all the better. Such scenarios-types have happened in areas of Africa not too many years back (exploitation traps: promised better lives, given travel, unable to pay at middle of trip [unexpected] location stops, immediate slavery/serfdom), cf. Hillary Clinton et al.

Even if owners (even communities) of such do not [personally] adhere/uphold to underpinnings from the Scriptures, we might find one/some who at least act(s) amicably toward those within the confines of his/their apartment complex- at least to keep those supporting (and potential supporters) his income (+ lifestyle, etc.) to continue to be able to do so.




5:40 am on January 28, 2022

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share
{ 1 comment }
Follow by Email