Confusing what is Detestable with what is Criminal (an article i was going to submit to Lew Rockwell)
Of my many intellectual debtors, I am especially indebted to Walter Block for his lesson of never confusing what is detestable with what is criminal. The former is for anyone to decide, the later should be reserved for private arbitration.
The world seems to offer an endless stock of deplorable a**holes. With this, most of us would be hard pressed not to wish the worst of fortune upon them. Yet, as is the case with Walter Block, libertarians find ourselves continuously defending what many would deem to be the undefendable: the pimp, the prostitute, the drug dealer, the child employer, the miser, the blackmailer, etc, etc.
However, every once in awhile an individual comes along that is so vile and contemptible we find ourselves longing for their misfortune. Indeed we may hate these individuals! Yet, in spite of this hate our love for libertarian justice has to outweigh personal bias.
Take the recent example of Nurse William Melchert-Dinkle, who acknowledges his supposed fetish with suicide. Mr. Dinkle is so fetish-indulgent that he often frequented suicide chat rooms in an attempt to coach people how to kill their self—begging if he could watch.
“Investigators said William Melchert-Dinkel, 47, feigned compassion for those he chatted with, while offering step-by-step instructions on how to take their lives. ‘Most important is the placement of the noose on the neck … Knot behind the left ear and rope across the carotid is very important for instant unconsciousness and death,’ he allegedly wrote in one web chat.” See here
“… offered victims fake compassion before giving them detailed advice on suicide methods and pretending to enter into a suicide pact with them, according to prosecutors. He faces up to 30 years in jail if convicted” see here
“…allegedly posed as a female nurse in suicide-related chat rooms—has been charged with two counts of aiding suicides, but prosecutors say he boasted of coaxing dozens of people to commit suicide for the “thrill of the chase,” see here
Though charges have yet to be filed, Dinkel has been suspended of his internet access, barred from leaving the state and his nursing license has been revoked.
According to an expired poll at nydailynews titled
“Do you think William Melchert-Dinkel’s alleged conversations should be protected as free speech under the First Amendment?”
27% of respondents answered yes, while 73% answered no.
Thus we have three real topics to address: suicide, voluntary agreement and action as a consequence of speech
Suspending personal judgment for a moment, let us examine this situation as objectively as possible. Though it is truly a tragedy that two young individuals would take their lives we must at least grant that they had the ‘right’ to perform such an action. If you are the owner of your life, you—and only you—may renounce such ownership if and when you choose.
Secondly, people may enter into voluntary pacts if and when they please, even if they have no intention of fulfilling them, or if they break that intention at a later point in time. In fact, we do this all the time. My wife enters into dieting pacts with her salad eating coworkers nearly on a monthly basis. They may renounce carbohydrates indefinitely or until they reach a certain goal weight. The point is not to parallel a suicide pact with a dieting pact but simply to draw attention to the fact that voluntary pacts are a right, and any voluntary agreement may be suspended without legal recourse.
Finally, we have the situation of a second party’s action as a response to private speech. Though this can be a vague subject to pinpoint culpability, for Rothbard, this situation would most likely fall under the category of advocacy, which he clearly distinguishes between the association of advocating violence and the actual initiation of violence.
“What, for example, of “incitement to riot,” in which the speaker is held guilty of a crime for whipping up a mob, which then riots and commits various actions and crimes against person and property? In our view, “incitement” can only be considered a crime if we deny every man’s freedom of will and of choice, and assume that if A tells B and C: “You and him go ahead and riot!” that somehow B and C are then helplessly determined to proceed and commit the wrongful act. But the libertarian, who believes in freedom of the will, must insist that while it might be immoral or unfortunate for A to advocate a riot, that this is strictly in the realm of advocacy and should not be subject to legal penalty.” See For a New Liberty
Therefore, although the subject of what others advocate may be detestable, the sheer action of advocacy ought to be free from legal penalty.
As a result, I see no offense committed by William Melchert-Dinkel and believe he should be acquitted on all accounts, restored internet access, and given back the privilege to travel to and from the state which he resides. This is the proper reinstatement of libertarian rights.
Yet, let me also point out what I “voluntarily advocate” for Mr. William Melchert-Dinkel. I advocate the people of his state protest any internet company that offers their services to this man. I also believe that local medical facilities should voluntarily suspended their services to him and agree not to reestablish his nurse license until he performs 10,000 hours of community service via volunteering for a local suicide hotline. I would also support any amount of disdain and community-shun program that were to surface wherever this man shall live.
This is libertarian justice.