I was just pointing out the disconnect between what is unlawful in applied law, and what is unlawful in the sense of righteousness. It seemed like a fun thing to do.
The righteous dude would turn his head at the sight of a denuded lady. [8-|]
It’s probably not politically correct in our times to suggest such actions. If you want to get into the root of the nationalist which is ethnic, or racial, culture (or people “sharing a common birth”.) You could support the nationalist dissent from a given State. Maybe that nation of people would rather set up their own laws and government, or maybe to just break away from the government above them, as a whole. “The on the other end of the spectrum, is not a true nation but rather a multi-national state” - if you go by this you could support variuos groups own national liberation from our own government or others. An example would be the Natives who would rather denounce their U.S. citizenship and form their own rules, laws, and government away from the one they live under.
Well now that he has your approval, of course.
I’m surprised more newbies aren’t just completely turned off by this attitude,
& that more new accounts don’t happen to be spam, & what little newbies that stick around don’t somehow cave into peer pressure for not entirely agreeing with others, or for taking a longer amount of time to understand arguments.
Questions are rarely absurd.
I’m glad that this forum has managed to allow people to pose such questions without authoritarian censorship (beyond rational & modest modding), & doesn’t cave in to delete something every time someone ‘Cries Troll’.
Why wouldn’t he defend someone voluntarily deciding to become a nationalist, even if it entails voluntarily adhering to a possible doctrine of coercion?
I may not like how my friends or family think politically, but I’m not going to use force to force them to accept my non-coercive ideas & claim to have a consistent political high ground.
Or is it now common libertarian doctrine to coerce other’s into following the libertarian ideology?
Wouldn’t this not be the ultimate type of “undefendable” one could defend, while remaining true to one’s philosophy, as those against coercion would eventually have to face those who approve of coercion down the road (whether it be through secession, protest, etc.) anyways?
Looks like the OP managed to help start dialogue on a subject (i.e. possibly extending the list of undefendables to those libertarians may not perceive ordinarily as defendable, while raising the question that not defending these new undefendables could leave room to rationalize coercion against them, thereby contradicting basic ideas by “focring” people to accept libertarian ideals…) in a forum for discussion, amid some reactionaism to some newbie who dares to disturb the slumber of some forum regulars.
The only problem Constittuionalist seems to has is spelling errors, & raising questions that aren’t conveniently answerable by easily digested one-liners & soapboxing (I apologize, the irony of criticizing soapboxing & this post itself is not lost on me…).
But what do I know, I only actually read & thought about his posts critically. I could be completely wrong, it wouldn’t be the first time.
Despite a recent post I made, LS is correct in this, but that doesn’t rationalize that his questions are somehow not worthwhile or absurd, methinks.
Isn’t a peeping tom violating the right to privacy ?
It’s also true that If people don’t want to be seen they should be more careful.
Oh and what about the nudist as another individual in need of defense in Block’s book.
Possibly, but I would argue that claiming a right to privacy is too vague. Where does the right to privacy come from? I think it was Murray Rothbard that said all rights are really just property rights. You cannot have the right to keep something private if you do not own it. Correct me if I am wrong.
That is the only real answer, imo.
Do you mean someone who wants to walk around naked all the time? I would like to hear your defense of the nudist. Would you indulge me?
What about the farter?
There’s bound to be a Chicago school economist somewhere claiming that the farter emits negative externalities in the form of noxious methane fumes that pollute the environment and contribute to global warming. The unsuspecting third party of the fartee is forced to bear the costs of the farter’s careless actions. Clearly this is an example of market failure in the form of negative externalities. Government intervention is desperately needed to force the farter to bear the costs of his selfish flatulence.
I thing we’ve just discovered the thirty-third chapter of Defending the Undefendable.
The “futuristic device” would necessarily just be a visualization device for some currently-unknown radiation that transmits the same information as the blocked light – call it “Z-rays”. If it’s OK to intercept and view the light, it must to OK to intercept and view the Z-rays, by the same argument. You just need to make your curtains and walls out of materials that block Z-rays as well as light…
(Of course, if Z-rays have a low-enough cross-section for interaction with matter that they go through walls without interference, they’re also likely to go through your putative detector without being detected…not to mention through the body of the person on the other side of the wall…making your “futuristic device” rather useless…)
“I don’t know if I’m allowed to say anything… but he is in the process of writing a Defending the Undefendable 2.”
@Conza
Wait- are you serious? Is Block really working on a second part? Or simply a revision of the first?
@Main Topic
The issue of trolling and etiquette aside; I don’t suppose the forum would be interested in making our own edition of defending the undefendable? It’d give the site wiki a use I think.
As lilburne and someone else pointed out already in this thread, W. Block has a tendency to go to the fringe of things. The man goes on some trivial tangents at times, but they are usually humorous; or at the very least hit on some major issues to be solved. Anyone remember the topic we had a while back about whether self imposed slavery is consistent with libertarian principles? Or those involved with children/child labor ect. ect.? Whenever I’m trying to give people an ‘Austrian’ approach to events I usually end up citing his books as the easiest books for them to digest what I’m referring to. Why, I think a miniature version of his book might be a good phamplet. Especially the section on speculators.
@Conza
Wait- are you serious? Is Block really working on a second part? Or simply a revision of the first?
…
Serious. Whole new book with different ‘heros’.
Why? They are just collecting free infrared light.
I’m pretty surprised that nobody else has given this example: the illegal immigrant
I see “illegal” immigrants as heroes of some sort. They work in the black/grey market in attempt to foil government regulation. (taxes, minimum wage, labor laws, etc.) They keep themselves off of state records and refuse to let the state run their lives. I see them as champions of voluntary association.
Often they do take advantage of entitlement systems but this is more a problem with welfare than those who make use of it.
The illegal immigrant has been proposed in other threads. You’re right tho, he would make a fine addition.
I like to see him defend the vote buyer
“What about the farter?”
Farting is only a problem due to public ownership of air. Thus, he could use the same defense for farting as littering. If he wanted to make the situation analagous to radio waves, if B farts on A’s air, it can only be defended if B used A’s air to fart on prior to A homesteading the air. If he wanted to make it analagous to speculating, by providing methane free of charge, the farter is lowering the price of methane, making it more affordable for people to access methane.
Additionally, farting is associated with the rule, “Smelt It, Dealt It”, which is very libertarian for its stance toward homesteading.
Walter should do a 35th Anniversary updated edition with some new chapters such as the ones you recommend.
[INSULT DELETED] There is no such thing as being able to own air because air is an intangible asset. Second, if air were sold to some person how would someone be able to breathe? If someone with an oxygen mask is not able to breathe because someone owns a large part of the air, and she dies, then the owner of the air is negligent. How can property rights of “air” be established. It reminds me of intellectual property arguement.
[INSULT DELETED]
There is no such thing as being able to own air because air is an intangible asset.
First, air =/= oxygen. We breathe oxygen, but the air we breathe is made up of many different pollutants, it’s not pure oxygen. Maybe the air 1,000-5,000 years ago had a higher oxygen content, or in other times.
In that case, you can own oxygen, and sell it pure to individuals who prefer cleaner “air” to the “air” that’s being breathed in by the public. What if you could sell people oxygen tank add-ons to their home a/c and heat that would pump air into their home with a higher content of oxygen? Doesn’t sound like a bad idea if it was profitable. Could probably do the same to their vehicles.
EDIT: I see your name is “Constittuionalist”. I’m sure you mean “Constitutionalist”.
"That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard of. There is no such thing as being able to own air because air is an intangible asset. Second, if air were sold to some person how would someone be able to breathe? If someone with an oxygen mask is not able to breathe because someone owns a large part of the air, and she dies, then the owner of the air is negligent. How can property rights of “air” be established. It reminds me of intellectual property arguement.
Who ever came up with the idea that “farting is a problem due to the public ownership of air” is an idiot and should be marganilized for the rest of the time that they ask questions on mises.org
Enough said"
Someone can’t take a joke? You asked for libertarian perspectives toward issues like belching, and I provided insight toward the economics of farting.
On a more serious note, I think that if the incentive is there, a 3-dimensional system of property rights can work as well as a 2-dimensional system has. Obviously land rights predated the fence, and thus there is potential for technology to be developed to manage air rights if there is a need. Breathing would have to be an exception, because people breathed that air prior to the air being homesteaded for other purposes.