Here is Part I of the flagpole challenge to libertarian (NAP) theory: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/im-sick-and-tired-of-the-flagpole-example/
Here are some of my reactions to several responses regarding Part I.
From: Nate
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 5:06 AM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]
Subject: I’m Sick And Tired of the Flagpole Example
Your 2003 article was a superb and brilliant answer to the flagpole question. Someone, somewhere, always has an emergency, so if you only have property rights when nobody is having an emergency, or needs your property more than you, then you don’t have property rights at all, and you never will. Perfect!
While I personally would help out a person in such a situation, and yield my property rights gladly. It’s also possible that I could reserve that help, for people that would do the same. So if someone forced someone off their flagpole, then when they are in a similar situation, I could do the same to them, on the grounds that I only help people that are helpful. There would still be consequences for being so unreasonable, just not legal. If you are unreasonable, then people will be unreasonable with you.
Dear Nate:
Yes, yes, yes. There are ALWAYS emergencies. If they can repeal property rights, we’ll never have any property rights. Most of us will die due to their absence.
It would be NICE if the woman allowed him to enter her apartment; after all, she has a gun and protect herself. If she shot him anyway, I would join a boycott against her. But that’s not the libertarian question, as you see so clearly.
Ditto with the baker. It would be NICE if the baker didn’t press charges against the thief. Supererogatory.
Best regards,
Walter
From: Mike
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 11:46 AM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]
Subject: Good reminder on “emergency” status of NAP in today’s LRC
Walter,
A nice timely reminder of that, linking to your reply in the 2003 LRC article (oh, that seems so old now.)
Some points I like to consider:
• NAP is a necessary but not sufficient moral philosophy. It doesn’t exclusively cover all ethical/moral questions
• NAP isn’t an isolated self-administering system of moral behavior (the input of others is usually required to apply NAP in real world situation). NAP doesn’t justify one-person application as to judging right/wrong and punishments, if any
• Libertarians can violate NAP if they are willing to accept the libertarian consequences of that choice. People aren’t perfect nor are libertarians so. To accept the consequences of NAP violation (required/demanded/requested) by others (fines, punishments, etc.) in order to remain in an NAP governed society is acceptable. E.g. I will accept the penalty for trespass for holding the flagpole but still remain an upholder of NAP in general.
People aren’t perfect nor will they ever be so. The religious concept of “sinner” or the legal concept of “law breaker” leads to further issues of how to respond to this inherent human behavior. While in the short run NAP allows you to react if “necessary” it does not allow you (in most cases) to unilaterally judge what is or is not a specific “violation” of NAP and apply the consequences of such a violation.
NAP doesn’t reduce to “one person rule” or existence is a society.
Anyway, good to remind us that many objections to libertarianism writ large embed assumptions having nothing to do with NAP. Most objections are some form of “straw man” argument.
Mike
Katy TX
From: Walter Block [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 2:20 PM
To: Mike
Subject: RE: Good reminder on “emergency” status of NAP in today’s LRC
Dear Mike:
The issue here, the only issue here, is when the woman on the 15th floor shoots the flag pole holder soon to be home invader, is she guilty of a crime or not?
I say not.
Best regards,
Walter
From: Mike
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 3:38 PM
To: ‘Walter Block’ <[email protected]
Subject: RE: Good reminder on “emergency” status of NAP in today’s LRC
Walter,
I agree under NAP there is a presumption that permission is required to use someone else’s property. That may or may not count as aggression however.
But capital punishment isn’t the penalty for every violation of NAP is it?
NAP doesn’t imply or require that every victim of a possible NAP violation can be their own judge, jury and executioner. I don’t think that was Murray’s view.
I believe a functional NAP ethic requires clearly stated rules or laws and when possible, a neutral adjudication of the facts and circumstances. NAP doesn’t allow you to shoot someone who parks in your private parking space. One might even argue that absent permanent removal of your access/use of your own property, you don’t commit aggression. Only theft (of use.) A temporary user of someone else’s property has defenses against NAP charges and harm-free “use” could be categorized as only a potential violation of your right to property (because you the owner don’t know how long this “use” may last, and eventually could deprive you of it totally.)
There are many scenarios where intent and actual harm are major factors, even in a NAP type of world.
The problem with “emergency” scenarios is that they are structured in argumentation to ignore those. But there is always in the NAP background of functionality, the existence of “libertarian law” and judges/courts.
There is a good reason that there is a very old legal maxim that states, “hard cases make bad law.”
There is in the flagpole case the suggestion that capital punishment is sanctioned for a violation of usufruct with respect to the flagpole. No.
I would agree that the pole user is trespassing but that the punishment must fit the crime. Intent is a big part of application of NAP.
So a flagpole grasper might be found liable for any damages and a reasonable market based charge for use for a limited time.
Most libertarians would not define emergency use of someone’s property as aggression. Post facto, a neutral party/parties would decide that question and what should be done, if anything, if it is defined as aggression.
As you know, there is in common law (Roman, British, American) a presumption that property must be “posted” against trespassing before any criminal sanction is levied. You might however be able to post facto levy a cost to an unknowing trespasser.
I find that common law principles (some now codified) take care of most emergency NAP scenarios.
MH
From: Walter Block <[email protected]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 4:11 PM
To: ‘Mike
Subject: RE: Good reminder on “emergency” status of NAP in today’s LRC
Dear Mike:
No one is talking punishment here. Obviously, the punishment for virtually any trespass, certainly this emergency kind of trespass, would be far less than the death penalty.
We’re only talking, here, whether if the woman shoots the flagpole trespasser, she’s a criminal. I say she is not.
Best regards,
Walter
From: Darin
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 6:48 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Flagpole getting longer like pinocchio’s nose
Walter,
Re: your flagpole example, the scenario not only invites you to enter
the mind of the lawbreaker, but it also lends itself to the
annihilation of all criminal law. Thus, the falling pole-catcher had
this accident happen to him (why aren’t we asking how in the world he
fell out of a 25th floor window? is he irresponsible? shouldn’t he
bear the cost of his own irresponsibility? these questions seem
suited to a laissez faire debate.) rather than acted in a reckless way
that resulted in his fall. Same goes for the robber, burglar,
rapist… Their poor upbringing and unfavored racial status left them
at a permanent disadvantage, as they never learned in oppressive
schools, never rubbed elbows with honest business persons, never got
jobs because of the oppressive minimum wage, etc, and are simply
living out their perception of reality as a state of war. They have
to eat and screw, too, you know. What legitimate law doesn’t recognize the reality of their situation?
Darin
On 1/21/22 15:49, Walter Block wrote:
Dear Darin:
You make an EXCELLENT point about the min wage law.
As for the rest of what you say, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
In my view, the only purpose of just law is to stop invasions against
persons and their property.
The flagpole hand walker, for whatever reason, is a trespasser. If the
woman on the 15th floor shoots him, that’s an act of self defense.
Best regards,
Walter
From: Darin
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 3:59 PM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]
Subject: Re: Flagpole getting longer like pinocchio’s nose
Walter,
I’m agreeing with you though. My email was partly sarcasm, taking the argument further than you did in your reference to it. Hence the parenthetical.
The point is the argument can go to the extreme of purporting to invalidate any law, even those against rape, robbery, and burglary.
It purports to invalidate a law based on the circumstances of one person. Generally speaking, i would think such an argument could always invalidate all law because one can always construct a class of one for whom the application of a given law is unfair or seemingly unjust. In this case, if we apply the same argument we do to the poor investor who lost his shirt investing in xyz and needs a bailout (that is, the idiot shouldn’t have spent all his cash on xyz), then we say the idiot shouldn’t have been so close to the window that he fell, or he shouldn’t have gone out in the woods without a compass and supplies. Alternatively, he is free to violate the property rights of others, but as you say, he’s putting his life at risk. Incidentally he already did so when he got near the window / wandered aimlessly into the woods.
Darin
Dear Darin:
I’m glad we’re together on this now.
Best regards,
Walter
From: ROBERT
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 12:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Quick comment RE Rockwell post on Flagpole Example
Dear Dr. Block,
Thanks for your years of posts and essays at Lew Rockwell.com.
Regarding the infamous flagpole and lost hiker examples, I would only say that the NAP may be expressed incompletely. In my opinion, it should be “Thou shall not initiate aggression against your fellow human — but if you DO, you risk getting your butt kicked!”
The sad fact is, we may all find ourselves in situations which have NO good solution, only a choice of various bad ones. Being a good person does not negate that possibility. Both the flagpole hanger and the hiker have, through fate or poor choice, found themselves in a bad situation with three potential solutions. Let’s look at the flagpole guy.
1) The apartment owner might (potentially) allow the guy to climb in and leave peacefully.
2) The guy might climb in anyway and risk being shot, pepper sprayed, or arrested and charged.
3) The guy can fall to his death.
Number one has been ruled out by the apartment owner, who has every right to do so.
Number two is distasteful, and worst of all, involves some danger including possible death.
Number three is a choice of certain death.
Unless someone places purity of principle over the value of life, number two is the only reasonable choice but there are still negative consequences. There simply IS NO happy ending for this. The moment he starts to climb into the apartment he is in the “you risk getting your butt kicked!” unspoken clause of the NAP. Just because he has no evil intentions does nothing to give him a free ticket to aggress against the apartment owner. Flagpole guy is in a situation where he must choose to either aggress or die — but that does not make his aggression acceptable. He can expect “to get his butt kicked” either a lot or a little as fate will have it.
The reason, in my opinion that so many people see the flagpole example as convincing evidence that the NAP is not adequate for emergency situations is that they have a deep-seated conviction that because flagpole guy does not intend to do harm, that should (first) relieve him from any implications for his aggression, and should (second) simultaneously impose a duty on the owner to give up his rights. Neither of those two are correct. Sorry, life is not that kind. He should climb into the apartment, yes — but he can expect to be faced with all the implications of having violated the rights of the owner.
Just my take on it. Thanks again for all you do.
Bob
The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their true name.
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody, ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine
Dear Bob:
You and I have a different conception of what libertarianism is all about. In your (utilitarian) view, it is about which of the 3 in this case choices are best, in that they will create the least harm, the most benefits.
In my (deontological) perspective, it is all about the justification of initiatory violence. Is act X a crime or not? There are two Xs here. First, the flagpole hand walker. Is he a criminal? Is he a rights violator? Yes, if the owner objects, no, if she welcomes him into her home. Second, she shoots the hand walker, after she tells him to drop to his death, and he refuses. Is she a criminal? No.
Now, I admit, this sounds a bit callous. Ok, ok, more than just a bit callous, at least to the utilitarian. But, I guarantee you that more lives will be saved, more utility garnered, if we protect private property rights, by not finding the shooter a criminal, than if we do.
Henry Hazlitt, in his magnificent book Econ in One Lesson, warned us not to just look at one event, at present, but at all implications. The implications of considering her guilty of a crime are very non utilitarian. Very callous. Lots of people will die if private property rights are not protected.
Consider the case of Jean Val Jean who steals a loaf of bread to feed a starving child. Lots of utilitarians won’t consider him a criminal, because all our hearts go out to this starving child. But, if he is not found guilty, bakers won’t bake bread, and LOTS of children, and adults too, will starve to death.
Best regards,
Walter
From: ROBERT S
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 2:31 PM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]
Subject: Any even shorter reply to your reply. Yes, you are right!
Dear Dr. Block.
I think I must have done a bad job of expressing myself.
You say: “In your (utilitarian) view, it is about which of the 3 in this case choices are best, in that they will create the least harm, the most benefits. In my (deontological) perspective, it is all about the justification of initiatory violence. Is act X a crime or not? There are two Xs here. First, the flagpole hand walker. Is he a criminal? Is he a rights violator? Yes, if the owner objects, no, if she welcomes him into her home. Second, she shoots the hand walker, after she tells him to drop to his death, and he refuses. Is she a criminal? No.”
Yes, absolutely. My point was NOT that the hand walker has a right which supersedes her property rights, but rather that his best choice is to violate her rights and then take all the risks and punishment which might proceed from that. Her rights are absolute, but his observance (or non-observance) of those rights is a choice he will have to make, and no matter what he chooses, the outcome will not be pretty.
So, why is it that people disagree with you? I think that people disagree with your analysis because they think that the hand walker’s predicament somehow gives him priority over her rights. They (wrongly) believe deep down that because he means no harm, and it would cost so little to her, that there MUST be some principle which will exonerate him from blame — thus their need to give up the NAP for emergencies. It is true that choosing to climb in will most likely produce the least harm, but that DOES NOT justify it. He must still suffer the consequences and needs to realize that as he starts to climb in. I think any normal person would look at the consequences and take a chance on climbing in; but that does not make it justifiable, but rather merely prudent.
Thanks so much, Dr. Block. I realize your time is limited and I am honored by your previous response. No further reply needed unless you feel it is appropriate!
Bob
The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their true name.
“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody, ought not to be trusted by anybody.” — Thomas Paine
On 01/21/2022 2:33 PM Walter Block <[email protected] wrote:
Dear Bob:
Sorry for my misunderstanding of your viewpoint. We are on the same wavelength.
Best regards,
Walter
8:58 am on January 22, 2022
The Best of Walter E. Block
Please follow and like us:
