Written by I was delighted today to see that my “In Defense of Walter Block” episode of the Radical Agenda had come to the attention of Mr. Block himself.
I discovered this as he thanked me through the contact form on my website.
I just sent this reply, which I think is fit to be read by the general public.
…
Good to hear from you, sir. You are quite welcome.
It is not lost on me that I could be credibly accused of using this “defense” as more of a way to push my own agenda, but the title of the episode does convey an accurate sentiment. I’ve always been very fond of you, and I have long admired your intellect.
I have never observed you behaving dishonestly, which is more than I can say for your detractors.
When I saw Hoppe come after you, I figured it’s just a disagreement. One which many reasonable people have these days, as you surely know too well.
When I saw they pushed you out of Mises, that I genuinely got mad about.
The Hoppe piece had been brought to my attention during a live show by a caller. I read Hoppe’s piece on air, along with some unprepared commentary based on what I had just read. The episode number escapes me at the moment, or I’d point you toward the recording.
The gist of what I said then, and currently believe, is, I don’t think it is at all unreasonable to say that an identifiable group has a collective right to something. Whether one claim or another is legitimate is a different story, but conceptually, this is the nature of the human condition, and those who resist it, do violence to the peace and happiness of mankind. Trying to conceptualize things in this atomized legalistic way libertarians are predisposed to doing, simply does not work in real life.
They actually know this, as evidenced by their abhorrence of genocide. They see it is as much worse to kill a race of people than to simply kill some equal number of a heterogeneous population with little in common. This disparity of moral sentiment stems from a recognition that the race of people has a collective right to exist which is actually of a higher order than any individual member. They refuse to say this out loud, but it is an obvious inference from their other statements and behaviors.
This paragraph really got to me, in Hoppe’s “Open Letter” to you…
“For the potential problem of restitution or compensation this implies: In every case of conflicting property claims brought to trial for judgment, the presumption is always in favor of the current possessor of the resource under consideration, and the burden of a proof-to-the-contrary is always on the opponent of the current state of affairs and current possessions. The opponent must demonstrate that he, contrary to prima facie appearance, has a better claim because he has an older title to some specified piece of property than its current owner and whose ownership is hence unlawful. If and only if an opponent can successfully demonstrate this must the questionable possession be restored as property to him. On the other hand, if the opponent fails to make this case matters stay the way they are.”
Well, that is a fine legal standard for individuals under a common legal system.
It is completely unsuited to an explicitly ethnic conflict over territory!
If one race of people attacks another race of people on the basis of that ethnic conflict, libertarians assert that the race being attacked cannot defend itself, as a race. They are supposed to treat this like some kind of cross border homicide investigation and bring the perps to trial, even as all their neighbors call the perpetrators heroes and martyrs and provide them aid and comfort. If they cannot bring about a resolution by libertarian standards, then the libertarians assert the attack must simply go unanswered.
Well, pardon my language, but fuck that nonsense.
Where are all the libertarians attacking pro-Palestine advocates on the basis that they must individually prove their claims to property? Maybe they exist, but they are not coming across my radar, for sure. I don’t hear about any pro-Palestine advocates being thrown out of libertarian institutions, numerous though they certainly are.
They all throw in the obligatory “I don’t agree with Hamas” line, call them animals, terrorists, whatever, but then they act like Hamas is some kind of rogue criminal enterprise rather than the popularly supported military and espionage service for the Palestinian authorities.
But the best thing that can be said about this is that those commentators speak in willful ignorance of the facts. The more likely interpretation is that they are being intellectually dishonest. They know exactly what they are talking about, and they are applying the Left wing White colonizer/oppressor narrative to the Jews and their supposedly oppressed brown neighbors.
That line of thinking is an enemy of mankind, and those who adopt it discredit themselves much more than those they attack.
It is a sad loss for the Mises and Ron Paul institutes to lose the generosity of your contributions over this, but I have no doubt you will continue your service to peace and freedom for so long as you are able, and I do hope that nothing else gets in the way of that honorable service.
Sincerely,
Christopher Cantwell