I was just wondering but: did walter think about defending other characters he might not have thought of or forgot to mention in his original book such as:
Tax evader,Anarchist rebel, person who curses too much in public, belcher, flag burner, protester, nationalist etc.
I was also wondering but could you defend the non trespassing peeping tom?
Thanks
@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'.
Marko: On the other hand using some futuristic device which would enable one to see through the curtains or even the walls would be a clearcut form of trespassing in my mind, no different from physically jumping the fence.
On the other hand using some futuristic device which would enable one to see through the curtains or even the walls would be a clearcut form of trespassing in my mind, no different from physically jumping the fence.
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.
As for the non-tresspassing peeper, it could be said that the peeped-upon had consented by standing behind a transparent object, a window, without covering it with a non-transparent object, a drape. The peeped-upon was fully capable of preventing the peeping, but chose not to.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Constittionalist:There is no such thing as being able to own air because air is an intangible asset.
Contittutionalist:Second, if air were sold to some person how would someone be able to breathe?
The illegal immigrant is an undefendable hero in my book as well. Namely, he left a landmass that had been arbitrary designated "Mexico" (or whatever his country of origin) and walked onto a landmass arbitrary designated "the United States". This he did, inflicting harm upon no one, in order to enter the workforce and financially provide for himself and his family. Since he lacks citizenship, he lacks the ability to negotiate hours and pay with his employer on an equal footing. He faces the threat of imprisonment and deportation. He may be separated from his family and lose any property he has earned. He is scapegoated by no-good politicians who blame him for unemployment and street violence, and even tarred with the same brush as the terrorists who killed 3,000 people on September 11, 2001. Nevertheless, he contributes to the economy every day, cooking, cleaning, landscaping, and making our lives better.
People who, out of principle or just plain fear, attempt to enter the United States "the right way", could spend years waiting in line, filing paperwork, and spending money to no avail. But anybody who does it the easy way becomes a "criminal" even though they have not hurt anybody.
An even bigger hero, in my opinion, is the draft dodger. People who, for humanitarian or just selfish reasons, refuse to serve in the military in any way. Amazing how a person who refuses to kill will be called a coward and traitor, and imprisoned, but soldiers who shoot so-called "insurgents" and drop bombs on cities with civilians in them comes home and is lauded "the best and brightest" and "hero".
Sometimes I wish I could draw. If I could, I would make cartoon strips illustrating the absurdities of the day.
Frame One: A reporter points a microphone at a uniformed five-star general.
Journalist: Somebody released a video of Americans in a Apache helicopter wantonly shooting Iraqi civilians and posted it to wikileaks. Comment?:
General: That's criminal!
Frame Two:
Journalist: Killing Iraqi civilians from an Apache helicopter is criminal?
General: No, the guy who put it on wikileaks is criminal
Also, maybe Walter Block could dedicate a chapter to another endefendable hero: The Blockade Runner Who Supplies Humanitarian Aid to Civilians In A War Zone And Throws Attacking Soldiers Into The Sea When Captured On International Waters.
</rant>