Does Walter Block really endorse of the positions in Defending the Undefendable? I mean he quotes Mill as stating one should produce a counter argument to your own argument if none exists. Is he playing devil's advocate or does he really endorse all of the positions are is there a combination of endorsment and devils advocate?
Also if Walter Block is apposed to child abuse (rightly so I think) it seems to be at odds with his view on abortion (i.e. evictionism). If the the woman has the right to expel the tresspasser (fetus) even if it leads to the fetus' death, then why don't parents have rights to abuse their children? Does the mother own the fetus? If she does then do the parent's own their children'? If they do than given the woman's rights over her fetus don't they similar rights over their children?
I mean would not a blackmail business arise, in the advent of legalization, which would proliferate and become a dead weight on society, it would produce nothing, but be a large financial drain on private firms, trying to pay them of.
More accurately described, a business in information would arise. What you call deadweight I call an information market. Libel/blackmail criminalization is free speech violation. I read the book like 5-6 years ago, but I'm guessing that is what Block says. I don't know what he says about crying fire in a theatre.