-17 votes

The Nutty Professor (Walter Blockhead), Arbitrary Rights, and NAP-headed hoes

Someone call a lawyer, a team of talmudic scholars, a psychoanalyst and a priest. The "rights theorists" are at it again, and no word or meaning is safe. And call the sheriff. Language is wanted as an accessory in the murder of logic.


Block has determined through his incisive reasoning that privacy, outside of that afforded by property, is no right, according to "Libertarian theory." He does not elaborate further.

Presumably rights emerge into nature merely in act of acquiring property. Prior to that their existence is hazy. Like the Big Bang, we don't know how they emerged, but if we start there with a "given" we can spin out a web of supposedly logical conclusions.

Just don't pay any attention to all the shoddy, haphazard assumptions and arbitrary definitions, decisions and determinations these "theorists" rely on to keep the rickety structure glued together.

According to Blockhead, privacy is a right only to the extent that it stems from property. Presumably then, if property fails to provide privacy in the future, then privacy will cease to exist, rightfully and justly.

Consider. If technology develops to a point where anyone can eavesdrop and view anyone else through their walls, from great distance, then per Block, no law could justly be enforced against such intrusion as it is not aggression. Privacy is not a right. It is merely an incidental consequence to the right of property (which is inherent in nature like the laws of physics according to "libertarian theorists").

We are probably not far from the point where personally owned drones can be flown above anyone else's airspace (umm, how much of the air above your property up to the atmosphere is "yours"?). So then the right to privacy thereby vanishes as well? After all, there is no physical aggression involved, so no legal restriction on such spying/intrusion would be justified. That would be aggression against individuals who are not harming anyone.

Of course, we can re-define x-ray or otherwise intrusive cameras as extensions of our bodies, or define them as weapons, I suppose. Pretty arbitrary, but possible. It would be a harder case to make for super-targeted listening devices. I suppose competing soundproofing technology for those who can afford it would be the sole means of defense, since the eavesdropper cannot rightfully be punished legally.

Someone spying into the window of a dressing minor would be morally and legally guilt-free, according to Block and the NAP crowd. No violation of the NAP, no infringement upon anyone's rights (privacy is not a right, remember), therefore no moral or ethical, or legal, violation.

As for airspace over one's property, it has never been either theorized or adjudicated as far as i know.

Perhaps some anarcho-geniuses will explain to us that A PRIORI AXIOMS PROVE that all the airspace over our property, extending into the atmosphere, and in fact infinitely into space time, is the the rightful property of the "homesteader," and that airlines should pay passage fees to anyone who's airspace they fly (trespass) over. Very practical and reasonable, these anarcho-comedians. Thanks for clearing up the real tough issues!

Another example of how this rights business is arbitrary (and hilarious) and involves definitions and decisions that are completely subjective and made up...

Suppose someone follows you around calling your mother a wh0re. Can you slap them in the mouth? Aggression or not? Who's the aggressor?

Don't cheat, no peaking at prior legal precedent churned out by those dens of violence and oppression, known as law courts. This one is tough, it needs to go to direct to the supreme council of anarchocap theorists.

It is arbitrary to say whether it is "aggression" or not, since no blow is struck. Whether this as$hole trails you by 5 feet or shadows your person (ghosts you, in technical parlance) or makes threatening body gestures, makes you uncomfortable, offends you, insults you, or if some bit of his stray spittle is caught by the wind and strikes your person, whether that is aggression and whether at that point you can shoot him or merely punch him in the nose is ALL arbitrary.


Important questions like these can't be left to anyone. Walter Block and other experts on the NAP should be consulted by the hundred thousand drive through, quick-serve, and dine-in arbitration agencies that would flourish under true freedom. (lol)

They need not even ALL necessarily have their own Blackwater agencies enforcing their rulings. Since no right to privacy exists, they can just use the best in modern spying and identification, tracking and biotechnology to observe, report, track, rate and judge the serfs, er, citizens of this new techno-feudalism, and its architecture of enforcing the NAP, without force.

Moving onto more pressing concerns.

In this shining sea of lagoons and lilly pads of freedom, some deserts and dark lagoons will undoubtedly exist. Some might surround completely others. In fact, all will be surrounded by a number of others, by definition.

Let a thousand nations bloom. Also a thousand conflicts, in need of resolution. Let a thousand communities have insufficient access to transportation, waterways, defensible borders. Let many of them be surrounded by hostile communities.

I suppose transportation agencies would also flourish, offering to transport those unfortunate enough to be in between or surrounded by privately owned anarchommunities which don't let others pass. Suppose some open city is surrounded on four sides by a44holes. These rescue air transport agencies would swoop in and fly the stranded sovereign individuals in the dry patch over into a more hospitable community.

This is where we really need the wisdom of the anarcho-geniuses to come in.

Exactly how far into the sky does my property extend? This is no easy question. Only the iron-clad, impenetrable, cold fusion reactors of Logic that are the minds of these theorists can determine such an important question. It carries with it the Fate of all future private drone and air travel Law.

Disregard all previous precedent, and coercive law -- that is all a product of tyranny, force and the bad old days of arbitrary violence.

Libertarian theory needs to define it all anew for us from really smart geniuses like Block, so that private competing arbitration agencies and drive-through courts/judges with protection agency enforcers will determine IMPORTANT questions.

The burning question of how much of the airspace above one's acre lot of property is also one's property, in which one can rightfully launch the nuclear warheads to which all free individuals are entitled, as owner of said private property, with unlimited property rights, needs a logical answer. We are waiting, Block.

People of brain.

Please take the nutty Professor above referenced and his dream team of NAPhead geniuses lightly, like I do. For the sake of your own mental well being. They are anarcho-comedians, good enough for amusement. Little else.

The law is what we decide it should be, and can get enough people to agree to enforce. Because it is REASONABLE for human well being.

Our rights are what we assert them to be, what we decide to demand others respect, and what we can mutually uphold because REASONABLE people agree and throw in with us.

Chuck these nutbags and their jackas$sery from serious conversation, please o pretty please?


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

mises never needed to rely on

mises never needed to rely on rights to defend liberty, liberalism and the free market order.

he recognized that right are a fantasy outside of the law.

people have interests as individuals, which we can act politically to establish and defend. we can assert what we claim to be our legal rights without need to lean on a false theory.

most of all, we don't want to look like idiots by believing in stupid stuff.

Mises was a statist

So what?

And I don't rely on rights to defend liberty. I was just explaining them.

I don't rely on anything to defend liberty. People understand things best in different ways.

I don't depend on natural rights, natural law, the NAP, economic arguments, self ownership, moral symmetry, the Rule of Law, God, or the Constitution. I can make cases based on any of them however.

The discussion here is about rights, so strangely I tried to address the topic.

Rights are not a fantasy any more than De Morgan's theorem is a fantasy. Rights can be logically defined. You clearly think rights are irrelevant, but that's another argument. I think they are fundamentally relevant because violation of rights by definition causes conflict. They have real application. Humans will act in ways they feel morally right. They will act to protect life, liberty, and property when it comes down to it. You're sophistry will never change this fact.

Since they will do this the first question should be: If this is our nature, why do we (ie statists) assume it is wrong? Why should we not consider that since upholding rights will necessarily minimize conflicts that we should not ab initio toss out rights because we can conceive some potential scenario where rights might conflict? If we want to minimize conflict and maximize harmony then creating conflict from the get go just seems insane.

Your fantasy is that a system built on the violation of rights can ever protect them.

Mises was a statist. I think

Mises was a statist.

I think that's sufficient idiocy to end the argument.

Thanks for the literal lol:)

Thanks for the literal lol:) This isn't even debatable.

In political science, statism (French: étatisme) is the elief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.

Mises was a statist by his own words. Did you even read Human Action?

Dude, you're your own worst enemy. It would take me minutes to make you look this silly and you do it to yourself.

no i don't recall mises ever

no i don't recall mises ever arguing for state control of economic or social policy. he supported the existence of government and law. but your definition fails.

and besides, your disparaging epithet or pejorative use of the term statist applies even less to mises, which is the sense you used it in.

you're a cultist immune to reason and i have no time for that.

Ok man... wait and think like

Ok man... wait and think like this for just a second. All things are markets, from food too even law,courts and even maybe legislatures. Now, one system is run by the state= statism, socialism. The other system is run by private individuals=free market, capitalism/voluntaryism. So, even if you are for a public force that has monopoly power over some market, you are a socialist.

If you said, all we need the state for is healthcare and not law, courts, police etc. (just healthcare). You are still saying that everyone, all social classes usually at an unequal rate, should be taxed by force. Meaning with a gun and as an an-cap I would rather see somebody try to make a non-profit/or for profit/or community healthcare system for free for all, instead of a monopoly that has guns forcing every individual in the market to partake in that healthcare system; crowding out the market as well, stifling innovation etc etc.

Same story. Different Market. Private sector always wins.

You need to make me work harder to make you look ignorant

"Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order. This power is vested in the state or government." - Human Action, Ludwig von Mises

I guess to you that's anarchism?;) Hell Rothbard wasn't even all the way there, though it would be a stretch to call him a statist. But Mises was certainly a statist. There are lot more Mises quotes on the topic.

But I should think you would like Mises, with all that "application or threat of violent action"? Gets your juices flowing right? The thought of men in uniforms beating up minorities to prevent them "from destroying the social order". Ahh.. statist happy ending squeee!

Maybe if you actually read you might not make a jackssa out of yourself with such regularity.

I don't really want you to do that though. I couldn't buy a better opportunity to make statists look bad.

I totally support it (the

I totally support it (the rights argument) as political rhetoric. I've been clear on that. I just demand a higher standard intellectually.

I also think it's demeaning

I also think it's demeaning to name call long time liberty advocates such as Dr. Block.

If you want folks to take you seriously, take a lesson from Dr. Paul and don't make it personal.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

I will continue to write with

I will continue to write with my own style, though thanks for the advice. I think we're all big boys and can handle a little bit of humor, satire, and ridicule of ridiculous ideas. Unless we're upset at getting the worse of it in the argument, we should be able to handle that.

If you don't like it feel free to express yourself, downvote, comment. Ideas are not subject to a popular referendum, they are correct or not.

Block's ideas are absurd fantasies that hinder any real advance of liberty. I shall dispense copious amounts of ridicule upon such ideas, within or without of the so called "movement." Satire and well formed arguments are my weapons of choice against BS. That is what I do.

Focusing on style rather than substance is a sure indication the position I've critiques is not intellectually defensible. The discussion on this post demonstrates that, imo.

Anyway, its up to everyone to decide for themselves with the minds that god gave them. I'm sure the vote count provides sufficient comfort to those who have come out of the discussion below badly bruised and confused.

As ever I remain ready to defend my arguments against serious, thoughtful opponents.


Well, it's still within the

Well, it's still within the freedoms allowed by the thugs be a dick, but it's hardly worthy of a libertarian intellectual.

But suit yourself.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

grow thicker skin

grow thicker skin

Grow up.

Grow up.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein



I knew it, you ARE living in

I knew it, you ARE living in your mother's basement!

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein



Well, I'm sure most will

Well, I'm sure most will forgive me, being that I'm at such an intellectual disadvantage, debating someone who has all worthwhile human knowledge loaded to his iPod.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

your joke fails

your joke fails


You advocate for a system based on force, which clearly does not work as a deterrent either. NAP is a principal, it won't work 100% either, not everyone is going to believe it yet alone practice it, the difference is that it's VOLUNTARY, without coercion of force. People are going to do what ever they feel like it, be it legal lawful or otherwise, you are in favor of trying to force people to behave in certain way, through out the human kind history it never worked, yet you persist with the same idea and fully convinced that it will work this time, if only there was a law. Do you see it yet? People are people, there are bad and good, laws wont change that, they only frustrate the good people and allow the bad people to prosper at the expense of the good ones.

(YAD) you're a dick

so i skimmed through and got the gist of bill3s argument. check out stefbot's response below.

this whole video is a great watch but i have queued it up to the part where Stephan debunks all of bill3's post as he describes the YAD principal followed by a dead on impression of bill3. enjoy

6 Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle - Rebutted! Stephan molyneux

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

wolfe's picture

I love Stephan....

Awesome clip that I hadn't seen before.... :)

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

I kind of agree with Block on this...

What he is essentially saying is: if you are surrounded by walls on your own property, you have now earned the "right to privacy" though the acquisition of property. (I use the terms "right to privacy" loosely, because, it really isn't a right as much as a benefit of property ownership.)

If people build devices that can see through your walls, you are free to build a device that blocks their device and so on.

Fortunately though, the SCOTUS ruled that these types of technologies do violate our reasonable expectation of privacy. I can't remember the case, but it had to do with infrared technology being used by helicopters to spot indoor marijuana grow houses.

good find!


"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran
"The Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame." - Chuang Tzu

Why all the butthurt insults, BILL3?

I mean, you could have just as well written this without all that hostility and just presented your arguments. Instead, you seem to be purposefully trying to be inciting a war of words and counter-insults. And you wonder why people give you so much crap. Perhaps you enjoy that more than the discussion. I don't know. Usually, that kind of motivation points to some kind of a psychological problem.

"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran
"The Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame." - Chuang Tzu

rhetorical license? why do

rhetorical license? why do you care. can't you figure out the points and evaluate them without crying about some color, humor and jabs? it's not a peer reviewed paper, its a polemical editorial. if it's too much for your delicate sensibilities, skip over.

and when did i complain about anyone giving me crap? i expect to battle with the moron wing of DP, and i can take all comers.

Well, if you are gonna act like a child,

I am gonna treat you like a child. A red-headed stepchild.

"All our words are but crumbs that fall down from the feast of the mind." - Khalil Gibran
"The Perfect Man has no self; the Holy Man has no merit; the Sage has no fame." - Chuang Tzu

you might try... and fail.

you might try... and fail.

I stopped reading here:

"Presumably rights emerge into nature merely in act of acquiring property. Prior to that their existence is hazy. Like the Big Bang, we don't know how they emerged, but if we start there with a "given" we can spin out a web of supposedly logical conclusions. "

If that is the basis of your criticism, then the rest of your massive rant is just hot air with no basis. Block et al have NEVER said "acquiring property" is what gives you rights.

Being human gives you rights. They just so happen to axiomatically extend from your ownership of your own body. It IS a given - you are the only one that owns your body, therefore..... see?


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Progress is precisely that which the rules and regulations did not foresee. - Ludwig Von Mises.

i don't see. let's figure

i don't see.

let's figure this out together. what does ownership mean when we apply it to an object?

john owns this stereo. it means that he possesses it, but also that he has a rightful legal claim to it. he is it's owner. if bob comes along and takes it, john loses possession - but he does not lose legal ownership, because the law says he owns it. ownership is a concept of law. stealing is a violation of law. in absence of the law, it is just taking. ownership derives from the law, it is lawful possession. without the law, the stronger takes it and that is the end of it.

therefore, with the ACTUAL meaning of ownership, let's apply it to ones body.

one IS ones body, it is not something we can possess. whether we control it, or someone else uses force upon us to control our actions, can be likened to the example of the stereo.

in a state of nature, if john is weaker, bob can take possession of his person and freedom, just like the stereo. he can own john in all practical sense of the term, even though john still retains his inner thoughts and will.

only legal title bestows ownership. only law can confer meaning to ownership beyond possession.

therefore, law gives one rights. being human gives one no rights, as any slave can tell you.

you're making an OUGHT = IS confusion. don't, do, that.