Walter Block | |
|---|---|
.jpg) Block speaking in 2016 | |
| Born | Walter Edward Block (1941-08-21)August 21, 1941 (age 84) New York City, U.S. |
| Academic background | |
| Education | Brooklyn College (BA) Columbia University (PhD) |
| Doctoral advisor | Gary Becker,William Landes |
| Influences | Ludwig von Mises,Murray Rothbard,Ayn Rand,Milton Friedman,Friedrich Hayek,Hans-Hermann Hoppe,Ron Paul,Lew Rockwell,H.L. Mencken |
| Academic work | |
| Discipline | Political economy,environmental economics,transport economics,political philosophy |
| School or tradition | Austrian School |
| Notable ideas | Evictionism |
| Signature | |
.png) | |
Walter Edward Block (born August 21, 1941) is an AmericanAustrian School economist andanarcho-capitalist theorist.[1] He was the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair in Economics at the School of Business atLoyola University New Orleans and a former senior fellow of the non-profit think-tankLudwig von Mises Institute inAuburn, Alabama.[2]
Walter Block was born inBrooklyn, New York toJewish parents Abraham Block, acertified public accountant, and Ruth Block, a paralegal, both of whom Block has said wereliberals.[3] He attendedJames Madison High School, whereBernie Sanders was on his track team.[4] Block earned hisPhD degree in economics fromColumbia University and wrote his dissertation onrent control in the United States underGary Becker.[5] Block identifies himself as a "devoutatheist".[6]
In an interview, Block stated, "In the fifties and sixties, I was just another commie living inBrooklyn."[7] Block credits his shift tolibertarianism to his having attended a lecture byAyn Rand while he was an undergraduate student.[3] Block later attended a luncheon with Rand,Nathaniel Branden, andLeonard Peikoff at which Branden suggested that Block readAtlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand andEconomics in One Lesson byHenry Hazlitt.[3] He says that the final push to his conversion came from having metAustrian School andanarcho-capitalist theoristMurray Rothbard.[3] While Block is an anarcho-capitalist and, unlike theObjectivist followers of Ayn Rand, ultimately opposed tolimited orminimal government, and even while criticizing her movement as "cultish", Block still describes himself as "a big fan" of Rand and considersAtlas Shrugged to be "the best novel ever written."[8][better source needed]
Walter Block received a B.A. in philosophy fromBrooklyn College in 1964 and a PhD in economics fromColumbia University in 1972. He taught at theUniversity of Central Arkansas,Holy Cross College,Baruch College andRutgers University. He now holds the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair in Economics at the Butt College of Business,Loyola University, in New Orleans.[9]
From 1979 to 1991, Block was the senior economist with theFraser Institute.[5] He was also a senior fellow at the think-tankLudwig von Mises Institute from 2000 to 2024, where he has published various blog posts, papers, and books.[9][10]
In the years since 1971, his work has been published in theJournal of Libertarian Studies, theQuarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, theReview of Austrian Economics, theAmerican Journal of Economics and Sociology, theJournal of Labor Economics andPublic Choice[11][12] and inPsychology Today and other popular media.[13] In 2017, he hit the milestone of publishing over 500 peer-reviewed articles.[14]
Walter Block has written two dozen books.[15] He is best known for his 1976 bookDefending the Undefendable.[16][17] The book has been translated into ten foreign languages.[9]Fox Business Channel punditJohn Stossel wrote that Block's "eye-opening" book inspired him to see that economics "illuminates what common sense overlooks."[18]
Block believes that people should have the legal right to sell themselves into slavery, or to buy and keep slaves who have sold themselves into slavery, in a libertarian legal order.[citation needed]
In an essay on "inalienability" ofnatural and legal rights, Block defends what he calls a "voluntary slave contract", arguing that it is "a bona fide contract whereconsideration crosses hands; when it is abrogated, theft occurs". He notes thatRobert Nozick agrees with him, and critiques the views of the libertarians who disagree. Block seeks to make "a tiny adjustment" which "strengthens libertarianism by making it more internally consistent." He argues that his position shows "that contract, predicated onprivate property [can] reach to the furthest realms of human interaction, even to voluntary slave contracts."[19]
A January 2014 article in theNew York Times said Block "suggested in an interview that the daily life of the enslaved was 'not so bad – you pick cotton and sing songs.'"[20] The piece also reported that Block saidWoolworth's had the right to exclude black people from its lunch counters, asserting that "no one is compelled to associate with people against their will." Block responded to the article by accusing theTimes of libel for taking quotes out of context and claiming the latter quote was not accurate.[21] In his response, he called slavery "depraved and monstrous" while arguing that it is not the nature of the work slaves perform that makes slavery monstrous, but rather it is the fact that they are forced to perform it and are not free to leave. According to Block's argument, forcing a slave to perform pleasant tasks would be no less monstrous because it equally violates the libertariannon-aggression principle. AnInside Higher Ed piece noted that, in response to the story, seventeen faculty members at Block's university publicly called for him to be censured for his "recurring public attacks ... on the civil rights of all." The piece also reported that Reverend Kevin Wildes, the President of Block's university, took the "unusual step" of publicly critiquing his arguments as fallacious.[22]
In a 2008 lecture Block called "Injustices in the Politics and Economics of Social Justice" presented at the invitation of theAdam Smith Society of the Economics Department ofLoyola College, Baltimore Block said "blacks and women" were paid less than whites because they are "less productive".[23]
In the lecture, Block defended his views on women saying among younger and unmarried women, there is virtually no income disparity. When asked by an attendee to explain the difference in productivity between blacks and whites, he said that as an economist he was not qualified to explain the disparity. Block offered two thoughts that might account for the disparity: first, what he called the "politically correct" explanation, or socioeconomic disparities and historical injustices towards blacks; for the second thought, which he calls the "political incorrect", he refers to R. Herrnstein and C. Murray's book "The Bell Curve".[23]
James Gill wrote in theTimes-Picayune that the lecture "ignited a furor", resulting in the president of the university,Reverend Brian F. Linnane, apologizing for what was taken as a "sexist and racist outburst", with Gill opining that, "ideas contrary to fashionable preconceptions are always likely to throw academia into a fit".[24]
According toInside Higher Ed:
Perhaps almost as notable as the president's direct response was the condemnation issued jointly by the college's economics department and the Adam Smith Society ... "It is important to note that the remark was offensive not just because it was racially insensitive, but because it was erroneous and indicated poor-quality scholarship. There is ample scholarly evidence that, after adjusting for productivity-related characteristics (e.g., years of schooling, work experience, union and industry status, etc.) a considerable wage gap remains."[23]
Despite the criticism showing evidence questioning the veracity of his statements, Block said he "regards sensitivity as the enemy of intellectual inquiry and truth."[24][25] In a December 2008 article, Block wrote that the lessons he had learned from the incident were regarding the need for tenure if one wants to speak out, the wisdom ofMurray Rothbard's words that "it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects" while remaining ignorant of economics, and the importance ofLudwig von Mises' motto: "Do not give in to evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it."[26]
Block asserts that sexual harassment "that takes place between secretary and her boss is not a coercive action like the pinching that takes place in the public sphere." He claims this is the case since the secretary "agrees to all aspects of the job when she agrees to accept the job and especially when she agrees to keep the job". He calls this a "package-deal". He further differentiates this from acts taking place in public areas as they are not privately owned and therefore there can be no agreement to what he calls the "package-deal", and since the pincher isn't the private owner. He argues that "if pinching and sexual molestation are outlawed in private places, this violates the rights of those who voluntarily wish to engage in such practice." Block argues that the proof of the "voluntary" nature of such an act in a private place is that "the person endangered" (the victim woman) "has no claim [right] whatsoever to the private place in question [...] If she continues to patronize or work at a place where she is molested, it can only be voluntary."[27]
Block says government management of roads and highways is not only inefficient, but also deadly. He argues that "road socialism" causes the deaths of more than 35,000 people in the United States each year. And, although many people blame highway deaths on alcohol, unsafe vehicles, or speeding, Block lays the blame on the government officials who manage the highway system. "It may well be that speed and alcohol are deleterious to safe driving; but it is the road manager's task to ascertain that the proper standards are maintained with regard to these aspects of safety. If unsafe conditions prevail in a private, multistory parking lot, or in a shopping mall, or in the aisles of a department store, the entrepreneur in question is held accountable."[28]
Block has written aboutpunishment of those engaging in "statist, governmental or other gangster activity". He argues there should be "a presumption that all government employees are guilty of a crime against humanity," though he notes that this presumption can be rebutted in many cases, such as that of U.S. Congressman and Mises Institute Senior FellowRon Paul. Block examines issues likerestitution of land taken througheminent domain and possibleretribution against politicians, IRS employees, and others who cooperated in governmental activity. He describes rules by whichlibertarian "Nuremberg Trials" might operate.[29][30]
According to Block'smoral theory, the act of abortion must be conceptually separated into the acts of the eviction of thefetus from the womb, and thekilling of the fetus. Building on the libertarian stand againsttrespass andmurder, Block supports a right to the first act, but, except in certain circumstances, not the second act. Block believes the woman may legally abort if the fetus is not viable outside the womb, or the woman has announced to the world her abandonment of the right tocustody of the fetus, and no one else has "homesteaded" that right by offering to care for the fetus.[31]
He also has written on finding a compromise between those who believe stem cell research is murder and those who favor it. He applies a libertarian theory of private property rights to his premise that even fertilized eggs have human rights and that the relevant issues are competition between researchers and those who wish to adopt the eggs.[32]
Block argues that if property is "necessary" for others to use, to get to unowned property, they have an easement over it and compared it to aperson who murders a child without feeding it.[33] He cites the example of a person with donut shaped land who doesn't allow anyone to get to the middle of his land as incompatible with the logic ofhomesteading.[34]
Picture a bagel (or donut) with a hole in it. Label the hole in the center as "A", the bagel itself as "B" and the surrounding territory, lying outside of the bagel, as "C". Suppose that someone, call him Mr. B, homesteads the land depicted by B. Assume away any possibility of tunneling under, or bridging or flying a helicopter over this terrain, B. Mr. B, then, controls area A, without ever having lifted a finger in the direction of homesteading this land, A. Yes, as of now, Mr. B does not own A. But, under our assumptions, he can homestead this territory whenever he wants to do so. Mr. B [has] gained an untoward advantage, vis-à-vis all other potential homesteaders of A, who are now residing in territory C, and cannot reach A, without trespassing on B, Mr. B's property. This, I claim, is incompatible with the logic of homesteading.
Stephan Kinsella, who disagreed with Block,coined the term "The Blockean Proviso" afterThe Lockean Proviso. It has since been called the Blockean or Blockian proviso.[35]
Block has theorized on whether a person acting in self-defense can harm ahuman shield orhostage used by an aggressor. Block holds this is legitimate because the human shield is the first victim of the aggressor and, as such, cannot be allowed to pass on their misery to the defending person, the intended second victim of the aggressor. Block calls this "negative homesteading theory".[36][37]
Block supports anon-interventionist foreign policy.[38] OnLewRockwell.com, he criticizedRandy Barnett'sWall Street Journal editorial on presidential candidateRon Paul and on foreign policy.[39]
Block believes that the libertarian non-aggression principle does not apply to animals and that the right of human owners to kill, torture, or otherwise abuse animals may be an unavoidable corollary of libertarian premises. He articulated this position in a 2017 debate on animal rights, maintaining that groups must be able to petition for rights and respect the rights of others in order to qualify for rights themselves.[40][better source needed]
At James Madison, Bernie Sanders was a talented athlete and a natural leader. Block recalled how the high school's freshmen would look up to him during their senior year track sessions.
Walter Block's amusing and popular Defending the Undefendable offers an intentionally shocking collection of short chapters, each praising a different "rogue" of modern society
As befits someone who is probably best known for a book titled Defending the Undefendable, Block is no stranger to controversy.
Media related toWalter Block at Wikimedia Commons| Origins |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Concepts | ||
| People | ||
| Works | ||
| Issues | ||
| Related topics | ||
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Academics | |
| People | |
| Other | |
