Abstract
This paper argues against the most important theoretical foundations which Walter Block uses to defend his thesis that Evictionism legitimizes indirectly deadly evictions of a progeny while simultaneously forbidding abortion. It begins by presenting Block’s Gentleness principle and Rothbard’s principle Proportionality separately. Then, it compares both principles to analyze how satisfactorily each of them deals with some important general problems of libertarian legal theory. The ‘bubble gum theft’ scenario is the main tool for this comparison because both authors uses ‘petty theft’ examples to illustrate their respective principles. This paper’s conclusions are as follows: First, every moment of crime is interconnected. Second, proportionality applies to every moment of crime. Third, that Block’s so-called ‘gentleness principle’ is not only redundant to proportionality, but also cannot be a libertarian principle for two reasons: (1) it implies positive rights and obligations; (2) it presupposes a deterrence penology. This paper is the first in a series of three in an attempt to reform the standard libertarian stance on abortion.
Highlights
This paper argues against the most important theoretical foundations which Walter Block uses to defend his thesis that Evictionism legitimizes indirectly deadly evictions of a progeny while simultaneously forbidding abortion
It begins by presenting Block’s Gentleness principle and Rothbard’s principle Proportionality separately. It compares both principles to analyze how satisfactorily each of them deals with some important general problems of libertarian legal theory
By the looks of it, even if we accept that there are no maximum limits for self-defense, it seems that gentleness still needs proportionality in order to establish the upper limits of the first and intermediary steps of escalation, until the criminal’s actions is interrupted
Summary
I believe that Block’s Evictionism is correct in its initial premises[5]. What I contend is his conclusion that an indirectly deadly eviction should be legitimate. I hope to engage on an ongoing debate, which has more recently resurfaced in 2010, on the Libertarian Papers, with Wisniewski[6] and Parr[7]. These authors had used proportionality to challenge Block’s views their challenges weren’t properly addressed. He uses Rothbard’s principle of proportionality to claim that a deadly eviction of the fetus would be illegitimate because “the amount of physical harm done to the fetus [...] is grossly disproportionate to the amount of
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
