—–Original Message—–
From: RK
Sent: Mon 7/18/2016 3:23 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Self-Defense?
Walter, this looks like a clear case to initiate violence. Would it be unethical for an Arizona policeman to come up and shoot that guy? Regards, Robert [image: Inline image 1]
The sign reads: “GIVE US FREE:
Health care
Jobs — no taxes
House
Food
You OWE us, America!
We will shoot more police in Arizona until we get FREE!”
Dear RK:
As a libertarian, I won’t, I can’t, answer your question. Libertarians have no view, qua libertarians, on ethics. But, I can answer a different question, since libertarians do indeed have a perspective on a small subcategory of ethics, namely, proper law. Namely, I can answer this question: “Would it be legal, under libertarian law, for a policeman, or anyone else for that matter, who is highly offended by that sign
(http://141.164.71.80/exchange/walterblock/Drafts/RE:%20Self-Defense_x003F_.EML/image.png/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/image.png?attach=1)
as am I, to shoot the person holding that placard?" And here, I would say no. For the threat must be "clear and present." All this man is doing is holding up a sign. Suppose this took place in an "open carry" state, and the man had a pistol in his holster. Would it then be licit to shoot him? We are getting closer to the tipping point, but I don't think we are quite there yet. If he pulled out his weapon, we are getting very, very close, particularly in the context of the horrible police shootings that happened in Dallas. If he was aiming his firearm at a cop, or even lifting in to point in a horizontal direction, then, yes, for sure, it would be entirely justified to shoot him quite dead. But, in the event, as depicted in the picture, I don't think this would be justified. (They don't call me Walter Moderate Block for nothing).
Culture, mores, too, matter, as to whether or not a threat is "clear and present." Since this is occurring in the U.S., a country whose culture with which I am reasonably familiar, my comments above stand. On the other hand, this might mean something quite different in other cultures. Since this is taking place in the U.S., then I think our culture must prevail.
I must stress, though, that this is only one man's opinion, mine. There is a bit of a continuum problem here. "Clear and present" is a matter of opinion. I think reasonable libertarians, familiar with our philosophy, could reasonably disagree with my cut-off points. That is why we need courts to interpret gray areas like this. We cannot deduce all of law, with no exceptions, complications, from the libertarian emphasis on the non aggression principle and private property rights. I have written about this problem here, at greater length:
Block, Walter and William Barnett II. 2008. “Continuums” Journal Etica e Politica / Ethics & Politics, Vol. 1, pp. 151-166, June; http://www2.units.it/~etica/; http://www2.units.it/~etica/2008_1/BLOCKBARNETT.pdf
