117 Comments
May 24Liked by Jordan Schachtel

This is extremely disappointing news for those of us who are fans of the great Austrian economists.

I have a t-shirt from Mises Institute with the motto, “Ne Cede Malis” . “ Do not give in to evil.”

Giving in to evil appears to be exactly what is going on.

Expand full comment

This libertarian organization had every right to dismiss him from the organization when he asserted that people that didn't want to get the Covid vaccine should be executed! Did a "libertarian" really suggest that a government-mandated vaccine should even be legal, let alone suggest that those who don't get it get executed? It doesn't matter what his views are on any other subject because THIS point of view is so egregious that he should be thrown out of this organizaton!

Expand full comment

Shame that's not the reason they jettisoned him. Apparently being a POS covid statist wasn't the tipping point; he had to prove he wasn't an anti-Semite to really get things rolling. What a joke.

Expand full comment

I, too, have followed, read, and listened to (met him twice briefly in Vancouver at talks), Walter Block - and the Mises Inst. - for many years - and so far, besides him being a jovial fellow, which is, of course, irrelevant to the topic, I have always only found principled, well-argued- logical- reasoned arguments and analyses that he makes that attempt to consider balanced views from both/various/all sides of the topic discussed - and that applies, too, to his arguments on vacc - see his full article linked below, and please read it all, to clarify his reasoning, which is *not* a generic "people who don't get the vacc should be executed" - his argument is in context of a actually unrealistic hypothetical scenario that is only described for the sake of making clear that- and how it is a problematic topic to narrow down to black-or-white libertarian principles - (I'll refrain from comment on the Israel topic as I have not read WBlock's actual record, as in *his actual* own words, of articles on this) - ( on another besides, I am gladly surprised to see the name Dana Ullman here, too :-) - I have my own homoeopathic history of 34 years and remember your work and books from early on in the 1990's - thank you ! ) https://mises.org/journal-libertarian-studies/libertarian-analysis-covid-19-pandemic -

Expand full comment

Glad you appreciate my work and writings in homeopathy and in health care. However, I think that you are glossing over Block's writings. He gives the ultimate hyper-simplistic projection that vaccines are 100% successful in preventing disease and in stopping infection and that they are completely safe. This person lives in fantasyland, not reality...and because he is actually recommending that people get EXECUTED for not getting the vaccine, his stance is literally insane.

One might (erroneously) defend him by noting that he is an economist, not a public health expert or a physician, but in THAT case, he should STFU...and he should not be writing about subjects on which he is so friggin' ignorant.

Here's what he wrote as a hypothetical: " If you contract XYZ, there is a 100 percent chance you will die a painful death. Forty percent of the people on the planet cannot tolerate the vaccination against it. We know who they are, through a test which is 100 percent reliable. The vaccine will not in any way harm the other 60 percent of the people. This majority will, all with 100 percent probability, contract this disease. They will die from it unless they are vaccinated. Also, again with 100 percent certainty (there is no doubt in this example, none) the 60 percent will spread the disease to the 40 percent vulnerables. The drug costs nothing, works perfectly in preventing the XYZ disease and there are no side effects of it whatsoever, again for sure.

Would I compel the 60 percent to get the vaccination on libertarian grounds? You’re darn tootin’ I would. Not so much to save them. That would be paternalism. But, rather, in order to save the lives of the 40 percent who are vulnerable. If any member of this 60 percent refused this vaccination, I would execute him as threatening mass murder of 40 percent of the population."

Expand full comment

ok - overall I do agree with your sentiment - I have been for more than 35 years, and remain a rather stubborn 'anti-vaxxer' exactly because of the history and evidence - but WB's post is not about whether or not vaccinations work in actual real life today - I was, however, attempting to point out WB was not categorically claiming or stating as fact that those numbers and percentages are actual fact and reality as could have been presumed from the *original post*, but that he was creating a hypothetical scenario " .. *if* .. assumed these numbers were true ... *if* it were fact that 100% certainty an infected person would cause others to die, and if with 100% certainty a vacc would prevent death ... *then* he concludes that his extreme measure would follow - yes, I am quite certain, too, that he does not view- and understand vaccinations with the suspicion that we do, yet, the ethical-moral-philosophical problem still remains; after all, libertarian ideas are based in philosophical considerations of right and wrong and how can humans function in society with the least harm to others while also creating the most benefit to the individual - *if* assumed those 100% certainties were fact, then how do we, as a civilized society, handle situations in which one person will end up, with that hypothetically assumed 100% certainty, killing another.. even, or especially when not with active intent ? I think his thoughts are more an exploration of the fundamental questions that arise when pushing philosophical principles to their logical conclusions in order to test them, and for that creating those hypothetical - never to be expected in actual real life - scenarios is a common method - coming to think of it, even if he fully understood the problems with vaccinations that we have in real life, he could still imagine that hypothetical 100% safe-effective-vacc scenario to investigate that philosophical-moral-ethical question of 'what do we do when faced with, actually *any* situation- not just due to disease and vacc- in which one person will with certainty cause the death of another ' ... ? how do we handle someone threatening (hypothetically certain-) death to another... ? do we protect the vulnerable...? must we ..? do we have a moral duty to protect the vulnerable...? how far can we morally-ethically go... ?? ... and I, for sure, don't have a final answer for this, either. And, for now, personally, much more than being concerned about WB's exploration of the principles, I fear the politician-in-bed-with-big-pharma- and now the globalists who will ignore the fact that WB's scenario is utterly hypothetical, philosophical, and unrealistic, but will much more likely desire to claim and enforce non-philosophical- and unethical solutions upon the populace - hmmm... thanks much for challenging my thoughts on this, Dana; can't say I am final and fully satisfied with my thoughts so far :-)

Expand full comment

Except he never said that.

Expand full comment

I quoted him precisely.

Expand full comment

Really? Because you posted

"This libertarian organization had every right to dismiss him from the organization when he asserted that people that didn't want to get the Covid vaccine should be executed! Did a "libertarian" really suggest that a government-mandated vaccine should even be legal, let alone suggest that those who don't get it get executed? It doesn't matter what his views are on any other subject because THIS point of view is so egregious that he should be thrown out of this organizaton!"

Which doesn't quote him at all...

Expand full comment

You didn't read my reply to Peter Quenter's comment where I quote the concerned party. In any case, you didn't seem to read what Peter's link provided...which was to the quote. Please do your homework.

Expand full comment

What you quoted there is non-reflective of what he said. He defined a perfect hypothetical of a situation that wasn't COVID, and followed that up with further explanation of why that wasn't the case. Maybe you should re-evaluate what you wrote.

Expand full comment

Amen

Expand full comment
RemovedMay 24
Comment removed
Expand full comment
May 24Liked by Jordan Schachtel

I have mixed feelings about the situation in Israel, but I am willing to entertain extreme positions on both sides. I have no such tolerance for the idea that you would execute those who refuse to take the Covid vaccine. As I am familiar with Block's work, I was surprised that he would've ever taken this position. It turns out that it is a boldfaced lie.

Block did not make the statement on Covid vaccination that DeLorenzo claims he did. In an article about Covid, he first makes the point that Covid is not nearly the risk that people are claiming it is. Then, he goes on to describe a hypothetical scenario in which mandatory vaccination could be justified from a libertarian perspective. He is specifically distinguishing this hypothetical scenario from the actuality of Covid, for which it is clear that he does not think mandatory vaccination is justified. Here are a few passages from the paper which was written very early in the pandemic (May 2020):

https://mises.org/journal-libertarian-studies/libertarian-analysis-covid-19-pandemic

THE HYPOTHETICAL CASE

Let me make the best case for forced vaccinations. Assume a minarchist libertarian government. Should it compel people to be vaccinated against the XYZ disease? Here are its characteristics:

If you contract XYZ, there is a 100 percent chance you will die a painful death. Forty percent of the people on the planet cannot tolerate the vaccination against it. We know who they are, through a test which is 100 percent reliable. The vaccine will not in any way harm the other 60 percent of the people. This majority will, all with 100 percent probability, contract this disease. They will die from it unless they are vaccinated. Also, again with 100 percent certainty (there is no doubt in this example, none) the 60 percent will spread the disease to the 40 percent vulnerables. The drug costs nothing, works perfectly in preventing the XYZ disease and there are no side effects of it whatsoever, again for sure.

Would I compel the 60 percent to get the vaccination on libertarian grounds? You’re darn tootin’ I would. Not so much to save them. That would be paternalism. But, rather, in order to save the lives of the 40 percent who are vulnerable. If any member of this 60 percent refused this vaccination, I would execute him as threatening mass murder of 40 percent of the population.

BLOCK'S CONCLUSIONS (which obviously exclude Covid from his hypothetical)

If I had to choose sides, I would choose the side that says that COVID is relatively harmless. Why? That is the view opposite that of most governments. My suspicion of this institution would lead me in the very opposite direction of theirs. But I have no more than that to incline me on this side of the debate, certainly no expertise in epidemiology. My gut feeling is that the quarantine has gone on long enough. I would open things up if I were governing. But this article of mine is a critique of those who think that this conclusion of mine emanates from libertarian theory; qua libertarian, I think I should take an agnostic position. A little humility goes a long way, and there was not enough of it exhibited by the targets of my criticism in this paper.

My bottom line is that I think there could be circumstances in which compulsory vaccination would be required by law (let’s forget about who imposes them; well, governments for minarchists, private defense agencies for anarcho-capitalists) and parents should be required to vaccinate their kids. After all, people who do not vaccinate endanger not only themselves, but also the people they communicate with and thus break the NAP and should be punished accordingly.

Legitimate threats may be met with force, even if it hurts the threatener. If you’re drunk and waving a knife at me, I am justified in using violence against you, even if that hurts you. The crime committed by the person who spreads disease should be manslaughter, not murder, unless it is purposeful. My use of the hypothetical 100 percent safe vaccine was meant to starkly undermine the claim, on the part of many, many libertarians, that compulsory vaccination is never justified, since it invades someone’s body.

I started writing this paper a month ago from the present date (May 10, 2020). As new evidence piles up, I am more and more convinced that X is correct and that COVID greatly resembles the flu. (This is a mere speculation on my part; I am an economist, and a libertarian, not an epidemiologist.) But all that is very much beside the point of the present paper. I am now making a theoretical point. My only claim is that the spread of disease could possibly constitute a physical invasion, justifying the use of violence in defense against it.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for the info

Expand full comment

Block likes to construct these pie in the sky scenarios, instead of dealing with the real world.

Let us suppose that the scenario that he described actually happened. What do you think would actually happen? Near 100% of the people who could safely take the vaccine WOULD take it. Where is his faith in freedom and human decency, where we don't need to rely on the strong arm of government to compel us to do what is obviously called for?

Expand full comment

Absolutely agree. It matters not to me whether someone calls for my execution or just makes a case that I should be otherwise somehow forced to do something. Either death is a fair price for liberty, or it's not. Either I have the autonomy to choose (I had thought this was a pretty uncontroversial libertarian position) or I don't. Scenarios that imagine 100% certainty fail in the real world, where not only is there almost never 100% certainty, but also the festering hooves of the state are all over the "science", the "data", that of which the courts will take "judicial notice", et cetera, et cetera—to wit, the source of the "certainty".

Expand full comment

Exactly. When the State is the arbiter of what is safe, what is effective, what is in the interests of society at large, and so forth you end up with the madness we have today. Only the individual can make these determinations, to the best of his abilities, with the support of independent researchers.

Expand full comment

He talks about the real world in the very next sentence.

"Now, you can change the percentages around a bit. Then, you run into what I call the continuum problem (Block and Barnett 2008), and I suggest that there is then no clear libertarian answer."

Expand full comment

When it comes to medicine I rather go with facts versus faith (what you demand).

Expand full comment

I believe that you have constructed a false dilemma.

We can have a pretty good idea of how people will behave based on how they have behaved in the past and on human nature. You can call that faith, as I did above, but it is rooted in facts.

Expand full comment

Thanks for sharing that. I’m even more elated this guy has been canned. We know what’s coming-the exact scenario (without the actual disease) he supports! Liberty of conscience! Enough of these so-called intellectuals making decisions about my body and what goes into it! They have caused enough carnage around the world with their “brilliant” ideas!

Expand full comment

"so-called intellectuals" is being kind to Block. I do not see how a dullard such as he demonstrates himself to be, in the flaccid drivel in

https://mises.org/journal-libertarian-studies/libertarian-analysis-covid-19-pandemic

could be considered to be anything else.

In the article he continually measures loss in terms of death. He hasn't even managed to think of the only relevant metric, which is not 'deaths' but loss of Quality- Adjusted Life-Years. All lives are lost, but not all potential QALYs. Death is not the only way to lose QALYs. In the present insanity the loss of QALYs due to governmental reaction is several hundred times the loss of QALY that would have occurred had the government done nothing except say 'If feeling ill stay home. Carry on.' In New Zealand I estimate the loss of QALYs is probably in the range 200 - 600 times that of having done nothing.

Ashley Bloomfield resigned from his post as Director General of Health and Jacinda Ardern resigned from her post as Prime Minister. Both these actions are unheard of in New Zealand. And Ardern didn't just resign she fled the country. They both know that they committed a monstrous crime.

P.S. I didn't just make-up the QALY measure. When I thought of of it four years ago I thought 'I bet that's already a thing', and of course it was already in existence(but didn't seem to be being applied in current events). Why not; it is so obvious.

Expand full comment
May 24·edited May 24Liked by Jordan Schachtel

I have been a supporter of the Mises Institute for a long time. Though I was never a big fan of Walter Block, I respected the work he had done and was doing to advance liberty. He really disappointed me with his views during Covid, especially the one cited above. I found it shocking that someone so knowledgeable could be so clueless on the Plandemic. Though he was not alone in this, among libertarian scholars, unfortunately.

A while back, I read an article by Hans Hermann Hoppe where he was highly critical of Block's book "The Classical Liberal Case for Israel". Now I am all for debate and I think Hoppe had some valid points, but he went on to basically issue a call for canceling Block. He said he was not a libertarian. Despite my ambivalence about Block, this did not sit well with me.

I am not sure this issue is altogether new to Mises, as Rothbard wrote an article critical of Israel many years ago (possibly before the MI was formed). And I certainly understand how libertarians can be strongly critical of the role that AIPAC has played in promoting wars of aggression in the Mideast. But I think that this reality should not automatically carry over into thinking that every Israeli war/response is necessarily unwarranted.

That said, I do think that it was unfair of you to refer to DiLorenzo as a "neo-Confederate". Tom has done an excellent job critiquing what Lincoln did and his motives, and that is important, because the promotion of Lincoln as a saintly figure has had a terrible effect on U.S. foreign and domestic policy ever since.

Expand full comment

Good point about DiLorenzo. The “neo-Confederate” stuff is purely ad hominem. This said, DiLorenzo is just a more combative personality than his predecessor so the reaction isn’t all that surprising.

Expand full comment

He sure is! For better or worse.

Expand full comment

Is it common for libertarian leaders to parrot socialists' propaganda points 1 to 1 ???

With such 'libertarian' who needs sodalists?

Expand full comment

“Never does he call for the killing of innocents or for territorial conquest.”

Both of those things have happened on a grand scale, with no end in sight, yet. It’s undeniable, no matter how anyone wants to justify it. And if he did say people that didn’t vaccinate should be executed, I’m glad he was fired! Another one of those “intellects” who obviously wasn’t thinking very intelligently. Yeah, I know, mistakes were made. Not buying it and not taking his advice on anything, if true.

Expand full comment
May 24Liked by Jordan Schachtel

I've noticed that many libertarians are hysterical in their criticism of the Israelis. Do they have a right to defend themselves.? There certainly is no genocide in Gaza, except that of Hamas stealing almost all the food being shipped in. I hope someone picks up Block as the Austrian school has much to educate the masses about and we need more voices, rather than fewer.

Danny Huckabee

Expand full comment

As a purely intellectual exercise, it is very easy to distinguish between the citizens of a nation and that nation's government. As Mark Twain noted, patriotism means supporting your country all the time, but its government only when it deserves it. For me, that applies in all cases, including the US and Israel. I have had good relations with many Jewish individuals over my entire life, with mutual admiration and respect in play.

That said, both the Israeli government and the US government are operating continuous criminal enterprises. The Israeli government was convicted in 2013 of war crimes and genocide, and 11 years later they have not changed their behavior.

All that aside for the moment, as a US citizen who took the oath to protect and defend the founding document, I deeply resent the end result of Israeli influence in Washington and state capitols. Illegitimate legislation like the Patriot Act directly assault the founding document, the Fourth Amendment in that case. Just weeks ago our wholly owned House proposed illegitimate legislation on behalf of Israel that directly assaults the First Amendment.

Though I am not a member of Mises, I am happy to see somebody stand up against a government that has by numerous overt acts over many decades directly assaulted not just our founding document, but also the American people themselves.

In 30 states, by way of Israeli influence, a citizen may not criticize the Israeli government, and that is wrong.

Expand full comment

"The Israeli government was convicted in 2013 of war crimes and genocide, and 11 years later they have not changed their behavior." by the communists in the UN? Wonder how many war-crimes were issued versus HAMAS, Hezbollah, Boko-Haram, etc. ???

Expand full comment

The Zionist State has been doing it for much longer than HAMAS, which was not formed until 1987. The Zionists were killing people going back decades or more before that. Their genocide during this last year is pure evil, the work of Satan.

Expand full comment

Sure, before HAMAS was The Muslim Brotherhood. The Palestinians were doing it well before 1948, do you know who Amin Al Husseini is?

Expand full comment

I know what I've read and what I've seen with my own eyes. Many of my personal heroes are Jewish. Naomi Wolf, Glenn Greenwald, Jill Stein and many others.

In my life I've known only a few Muslims, and all have been very peaceful individuals who have shown me respect, which I reciprocated.

The Zionist, while mostly Jewish individuals, also include many idiotic Christians who believe all that claptrap about the Jews being special. They've been conditioned by the Scofield Bible, brought to the world by Zionists.

It is the Israeli State that richly deserves condemnation for the countless crimes it is committing today and has committed since its inception.

Expand full comment

Richard, are you libertarians? Because all your Jew heroes are leftists/socialists :)

I am Zionist and "believe all that claptrap about the Jews being special" has nothing to do with it.

"It is the Israeli State that richly deserves condemnation for the countless crimes it is committing today and has committed since its inception." like the crime of self-defense ? Remind me of 1 war that the state of Israel has started. I will wait.

Expand full comment

As best I can tell Israel has been in a constant state of war, military aggression against its neighbors, since 1948 and before. It pays our rotten elected officials to piss on the constitutional principles the country was founded upon. It shot up the USS Liberty in 1967 and the paid off morons in government call Israel an ally. The Christian Zionists are more disgustingly ignorant than the Jewish ones.

Expand full comment

I've found that many former go-to libertarian think tanks are really just big corporate interest shills focused on "freedom" and "liberty" from corporate taxes and regulations. For big businesses, mind you. Not small and medium-size entrepreneurs or local corporations. They have pretty much exactly zero focus on basic freedom and liberty issues for individuals, households or the small business operations.

And when I look at who the majority of their funding comes from it always makes sense. Big corporations or wealthy philanthropists who made their fortunes in big corporations. Just like with major media advertisers that pay for the news they want reported. Always follow the money, along with the personnel. Who are the biggest funders of Mises?

One of the libertarian think tanks in my state is headed by a guy who I knew, once liked. Until he told me (all the unjabbed) to suffer in great agony and pain, face death - but not actually die, just make us feel real pain - for not taking the bioweapon poison in 2021. The same think tank employs a former leader of the Libertarian Party as their "libertarian voice" that sounds remarkably like a Marxist voice these days. Marxism sugar-coated with libertarian linguistics.

Come to think of it, Reason magazine and Nick Gillespie reads the same way these days, too. Informing me that most old mainstay libertarian voices are just as corrupted and captured as every other institution today. Some get longer leashes than others to stray from narrative. But make no mistake, they are on leashes. In the hands of their funder masters.

Expand full comment

Walter Block was also dropped from the advisory board of the Ron Paul Institute. I look forward to Schachtel's libeling, smearing, and name calling of Ron Paul and to his argument that "War Crimes: Good or Bad?" is a legitimate libertarian debate topic.

Expand full comment

" is a legitimate libertarian debate topic" every war is a crime. If that's te top of libertarian intellectuals no surprise of the mass irrelevance of the movement as it is.

Expand full comment

Wait a second- you are criticizing Mises Institute for severing ties with someone who advocated killing innocent people for not taking a forced genetic transfection device containing Lipid Nano Particle encased ModRNA coding for a highly dangerous spike protien, which is contaminated highly with Plaamid DNA & SV40 promoters, and which stops neither infection nor transmission?? And never did, but set up the world for endless variants of the Bio-weapon labeled Sars-cov-2?

This is who a libertarian think tank should hold on to?

Good grief. We should not even be considering him human, imho. Because of lunatics like him my daughter who has never had children yet has Pfizer's toxic genetic codes in all her vital organs, including her ovaries.

This world has gone mad with sick conformity, even to advocating killing those who see clearly!

Expand full comment

I haven’t followed the Walter Block situation specifically but I have been alarmed at how many anti-Semitic voices Lew Rockwell has endorsed. And I love (with a capital LOVE) I love Lew Rockwell.

Expand full comment

I know. That's why this—well I'll just say it—hurts. At least for me.

Expand full comment

To be clear, I'm referring to the endorsement of anti-Semitic voices and the airing of anti-Semitic views, not the Walter Block thing specifically.

Expand full comment

Block should be free to debate the Israel situation but the more important debate to have before that is how someone with such authoritarian views on Covid vaccination could possibly consider themselves a libertarian.

Expand full comment

Really amazing! Block must be senile. He used to support all kinds of extreme libertarian positions from littering to pimping. Block was great friends and a co-thinker of Murray Rothbard who was VERY anti-Israel. Personally, I'm of the opinion that Islam has to be taken into account. The Koran advocates all manner of atrocities against the INFIDEL and Jews in particular. There is no living with Muslims who take the Koran seriously.

Expand full comment

Here is Hoppe’s open letter, which is very critical of the views on Israel, Hamas, etc., of Block and Futerman.

Hoppe, Hans. 2024. “An Open Letter to Walter E. Block.” January 31;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/01/hans-hermann-hoppe/breaking-up-is-hard-to-do-but-sometimes-necessary/

Here is our response to Hoppe:

Block, Walter E. and Alan G. Futerman. 2024. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on Israel versus Hamas.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUBDkyoJkiY; https://www.meste.org/mest/MEST_Najava/XXIV_Block_Futerman.pdf; https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UrihMAZak4qHXS6kF-GtRVNV1KSY2R6N/view; https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_LHXcokLcZx8-T75Tv7rBHl1dABTidIj/view

Reprint: https://www.hyehudi.org/walter-block-responds-to-hans-hoppes-attack/

Here is the Gordon & Njoya review:

Gordon, David and Wanjiru Njoya. 2024. “The Classical Liberal Case For Israel.” February 2; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/02/no_author/the-classical-liberal-case-for-israel/; https://mises.org/mises-wire/review-classical-liberal-case-israel

of our 2021 book on Israel:

Block, Walter E. and Alan Futerman. 2021. The Classical Liberal Case for Israel. With commentary by Benjamin Netanyahu. Springer Publishing Company; https://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-16-3953-1;

Here is our rejoinder to Gordon and Njoya:

Futerman, Alan G. and Walter E. Block. 2024. “Rejoinder to Gordon and Njoya on Israel and Libertarianism.” https://www.meste.org/mest/MEST_Najava/XXIV_Futerman.pdf

Expand full comment

Walter Block was also dropped from the advisory board of the Ron Paul Institute for his support of war crimes in Gaza. I look forward to Schachtel's libeling and smearing and name calling of Ron Paul and his argument that "War Crimes: Good or Bad?" is a legitimate debate topic.

Expand full comment

Frankly libertarians should stick to economics. Whenever they get involved in either international policy or cultural issues it leads to terrible policy that ultimately discredits libertarianism.

Expand full comment

... or learn HISTORY as good as ECONOMICS; It is vey clear to me Hans-Hermann Hoppe as many of prejudices and history blank spots as many in the West.

Expand full comment

"war crimes in Gaza" according to all leftist socialist ORGs that parrot HAMAS PR. Or you have more insight?

Expand full comment

Libertarians have never entirely reconciled themselves to the fact that many times self-defense requires collective action in which innocents will get killed, the common name for this type of action is "war".

Expand full comment

Right. I'm all over a prohibition on the initiation of force. Operative word, "initiation". But of course the non-aggression principle requires the physical removal principle. Aggressors who didn't get the memo about non-aggression require permanent dispatch. Libertarianism shouldn't mean the death of common sense.

Expand full comment

Paradoxically, it is the same problem with the same rhetoric I see coming from the left.

Expand full comment

If I remember rightly Walter Block wrote an article where he justified the killing of Palestinian civilians. I’ve never found the Mises Institute to be anti-Semitic. Anti Israeli government policy and actions yes. But that is not the same thing. Afterall there are plenty of Jewish people that are anti their government.

Expand full comment

Would those be "Palestinian civilians" calling for the death of every Jew? Would those be "Palestinian civilians" who voted for Hamas? Would those be "Palestinian civilians" being used as human shields such that Hamas cannot be penetrated short of this particular collateral damage? Asking in good faith. Just want to know precisely to whom you are referring here.

Expand full comment