Rejoinder to Ayres on defense, punishment and gentleness
| Autor | Walter Edward Block |
| Cargo | Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair in Economics at Loyola University College of Business (Chicago, United States of America) |
| Páginas | 495-513 |
Licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons
Licensed under Creative Commons
Rev. Investig. Const., Curitiba, vol. 9, n. 3, p. 495-513, set./dez. 2022.
Revista de Investigações Constitucionais
ISSN 2359-5639
DOI: 10.5380/rinc.v9i3.86477
495
Rejoinder to Ayres on defense, punishment and gentleness
Tréplica a Ayres sobre a defesa, punição e gentileza
WALTER EDWARD BLOCK I, *
I Loyola University (Chicago, United States of America)
wblock@loyno.edu
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2215-4791
Recebido/Received: 22.06.2022 / 22 June 2022
Aprovado/Approved: 17.10.2022 / 17 October 2022
Como citar esse artigo/How to cite this article: BLOCK, Walter E. Rejoinder to Ayres on defense, punishment and gentleness.
Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, Curitiba, vol. 9, n. 3, p. 495-513, set./dez. 2022. DOI: 10.5380/rinc.v9i3.86477
* Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair in Economics at Loyola University College of Business (Chicago, United States
of America). Ph.D. in Economics at Columbia University (New York, USA). B.A. in Philosophy, Brooklyn College (New York, USA).
E-mail: wblock@loyno.edu.
Abstract
Ayres maintains that both punishment after the fact of
crime, and what the victim is allowed to do during the
commission of the crime, should be based upon propor-
tionality. I agree with him on the former contention, but
not the latter. This paper is my attempt to make the case
that the victim is entitled, based upon libertarian law,
to do whatever is necessary to defend himself and his
property, provided, only, that he employ the most gentle
means compatible with this end. Ayres demurs.
Keywords: punishment; defense; libertarianism; gentle-
ness; proportionality.
Resumo
Ayres sustenta que a punição depois da consumação do cri-
me deve se basear na proporcionalidade, e o que a vítima
pode fazer durante a sua prática também deve obedecer ao
mesmo parâmetro. Eu concordo com ele na primeira asser-
tiva, mas não na segunda. No presente artigo eu defendo
que a vítima tem o direito, baseado no Direito libertário, de
fazer o que for necessário para defender a si mesmo e a sua
propriedade, contanto, apenas, que ele empregue os meios
mais suaves compatíveis com este m. Ayres discorda.
Palavras-chave: punição; defesa; libertarianismo; gentile-
za; proporcionalidade.
WALTER EDWARD BLOCK
Rev. Investig. Const., Curitiba, vol. 9, n. 3, p. 495-513, set./dez. 2022.
496
Based on the title of his paper, I would have welcomed Ayres1 to the libertarian
discussion of abortion. However, in the event, he discussed proportionality and gentle-
ness, not my views on evictionism. However, his treatment of this complex issue is as
thorough as could be wished. Indeed, if there is any stone he leaves unturned in this
matter, it has escaped me. It is, moreover, based upon his insightful understanding of
advanced libertarian theory. Nevertheless there are several points at which this author
and I diverge. The present paper is an attempt to set the libertarian record straight.
To begin with, Ayres quite properly sets the stage: he maintains that propor-
tionality applies to every aspect of crime; the invasion itself, plus the punishment af-
terward. I take the position that proportionality is relevant to punishment, not crime.
He takes the position that my “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”.2 I agree with
him that positive rights are anathema to libertarian theory, properly understood; only
negative rights are compatible with justice. However, I deny that my gentleness princi-
ple violates this precept. Also, in my view, the essence of libertarianism is deontology,
rights, justice; deterrence is but a side benet
In his section 1 “Introduction: the problem of indirectly deadly evictions” our au-
thor accurately states that my evictionist proposal is based upon the libertarian, notion
of private property rights. Since the mother, not the baby, owns her womb, the unwa-
nted fetus is in eect a trespasser. He may thus be removed from her premises; evicted
but not killed. His rendition of my position is entirely accurate.3 I only wish I could be as
1 All mention of this scholar, unless otherwise indicated, shall refer to this one publication of his: AYRES, Ce-
dric John. Proportionality trumps gentleness: reforming Block’s evictionism (part I). Revista de Investigações
Constitucionais, Curitiba, vol. 8, n. 2, p. 407-433, maio/ago. 2021. DOI: 10.5380/rinc.v8i2.74518.
2 AYRES, Cedric John. Proportionality trumps gentleness: reforming Block’s evictionism (part I). Revista de
Investigações Constitucionais, Curitiba, vol. 8, n. 2, p. 407-433, maio/ago. 2021. p. 407.
3 My views on abortion and evictionism, the targets of Ayres’ criticism, are: BLOCK, Walter E. Toward a Liber-
tarian Theory of Abortion. In: Rothbard, Murray N. The Libertarian Forum. Volume 2: 1976-1984. Auburn: Mis-
es Institute, 2006 [1977]. Available at: <http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1977/1977_09.pdf >; BLOCK, Walter
E. Abortion, Woman and Fetus: Rights in Conict? Reason, vol. 9, n. 12, April, p. 18-25, 1978; BLOCK, Walter E.
Stem Cell Research: The Libertarian Compromise. September 3, 2001. Available at: <http://archive.lewrock-
well.com/block/block5.html>; BLOCK, Walter E. Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandon-
ment: Children’s Rights. International Journal of Social Economics, Bingley, vol. 31, n. 3, p. 275-286, 2004;
BLOCK, Walter E. Homesteading, ad coelum, owning views and forestalling. The Social Sciences, Faisalabad,
vol. 3, n. 2, p. 96-103, 2008. Available at: < http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1890872>;
BLOCK, Walter E. A libertarian perspective on the stem cell debate: compromising the uncompromisable. Jour-
nal of Medicine and Philosophy, Oxford, vol. 35, n. 4, p. 429-448, aug. 2010. Available at: <https://academic.
oup.com/jmp/issue/35/4>; BLOCK, Walter E. Van Dun on Freedom and Property: A Critique. Libertarian Pa-
pers, Auburn, vol. 2, n. 4, 2010; BLOCK, Walter E. Response to Jakobsson on human body shields. Libertari-
an Papers, Auburn, vol. 2, article n. 25, p. 1-9, 2010. Availabe at: <https://cdn.mises.org/-2-25_2.pdf>; BLOCK,
Walter E. Response to Wisniewski on Abortion, Round Two. Libertarian Papers, Auburn, vol. 3, article n. 4, p.
1-13, 2011. Available at: <http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-4.pdf>; BLOCK, Walter E. Terri Schia-
vo. Journal of Libertarian Studies, Auburn, vol. 22, n. 1, p. 527-536, 2011. Available at: <https://cdn.mises.
org/22_1_26.pdf>; BLOCK, Walter E. The Human Body Shield. Journal of Libertarian Studies, Auburn, vol.
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO