ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

This paper is an attempt to understand and elaborate upon libertarian punishment theory. It is completely non-controversial, even amongst non-libertarians, that the criminal must be forced to return his ill-gotten gains to the victim. At least among libertarians, it is agreed upon, in addition, that the punishment for the criminal must be proportionate to his crime. This, typically, implies that what he did to the victim should be done to him. For example, if A steals a car from B, A must be compelled to return that automobile to B, and, then, to give B a vehicle owned by A. But what about the fact that A scared B when he committed his dastardly crime? Should punishment theory take that into account too, and, if so, how? That is the subject of the present paper.
Acta Economica Et Turistica, Vol 2 (2016), No. 1, pp. 1-100
85
SAŽETAK:
U ovom radu nastoji se razumjeti
irazraditilibertarijanskateorijakažnjavanja.
Potpunojenesporno,čakimeđulibertarijancima,
dapočiniteljakažnjivogdjelatrebaprisilitidavrati
žrtvionoštojojjeoteo.Uzto,jednakojetako
nesporno,barmeđulibertarijancima,dakazna
započinjenodjelomorabitiproporcionalnatom
djelu.Tonajčešćepodrazumijevadaonoštoje
počiniteljučiniožrtvi,trebaučinitiinjemu.Na
primjer,akoosobaAukradeautomobilosobiB,
trebaprisilitiosobuAdavratiautomobilosobiB,
a potom još dati osobi B automobil koji posjeduje
osobaA.Noštoćemosčinjenicomdajeosoba
ApreplašilaosobuBkadjeizvršilatajkukavički
čin?Trebaliteorijakažnjavanjauzetiuobziritu
činjenicu?Akoda,kako?Upravotojepredmet
ovog rada.
KLJUČNE RIJEČI:
ruskirulet,kažnjavanje,kažnjivo
djelo,libertarijanizam
ABSTRACT: This paper is an attempt to understand
and elaborate upon libertarian punishment theory.
Itiscompletelynon-controversial,evenamongst
non-libertarians,thatthecriminalmustbeforced
to return his ill-gotten gains to the victim. At least
amonglibertarians,itisagreedupon,inaddition,
that the punishment for the criminal must be
proportionatetohiscrime.This,typically,implies
that what he did to the victim should be done to
him.Forexample,ifAstealsacarfromB,Amust
becompelledtoreturnthatautomobiletoB,and,
then,togiveBavehicleownedbyA.Butwhat
about the fact that A scared B when he committed
his dastardly crime? Should punishment theory
takethatintoaccounttoo,and,ifso,how?Thatis
the subject of the present paper.
KEY WORDS:
Russianroulette,punishment,crime,
libertarianism
Walter
E. Block RUSKI RULET
– ODGOVOR ROBINSU
RUSSIAN ROULETTE;
REJOINDER TO ROBINS
PREGLEDNI ZNANSTVENI RAD SCIENTIFIC REVIEW
Walter E. Block, Ph.D., Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair* and Professor of Economics, Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business,
Loyola University New Orleans adresa:6363St.CharlesAvenue,Box15,MillerHall318,NewOrleans,LA70118
tel.:
(504)8647934
fax:
(504)8647970
e-mail: wblock@loyno.edu
DOI: 10.1515/aet-2016-0006
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/20/16 3:23 PM
Acta Economica Et Turistica, Vol 2 (2016), No. 1, pp. 1-100
86
Walter E. Block RUSKI RULET – ODGOVOR ROBINSU
Walter E. Block RUSSIAN ROULETTE; REJOINDER TO ROBINS
Robins(2012,67)nesporidatrebaprisiliti
počiniteljadanadoknadižrtvi,kakobisepovratila
“prvotnacjelina”;naprimjer,davratiukradenu
imovinu,platiliječničkeračuneidr.Istotako,
Robinsneprigovaraidejidapočiniteljmorabiti
podvrgnutkazni,takoštoćemuse“vratitiistom
mjerom”.Doovdje,dakle,nijesporno.
Noštoćemosčinjenicomdajepočiniteljpreplašio
svojužrtvu?Nebilitrebaoodgovaratiizato?Ne
bitrebao,premaRobinsu,barneuslučajukadaga
se natjera da zaigra ruski rulet. I to takav u kojem
bi broj metaka i odjeljaka za metke odgovarao
težinipočinjenognedjela.Zbogčeganebitrebao
odgovarati?Robins(2012,58)piše:“Ovdjenastaje
prviproblem.Strahje,kaoiostaleemocije,
subjektivan;nemožemorećiukojojmjeriježrtva
zaista bila preplašena i kako u istoj mjeri preplašiti
počinitelja.”
Autorovdjetočnozaključuje.Strahiostaleemocije
su zaista subjektivne. Austrijski ekonomisti idu još
daljeidržedasegotovosveuživotumožedobro
opisatinatajnačin.
Hayek(1979,52-53)jenapisao:“Vjerojatnonije
pretjeranorećidajesvakiznačajannapredak
u ekonomskoj teoriji u posljednjih stotinu
godina bio daljnji korak u dosljednoj primjeni
subjektivizma.”Nokakouvećinipojavapostoji
makar mrvica subjektivizma1,zbogčegaizdvojiti
jedan i dovesti ljude u situaciju da se boje kritike
itresu?Robinsovuanalizunemožemosmatrati
definitivnom,zbogtogaštosepotpunoistomože
primijenitiinarestituciju(potpunoobeštećenje,
povratakuprijašnjestanje)inaretribuciju(kaznu).
Pretpostavimo,naprimjer,dajekradljivacmorao
vratitiukradeniautomobil,alijepotombio
prisiljenoštećenikudatiisvojautomobil.Iuovom
scenariju subjektivnost je velika. Jedan ili obojica
moguuživatipsihičkidohodakiztihvozila.
Uzto,jedanodtedvojicemožepridavativeću
sentimentalnu vrijednost automobilu od drugog.
Nemožemorećizakolikobitasentimentalna
vrijednostbilaveća,sobziromdasetonemože
mjeritiniizračunati.2RiječjeotomedaRobins
Robins(2012,67)doesnotquarrelwithforcing
thecriminaltomakerestitutiontothevictim,inan
attempttomakethelatter“whole;”e.g.,returning
thestolenproperty,payingmedicalbills,etc.Nor
does this author cavil at the idea that retribution
musttakeplaceforcriminals,“havingtheircrime
visitedbackonthem.”Sofar,sogood.
But what about the fact that the malefactor scared
histarget;shouldhenotbeheldresponsible,
also,forthatimposition?Notforthisscholar,at
least not if the law-breaker is to be forced to play
Russianroulettewithhimself,wherethenumber
of bullets and chambers are proportionate to the
severity of the crime committed. Why not? Robins
(2012,68)writes:“Thefirstproblemariseshere:
fear and other emotions are subjective: we cannot
tell to what degree the victim wasscared,norhow
to equally scare the criminal.”
Tobesure,ourauthoriscorrectinthisclaim.Fear
and other emotions are indeed subjective. Austrian
economistsgofurther,andmaintainthatjustabout
everything in life is well described in this manner.
StatedHayek(1979.52-53)“Anditisprobablyno
exaggeration to say that every important advance
in economic theory during the last hundred years
was a further step in the consistent application
of subjectivism.” But if there is at least a tinge of
subjectivity to most phenomena1 why single out
placing people in fear and trembling for criticism?
Robins’analysiscannotbeheldtobedefinitive,
fortheverysamethingapplies,also,torestitution
andretribution.Forexample,afterreturningthe
stolencar,supposethecriminalisforcedtogive
to his victim an automobile owned by himself.
Subjectivity rears its head in this scenario too.
One or both of them might enjoy psychic income
from these vehicles. And one may place more
sentimental value on them than the other. Nor
canwesaybyhowmuch,sincethesethingsare
not subject to measurement or calculation.2 The
pointis,Robinsrejectspenaltiesforscaringsince
theyaresubjective,butsupportsrestitutionand
retribution,eventhoughthey,too,admitof
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/20/16 3:23 PM
Acta Economica Et Turistica, Vol 2 (2016), No. 1, pp. 1-100
87
Walter E. Block RUSKI RULET – ODGOVOR ROBINSU
Walter E. Block RUSSIAN ROULETTE; REJOINDER TO ROBINS
odbacujemogućnostdasekaznizastrašivanje,
sobziromnatodajestrahsubjektivan,no
podržavarestitucijuiretribuciju,kažnjavanje
činaotuđenja,premdasuionepodložne
subjektivnosti.Autoruovogčlankalogikane
dopuštadazauzmevrlorazličitastajalištaoistim
pojavama.Da,“istifizičkičinmožeseprovesti
nadpočiniteljem”(Robins,2012,68),nozbog
subjektivnostitomožeproizvestipotpunorazličito
ljudsko iskustvo. Kad bi Robins nastavio istom
logikom,moraobitakođerodbacitirestituciju
iretribuciju,štoonnečini,jerioneuključuju
subjektivnost. Ukoliko subjektivizam unaprijed
isključujezastrašivanjepočiniteljakaznenogdjela,
istobitrebaloprimijenitikakonarestituciju,
takoinaretribuciju.Utomslučajudržimoda
nikakvakaznanijenipotrebna,štonikakonije
libertarijanska pozicija.
Pretpostavimodanetkoupadneuvašukuću,
uperiuvaspištoljiode,adanijeukraonijedan
predmet.No,lišiovasjedostojanstvaivašeg
osjećajazaštićenostiisigurnosti.PremaRobinsu,
ovdjenebibiloopravdanotražitirestitucijui
retribuciju,jervasjepočiniteljsamopreplašio.
Naosnovisubjektivizma,tunemamjestakazni.
Štogodmislilioovakvojanalizi,onanijeniblizu
libertarijanizma.
Nećurećinidasetosvodinačistipacifizam,jer
Robins ne razmatra samoobranu ili bilo kakvu drugu
obranu.Međutim,ukolikonastaviistimpravcem
ili,pak,ukolikomožemodovoljnozaključitiiztog
naglašavanjasubjektivizma,logičnoćemozaključiti
daseturadiopacifizmu.Uzmimosljedećiprimjer:
zaustavimolipočiniteljaprijeizvršenjakaznenog
djela,moždaćenjegovisubjektivniosjećajibiti
višepovrijeđeninegoštobibiliosjećajižrtvedaje
njegovnapaduspio.Drugimriječima,povrijeđeni
osjećajiifizičkapovredanapadačakojujezadobio
unapadudoksežrtvabranilamoguprevagnutinad
samoobranomžrtve.Subjektivizmunaprostonema
mjestaukaznenompravu.Uzto,subjektivizam
jetakođer–subjektivan.Kadbikaznenopravou
velikojmjeriuzimalouobzirovajfenomen,nebi
moglo funkcionirati. Robins odbacuje kompenzaciju
subjectivism. This author cannot logically be
permitted to take very different stances on the
samephenomena.Yes,the“samephysical invasion
(maybevisited)uponthecriminal”(Robins,2012,
68),butthankstosubjectivism,thesemaybevery
different in terms of human experience. He rejects
scaring criminals on the basis of subjectivism.
Werehetocarrythroughonalogicalbasis,
he would also have to reject restitution and
retribution,whichhedoesnotdo,sincetheyalso
admit of subjectivism. If subjectivism precludes
frighteningtheperpetratorofcrime,itshouldalso
dosoforrestitutionandretribution,inwhichcase
weembracethecasefornopunishmentatall,surely
not a libertarian position.
Supposeatrespassercomesintoyourhouse,waves
agunatyou,anddepartswithoutstealingany
objectiveitem.Allherobsyouofisyourdignity,
and your sense of security and safety. According
toRobins,norestitutionandretributionwould
bejustified,sinceallthecriminaldidwasscare
you,and,thankstosubjectivism,therecanbeno
penalty for that. Say what you will about such an
analysis,itisnotclearthatitcancomeanywhere
close to libertarianism.
I will not say that this amounts to outright
pacifism,sinceRobinsdoesnotdiscussselfor
otherdefense.However,ifhepusheshardenough,
or we can deduce sufficiently from this emphasis
onsubjectivism,thatisthelogicalconclusionhe
mustdraw.For,whoistosaythatthesubjective
feelings of the criminal will not be hurt more by
stoppinghim,thantheharmsufferedbythevictim
ofthisattack?Thatis,self-defenseonthepartof
the target may be outweighed by the hurt feelings
and bodily injury thereby visited upon the attacker.
Subjectivism simply has no place in the criminal
law;itistoo,waitforit,subjective.Ifthecriminal
lawtakesmuchcognizanceofthisphenomenon,
it cannot function. Robins rejects compensation
to the victim based on fear engendered because
it is too subjective. But everything in life has a
subjective element. To dismiss making the victim
whole on this margin is to do so on every margin.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/20/16 3:23 PM
Acta Economica Et Turistica, Vol 2 (2016), No. 1, pp. 1-100
88
Walter E. Block RUSKI RULET – ODGOVOR ROBINSU
Walter E. Block RUSSIAN ROULETTE; REJOINDER TO ROBINS
žrtvinaosnovipretrpljenogstraha,smatrajućida
je to suviše subjektivno. No sveuživotusadrži
elementsubjektivnosti.Oduzetižrtvipravona
potpunoobeštećenjeipovratuprijašnjestanje
zbogsubjektivneosnoveznačioduzetijojpravo
na restituciju po svakoj osnovi.
Mojesljedećeneslaganjesovimautoromjenjegova
tvrdnja(2012,69):“...restitucijomsežrtvapotpuno
obeštećuje”.Moždajetourijetkimslučajevima
istinito.Moždasedobrobitsvihmazohistapovećava
kadpostanužrtvompočiniteljakažnjivogdjela.
No,međuobičnimljudimarijetkisuonikojibi
voljelidaihseuznemiravainapada,dasemoraju
podvrgnutivoljidrugoga,čakikadbinakon
počinjenogdjeladobilipotpunoobeštećenje,a
počiniteljbiokažnjen.Tozaistamorabiticilj
svakogpravednogzakona,iakoseustvarnosti
rijetkomožepostići.
Robinsov(2012,70)najsnažnijiargumentprotiv
teze ruskog ruleta jest neproporcionalnost: kazna
nijeprimjerenapočinjenomdjelu,nijeodgovarala
počinjenomdjelu,nijeproporcionalnadjelu:
“Ostaječinjenicada(žrtva)nijeumrla,pasetako...
gubitakživotanemožeprimijenitinapočinitelja
kaonaknada.”Autordaljenastavlja(2012,71):
“...kaznazatorazbojstvobilajesmrt,štoočito
nijesrazmjernakazna.”Ovozvučikaouvjerljiv
argumentprotiv,alinije.Prvo,nijetočnoda
je“kaznazarazbojstvobilasmrt”,većjebila
mogućnostsmrti”.Istina,utomslučaju,ako
jekaznazastrašenježrtveruskiruletsjednim
metkomistotinuodjeljakazametke,udužem
razdobljumožemoočekivatidaće1%počinitelja
dobiti smrtnu kaznu za relativno manja djela
napada,premlaćivanja,silovanjailirazbojstava.3
Ipak,moramonapravitidistinkcijuizmeđu:“kazna
za ovo razbojstvo bila je smrt” i “kazna za ovo
razbojstvobilajemogućnostsmrti”.Izmeđuto
dvojesvakakopostojiključnarazlika.
Razmotrimoipakonerijetkeslučajeveukojima
ruskiruletzavršavasmrću.Noprijetogastavit
ćemotoukontekstipretpostavitidasvakivojnik
uvojnimvježbamaponekaddobijemalidio
My next quarrel with this author is his statement
(2012,69)“...restitutionmakesthevictimwhole.”
Perhapsthisistrueontherareoccasion.And,
it may be the case for all masochists that their
well-being is improved by being victimized by
alaw-breaker.Butforordinaryfolk,itisthe
rare individual who would not prefer to remain
unmolested,ratherthanbeingsubjugatedto
another’s will even if full restitution and retribution
takesplaceafterthefact.Yes,thatmustbethegoal
ofalljustlaw,butasamatterofrealitythiscan
rarely be attained.
Robins’(2012,70)mostpowerfularguments
against the Russian roulette thesis is
disproportionality: the punishment does not
fitthecrime,didnotmatchthecrime,isnot
proportionate to the crime: “The fact remains
that(thevictim)didnotdie,andsono...loss
of life may be justly visited upon the criminal
inrecompense.”Continuesthisauthor(2012,
71):“...thepenaltyforthisrobberywasdeath,
clearly not a commensurate one...” This sounds
likeatellingcaseagainsttheclaim,butitisnot.
Firstofall,itisnottruethat“thepenaltyforthis
robberywasdeath.”Rather,strictlyspeaking,“the
penalty for this robbery was a chance at death.”
True,intheevent,ifthepunishmentforscaring
wasRussianroulettewithonebulletand100
chambers,wemayexpectoverthelonghaulthat
1%ofcriminalswillsufferthedeathpenaltyfor
arelativelyminorcrimeofassaultandbattery,or
rape,orrobbery.3But,still,wemustdistinguish
between saying “the penalty for this robbery was
death”ontheonehand,and“thepenaltyfor
this robbery was a chance at death” on the other.
Surely,thereisacrucialdifferencebetweenthem.
Let us however consider that rare case when the
Russian roulette ends up in a death. But before
wedo,letusputthismatterincontextandtake
note of the fact that sometimes in military practice
each of the soldiers is given a small proportion
of live ammunition to fire at other members of
thesamearmy(Bresnahan,1999).Whyonearth
would any rational commander subject his troops
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/20/16 3:23 PM
Acta Economica Et Turistica, Vol 2 (2016), No. 1, pp. 1-100
89
Walter E. Block RUSKI RULET – ODGOVOR ROBINSU
Walter E. Block RUSSIAN ROULETTE; REJOINDER TO ROBINS
bojevemunicijekojutrebaupotrijebitipucajući
udrugevojnikeistevojske(Bresnahan,1999).
Zbogčegabiuopćeijedanrazumanzapovjednik
podvrgnuosvojetrupetakodivljačkimiludim
postupcima?Pretpostavimodaćeto,dugoročno
gledajući,sačuvativišeživotakadsevojnici
susretnuspravimneprijateljima.Da,nekolicina
ćevojnikaumrijetizavrijemetihmanevara,ali
ćezbogtihopasnihvježbivojnicipoboljšatisvoju
sposobnostda“glavudržedolje”.4Štomožemo
rećiokonkretnomvojnikukojiizgubiživot
tijekom takvog rigoroznog treninga? Ukoliko
secijelaoperacijaizvedepravilno,njegovaće
smrtsačuvatidrugeubrigadi.Nojelitobilo
ubojstvo?Nemožesetakoreći,ukolikojeto
biladobrovoljačkavojska.Naistinačinjeteško
složitisesRobinsovomocjenom(2012,71)da
su“onikojisunatjeralipočiniteljadjeladazaigra
ruski rulet i tako ga gurnuli u smrt – krivi za
ubojstvo”. Proporcionalna pravda zahtijeva da
zatoumru.Da,takonkretnasmrtbilajedaleko
odsvakeproporcionalnekazne,recimozakrađu
automobila.Međutim,počiniteljnijebiosuđen
nasmrt.Biojeosuđennalutriju,ukojojjejedino
gubitaksmrtonosan,dokjedobitakzastrašujuć.
Kakobiseboljevojnikamogloistreniratida“drži
glavudolje”,negotakodagasepodvrgnebojevoj
municijiimogućnostidapogine?5Sličnotome,
nemadrugognačina6ponovitistrahkojiosjeća
žrtva,negopočiniteljuotvoritimogućnostda
doživistvarnoteškozlo,uključujućiismrt.Ako
gatoneosvijesti–ništadrugoneće.
Robins(2012,69)naproblematičannačinvidii
odnosizmeđuutilitarizmaideontologije.Onpiše:
“Retribucija ima mnoge dobrodošle utilitarne
kvalitete,poputzastrašivanja,obeshrabrivanja
odponavljanja(uprotivnomzločinuvijek
imapozitivnuočekivanuvrijednost),itd.Kao
libertarijancimitražimodeontološkoopravdanje
dapočiniteljkažnjivogdjelaiskusiistiagresivni
činkojijeizvršio,štoproizlaziizsamogtog
čina.”Činisedaovojtvrdnjinemaprigovora.
Međutim,naosnoviRobinsovogcjelokupnog
rada,jatotumačimnasljedećinačin:“Kao
tosuchawildandcrazyseemingpractice?Thisis,
presumably,becauseitwillsavemorelivesinthe
longrun,whentheactualenemyisencountered.
Yes,afewofthehometeam’ssoldierswilldie
duringtheseexercises,buttheywillbebetter
at “keeping their heads down”4 because of these
dangerous exercises. What can we say about a
given specific combatant who perishes under
such rigorous training? His death will save others
inthebrigade,ifthisisdonecorrectly.Butwas
itmurder?Hardly,assumingavolunteerarmy.
In like manner we find it difficult to agree with
Robins’(2012,71)assessmentthat“thosewho
forced the criminal to play Russian roulette and
socausedhisdeathareguiltyofmurder,and
commensurate justice requires that they die for
it...”Yes,thisspecificdeathwaswayoverand
aboveanyproportionalpunishmentfor,say,the
crimeofcar-jacking.However,thecriminalwas
notsentencedtodeath.Rather,hewassentenced
to a lottery,whereonlylosingisdeadly,while
winning is frightening. How else can a soldier be
better trained to “keeping his head down” other
thanbybeingsubjectedtoliveammunition,and
thus a chance of perishing?5Similarly,thereis
no other way6 of replicating the fear felt by the
victim than by perpetrating upon the wrong-doer
a possibility that he may come to real grievous
harm,uptoandincludingdeath.Ifthatdoesnot
concentratehismind,nothingwill.
Robins(2012,69)alsolocatestherelationship
between utilitarianism and deontology in a
problematic manner. He writes: “Retribution
has many utilitarian salutary qualities such
asdeterrence,discouragementofrepetition
(otherwisecrimealwayshasapositiveexpected
value),etc.;aslibertariansweareconcerned
with the deontological justification for visiting
uponthecriminalhisaggressiveact,which
comesfromtheactitself.”Asitstands,thisis
unobjectionable.Iinterprethim,however,based
uponhisoverallcontribution,asthinkingthat
“as libertarians we are concerned only with the
deontological justification” since it is surely on
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/20/16 3:23 PM
Walter E. Block RUSKI RULET – ODGOVOR ROBINSU
Walter E. Block RUSSIAN ROULETTE; REJOINDER TO ROBINS
libertarijancimitražimosamo deontološko
opravdanje.”Naime,izvjesnojedaRobinssamo
stogstajalištanedopuštadasestrahuključikao
čimbenikuodmjeravanjekaznekojabibilaspojiva
slibertarijanstvom.Nitkonemožeprigovoriti
ruskomruletutvrdećidaruletnećesmanjiti
kažnjivadjela.Jedinoracionalnostajalištebilobi–
smanjitće,alitojetekutilitarniargument,nebitan
za libertarijanizam.
Kako,dakle,libertarijancivideodnosizmeđu
utilitarizma i deontologije? Moramo li potpuno
zanemariti utilitarnost i zajedno s Robinsom prigrliti
deontologiju?Nebihsemogaosložiti.Pomom
mišljenju,grubautilitarnostslužikaosvojevrsna
sponasrealnošću.Pretpostavimo,naprimjer,da
svemoćniMarsovcipošaljuzrakomporukuna
Zemljudaćeraznijetičitavplanetukolikonetkood
nasneubijenedužnuosobu,Joea.Ukolikotone
učinimo,nestatćesvi,paiJoe.Čistideontološki
libertarijanskiodgovorbiobi:“Bombardirajte,
prokletibili,visramotni,pokvareniMarsovci.”7 No
utilitarnielementulibertarijanstvu,aonpostoji,
inzistiradatonikakonemožebitikrajpriče.Mora
biti nešto više u toj filozofiji od toga da Marsovcima
dopustimodaradeštohoće.Utilitarijanizamovdje
služidaseizbjegneizravnosuočavanjesproblemom.
Zahvaljujućitojfilozofiji,znamodanetrebamo,
da ne smijemo radosno i pokorno pristati na
uništenje cijelog planeta.8 Moja tvrdnja je da Robins
isuviše brzo odbacuje tragove utilitarijanizma iz
svoje analize. Deontologija je svakako najbolji dio
libertarijanizma.Akoseneštonemožepodvesti
pod ovu rubriku – ne spada u libertarijanizam.
Noutilitarijanizam,baruovojgrubojverziji,
ima ovdje svoju ulogu: ukoliko ruski rulet dâ vrlo
velikutilitarnidoprinossmanjenjukažnjivihdjela,
neophodnojedubokosezagledatiutajproblem,
anega,poputRobinsa,prezirnoodbaciti.
MojnajvećiproblemsRobinsom(2012)jest
štoonzapravotetošipočiniteljekažnjivihdjela.9
Ti necivilizirani barbari krivi su za najgnjusnije
mogućeponašanje.Međutim,tajautorpodržava
restitucijuiretribuciju,alisamozafizičke
manifestacijezločinačkogponašanja.Nočesto
that basis alone that he objects to taking fright
into account in designing punishment compatible
with libertarianism. No one could object to
Russian roulette on the ground that it would not
put a crimp in criminality. The only rational view
wouldbethatitwould,butthatthisisamere
utilitarianargument,irrelevanttolibertarianism.
What,then,istheproperrelationshipbetween
utilitarianism and deontology for the libertarian?
Needwetotallyignoretheformer,and,with
Robins,embraceonlythelatter.Idemur.In
myview,roughutilitarianismservesasasortof
connectiontoreality.Forexample,supposethe
all-powerful Martians beam down a message to
earth that unless one of us murders innocent
personJoe,theywillblowupourentireplanet,
and Joe along with everyone else will perish. The
pure deontological libertarian response
would be
“bombandbedamned,youdirty,rottenMartians.”7
But,theutilitarianelementoflibertarianism,and
thereisone,insiststhatthiscannotpossiblybe
the end of the story. There must be more to this
philosophy than to give the Martians the go-
ahead. Utilitarianism serves as a sort of fudging
device.Thankstothisphilosophy,weknow that
weneednot,wemustnot,blithelyacquiescein
the entire disappearance of the third planet.8 My
claim is that Robins too quickly dismisses all
vestiges of utilitarianism from his analysis. To
besure,deontologyisthebe-allandend-allof
libertarianism. If something cannot pass must
underthisrubric,itisnotlibertarian.But,still,
utilitarianism,atleastinthisroughmanner,plays
something of a role: if Russian roulette will make
a very strong utilitarian contribution to reducing
crime,wearerequiredtolookdeeplyintoit,not
to dismiss it as cavalierly as does Robins.
MygreatestproblemwithRobins(2012)isthat
he is in effect a coddler of criminals.9 These
uncivilized barbarians are guilty of the most
heinousbehaviorimaginable.Yes,thisauthor
supportsrestitutionandretribution,butonly
for the physical manifestations of the felonious
behavior.But,often,itisthenon-objective
Acta Economica Et Turistica, Vol 2 (2016), No. 1, pp. 1-100
90
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/20/16 3:23 PM
Walter E. Block RUSKI RULET – ODGOVOR ROBINSU
Walter E. Block RUSSIAN ROULETTE; REJOINDER TO ROBINS
su upravo neobjektivni elementi kaznenog djela
najozbiljniji,itobašonisubjektivni.Razbojnik
upadneuvašukuću,prijetivampištoljem,
zaveževas,ukradevašautomobil.Umnogim
takvimslučajevimagubitakautomobilaje
najmanjevažandio;važnijejeponiženjekojeste
pretrpjeli.Bilistepreplašeni,10 slomljen vam je
osjećajvlastitevrijednosti,izgubilistepovjerenje
usvojesposobnosti,bojiteseokoline,biliste
izvansebeodstraha.Ovakvislučajeviranjenog
samopoštovanjačestoimajugoreposljediceod
bilo kakvog objektivnog materijalnog gubitka. Pa
ipak,Robinsoslobađapočiniteljakaznezaove
ključneelemente.Robinsosobnomožeoprostiti
onimakojigatakooskvrnu,noteškojegledati
kakolibertarijanskateorijakažnjavanjanatakav
načinograničavažrtve.
Treba primijetiti da Robins ne nudi nikakva
alternativnarješenjakojimabisepočinitelju
vratiloonostrahotnoštojeučiniožrtvi.Robins
takobraniidejudastrašenježrtvenetreba
uzimatiuobzirkodkažnjavanjapočinitelja.Kad
pokušavamoupotpunostiobeštetitižrtvu,zbog
čeganebismosmjelipočiniteljuupotpunosti
priskrbitionoštojeonpriskrbiožrtvi?Bezobzira
kolikojesubjektivan,strahjetuvažanelement,
element koji Robins u potpunosti zanemaruje.
elementsofthecrimethatarethemostserious,yes,
the particularly subjective ones. A villain comes to
yourhouse,wavesagunatyou,tiesyouup,steals
your car. But the loss to you of this vehicle is many
cases the least important of the indignities you have
suffered.Youwerescared,10 your sense of self-
worthhastakenabeating,youloseconfidencein
yourability,youarefearfulofyoursurroundings,
youwerefrightenedoutofyourwits.Often,these
damages to your self-esteem are far more injurious
toyouthananyobjectivephysicallosses.Andyet,
with regard to these crucially important elements
oftheoutrage,Robinsletsoffthecriminalscott-
free.Well,hecanpersonallyforgivethosewho
abuse him in this way. But it is difficult to see that
libertarian punishment theory must limit victims in
any such way.
Note that Robins does not offer any alternative
means of visiting upon the perpetrator what he has
done to the recipient of his horrid behavior in this
regard. He thus defends the notion that scaring
should not be taken into account when punishing
thecriminal.Whyevernot,giventhatweare
attemptingtomakethevictim“whole,”tryingto
do,fully,tothecriminalwhathedidtothevictim.
Fright,nomatterhowsubjective,isanimportant
elementofthis,oneunjustlyignoredbyRobins.
Acta Economica Et Turistica, Vol 2 (2016), No. 1, pp. 1-100
91
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/20/16 3:23 PM
Walter E. Block RUSKI RULET – ODGOVOR ROBINSU
Walter E. Block RUSSIAN ROULETTE; REJOINDER TO ROBINS
Acta Economica Et Turistica, Vol 2 (2016), No. 1, pp. 1-100
92
BILJEŠKE
* Eminent scholar i Endowed chair,vrloprestižnetitulena
američkimsveučilištima,uvedene1979,kojesedodjeljuju
istaknutim redovnim ili izvanrednim profesorima za
njihov znanstveni i nastavni rad. Financiraju se iz posebnih
fondova.(Op. prev.)
1VidjetiotomeBarnett,1989;BuchananiThirlby,
1981;Buchanan,1969,1979;DiLorenzo,1990;Kirzner,
1986;Mises,1998;Rizzo,1979;Rothbard,1979,1997;
Stringham,2008.
2Nepostoje“utili”,odnosno“jedinicesreće”.
3Nepostoje“manja”kažnjivadjela.Onasuzaistavrlo
ozbiljna. “Manja” su samo u usporedbi s ubojstvom.
4 I poduzeti druge akcije da se zaštite.
5Tekstprenaglašavaovajproblem.Postojeidruginačinida
setoriješi.No,nemožeseporećidajetojednaodmetoda
za postizanje tog cilja.
6 I ovdje ponovno prenaglašavamo probleme u tekstu.
Svakakosuotkriveniidruginačiniodvraćanjaprijestupnika,
naprimjerpomoćudroge,hipnoze,biločega.No,onošto
nijespornojestdaćeiruskiruletpostićitajcilj.Uprošlosti
jetovjerojatnobiojedininačindasepočiniteljuvratiupravo
onoštojeonučiniožrtvi.
7Prvidioovefrazepodsjećanačuvenurečenicuuslučajevima
ucjene:“Objaviibudiproklet!”VidjetiBlock(2013).
8 Za libertarijansko rješenje izazova Marsovaca vidjeti Block
(2002,2004,2006).
9Naravno,ucijelomovomesejuiRobinsijausredotočujemo
senapravezločineukojimaimažrtava:ubojstvo,silovanje,
razbojstvo,krađa,palež,otmicaitd.Kaolibertarijancisvakako
senebismozalagalizakažnjavanječinameđuodraslim
suglasnimosobamaukojemnijebiložrtava,atičesedroge,
seksa,kockanjaisl.
10ČakseiArnoldiSchwarzeneggeriusvijetubojebitis
pogrešne strane cijevi pištolja.
REFERENCES
1SeeonthisBarnett,1989;BuchananandThirlby,
1981;Buchanan,1969,1979;DiLorenzo,1990;Kirzner,
1986;Mises,1998;Rizzo,1979;Rothbard,1979,1997;
Stringham,2008,
2 There are no “utils” or units of happiness.
3 These are not “minor” crimes. They are very serious
indeed. They are only “minor” compared to murder.
4 And taking other evasive action.
5 The text somewhat overstates the matter. There may
beotherbetterwaysofdoingthis.However,itcannotbe
denied that this constitutes one method of reaching this goal.
6Again,wesomewhatoverstatemattersinthetext.There
may well be discovered other ways of frightening the
malefactor,suchaswithdrugs,hypnotism,whatever.But
what is not debatable is that Russian roulette will also
accomplishthisgoal,andatleastinthepastmaywellhave
been the only way of perpetrating on the criminal what he
did to his victim.
7 The first part of this phraseology echoes the famous “publish
andbedamned”inblackmailcases.SeeonthisBlock(2013).
8ForalibertariansolutiontotheMartianchallenge,see
Block(2002,2004,2006).
9Throughoutthisessay,bothRobinsandIareofcourse
focusingonreal,notvictimlesscrimes:murder,rape,theft,
arson,kidnapping,etc.Aslibertarians,wewouldcertainlynot
advocate any punishment at all for victimless crimes between
consentingadultsregardingdrugs,sex,gambling,etc.
10 Even the Arnold Schwarzeneggers of the world are fearful
of being on the wrong end of a pistol.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/20/16 3:23 PM
Walter E. Block RUSKI RULET – ODGOVOR ROBINSU
Walter E. Block RUSSIAN ROULETTE; REJOINDER TO ROBINS
Acta Economica Et Turistica, Vol 2 (2016), No. 1, pp. 1-100
93
LITERATURA / LITERATURE
BARNETTII,WILLIAM(1989),“SubjectiveCost
Revisited”. Review of Austrian Economics,Vol.3,pp.137-138
BLOCK,WALTERE.(2002),“RadicalPrivatizationand
Other Libertarian Conundrums”. The International Journal
of Politics and Ethics,Vol.2,No.2,pp.165-175
BLOCK,WALTERE.(2004),“RadicalLibertarianism:
Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the
UnjustGovernment,PartI”.Reason Papers,Vol.27,Fall,
pp. 117-133;
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/
publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf
BLOCK,WALTERE.(2006)“RadicalLibertarianism:
Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the
UnjustGovernment,PartII”.ReasonPapers,Vol.28,
Spring,pp.85-109;
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block_radical-
libertarianism-rp.pdf; http://www.walterblock.com/
wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radical-
libertarianism-rp.pdf;
http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/28/rp_28_7.pdf
BLOCK,WALTER(2013),Legalize Blackmail. Straylight
Publishing,LLC
BRESNAHAN,DAVIDN.(1999),“Armyadmitslive
ammo used.” WorldNetDaily,February17;
http://www.wnd.com/1999/02/3592/
BUCHANAN,JAMESM.ANDG.F.THIRLBY(1981),
L.S.E. Essays on Cost.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress
BUCHANAN,JAMESM.(1969),Cost and Choice: An
Inquiry into Economic Theory. Chicago: Markham
BUCHANAN,JAMESM.(1979),“TheGeneral
ImplicationsofSubjectivisminEconomics”,in:What
Should Economists Do? Indianapolis: Liberty Press
DILORENZO,THOMASJ.(1990),“TheSubjectivist
Roots of James Buchanan’s Economics”. The Review of
Austrian Economics,Vol.4,pp.180-195
HAYEK,FRIEDRICHA.(1979),The Counter-Revolution
of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason,2ded.Indianapolis:
LibertyPress
KIRZNER,ISRAEL,ed.(1986),Subjectivism, Intelligibility
and Economic Understanding.NewYork:NewYork
University Press
MISES,LUDWIGVON([1949]1998),Human Action,
Scholars’ Edition. Auburn: Mises Institute;
http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp
RIZZO,MARIOJ.(1979),“Uncertainty,Subjectivity,and
theEconomicAnalysisofLaw”,in:MarioJ.Rizzo(ed.),
Time, Uncertainty, and Disequilibrium.Lexington,MA:
LexingtonBooks,pp.71-90
ROBINS,DAVIDB.(2012),“Recompenseforfear:is
forced Russian Roulette Just?” Libertarian Papers,Vol.4,
No.1,pp.67-71;
http://libertarianpapers.org/article/4-robins-recompense-
for-fear/; http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/
article/2012/lp-4-1-4.pdf
ROTHBARD,MURRAYN.(1979),“Comment:TheMyth
ofEfficiency”,in:MarioJ.Rizzo(ed.),Time, Uncertainty, and
Disequilibrium.Lexington,MA:LexingtonBooks,pp.91-96
ROTHBARD,MURRAYN.(1997),“Towarda
ReconstructionofUtilityandWelfareEconomics,”in:The
Logic of Action: Method, Money and the Austrian School,Vol.I.
Cheltenham,UK:EdwardElgar,pp.211-254
STRINGHAM,EDWARD(2008),“EconomicValue
andCostAreSubjective”,in:PeterBoettke(editor),The
Handbook of Austrian Economics.Cheltenham,UK:Edward
Elgar Publishing;
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/stringham4.pdf
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 10/20/16 3:23 PM
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Question 1 begins by discussing an area of subjectivism where most economists agree: Is economic value subjective? This area differentiates most modern economists from classical economists and many non-economists. Question 2 probes an area where many but not all economists agree: Are costs subjective? This area differentiates many Austrian and certain neoclassical economists from orthodox neoclassical economists following Alfred Marshall’s tradition. Questions 3, 4, 5, and 6 discuss areas where even fewer still economists agree: Can we survey people’s subjective preferences? Can we measure an individual’s utility? Can we compare utility between individuals? Can we aggregate the utility of many people? For these questions one can find Austrian and neoclassical economists on both sides of the debate. Questions 7, 8, 9, and 10 look at alternative approaches to making welfare comparisons between nations that do not purport to depend on measuring subjective utility, such as looking at per capita income, migration patterns, society-wide cost-benefit analysis with dollars as the unit of measurement, and a demonstrated preference Pareto rule. Where one stands on these issues depends on how far one is willing to extend the logic of economic subjectivism. And where one stands on questions of economic subjectivism has an important influence on how one analyzes the world and what policies one recommends.
Article
Individual valuation is the keystone of economic theory. For, fundamentally, economics does not deal with things or material objects. Economics analyzes the logical attributes and consequences of the existence of individual valuations. "Things" enter into the picture, of course, since there can be no valuation without things to be valued. But the essence and the driving force of human action, and therefore of the human market economy, are the valuations of individuals. Action is the result of choice among alternatives, and choice reflects values, that is, individual preferences among these alternatives. Individual valuations are the direct subject matter of the theories of utility and of welfare. Utility theory analyzes the laws of the values and choices of an individual; welfare theory discusses the relationship between the values of many individuals, and the consequent possibilities of a scientific conclusion on the "social" desirability of various alternatives. Both theories have lately been foundering in stormy seas. Utility theory is galloping off in many different directions at once; welfare theory, after reaching the heights of popularity among economic theorists, threatens to sink, sterile and abandoned, into oblivion.
Article
The present paper attempts to trace out the implications of the libertarian philosophy for the proper relationship between an inhabitant of a country, and its unjust government.Part I of this paper includes section 2, in which the stage is set for answering this challenging question, section 3, in which the essence of the state is discussed, section 4, in which libertarian punishment theory is introduced and the beginning of section 5, in which the concept of the libertarian Nuremberg trial is explored, and in 5a. the assumption that all citizens are guilty of the crimes of the unjust state is rejected.In Part II of this paper, we begin with section 5b. which considers the possibility that all and only minions of the unjust state are guilty for its crimes, in a continuation of our libertarian Nuremberg trial analysis, and 5c. introduces libertarian ruling class theory. Section 6 traces out the proper relations between the subjects and the unjust government, section 7 asks if it is ever legitimate to disrupt such an institution, and we conclude in section 8.
Article
"As he usually does, Professor Buchanan has produced an interesting and provocative piece of work. [Cost and Choice] starts off as an essay in the history of cost theory; the central ideas of the book are traced to Davenport and Knight in the United States, and to a series of distinguished writers associated at various times with the London School of Economics. The author emerges from this discussion with what can be described as the ultimate in subjectivist cost doctrines. . . . Economists should learn the lessons offered to us in this little book—and learn them well. It can save them from serious errors."—William J. Baumol, Journal of Economic Literature
Army admits live ammo used
  • David N Bresnahan
BRESNAHAN, DAVID N. (1999), "Army admits live ammo used." WorldNetDaily, February 17;
The General Implications of Subjectivism in Economics
  • James M Buchanan
L.S.E. Essays on Cost. New York: New York University Press BUCHANAN, JAMES M. (1969), Cost and Choice: An Inquiry into Economic Theory. Chicago: Markham BUCHANAN, JAMES M. (1979), "The General Implications of Subjectivism in Economics", in: What Should Economists Do? Indianapolis: Liberty Press DILORENZO, THOMAS J. (1990), "The Subjectivist Roots of James Buchanan's Economics". The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 4, pp. 180-195
Radical Privatization and Other Libertarian Conundrums
  • Walter E Block
BLOCK, WALTER E. (2002), "Radical Privatization and Other Libertarian Conundrums". The International Journal of Politics and Ethics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 165-175
Human Action, Scholars’ Edition Auburn: Mises Institute
  • Ludwig Von