Block conflating individual self-defense with collectivist state action

In addition to his ahistorical evidence for “Israel’s” claims to land in Israel/Judea, and appeals to collectivist, group ownership notions, also key to Walter Block’s defense of Israel’s actions against Palestinians in recent years is his argument its military actions are self-defense. That this is compatible with libertarian principles since libertarianism is not anti-war, it is only opposed to wars of aggression.

Block argues that just as individuals have a right to self-defense, so do nation-states. Even if they are criminal gangs. And even if they necessarily violate individual rights and the non-aggression principle when waging war: by taxation and conscription of their own citizens; by collateral damage against innocent civilians on the enemy side. I explained this in Ammous vs. Block on Israel.

Now Block is back, repeating the same argument: Walter E. Block and Oded J.K. Faran, “Self-defense and its libertarian enemies,” Walter’s Newsletter (substack) (July 2, 2026). As a friend said,

It’s a waste of time to pay attention to Block. He believes that whoever has the last word wins every debate, and he never stops talking. See Karen Kwiatkowski’s article today on LewRockwell.com about her estimate of over a million deaths in Gaza and the behavior of the IDF.¹ Only a liar and a lunatic would claim that this was all “fighting Hamas” without harming civilians. Also, the IDF has targeted civilians. It’s not just that modern bombs cause “collateral damage.” Block would no doubt respond by saying everyone in Gaza, even babies, is using babies as shields so the IDF has no alternative but genocide. Yeah, very Rothbardian! The notion that Rothbard would endorse all of this—as Milei does by the way—is insane. Block has always been a deranged Randian Zionist disguised in Austrian clothing.

Of course Rothbard would not agree with this. See his “War, Peace, and the State,” … arguing that (pp. 123–124):

with modern weapons there can be no pinpointing whatever. …  [A]ll of the consequences of inter-territorial war make it almost inevitable that inter-State war will involve aggression by each side against the innocent civilians—the private individuals—of the other. This inevitability becomes absolute with modern weapons of mass destruction.” And thus, “State wars are always to be condemned. … [T[he overriding consideration for the libertarian is the condemnation of any State participation in war. (( See also Stephan Kinsella, “Rothbard: Was the American Revolution Radical?“, PFS Blog (June 30, 2026); Thomas J. DiLorenzo, “The Inspiring and Courageous Intellect of Murray Rothbard,” in Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment. ))

On the “shields” issue, see my notes from KOL493 | Rothbard’s Greatest Hits: A Personal Mix Tape (Porto, Portugal):

Shooting the Hostage: some have argued that if a bad guy has a hostage and he is shooting a you, you have the right to shoot the hostage in self defense. Rothbard argued that this would be murder:

• “There is an important philosophical error that [Eric] Mack makes about free-market defense agencies that is quite relevant to our concerns. He maintains that if A uses B as an innocent shield to aggress against C, it is perfectly legitimate for C to shoot B. The problem here is that Mack forgets about the rights of B. Suppose, after all, that B has hired his own defense agency sworn to defend his life and property, and that, for some empirical reason, the agency can’t get to A; would it not then be perfectly legitimate for B or his agent to shoot C in self-defense? The answer, of course, is yes.”
  • Rothbard, “Reason Watch,” Libertarian Review 6, no. 4 (August 1977): 10–13; published as “Libertarians Must Never Warm to the Warfare State” at LewRockwell.com and “Libertarians Must Never Warm to the Warfare State” at Mises.org
  • also Rothbard, Murray N. 1984. “Eric Mack and the Anarchist Case for War.” The Libertarian Forum. Vol. 18, No. 5-6, pp. 3-7; http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1984/1984_05-06.pdf

***

For example, Block writes:

Suppose Canada or Mexico were to invade the United States tomorrow morning. The president could repel the attack immediately, the Constitution squarely behind him, and Congress could argue later about the wider war. No one calls that aggression.

Yes, we would. The Constitution is irrelevant, of course.² And the general government of the USA, in “repelling the attack,” would commit aggression in any number of ways: taxing citizens; inflating the money; conscripting men; killing innocent Canadians or Mexicans in “collateral damage.” When an individual engages in self defense he does not necessarily engage in any of these things; he does not harm any innocent person but only the aggressor, who deserves it.

In any case, I can’t manage the enthusiasm to repeat myself again at length so asked Grok to do it for me:

Summary of Block’s article (“Self-Defense and its Libertarian Enemies,” Walter Block & Oded J.K. Faran, Substack July 2, 2026 / JNS June 23, 2026):

Block and Faran argue that many libertarian institutions and writers have slipped into pacifism by opposing all war, which violates Rothbard’s clear distinction between just (defensive) and unjust (aggressive) war. Rothbard’s standard, which they quote: “A just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination.”

They contend that anti-war absolutism (e.g., at Antiwar.com, LewRockwell.com, Future of Freedom Foundation, Ron Paul Institute) treats defensive war as inherently illegitimate, excuses aggressors (such as Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023 invasion), and condemns defenders. Block was stripped of his Mises Institute fellowship and barred from LewRockwell.com precisely for defending Israel’s right to wage a just war to destroy Hamas without targeting innocents. They call this “pacifism in libertarian dress” and claim it inverts the non-aggression principle by undermining the bedrock right of self-defense.

Concise response Kinsella could give Block:

Block, you continue to elide the crucial distinction between individual self-defense (which is justified under the NAP and property rights) and state warfare. States are not rights-bearing entities; they are criminal organizations that fund their armies through aggression (taxation and conscription) and cannot conduct modern war without predictably killing innocents.

Rothbard himself made this point in “War, Peace, and the State.” Opposing state “defensive” wars is not pacifism—it is consistent application of libertarian principles to illegitimate collective actors. Cheering one state’s military campaign (even against a worse aggressor) while ignoring the property-rights violations, land monopolies, and civilian harm on both sides does not advance libertarianism. My position remains unchanged: individual self-defense yes; state warfare, no.

Resources

• Overview and resources: A Tour Through Walter Block’s Oeuvre
• Walter E. Block, Alan G. Futerman and Rafi Farber, “The Legal Status of the State of Israel” A Libertarian Approach,” The Indonesian Journal of International & Comparative Law III (June 2016): 435–553
• Walter E. Block and Alan G. “Futerman,” The Classical Liberal Case for Israel (Springer, 2021)
• Block and Futerman, “The Moral Duty to Destroy Hamas,” Wall Street Journal (Oct. 11, 2023): “Israel is entitled to do whatever it takes to uproot this evil, depraved culture that resides next to it.”
• Hoppe, “An Open Letter to Walter E. Block,” LewRockwell.com and HansHoppe.com (Jan. 31, 2024)
  • Walter E. Block and Alan G. Futerman, “Rejoinder to Hoppe on Israel vs. Hamas,” MEST Journal (2024)
• David Gordon and Wanjiru Njoya, “The Classical Liberal Case For Israel,” LewRockwell.com (Feb. 2, 2024; Mises.org version)
  • Alan G. Futerman and Walter E. Block, “Rejoinder to Gordon and Njoya on Israel and Libertarianism,” MESTE Journal (Position Paper) (2024).
• Kinsella, “Block on Israel, Self-Defense, Pacifism,” StephanKinsella.com (April 24, 2025)
• Kinsella, “Ammous vs. Block on Israel,” StephanKinsella.com (Jan. 29, 2024)
• Kinsella, “Van De Haar and Besada on Hayek, Mises, Rothbard on Zionism,” StephanKinsella.com (March 8, 2026)
• Walter E. Block and Oded J.K. Faran, “Self-defense and its libertarian enemies,” Walter’s Newsletter (substack) (July 2, 2026)

1. Karen Kwiatkowski, “Explaining the Numbers in Gaza,” LewRockwell.com (July 3, 2026). [↩]
2. Spooner on Knaves, Dupes, and the Constitution; and the Highwayman vs. The State; Rockwell on Hoppe on the Constitution as Expansion of Government Power; Down with the Fourth of July. [↩]