≡ Menu

Do We Really Want Three Billion Immigrants, Even If None of Them Are Criminals? No. Not I.

From: M

Sent: Friday, March 08, 2019 6:15 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Re: Open Borders and Strict Libertarian Theory

Dr. Block,

Pete, Pierre, and Pedro contract with an airline (outside the lines on a map known as the continental united States) for a trip from THAT airport to an airport in Anywhere, Continental united States. [note that the SAME thing is possible by automobile, bus, railroad, and ship — or some combination thereof.] They arrive at Anywhere airport, deplane, grab a sandwich, and exit. On the curb they hail a taxi or an uber or a bus or have a friend/acquaintance/party pick them up (contracting accordingly) … they drive to a hotel where they (again) contract with the proprietor for a room. The next day, they again hail a taxi or an uber or a bus or have a friend/acquaintance/party pick them up (contracting accordingly) and travel to a business. At the business, they contract with the owner and execute said contract accordingly. Where did *any* of these gentlemen enter/attempt to enter anyone’s property without permission? Sincerely, M

Dear M:

But, one of these three is a rape-fugee! Is that not a problem? Also, suppose instead of only 3, there are 3 billion of them, all innocent. Ok, they all get permission to land in a big empty private area in the middle of Nevada. Ok, so far. But, now, they want to get out onto the highways to go elsewhere. Right now, there are no private highways. Isn’t it a problem that 3 billion people, even innocent ones, will soon be intermingling with us? I think it is a devastating problem.

Block, Walter E. 2009. The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors; Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute; http://www.amazon.com/Privatization-Roads-And-Highways-Factors/dp/1279887303/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336605800&sr=1-1; available for free here: http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdf; http://mises.org/daily/3416; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/radical_privatization.pdf; audio: http://store.mises.org/Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Audiobook-P11005.aspx; http://www.audible.com/pd/Business/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Audiobook/B0167IT18K?tag=misesinsti-20; http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=bf16b152ccc444bdbbcc229e4&id=6cbc90577b&e=54244ea97d

http://www.sanfranciscoreviewofbooks.com/2017/09/book-review-privatization-of-roads-and.html

Best regards,

Walter

Share

2:01 am on April 19, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Libertarian Theory Applied to Children, Animals

From: E
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 5:03 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: do parents “own” children?

Walter:

I was hoping you would jump in on the Lew Rockwell blog on the “legal obligation to feed their children”.

My thoughts would be more towards Rothbard’s on no positive obligations. I tend to think that your idea of Guardianship makes sense here. If you don’t feed your children, then you should lose guardianship rights – different from ownership rights. If you don’t want to feed your children, then anyone who is willing to step up, should then be able to adopt your children our from under you.

And also, if nobody want’s your children, then you should be able to leave them to die – perhaps you should have to inform others of your decision to permit adopters to rescue the child before he/she dies.

But, I don’t believe we own our children.

Also, do you own a pet dog or are you a guardian? Must you feed your dog, or not torture it etc. Can you leave your dog in the desert to die?

Regards, E

Dear E:

In my view, libertarianism concerns itself only with intra human relationships, not human and animal. I think you can own your dog, cat, etc. If you torture your pet, you are really evil (I say this as a non libertarian), but not a criminal, and, the function of libertarianism is to distinguish the criminal from the noncriminal acts, not nice acts from truly heinous ones.

We fully agree on the children issue. Here are some of my publications on that topic:

Block, Walter E. 2014. “Rozeff on Zwolinski; Block on Rozeff.” April 28;

https://archive.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/rozeff-on-zwolinski-block-on-rozeff/ (starve child? Positive rights?).

Smith, Edward, Jordan Reel and Walter E. Block. 2014. “The Natural Rights of Children” International Journal of Health Policy and Management. Vol. 2, No. 2, February, pp. 85-89; http://www.ijhpm.com/?_action=article&vol=602

December 9, 2013. Debate: Walter E. Block and Stefan Molyneux, Freedomain Radio on spanking children. Michael DeMarco; operations@freedomainradio.com; skype: michaelmdemarco; 716-533-2171; Video: http://youtu.be/EgCmoVbdYtE

MP3: http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2552_Walter_Block_Debate.mp3

Block, Walter E. and Michael Fleischer. 2010. “How Would An Anarchist Society Handle Child Abuse?” October 13; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block167.html

Block, Walter E. 2015. “Expiration of private property rights.” The Journal of Philosophical Economics. Vol. VIII, Issue 2, Spring; http://www.jpe.ro/?id=revista&p=410;

http://www.jpe.ro/pdf.php?id=7114

Block, Walter E. 2004. “Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children’s Rights,” International Journal of Social Economics; Vol. 31, No. 3, pp 275-286; http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do?containerType=Issue&containerId=18709; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf; https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/03068290410518256; https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03068290410518256?fullSc=1&journalCode=ijse

Block, Walter E. 2003.  “Libertarianism vs. Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz,” Reason Papers, Vol. 26, Summer, pp. 39-62; http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf  Nambla, child sexuality, child abuse

Block, Walter E. 1991 [1976]. Defending the Undefendable, New York: Fleet Press, first printing 1976, second printing 1980, third printing 1985; New York: Fox and Wilkes, fourth printing, 1991; chapter on “The Litterer” translated into Italian as “L’imbrattatore Di Luoghi Pubblici: Un Eroe”, in Claustrofobia, March 1978, No. 33, pp. 19-24; chapter on “The Employer of Child Labor” reprinted in Libertarian Familist, Vol. 11, No. 8, October 1992, pp. 1-4

April 27, 2015. Michael FreeMan [mailto:sithfit138@gmail.com]; Josh Davis;

https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/hoaevent/AP36tYf_4FiPkEMZZUXkwGLSWokcvU1VB6JoPapQz1DLdLfXJFYM0Q?authuser=0&hl=en;  how I became a libertarian, minimum wage, the future of higher education, anarchism versus monarchism, children’s rights, pro choice versus pro life, kid’s rights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIwYRxVlKTQ; http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/05/walter-block-on-how-he-became.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TargetLiberty+%28Target+Liberty%29

Spanking children:

December 9, 2013. Debate: Walter Block and Stefan Molyneux, Freedomain Radio on spanking children. Michael DeMarco; operations@freedomainradio.com; skype: michaelmdemarco; 716-533-2171; Video: http://youtu.be/EgCmoVbdYtE;

MP3: http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2552_Walter_Block_Debate.mp3; http://libertariannerds.com/2016/11/19/wizardly-wisdom-reality-anxiety-ep-4-darien-sumner-from-bumblingbees-net/

Block, Walter E. 2016. Starving Child, Part III: Spanking Children; November 5;

Starving Child, Part III: Spanking Children

Mosquito, Bionic. 2016. “Walter Hits One Out of the Park.” November 5;

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/11/walter-hits-one-out-of-park.html

July 16, 2017. Vancouver, BC, Canada. Walter Block debates Tim Moen, Leader of the Canadian Libertarian Party. https://www.facebook.com/events/1800169280300222/

436 W Pender Street, downtown Vancouver at 2:30pm.  Topic: Is spanking children compatible with libertarianism? Contact: Victor Pross: artpross@hotmail.com; or go here:

https://www.facebook.com/events/1800169280300222/1831218550528628/?acontext=%7B%22ref%22%3A%2229%22%2C%22ref_notif_type%22%3A%22admin_plan_mall_activity%22%2C%22action_history%22%3A%22null%22%7D&notif_t=admin_plan_mall_activity&notif_id=1498028247599964. Open to the public. https://youtu.be/J6Kto38tk1I

July 21, 2013. Interview with Steve Patterson, FEE

http://libertariannerds.com/2016/11/19/wizardly-wisdom-reality-anxiety-ep-4-darien-sumner-

from-bumblingbees-net/

Best regards,

Walter

Share

1:36 pm on April 15, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

The Libertarian View on Libel

There is only one question that interest the libertarian, qua libertarian, regarding libel law: should malicious, lying libel, gossip, be prohibited by law. And, there is only one answer: no. For a compelling case on this matter, read what Mr. Libertarian has to say about it.

Share

1:35 am on April 15, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Child Abandonment, Positive Obligations and Libertarian Theory

From: E
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 11:51 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: On child abandonment….

Dr. Block,

In your discussion on Lew Rockwell, you state that the parent has no obligation to feed or even keep their child alive. You state that the parent does have anobligation to notify someone that they have no desire to care for the child, and you gave examples of the parent bringing the unwanted child to an orphanage or hospital. So the parent in your opinion is not obligated to care for the child, but is obligated not to abandon it.

I think I understand your premise here: A parent should not be forced by rule of law to take responsibility for his or her child, but it should be in Rothbard’s words, “a positive obligation” to care for the child. It seems to me a whole lot of hair splitting going on here. I would contend that the parent “only has a moral obligation to their children” is sadly deficient and defective.

Something that I have observed in this theory of Rothbard’s and now also yours, that a parent has a right to abandon his child is incomplete. Where does the concept of parental authority come into play? How about parental duty to the child? Where do these concepts come in when we are discussing the “rights” of a parent or for that matter a child?

A gentleman I happened to be discussing the abortion issue with introduced me to an old French law code tracing back to Napoleon, which states that parents have authority over children. He stated “they prefer the concept of authority to responsibility.” He went on to say: “This authority carries with it the duty of care. They go together in that law…This gives rise to what we in America tend to call responsibility, not authority. But it’s of interest that the French law has this doctrine linking the two: authority(responsibility) and duty. In many other situations, people have authority in jobs and duties come with it. Hence the French application to parents and children is not exceptional.”

In summary, it seems to me that leaving out theses key concepts of authority (responsibility) and duty, when it comes to the nurturing or not nurturing, as the case may be, of our children gives us a flawed perspective of the issue.

Regards, E

Dear E:

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. I regard the no positive obligations as an integral part of libertarianism. You, I think, don’t.

You might want to read this, in which, I think, I fully respond to your very valid and very important concerns:

Block, Walter E. 2016. “Forestalling, positive obligations and the Lockean and Blockian provisos: Rejoinder to Stephan Kinsella.” Ekonomia Wroclaw Economic Review.http://ekon.sjol.eu/category/22-3-2016-529

Best regards,

Walter

Share

4:26 pm on April 13, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

On Attempted (And Thus Unsuccessful) Murder, a Ticklish Question for NAP Libertarians, Since It Does Not, Clearly, Violate the NAP

From: S

Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 8:07 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Attempted Murder Question

Walter:

Regarding your LRC postings on attempted murder, I think the more interesting point to think through is what should be the punishment for a failed attempted murder, assuming the crime is proven.

If libertarian punishment policy is based on proportionality and restitution, then should there be any punishment levied on an attempted murderer with whom the proposed victim has never interacted?  Since the attempt failed, and the proposed victim never even knew about the attempt, and thus did not suffer emotionally, why should the perpetrator be punished?  There is no loss, and thus nothing to compensate, and a proportional response would mean the proposed victim could make a failed attempt on the perpetrator without the latter knowing (obviously absurd).  (Of course, the bigger question in this whole scenario is how such an attempt would have been uncovered in the first place…)

Modifying the facts slightly, if there is a failed attempt, but the proposed victim did interact with the perpetrator, and thus did suffer emotionally, then I can see how the punishment could be that the proposed victim has the right to cause a similar emotional suffering in the perpetrator.  However, this would be quite ineffective, since the perpetrator would expect that the proposed victim is not going to “go all the way,” and thus it might be tough to “pay back” the emotional suffering.  Thus the proposed victim’s main form of punishment would be compensation for mental suffering.

In either case, the punishments would be quite different from those for actual murder. S

Dear S:

I think the law should treat the attempted murderer of whom the victim is unaware, far more harshly. After all, he did threaten his target. True, his target was, is, unaware of this, but I think that is irrelevant. Other people are aware of this threat, and are also harmed by it (they might think that if the attempted murder of whom the victim is unware can get away with this threat of his, then I’m in more danger than I otherwise thought). Of course, if no on is aware of the attempted murder, then and only then does the perpetrator get away with his evil deed.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

4:38 pm on April 11, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

A Libertarian Perspective on Libel and Property in Reputation; Does the Calculation Problem Explain Politics?

Dear J:

There are several ideas here. I disagree with you that reputation can’t be bought and sold. It is. It is called good will. Firms sell for more than their capital equipment based on that type of reputation.

On the other hand, no one owns his reputation, since it consists of the thoughts of other people, and none of us own the thoughts of other people. I make this point in my book Defending I, in the chapter on libel.

Also, I don’t see how this issue impacts on the case for anarchism, which I support.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics

Loyola University New Orleans

6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

Skype: Walter.Block4

tel: (504) 864-7934

From: J

Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 2:17 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Re: Does the calculation problem explain politics?

The historical review of the agreed values of voluntary exchanges using money is

the best way to anticipate an agreeable value for future planning.

Unfortunately, some goods cannot be exchanged at all but are nonetheless

essential for mutual agreement in ordinal value for any cooperation to happen.

Reputation regarding the evaluation of goods, services, and the behavior of

others is one such non-economic good.

If reputation could be exchanged with the same ease as money, or if a commonly

agreed reputation could persist in spite of aggression, there would tend to be

no state for all cooperation depends in part on having shared non-economic

values to proceed but systematic aggressive cooperation also depends on the

potency of aggression to deprecate voluntary valuation which forces acceptance

of the lesser-of-two-evils.

Is this an old or fallacious idea?

Thank you for your time,

J

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 1:10 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear J

Melt this down to 150 words, and I’ll respond

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics

6363 St. Charles Avenue

Loyola University New Orleans

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

tel: 504 864 7934

skype: Walter.Block4

From: J

Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 5:26 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Does the calculation problem explain politics?

I have been puzzled by some paradox. There seems to be nothing that government intervention improves, yet it always tends to dominate up to the point of its own collapse or some mysterious forces that limit it only in some places and times. As an anarchist, I’m bothered by the fact that anarchy isn’t the predominant form of all institutions and I have struggled to explain why government exists and what can be done to stop its pernicious effects.

This is part of a multi-part response to try to resolve this. I want to make sure I get my premises correct before proceeding. I am considering the possibility that the arguments around the economic calculation problem explain why there is government and politics, and suggest a solution toward anarchy. I have shared with some libertarian friends who sometimes find my arguments compelling. Perhaps you can rebut the argument or add to it.

I have been thinking of the socialist/economic calculation problem that Mises is so famous for discovering. I know that at small scale communities, smaller than Dunbar’s limit, interpersonal valuation of subjective utility are made to an extent that a stable tribal or Amish society is possible. I wouldn’t claim any methodological soundness of the valuations, I’m just clarifying my thoughts so you might be able to clear up something for us in our NH community. Large communities, like cities must collaborate largely in a decentralized and anonymous way using money to establish the correct ordinal valuation of goods continuously. It’s clear that a few factors are necessary to avoid the socialist calculation problem:

1.         a lack of money manipulation – sound money

2.         a lack of commerce manipulation – liberal exchange of goods

3.         property rights enforcement – exchange is no good if goods are simply stolen, taxed, extorted, or otherwise absconded afterwards

4.         liberal (in the classical sense) exchange of goods using money

I may have missed something or gotten something wrong. For my concerns what matters is that there are certain rules to follow otherwise there is no practical/effective way to order a complex society using economic goods in a sustainable way. To the extent that the rules are followed or to the extent that the economic activity happens outside the confined domain of voluntary exchange for money requires inferences which are ideally based on reverse imputation (valuation based on observed demonstrated preference). These are are necessarily costly transactions to arrive at and never as accurate as reverse imputation. Also, eventually a tipping point is reached and society regresses toward the Crusoe economics of small primitive tribal societies despite their mutual preference otherwise. To correctly place a rubber ducky on the value scale for a city of inhabitants without any sound money, without demonstrated preference, or property rights of the rubber ducky, would take god-like investigative efforts, the valuation couldn’t be fully trusted regardless of the investigative effort,

Here is the first premise: in order for goods to be usefully compared, in ordinal utility, at every size of society, which is measured in terms of individual people, demands voluntary transactions, using sound money, of goods having stable and objectively agreed upon property rights.

I would paraphrase the finding of the economic calculation problem as to the extent any combination of sound money, property rights, and voluntary exchange is forgone is the extent to which inter-personal valuation is more disagreeable. Am I wrong to see this as something that we could order? It seems that socialism fails less miserably in smaller communities suggesting it has diseconomies of scale more than a categorical distinction in effective outcomes from voluntary markets with property rights and sound money. My argument depends on the premise that there is an objective difference between prohibiting all transactions at all times, and prohibiting all but one type of transaction. I don’t think we can say one type of manipulation is more harmful because all manipulation makes comparison difficult or impossible, but we can say less of the same manipulation is better. Once someone destroys your rubber ducky, determining the “correct” remuneration is costly, error prone, and unstable because we are left with the fundamental problem of interpersonal valuations of subjective utility or preference. If the value of money constantly fluctuates from regulation, then likewise remuneration is difficult to assess correctly.

The second premise is that the concomitant complexity or difficulty of valuations that arise from departing from voluntary exchange, property rights, and sound money can be compared ordinally per each departure.

So we could agree that determining the “correct” remuneration for destroyed rubber duckies is less difficult when there are more voluntary transactions of subjectively the same rubber ducky as per the victim, ceteris paribus, than in situations where all people simply abstain from the exchange of rubber duckies.

The only other premise needed is that there are a classification of goods that are by their very nature impossible to directly and objective compare but are nonetheless necessary to exchange in a complex society.

Reputation for respect of others’ property rights is not something that can be exchanged like rubber duckies, but it can be easily destroyed, and without it we are left dealing with the complexities of interpersonal comparisons of subjective utility because nobody will voluntarily exchange with people that cannot be trusted.

I believe this paradox can be resolved in favor of anarchists and doing so will yield a solution to the sate. What are your thoughts? Am I simply unaware of some relevant literature? Did I assume an unsupported premise?

Thank you in advance for any time you devote to helping me understand this,

Justin Hale

Share

1:02 pm on April 11, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Consent To Governmental Taxation? No. Einstein Refutation? No

From: K
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 12:51 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Consent, Refutation of Einstein

Dear Dr. Block,

Hi I have a question concerning coercion. So if the state takes my income every year, and I give it to them because if I don’t, I would go to jail, wouldn’t that mean I still technically “consented” in terms of Austrian economics and preference rankings? Because if I did give them my money, even though I didn’t consent in my mind, is it still theft because people don’t know what I am thinking and they can only see my preferences through my actions?

Have you refuted this article by Einstein? I read this and I thought that it would be awesome if you wrote an article refuting it or something. The article itself is hilarious though. K

Dear K:

From a libertarian point of view, you acted under duress and are thus not a criminal. From an Austrian point of view, we may indeed infer that you preferred to give money to the govt, rather than go to jail.  I’ve not written a refutation of Einstein on socialism. He was an economic illiterate. I don’t enjoy shooting fish in a barrel. I focus on more worthy opponents.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

1:46 am on April 11, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

How Would An Anarcho-Capitalist Respond to Objectivist Yaron Brooks Critique?

From: A
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 3:25 PM
To: Walter Block <walterblock@business.loyno.edu>; walter block <wblock@loyno.edu>
Subject: The Yaron Brook position on anarchy

Dear dr Block,

how do you respond to the position of dr Yaron Brook presented in this Youtube clip?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGVRXavK-A4

I theorize you are one of the ‘evil Murray Rothbard type anarchists ‘ Mr Brook refers to in the description of his youtube-clip. 😉

I have to admit, that in many passages in his presentation, his logic feels rather fuzzy to me, but then again, it find it hard to imagine how an anarchistic model would work substantially better then the ‘limited-government’ model of dr. Brook.

Can you suggest a paper or a video or webpage in which is dealt properly with this issue?

Kind regards, A

Dear A:

Yes, I am indeed one o of the “evil Murray Rothbard type anarchists” mentioned by Yaron Brook, and a proud one at that. I don’t intend to write you a refutation of the statist views of this Objectivist. Instead, I content myself with sending you a bibliography, contributed to by dozens of “evil Murray Rothbard type anarchists” up to and including the arch devil himself, Murray Rothbard.

Anderson and Hill, 1979; Benson, 1989, 1990; Block, 2007, 2010, 2011; Block v. Helfeld, 2014; Casey, 2010, 2018; DiLorenzo, 2010; Friedman, 1989; Gregory, 2011; Guillory & Tinsley, 2009; Hasnas, 1995; Heinrich, 2010; Higgs, 2009, 2012; Hoppe, 2008, 2011; Huebert, 2010; King, 2010; Kinsella, 2009; Long, 2004; McConkey, 2013; Molyneux, 2008; Murphy, 2005; Paul, 2008; Rockwell, 2013; Rothbard, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1998; Smith, 2017; Spooner, 1870; Stringham, 2007; Tannehill, 1984; Tinsley, 1998-1999; Wenzel, 2013; Woods, 2014.

Anderson, Terry and Hill, P.J. 1979. “An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 3: 9-29; http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Benson, Bruce L. 1989. Enforcement of Private Property Rights in Primitive Societies: Law Without Government,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 1, Winter, pp. 1-26; http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_1.pdf

Benson, Bruce L. 1990. “Customary Law with Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing Justice: A Description of a Modern System of Law and Order without State Coercion.” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 2,” pp. 25-42; http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_2.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2007. “Anarchism and Minarchism; No Rapprochement Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring, pp. 91-99; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_5.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2011. “Governmental inevitability: reply to Holcombe.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 22; pp. 667-688; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_34.pdf

Block, Walter E. and Michael Fleischer. 2010. “How Would An Anarchist Society Handle Child Abuse?” October 13; https://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block167.html

Casey, Doug. 2010. “Doug Casey on Anarchy.” March 31; http://www.caseyresearch.com/cwc/doug-casey-anarchy

May 11, 2014. Walter Block debates Jan Helfeld on anarchism versus minimal government; Jan Helfeld <janhelfeld@gmail.com>; Daniel Rothschild daniel.y.rothschild@gmail.comhttp://youtu.be/58-YSENYuVMhttps://archive.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/walter-block-debates-anarcho-capitalism-vs-limited-government/http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/walter-block-vs-jan-helfeld-on-anarchy.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hsKmqXy55E

Casey, Doug. 2018. “Anarchy and Voluntaryism.” February 7;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/02/doug-casey/anarchy-and-voluntaryism/

DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 2010. “The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality.” The Independent Review, v. 15, n. 2, Fall 2010, pp. 227–239; http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_02_4_dilorenzo.pdf

Friedman, David. 1989. The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, La Salle, IL: Open Court, 2nd ed. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html

Gregory, Anthony. 2011. “Abolish the Police.” May 26; https://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory213.html

Guillory, Gil & Patrick Tinsley. 2009. “The Role of Subscription-Based Patrol and Restitution in the Future of Liberty,” Libertarian Papers 1, 12; http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/12-the-role-of-subscription-based-patrol-and-restitution-in-the-future-of-liberty/

Hasnas, John. 1995. “The myth of the rule of law.” Wisconsin Law Review 199;

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

Heinrich, David J. 2010. “Justice for All Without the State.” The Libertarian Standard. May 6; http://www.libertarianstandard.com/articles/david-j-heinrich/justice-for-all-without-the-state/

Higgs, Robert. 2009. “Why We Couldn’t Abolish Slavery Then and Can’t Abolish Government Now.” August 20; https://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs128.html

Higgs, Robert. 2012. “What is the point of my libertarian anarchism?” January 16;

https://archive.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs180.html

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2008. “Reflections on the Origin and the Stability of the State.” June 23; https://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe18.html

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2011. “State or Private Law Society.” April 10;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe26.1.html

Huebert, Jacob. 2010. Libertarianism Today. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger

King, Seth. 2010. “Daily Anarchist Interviews Walter E. Block,” September 9;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block165.html

Kinsella, Stephan. 2009. “The Irrelevance of the Impossibility of Anarcho-Libertarianism.” August 20; http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/20/the-irrelevance-of-the-impossibility-of-anarcho-libertarianism/

Long, Roderick. 2004. “Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections” https://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html

McConkey, Michael. 2013. “Anarchy, Sovereignty, and the State of Exception: Schmitt’s Challenge.” The Independent Review, v. 17, n. 3, Winter, pp. 415–428. http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_17_03_05_mcconkey.pdf

Molyneux, Stefan. 2008. “The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives.”

http://www.mail-archive.com/libertarianenterprise@yahoogroups.com/msg02056.html

Murphy, Robert P. 2005.  “But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?” July 7; http://mises.org/story/1855http://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

Paul, Ron. 2008. “On the Inner Contradictions of Limited Government.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o4kiWpqoeg&feature=PlayList&p=9645F6A68683F679&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4http://libertyupward.com/ron-paul-religious-icon/

Rockwell, Lew. 2013. “What Would We Do Without the State?” March 31;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/134782.html

Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. For a New Liberty, Macmillan, New York; http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

In the view of Rothbard (1973, emphasis added by present author): “For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as ‘members of the government’) has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it ‘war’; then ennobled the mass slaughter that ‘war’ involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it ‘conscription’ in the ‘national service.’ For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it ‘taxation.’ In fact, if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place.”

Rothbard, Murray N. 1975. “Society Without a State.” The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January; https://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

Rothbard, Murray N. 1977. “Do you hate the state?” The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 10, No. 7, July; https://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html

“…there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State – any State – is a predatory gang of criminals.”

“The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.”

Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

Paul, Ron. 2008. “On the Inner Contradictions of Limited Government.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o4kiWpqoeg&feature=PlayList&p=9645F6A68683F679&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4

Smith, George F. 2017. “The Patsy and the Culprit.” June 8;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/06/george-f-smith/the-patsy-and-the-culprit/

Spooner, Lysander. 1966[1870]. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority and A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard, Larkspur, Colorado: Rampart College; http://jim.com/treason.htm

Stringham, Edward, ed. 2007. Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice, Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Tannehill, Morris and Linda Tannehill. [1970] 1984. The Market for Liberty, New York: Laissez Faire Books; https://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/tannehill1.html

Tinsley, Patrick. 1998-1999. “With Liberty and Justice for All: A Case for Private Police,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter, pp. 95-100; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf

Wenzel, Robert. 2013. “Robert Ringer’s Strawman Anarchist.” February 2;

https://archive.lewrockwell.com/wenzel/wenzel211.html

Woods, Tom. 2014. “Four things the state is not.” July 29;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/no_author/4-things-the-state-is-not/

private police: private army:

Gregory, 2011; Guillory, & Tinsley. 2009; Hoppe, 2011; Huebert, 2010; Murphy, 2005; Rothbard, 1973, 1975, 1998 [1982];  Stringham, 2007;  Tannehills[1970] 1984; Tinsley, 1998-1999; Wiśniewski, 2014; Wollstein, 1969; Woolridge, 1970.

Gregory, Anthony. 2011. “Abolish the Police.” May 26; https://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory213.html

Guillory, Gil & Patrick Tinsley. 2009. “The Role of Subscription-Based Patrol and Restitution in the Future of Liberty,” Libertarian Papers 1, 12; http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/12-the-role-of-subscription-based-patrol-and-restitution-in-the-future-of-liberty/

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2011. “State or Private Law Society.” April 10;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe26.1.html

Huebert, Jacob. 2010. Libertarianism Today. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger

Murphy, Robert P. 2005.  “But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?” July 7; http://mises.org/story/1855http://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. For a New Liberty, Macmillan, New York; http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

Rothbard, Murray N. 1975. “Society Without a State.” The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January; https://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

Stringham, Edward, ed. 2007. Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice, Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Tannehill, Morris and Linda Tannehill. [1970] 1984. The Market for Liberty, New York: Laissez Faire Books; https://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/tannehill1.html

Tinsley, Patrick. 1998-1999. “With Liberty and Justice for All: A Case for Private Police,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter, pp. 95-100; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf

Wiśniewski, Jakub Bożydar. 2014. “Defense as a private good in a competitive order” Review of Social and Economic Issues, Vol. 1, No. 1, Summer, pp. 2-35;

http://rsei.rau.ro/images/V1N1/Jakub%20Bozydar%20Wisniewski.pdf

Wollstein, Jarret B. 1969. Society Without Coercion. In Society Without Government. New York: Arno Press

Woolridge, William C. 1970. Uncle Sam the Monopoly Man, New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House

Friedman, Peden, Benson

La Boettie Hoppe, Murray’s fairy tale; Spooner, Tucker

Biblio on anarchism:

Anderson and Hill, 1979; Benson, 1989, 1990; Block, 2007; de Wolf, 2004; DiLorenzo, 2010;  Guillory & Tinsley, 2009; Hasnas, 1995; Higgs, 2009; Hoppe, 2008; King, 2010; Kinsella, 2009; Long, 2004; McKonkey, 2013; Molyneux, undated; Murphy, 2005; Olson, 1979; Rothbard,  1973, 1977, 1998; Scott, 2009; Stringham, 2007; Tannehill, 1984; Tinsley, 1998-1999; Woolridge, 1970.

Anderson, Terry and Hill, P.J. 1979. “An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 3: 9-29; http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Benson, Bruce L. 1989. Enforcement of Private Property Rights in Primitive Societies: Law Without Government,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 1, Winter, pp. 1-26; http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_1.pdf

Benson, Bruce L. 1990. “Customary Law with Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing Justice: A Description of a Modern System of Law and Order without State Coercion. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 2,” pp. 25-42; http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_2.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2007. “Anarchism and Minarchism; No Rapprochement Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring, pp. 91-99; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_5.pdf

Block, Walter E. and Michael Fleischer. 2010. “How Would An Anarchist Society Handle Child Abuse?” October 13; https://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block167.html

de Wolf, Aschwin, ed. 2004. Ordered Anarchy: Festschrift Essays in Honor of Anthony de Jasay. Arlington, VA: Singularity Press.

DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 2010. “The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality.” The Independent Review, v. 15, n. 2, Fall 2010, pp. 227–239; http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_02_4_dilorenzo.pdf

Guillory, Gil & Patrick Tinsley. 2009. “The Role of Subscription-Based Patrol and Restitution in the Future of Liberty,” Libertarian Papers 1, 12; http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/12-the-role-of-subscription-based-patrol-and-restitution-in-the-future-of-liberty/

Hasnas, John. 1995. “The myth of the rule of law.” Wisconsin Law Review 199;

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

Heinrich, David J. 2010. “Justice for All Without the State.” The Libertarian Standard. May 6;

http://www.libertarianstandard.com/articles/david-j-heinrich/justice-for-all-without-the-state/

Higgs, Robert. 2009. “Why We Couldn’t Abolish Slavery Then and Can’t Abolish Government Now.” August 20; https://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs128.html

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2008. “Reflections on the Origin and the Stability of the State.” June 23; https://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe18.html

King, Seth. 2010. “Daily Anarchist Interviews Walter E. Block,” September 9;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block165.html

Kinsella, Stephan. 2009. “The Irrelevance of the Impossibility of Anarcho-Libertarianism.” August 20; http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/20/the-irrelevance-of-the-impossibility-of-anarcho-libertarianism/

Long, Roderick. 2004. “Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections” https://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html

Molyneux, Stefan. 2008. “The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives.”

http://www.mail-archive.com/libertarianenterprise@yahoogroups.com/msg02056.html

Murphy, Robert P. 2005.  “But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?” July 7; http://mises.org/story/1855http://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

Olson, Charles B. 1979. “Law in Anarchy.” Libertarian Forum. Vol. XII, No. 6, November-December, p. 4; http://64.233.167.104/u/Mises?q=cache:gFT18_ZusWoJ:www.mises.org/journals/lf/1979/1979_11-12.pdf+two+teeth+for+a+tooth&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. For a New Liberty, Macmillan, New York; http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

Rothbard, Murray N. 1977. “Do you hate the state?” The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 10, No. 7, July; https://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html

Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

Scott, James C. 2009. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia, Yale University Press, New Haven & London.

Stringham, Edward, ed. 2007. Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice, Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Tannehill, Morris and Linda Tannehill. [1970] 1984. The Market for Liberty, New York: Laissez Faire Books; https://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/tannehill1.html

Tinsley, Patrick. 1998-1999. “With Liberty and Justice for All: A Case for Private Police,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter, pp. 95-100; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf

Woolridge, William C. 1970. Uncle Sam the Monopoly Man, New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House

*

Anarchism:: (scholarly)

Hoppe, 2008;; Rothbard, 1973, 1982; Tinsley, 1998-1999.

Anderson and Hill, 1979; Benson, 1989, 1990; Block, 2007, 2010; Hasnas, 1995; Hoppe, 2008; Rothbard,  1973, 1977, 1998; Stringham, 2007; Tannehill, 1984; Tinsley, 1998-1999.

Anderson, Terry and Hill, P.J. 1979. “An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 3: 9-29; http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Benson, Bruce L. 1989. Enforcement of Private Property Rights in Primitive Societies: Law Without Government,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 1, Winter, pp. 1-26; http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_1.pdf

Benson, Bruce L. 1990. “Customary Law with Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing Justice: A Description of a Modern System of Law and Order without State Coercion. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 2,” pp. 25-42; http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_2.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2007. “Anarchism and Minarchism; No Rapprochement Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring, pp. 91-99; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_5.pdf

de Wolf, Aschwin, ed. 2004. Ordered Anarchy: Festschrift Essays in Honor of Anthony de Jasay. Arlington, VA: Singularity Press.

Hasnas, John. 1995. “The myth of the rule of law.” Wisconsin Law Review 199;

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2008. “Reflections on the Origin and the Stability of the State.” June 23; https://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe18.html

Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. For a New Liberty, Macmillan, New York;

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

Stringham, Edward, ed. 2007. Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice, Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Tannehill, Morris and Linda Tannehill. [1970] 1984. The Market for Liberty, New York: Laissez Faire Books; https://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/tannehill1.html

Tinsley, Patrick. 1998-1999. “With Liberty and Justice for All: A Case for Private Police,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter, pp. 95-100; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf

Best regards,

Walter

Share

6:08 pm on April 10, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

What Is The Libertarian Analysis of Native People Murdering Missionaries?

(read from the bottom up)

From: Walter Block [mailto:wblock@loyno.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 12:40 PM
To: ‘P
Subject: RE: Sentinelese Ethics

Dear P:

On these assumptions of yours, the Sentinelese people have acted wrongfully, and should be held to the same standards as any other people. The friends of the missionary should invade that Island, and punish the few people who actually engaged in the murders.

Also, traditionally, in common law, if a boat or a plane crashes onto private property by accident, and these people are not otherwise bellicose, the land owners are not supposed to hurt them.

Best regards,

Walter

From: P
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2018 1:06 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Sentinelese Ethics

Dear Prof. Block

Thank you for your answer. I’m not a native English speaker, so I might have made my question confusing.

In the case of the Sentinelse people, as far as we know, they killed the missionary merely for setting foot on the island. I guess one could argue that the island is their property, but I don’t know if I can accept that they own the whole island just by living on it. We cannot know, but my guess is that they haven’t “mixed their labor with the land” of the whole island, and thus the question is whether he really has violated private property merely by coming to the island.

If we conclude that the Sentinelese people have acted wrongfully, what would a rightful punishment be? Since they are indigenous people, I think many people from more developed societies believe that they are without guilt. At least without the same guilt that you or I would have. They hold them to different standards, so to speak.

Sorry if my questions/comments are still confusing 🙂

Best regards,

P

Den 19. dec. 2018 kl. 00.01 skrev Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>:

Dear P:

I don’t fully understand the scenario you mention. As a professor, if I can’t answer a question, I pose another, and then answer that one. So, if A trespasses upon B’s property, and they are both private individuals, what should occur, so as to be compatible with libertarian law? B should politely say to A, please leave my property, you are trespassing on it. If B says, “sorry,” I didn’t realize, I’ll get right off, that’s the end of the matter. As they say in basketball, no harm, no foul. In law, de minimus; the law does not take into account trifles. But suppose A replies, tough, I’m staying right here. Then B would be justified in physically removing A from the premises, in the gentlest matter possible. Rubber, not lead bullets. A net, not a baseball bat. If B succeeds in removing this criminal from his premises, all’s well and good, except that now A is a criminal, and ought to be subject to libertarian punishment theory. Third scenario. B tries to remove A in the gentlest manner possible; A resists, forcefully, endangering B’s life. Then, may B use great force, even killing A in the process? B would be entirely justified in doing so, in my view.

Best regards,

Walter

From: P
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 8:09 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Sentinelese Ethics

Dear Prof. Block,

Not too long ago a missionary was killed by the indigenous Sentinelese. Speaking about this with my friends and family, it appears to me that they apply a specific type of ethics to this case. You see, most of them think that the Sentinelese were perfectly entitled to kill the missionary, since 1) it is illegal by Indian law to visit the island, 2) they should be kept isolated to preserve their culture and environment, and 3) they should be protected from diseases that they have not previously been exposed to. You could perhaps argue that the missionary’s visit was a violation of private property, but then again, I can’t see that murder is justifiable in this case for the type of offense committed by the missionary. If we can even really call it an offense.

What kind of ethics are applicable here, and how would we potentially go about seeking justice?

Best regards,

Patrick

Share

3:57 pm on April 8, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

The Entrapment Objection to Private Roads; Kicking A Ball Into Another’s Garden

Dear M:

I have written about both of those issues. See below.

Best regards,

Walter

From: M
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2019 12:09 PM
To:
Subject: Small questions from A

Dear Prof. Block,

I am looking for an answer to following questions:

1. If you own a room surrounded on every side (top and bottom incl.) by rooms owned by another, who doesn’t want to allow you passage,

  • how many times would you have the right to traverse from and to your room? (At least once to escape, for sure.)
  • does this right dictate that you should take the shortest, or the quickest route?

Kinsella, Stephan. 2007. “The Blockean Proviso.” September 11;

http://archive.mises.org/7127/the-blockean-proviso/http://blog.mises.org/?p=007127

Block’s Proviso: http://blog.mises.org/?p=007127]

Block, Walter E. 2016. “Forestalling, positive obligations and the Lockean and Blockian provisos: Rejoinder to Stephan Kinsella.” Ekonomia Wroclaw Economic Review.http://ekon.sjol.eu/category/22-3-2016-529

Block, Walter E. 2004. “Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children’s Rights,” International Journal of Social Economics; Vol. 31, No. 3, pp 275-286; http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do?containerType=Issue&containerId=18709http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf; https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/03068290410518256https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03068290410518256?fullSc=1&journalCode=ijse

2. How many times can you kick a ball into another’s garden, before you lose the right to the property in the ball? If one would never lose this right, wouldn’t it either make the private garden public to the extent that you could always go in to get your ball, or make the garden owner a slave, to the extent that he becomes your ball boy?

Block, Walter E. 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

Please do get back to me if either or both does not succeed, in your mind, in answering your very important questions.

Could you possibly name me any good references on the matter?

Sincere thanks for your time, and respectfully yours, M

Share

1:29 am on April 8, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }
RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Google+
http://walterblock.com/
Twitter