≡ Menu

Trip to Mexico Part 2

Dear Folks:

Here is the second installment regarding my upcoming trip to Mexico:

Bertha Pantoja Arias [email protected]

Ana Elisa Valentina Artigas Rovira [email protected]

Dear Mr. Block,

I hope this mail finds you well. I’m Bertha PantojaI, director of Caminos de la Libertad, from Mexico, writes to send you the invitation to receive the “A Life for Freedom” award.

I am attaching a letter of invitation from Sergio Sarmiento, our president, who a few weeks ago had the opportunity to interview you for TV Azteca.


Bertha Pantoja Arias

Directora ejecutiva

Caminos de la Libertad


5:19 am on May 24, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Trip to Mexico Part 1

Dear Folks:

My upcoming trip to Mexico started with this interview:


3:05 am on May 23, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

From: Milo

To: [email protected]

Subject: Reparations

Hi Walter,

As always you have a strong, nuanced argument.  I love and admire your ability to push principles to their limits and see what happens.

You assume that the expropriated value of the slave’s labor is 100% embedded in the property.  You need that assumption to claim the current owner owes 100% of the current property to the descendants of the slaves that worked on that property.

Given agreement on stolen property, consider these issues:

Suppose the stolen value of the slave labor was 100% embedded in the land, but now that particular land is worthless.  What then?

suppose the stolen value of the slave labor was 100% embedded in the land, but the increase in the real value of the land is due to subsequent improvements, the use of modern fertilizers and the use of newly developed hybrid seeds.   What part of the current value is owed?

Suppose the stolen value of the slave labor was 100% embedded in the land (as you posited), and when the slave owners died their N children shared equally in the estate.  Suppose one of the N children bought out the rest: N-1.  The N-1 children received (N-1)/N of the stolen value.  Only 1/N remains with the original property.  Suppose we assume a generation is 25 years, we consider the 150 years since the end of the Civil war, and we assume N children on average for each of the 7 generations, then 1/(N^7) of the current property value is owed by the current property owner. If N = 2, then 1/128; if N = 3, then 1/2,187.

But this assumes the stolen slave labor equals the total value of the property.  This means the slave involved could have bought the entire property had the slave owner had to buy their service.  This seems unlikely.  In Northern farms having a hired man to help run the farm — or having a hired woman to help with the kids and the household involved little more than providing room, board and a little spending money.  Thus, all that is at issue is the market value of their service, minus room, board and any spending money.

Now suppose the slave was a household slave: cooking, washing, etc.  The stolen labor meant the slave owners became wealthier than they would have if they had to purchase those services on the open market.  This excess wealth could have been inherited by their descendants.  Or the original slave owners could have used it to buy other properties — which could have been inherited and still fall under your stolen property argument.  But the original slave owners could have used the excess wealth to buy services which they consumed in their entirety.  Thus, there is nothing owed by any of the slave-owner’s descendents.

More important than any of these small arguments is whether there is a statute of limitations in Libertarian philosophy.  I was introduced to Libertarian (and anarcho-capitalism) in the 60s and 70s.  I attended the First Libertarian Conference in NYC with Karl Hess and Murray Rothbard.  Can you provide any references on whether the statute of limitations has any status for libertarians?


Dear Milo:

Thanks for your kind words.

You attribute to me, falsely, that I: “assume that the expropriated value of the slave’s labor is 100% embedded in the property” Where’d you get that from?

My jusification for reparations is a bit different: I assume the validity of ex post (libertarian) law; to wit, (coercive) slavery is per se a crime, even if legal at the time. What should be the penalty, then, for slave holding? Poetic justice: to become the slave of the ex slaves. What happens to the property of the criminal slaveholder? It should be given over, in its entirety, to the ex slaves. That’s my justification. It matters little, in my analysis, as to how much of the slave’s labor is embedded in the property. Joe is a slave. Pete is his owner. Pete has property all over the place, in Alabama, where Joe worked on Pete’s plantation, and, also, in France, Canada, etc. Certainly, none of Joe’s labor is “embedded” in Pete’s property in France, Canada, etc. Yet, in my view, Joe should now own ALL of Petes property, yes, in Alabama, but, also, in these other places.

Here are some of my publications on this issue:

Suppose my grandfather stole a wristwatch from your grandfather. Then, my grandfather passed it down to my dad, who gave it to me. Posit, that had this theft not taken place, your granddad would have given the watch to your dad, and from him it would have passed on to you. Should I be compelled, by law, to hand over that watch to you? It still has your grandfather’s initials, or picture, or both, on it.

You say I should keep it? You want to promote theft? I say, I owe you that watch. That’s the case for reparations

Here are my publications on this matter:

Alston and Block, 2007; Amos and Block, unpublished; Block, 1993, 2001, 2002, 2019, 2014, 2020A, 2020B; Block and Yeatts, 1999-2000; Crepelle and Block, 2017; Nouveau and Block, 2020.

Alston, Wilton D. and Walter E. Block. 2007. “Reparations, Once Again.” Human Rights Review, Vol. 9, No. 3, September, pp. 379-392; http://tinyurl.com/2b75flhttps://philpapers.org/rec/ALSROAhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12142-007-0055-x

Amos, Jon-Paul and Walter E. Block. Unpublished. “Contra Horowitz: A Case for Reparations to Blacks for Slavery.”

Block, Walter E. 1993. “Malcolm X,” Fraser Forum, January, pp. 18-19; http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5361.aspx

Block, Walter E. 2001. “The Moral Dimensions of Poverty, Entitlements and Theft,” The Journal of Markets and Morality, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 83-93; http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2001_spring/block.htmlhttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=922087http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketsandmorality.com%2Findex.php%2Fmandm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F587%2F577&ei=lBn9UuLIOtDOkQe1toHwBw&usg=AFQjCNF2MZ5XoFKKMF5UcOfOT5Kv-HQgZA&sig2=VVYWZhyl0ZmAWRAKXtkxWw; Search for “Walter Block” under “Authors” here: http://www.marketsandmorality.com/index.php/mandm/search

Block, Walter E. 2002A. “On Reparations to Blacks for Slavery,” Human Rights Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, July-September, pp. 53-73;


(David Horowitz, Randall Robinson)

Block, Walter E. 2020B. “Return of Stolen Property: A Libertarian Case for Reparations.” December 18; https://www.theepochtimes.com/return-of-stolen-property-a-libertarian-case-for-reparations_3177301.html

Block, Walter E. 2019. “Return of Stolen Property: A Libertarian Case for Reparations.” December 23; https://www.theepochtimes.com/return-of-stolen-property-a-libertarian-case-for-reparations_3177301.html

Block, Walter E. 2020. “Reparations.” February 16;


Block, Walter E. and Guillermo Yeatts. 1999-2000. “The Economics and Ethics of Land Reform: A Critique of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace’s ‘Toward a Better Distribution of Land: The Challenge of Agrarian Reform,’” Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Law, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 37-69; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/ethics_land_reform.pdf

Crepelle, Adam and Walter E. Block. 2017. “Property Rights and Freedom:  The Keys to Improving Life in Indian Country.” Washington & Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice; Vol. 23, Issue 2, Article, 3, pp. 314-342; http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1435&context=crsjhttp://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj/vol23/iss2/3/

Houma Indian

Nouveau, Lucas and Walter E. Block. 2020. “A comment on reparations for slavery.” Libertas: Segunda Epoca; http://www.journallibertas.com/online-first.html

Best regards,



4:12 am on April 19, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

From: P

To: Walter Block <[email protected]

Subject: Working for the government

Dear Prof. Block,

I’m sure you must have written about this: Is it morally defensible to

 work for government as an anarcho-capitalist and receive pay funded by taxes?

Asking for a friend 😉



On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, at 17:43, Walter Block wrote:

Dear P:

I think so. I’ve worked for several public universities, as did Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe, Joe Salerno, Tom DiLorenzo, and many other solid libertarians. Ron Paul worked for the govt too!

Some readings:

Block, 1972, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009A, 2009B, 2010, 2011A,

 2011B, 2011C, 2011D, 2012, 2016; Block and Arakaky, 2008, Block and

 Barnett, 2008, D’Amico and Block, 2007

Block, Walter E. 1972. “The Polish Ham Question.” The Libertarian Forum.

June-July, Vol. 4, No. 6-7, p. 5;




Block, Walter E. 2002. “Accepting Government Subsidies,” Fraser Forum,

 February, p. 27;


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;



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.reasonpapers.com/pdf/28/rp_28_7.pdf; (death penalty

 justified, net taxpayer, ruling class analysis p. 87)

Block, Walter E. 2007. “Ron Paul and Matching Funds,” October 1;


Block, Walter E. 2008. “Replies to readers” September 23;

 http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block108.html (libertarians

 hypocrites for using public school?)

Block, Walter E. 2009A. “Libertarian punishment theory: working for,

 and donating to, the state” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1;



Block, Walter E. 2009B. “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Guilt and

 Punishment for the Crime of Statism” in Hulsmann, Jorg Guido and

 Stephan Kinsella, eds., Property, Freedom and Society: Essays in Honor

 of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, pp.




Block, Walter E. 2010. “You are a rotten kid (rent control and

 libertarianism),” February 27;


Block, Walter E. 2011A. “It’s Ayn Rand Bashing Time, Once Again.”


18; http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block172.html

Block, Walter E. 2011B. “May a Libertarian Take Money From the


March 11; http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block175.html;


ake-money-from-the-government/ Block, Walter E. 2011C. “Toward a

 Libertarian Theory of Guilt and Punishment for the Crime of Statism,”

 Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 22; pp.

665-675; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_33.pdf

Best regards,


From: P
To: Walter Block <[email protected]
Subject: Re: Working for the government

Dear Walter,

I’ve revisited our correspondance shown below, since I’m currently considering doing freelance work for my country’s Tax Authorities.

Now, I am full-blown ancap, and could use my moral stance as the justification for draining money from the state. But to be honest, I am mostly considering doing it because it is fairly easy money.

A fellow ancap’er and I discussed the problem of how much money I can justifiably take from the state in this capacity. His view is that I can only take as much as I’m owed, i.e., the amount taken from me by the state. But I remember one of the articles below arguing that there is no explicit limit when it comes to taking from an evil institution. I buy the argument that 1) I am not the one originally violating tax payers’ property rights, and 2) that tax victims have no positive right in getting anything from me.

His counterexample would be: Imagine thief A stole your gold watch and sold it to B. The gold watch is rightfully yours, and thus you have a claim against B (and A). He argues that otherwise everyone could knowingly buy stolen goods and then get away with saying it wasn’t they who stole it.

So my question in essence is: Can I freelance for the government and justify it morally?

I ask that you keep my details anonymous if you decide to publish my question online.



Dear P:

Your motive for doing so (“fairly easy money”) is irrelevant. The issue is, is doing so compatble with libertarianism.

First of all, only a libertarian would even think of raising such a question.

Second, my answer is a clear YES. I think that you should get as much “easy money” as you legally can.

But while you do, do give a thought to my favorite character in Atlass Shrugged, Ragnar Danneskjold.

Best regards,



3:38 am on April 18, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

The Synthetic Apriori, Market Failure, External Diseconomies, Part 2

From: Ben

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Thoughts on the invisible hand

Dear Walter,

Thanks very much. I accept your criticism re “tautological,” and your corrective, “necessarily.” Even without getting into Kant, I can see your point clearly.

On externalities, at some point I hope to make time and really dig into some of the references you sent. I fully agree with the idea that purported negative externalities do not necessarily mean government intervention will provide any kind of corrective; the notion that “if negative externality ergo benefit from government intervention” seems disastrously wrong. But to say this does not (and I say this without yet reading your articles) mean that negative externalities do not or cannot exist. I assume you would agree with this statement of mine?


Dear Ben:

There are two kinds of negative externalities: so called real ones, and fake ones.

Fake ones: pollution. But this is not a negative externality. It is, rather, a trespass against private property.

Here, if there is a govt, presumably, it will protect private property rights. Under ancap, the preferred scenario, the private defense agencies will stop this. You must read Rothbard (1982) on this.

So called real ones: I refuse your offer of friendship.  I ignore you. I wear garish clothes you find offensive.

Here, there is nothing govt or private enterprise defense agencies should do. No rights have been violated. As an Austrian economist, I would say you have no way to register your disapproval, harm imposed by my behavior (you can whine about me, but you could be lying that you’re hurt by my behavior), so this only counts as an external diseconomy by ignorant mainstream economists.

Best regards,



3:36 am on April 18, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

The Synthetic Apriori, Market Failure, External Diseconomies

From: Ben

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject: Thoughts on the invisible hand

Hi Walter,

Thanks for your nice piece on the invisible hand:


As I understand it, the phenomenon described by the term invisible hand arises most fundamentally from the fact that all (or most) economic exchanges in the society are voluntary. Because every transaction brings with it a mutual increase in value to the participants (as defined subjectively, in terms of revealed preference), it follows almost (or perhaps even actually?) tautologically that the universalization of transaction-level mutual betterment translates into society-wide betterment.

The only question I have here pertains to the possibility that, by some mechanism that is not obvious to me, paired mutual benefits do not tautologically translate into society-wide betterment. (I wonder if this could somehow, one way or the other, be elucidated, or even proven, mathematically. I’d like to see someone try.)

To my way of thinking, the connection between universal (or near-universal) voluntary exchange and the society-level invisible hand phenomenon should be emphasized more. Doing so would make the invisible hand less (seemingly) miraculous and integrate it better into a ground-up understanding of how things function in reality. It would also provide good ammunition against those who argue that the invisible hand is really an ideology, rather than a description of how things work in reality; it would make the invisible hand phenomenon seem more intuitive and common-sensical.

I’m not sure, but the same voluntary-exchange basis may provide the mechanism of economic spontaneous order. I’d have to think about this more.

The main potential utilitarian-type problem that I see for an exclusively voluntary way of organizing things pertains to negative externalities (= there are uncounted participants in a seemingly voluntary exchange, who may experience a negative value from it). In this sense, there can be an involuntary transfer of value (~theft) from the uncounted to counted participants. As of now, I’m unclear on the best way to limit these externalities. However, I do lean strongly against most regulations and am open to your approach, which, if I understand it, would proscribe all (top-down, coercive) regulation.

Thanks again for your piece.


Dear Ben:

Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

I reject your word “tautologically.” I would substitute for it “necessarily.” As an Austrian economists, I believe in, support, the Kantian synthetic apriori. See on this: Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1995. Economic Science and the Austrian Method. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute; http://www.mises.org/esandtam/pes1.asphttp://www.mises.org/esandtam/pfe3.asphttp://mises.org/pdf/esam.pdfhttps://mises.org/library/economic-science-and-austrian-method

As for externalities, whether positive or negative, this is part and parcel of the critics’ of the free enterprise system doctrine of “market failure.” For a rejoinder to this fallacious argument, see:

Block, 1994, 1998, 2009, 2011, 2012; DiLorenzo, 1990; Gordon, 2021; Horwitz, 1977; Lewin, 1982; McGee and Block, 1994; Rockwell, 2000; Rothbard, 1982

Block, Walter E. 1994. “Pollution,” Cliches of Politics, Mark Spengler, ed., Irvington on Hudson, New York: Foundation for Economic Education, pp. 267-270

Block, Walter E. 1998. “Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 6, December, pp. 1887-1899; http://www.mises.org/etexts/environfreedom.pdf;; Romanian translation: www.antiteze.comhttp://mises.org/Etexts/Environfreedom.Pdf

Block, Walter E. 2009. “Contra Watermelons.” Ethics, Place & Environment, Vol. 12, Issue 3, October, pp. 305 – 308; http://mises.org/daily/4209http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a916452684&fulltext=713240928

Block, Walter E. 2011. “Ron Paul and the Environment.” December 13;


Block, Walter E. 2012. “Global Warming, Air Pollution and Libertarianism.” January 18;


DiLorenzo, Thomas. 1990. “Does Capitalism Cause Pollution?,” St. Louis, Washington University: Center for the Study of American Business, Contemporary Issues Series 38.

Gordon, David. 2021. “Can Taxation Be Justified?” August 13;


Horwitz, Morton J. 1977. The Transformation of American Law: 1780-1860, Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Lewin, Peter.  1982. “Pollution Externalities: Social Cost and Strict Liability.”  Cato Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, Spring, pp. 205-229.

McGee, Robert W. and Walter E. Block. 1994. “Pollution Trading Permits as a Form of Market Socialism and the Search for a Real Market Solution to Environmental Pollution,” Fordham University Law and Environmental Journal, Vol. VI, No. 1, Fall, pp. 51-77; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/pollution_trading_permits.pdf. Translated into Russian, and published in № 3б, 2007 of “Ekonomicheskaya Politika” (Economic Policy) Journal; http://tinyurl.com/263787http://;


Rockwell, Jr. Llewellyn. 2000.  “The Enviro-Skeptic’s Manifesto.” May 1;


Rothbard, Murray N. 1982. “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution,” Cato Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring; reprinted in Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation, Walter E. Block, ed., Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1990, pp. 233-279. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdfhttp://mises.org/story/2120

Best regards,



3:31 am on April 18, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

From: Walter Block <[email protected]>

To: Don

Subject: RE: Consensus of relevant data

Dear FA:

Wow. Fascinating. One error is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with “libertarian logic.” Rather, it is an aspect of economics. Libertarianism is a theory of the proper use of violence, and has nothing at all to do with this question. The chatgpt takes a mainstream view that there is indeed such a thing as “market failure.” Austrian economics has a long bibliography refuting this claim, which chatgpt seems unaware of.

Four Arrows is my co-author of this book:

Four Arrows and Walter E. Block. 2010. Differing Worldviews: Two Scholars Argue Cooperatively about Justice Education; Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers; http://www.amazon.ca/Differing-Worldviews-Higher-Education-Arrows/dp/9460913504/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336603241&sr=1-6[email protected][email protected]

Best regards,


From: Don

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Consensus of relevant data

Just for the fun I asked this question in in literally 7 seconds it gave this answer (It took me longer to write the question):

Question: In the book by Four Arrows and Walter Block, Walter argues that if “endless rows of identical trees” are truly inferior to natural regrowth of diverse original life after a clear cut were really a problem, the competitive market strggle for profits against t counter parts that eschew this type of tree planting would cause the owners to rethink for the sake of profit and start planting more diverse trees. But if biodiversity does not promote profits, then the laws of economics then the rows of same trees is most just. What is wrong with this libertarian logic?

The libertarian logic presented in the book assumes that market forces alone will always ensure the best outcomes for society and the environment. However, this assumption overlooks several important factors:

1. Externalities: The impact of clear-cutting and monoculture plantations on the environment and local communities can be negative and far-reaching, such as soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, and damage to water systems. These impacts are often not reflected in market prices and can create negative externalities that are not accounted for by the market.

2. Short-term thinking: The profit motive can lead to short-term thinking and neglect long-term environmental impacts. Planting monoculture plantations may be cheaper and easier in the short term, but it can have negative consequences for the environment and society in the long term.

3. Information asymmetry: The assumption that market competition will drive companies to adopt sustainable practices assumes that consumers have perfect information about the products they buy. However, this is often not the case, and companies may be able to hide negative impacts from consumers.

4. Power dynamics: The assumption that all actors in the market have equal bargaining power overlooks the fact that some companies may have more power than others, allowing them to dominate the market and drive out competitors who promote sustainable practices.

Therefore, relying solely on market forces to promote sustainability and biodiversity can be insufficient and may lead to negative outcomes for the environment and society. It is important to recognize the limitations of the market and to use other mechanisms, such as regulation and public policies, to ensure sustainable practices and protect the environment.


3:42 am on March 25, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

From: Brandon

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Dear Walter,

I’ve been hearing from a lot of libertarians online that if they were given the option of stealing a penny to save the world, they would not steal the penny. Although I absolutely understand the ethics behind it, the scenario seems extremely discomforting. Although I understand stealing a penny to save the world is unjust, it seems like one of those things you’d do either way out of fear. But some of the people I’ve spoken to not only regard stealing a penny to save the world unjust, but they’ve even said they would refuse to steal the penny if the scenario was real. Could you imagine any line of reasoning that could possibly justify stealing a penny to save the world or is it the case of it being unjust clear cut? Also, would you steal a penny to save the world?

Thank you.

Yours truly,


Dear Brandon:

Of course I’d steal a penny to save the world. I’d steal a lot more than that to save the world.

The problem with these libertarians is that they are stuck on libertarianism 101, the non aggression principle, and private property rights. That’s a good approximation of libertarianism. No, it is a VERY good approximation on intro to libertarianism. But it is not advanced libertarianism.

What, you may ask, is advanced libertarianism. It is punishment theory. It says the if you steal a penny, here’s the punishment for you.

I was just watching the magnficient movie, Dr. Strangelove. My favorite episode was the scene where mandrake demanded that this idiot soldier shoot a coke machine, to get a dime, to call the president, to enable him to call off a nuclear strike against the USSR, to save the entire world. This idiot initially refused, on the ground that “that’s private property.” This is a ploy used by the left to embarrass us libertarians.

Here’s some biblio on libt punishment theory:


Block, 2009A, 2009B, 2016, 2018; Gordon, 2020; Kinsella, 1996, 1997; Loo and Block, 2017-2018; Olson, 1979; Rothbard, 1977, 1998; Whitehead and Block, 2003

Block, Walter E. 2009A. “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Guilt and Punishment for the Crime of Statism” in Hulsmann, Jorg Guido and Stephan Kinsella, eds., Property, Freedom and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, pp. 137-148; http://mises.org/books/hulsmann-kinsella_property-freedom-society-2009.pdf;

http://mises.org/books/property_freedom_society_kinsella.pdf; festschrift

Block, Walter E. 2009B. “Libertarian punishment theory: working for, and donating to, the state” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1; http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/17-libertarian-punishment-theory-working-for-and-donating-to-the-state/

Block, Walter E. 2016. “Russian Roulette: Rejoinder to Robins.” Acta Economica et Turistica. Vol. 1, No. 2, May, pp.  197-205; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309300488_Russian_Roulette_Rejoinder_to_Robins; file:///C:/Users/walterblock/Downloads/AET_2_Block_6.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2018. “The case for punishing those responsible for minimum wage laws, rent control and protectionist tariffs.”  Revista Jurídica Cesumar – Mestrado, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 235-263; http://periodicos.unicesumar.edu.br/index.php/revjuridica/article/view/6392http://periodicos.unicesumar.edu.br/index.php/revjuridica/article/view/6392/3190

Gordon, David. 2020. “Rothbard and Double Restitution.” September 4;


Loo, Andy and Walter E. Block. 2017-2018. “Threats against third parties: a libertarian analysis.” Baku State University Law Review; Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 52-64; http://lr.bsulawss.org/archive/volume4/issue1/http://lr.bsulawss.org/archive/volume4/issue1/block/http://lr.bsulawss.org/files/archive/volume4/issue1/4BSULawRev13.pdf?

Kinsella, Stephen. 1996. “Punishment and Proportionality: the Estoppel Approach,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring, pp. 51-74; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf

Kinsella, Stephan. 1997. “A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights,” 30 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 607-45

Olson, Charles B. 1979. “Law in Anarchy.” Libertarian Forum. Vol. XII, No. 6, November-December, p. 4;

Rothbard, Murray N. 1977. “Punishment and Proportionality.”  R. E. Barnett and J. Hagel, III (eds.), Assessing the Criminal: Restitution, Retribution, and the Legal Process.  Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., pp. 259‑270.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1998. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press. https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Ethics%20of%20Liberty%2020191108.pdf;

In the view of Rothbard (1998, p. 88, ft. 6): “It should be evident that our theory of proportional punishment—that people may be punished by losing their rights to the extent that they have invaded the rights of others—is frankly a retributive theory of punishment, a ‘tooth (or two teeth) for a tooth’ theory. Retribution is in bad repute among philosophers, who generally dismiss the concept quickly as ‘primitive’ or ‘barbaric’ and then race on to a discussion of the two other major theories of punishment: deterrence and rehabilitation. But simply to dismiss a concept as ‘barbaric’ can hardly suffice; after all, it is possible that in this case, the ‘barbarians’ hit on a concept that was superior to the more modern creeds.”

Whitehead, Roy and Walter E. Block. 2003. “Taking the assets of the criminal to compensate victims of violence: a legal and philosophical approach,” Wayne State University Law School Journal of Law in Society Vol. 5, No. 1, Fall, pp.229-254


3:40 am on March 25, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

From: Teyo

To: [email protected]

Subject: Hoppe’s Response to Your Response & Walter Block Video Account

Hello Dr. Block,

I asked at AERC if you had made a response to Hoppe’s paper, Two Notes on Preference and Indifference, particularly the second section titled II. Further Notes on Preferences and Indifference: Rejoinder to Block, originally published in the QJAE 3, no. 4

The second thing I asked was if you had ever heard of the Twitter account “Water Block No Context”


The account isn’t trying to smear you, it’s more so meant to show various funny things you have said.






Dear Teyoman:

What’s the deal on twitter?

Here are my debates with Hans and on indifference:

Block, 1998, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011A, 2011B; Block and Barnett, 2010; Block, Barnett and Salerno, 2006; Block and Callahan. 2003; Gregory and Block. 2007.

Block, Walter E. 1998. “A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration,” Journal of Libertarian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, summer, pp. 167-186; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_4.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2004. “The State Was a Mistake.” Book review of Hoppe, Han-Hermann, Democracy, The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order, 2001May 25. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1522

Block, Walter E. 2007. “Plumb Line Libertarianism: A Critique of Hoppe.” Reason Papers, Vol. 29, Fall, pp. 151-163; http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/29/rp_29_10.pdfhttp://www.academia.edu/1425340/Plumb_Line_Libertarianism_A_Critique_of_Hoppehttps://reasonpapers.com/pdf/29/rp_29_10.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2009. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on indifference” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 12, No. 1: 52–59; http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae12_1_4.pdf

Block, Walter E. with William Barnett II. 2010. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on indifference, once again.” Reason Papers, Vol. 32, pp. 141-154; http://reasonpapers.com/pdf/32/rp_32_9.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2010. “Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left: a critique of the views of Long, Holcombe, and Baden on the left, Hoppe, Feser and Paul on the right.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22: 127–70; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_8.pdfhttp://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdfhttps://mises.org/library/libertarianism-unique-and-belongs-neither-right-nor-left-critique-views-long-holcombe-and

Block, Walter E. 2011A. “Hoppe, Kinsella and Rothbard II on Immigration: A Critique.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 593–623; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_29.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2011B. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on Immigration,” Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 771–792; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_38.pdf

Block, Walter E., William Barnett II and Joseph Salerno. 2006. “Relationship between wealth or income and time preference is empirical, not apodictic: critique of Rothbard and Hoppe,” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 69-80; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11138-006-6094-8

Block, Walter E. and Gene Callahan. 2003. “Is There a Right to Immigration? A Libertarian Perspective,” Human Rights Review. Vol. 5, No. 1, October-December, pp. 46-71

Gregory, Anthony and Walter E. Block. 2007. “On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 21, No. 3, Fall, pp. 25-42; http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_2.pdfhttp://www.academia.edu/1360109/On_Immigration_Reply_to_Hoppehttps://mises.org/system/tdf/21_3_2.pdf?file=1&type=document

Indifference:: indifferent:: title: The economics of indifference

Debate between Walter Block and Hans-Hermann Hoppe on Nozick’s methodology and indifference::

1. Block, Walter E. 1980. “On Robert Nozick’s ‘On Austrian Methodology’.” Inquiry, Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall, pp. 397-444; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/on_robert_nozick.pdf;

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/on_robert_nozick.pdf; Spanish translation, Libertas, Vol. 14, No. 26, May 1997, pp. 71-131

2. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2005. “Must Austrians Embrace Indifference?” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 8 (4): 87–91; online at: http://www.Mises.org/story/2003.

3. Block, Walter E. 2009. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on Indifference” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 12, No. 1: 52–59; http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae12_1_4.pdf

4. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2009. “Further Notes on Preference and Indifference: Rejoinder to Block,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 12, no. 1, pp. 60-64, http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae12_1_5.pdf.

5. Block, Walter E. with William Barnett II. 2010. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on indifference, once again.” Reason Papers, Vol. 32, pp. 141-154; http://reasonpapers.com/pdf/32/rp_32_9.pdf

“Perhaps these divisions amongst scholars who might be expected to agree are due to the fact that we are all imperfect human beings. Perhaps some young scholar(s) will one day come along and definitively solve all of these disputes in such a way that all present parties to them will agree to the solution. Until that time, the most we can do, I think, is to do our best—to publish our ideas, imperfect as they are, in the hope that the process of public debate itself will shed some light on these vexing issues. Two heads are better than one, and all of the professionals who read this journal, plus the two of us (Hoppe and the two present authors), are better than just the three of us alone.”

Block, Walter E. 2012. “Response to Ben O’Neill on indifference.” Dialogue; Issue No. 2, pp. 76-93; https://www.uni-svishtov.bg/dialog_old/2012/2.12.7.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2009. “Rejoinder to Machaj on Indifference,” New Perspectives on Political Economy, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 65-71; http://pcpe.libinst.cz/nppe/5_1/nppe5_1_5.pdfhttps://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=

Wysocki, Igor and Walter E. Block. 2018A. “Homogeneity, heterogeneity, the supply curve and consumer theory.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. Volume 21, no. 4, pp. 398–416 (Winter); https://mises.org/library/homogeneity-heterogeneity-supply-curve-and-consumer-theoryhttps://qjae.scholasticahq.com/article/7807-homogeneity-heterogeneity-the-supply-curve-and-consumer-theory

Wysocki, Igor and Walter E. Block. 2018B. “An analysis of the supply curve: does it depict homogeneity among its constituent elements? Another rejoinder to Nozick.”  Management Education Science Technology Journal (MEST). pp. 1-11;


http://mest.meste.org/MEST_Najava/XI_Wysocki.pdf; DOI 10.12709/issn.2334-7058

Block, Walter E. 2022. “Rejoinder to Wysocki on indifference.” Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce); No. 72, pp. 37–61 ∙ CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0; https://zfn.edu.pl/index.php/zfn/article/view/578;

Best regards,



2:37 pm on March 21, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Abortion, Voluntary Slavery

Walter Block interviewed by Mary J Ruwart, Liberty International


12:13 pm on March 9, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share
Follow by Email