≡ Menu

A Sends B a Letter Through the Mail; Who Owns That Letter?

Dear Richard:

I agree with you entirely.

I would also extrapolate to snail mail.

Suppose I send you a letter on a piece of paper. Who, now, owns it? I think you do. In effect, I made you a gift of a piece of paper with my writing on it.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Richard Gaylord

Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 11:01 AM

To: Walter Block

Subject:

what is the Libertarian position on e-mails. is it okay to forward e-mail from one person to another without asking for permission? i guess what it amounts to is who has property rights of e-mail – the sender or the recipient? my view has always been that once i send an e-mail out on the internet, it no longer belongs to me and anyone who can access it, has the right to read it or post it. it may be good manners to ask the author for permission but it is not necessary to do so. (and when i send an email to more than one individual, i list all of the recipients in the cc section (i rarely use  bcc) so all the recipients will be known

Share

2:41 am on February 16, 2020

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Can a Person be a Net Taxpayer, and Still be a Member of the Ruling Class?

From: Jonathan Gress

Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 1:13 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: net taxpayers in ruling elite

Dear Walter,

In your view, can you be a net taxpayer but also be in the ruling elite? Or does paying taxes automatically exclude you from the elite?

Jonathan

Dear Jonathan:

In my humble opinion, you can indeed be a net taxpayer, and still be a member of the ruling class.

There is such a thing a psychic income. Ruling class members may pay more $ in taxes than the benefit, monetarily, from government, but, if they benefit, greatly, in terms of psychic income from the state, then I think they can be bone fide members of this demographic. For example, they could donate lots of money to a politician who would give them great power over innocent people. Monetarily they might lose, but they wouldn’t do this unless there was some benefit in the transaction for them.

Calhoun’s view was a good first approximation, but I don’t think it is definitive in all cases.

Ragnar Danneskjold was a net tax recipient, and NOT a member of the ruling class!

Best regards,

Walter

Share

2:39 am on February 16, 2020

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Dear Tim:

I don’t see the problem with (pure) privatization. PG&E was always a highly regulated “private” company.

I think only guilty people should be jailed, not innocent people, in order to keep others honest.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Tim McGraw

Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 2:11 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Pacific Gas & Electric

Dear Walter,  Dec. 21, 2019

Geisha Williams was the CEO of PG & E who resigned in January, 2019 the day before PG & E declared bankruptcy (again) due to all the lawsuits from the wildfires. These four years of wildfires every fall, have killed dozens of people, destroyed over 10,000 structures, and made thousands homeless here in California. PG & E is the largest utility in the state and it is privately owned.

Geisha Williams received a $4.6 million retirement package and has disappeared from the scene here in California.

Now the state of California is fining PG & E for its negligence. The insurance companies get about $11 billion. Government entities get their billions. And the actual fire victims get, maybe, a few billion. But a state fund will be tapped also for these payments (taxpayer funds no doubt.)

So, of course everyone here in Commie California is calling for the government to take over the utility. I have not read a word about perhaps jailing Geisha Williams or at least fining her the $4.6 million she got when she resigned from PG & E as CEO.

But then, of course, she has immunity due to business law no doubt.

Sorry for the long introduction to my question.

Walter, how does one defend privatization vs. state ownership of utilities after the debacle that is, was, and probably always will be, Pacific Gas & Electric in California?

Oh, and don’t forget the San Bruno gas explosion caused by more faulty maintenance practices by PG & E. More death and destruction from greedy incompetence at the private utility.

I remember years ago I read someone who said, “Every generation you have to jail a few bankers to keep them honest.” How do you feel about that sentiment?

Cheers,

Tim McGraw

Healdsburg, CA

Share

2:36 am on February 16, 2020

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

What’s The Correct Libertarian View on Cultural Conservatism?

Letter 1

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019, 9:41 AM Richard Gaylord  wrote:

if you had to choose between living in a political system that opposed or supported cultural conservatism, which would you choose ie. would you choose to live in a society in which economic freedom was limited or restricted to some extent while personal liberty was not restricted [allowing voluntary acts you don’t approve of like homosexual behavior or drug-taking] or in a society with free market economics but with restrictions on personal behavior?

The mistake I made in my earlier writing, it is now apparent to me, is that I am not only a libertarian but also a cultural conservative. Not only am I concerned with what the law should be, I also live in the moral, cultural, and ethical realm. I was then so astounded by the brilliance of the libertarian vision (Istill am) that I overlooked the fact that I am more than only a libertarian. As both a libertarian and a cultural conservative, I see n o incompatibility between beliefs which are part of these two very different universes of discourse.

Letter 2

On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 2:29 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

I Support The latter

Letter 3

From: Richard Gaylord

Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 12:46 PM

To: Walter Block

Subject: Re:

so you choose economic freedom over personal freedom?

would murray have agreed?

what is the value of economic freedom if it doesn’t result in personal freedom?

apparently this is how singapore operates. and china is trying the same thing?

note:  i’m not agreeing or disagreeing. i.m not even sure it makes sense to set this up as a binary choice. that would assume that the two are seperable. are they?

Letter 4

Dear Richard:

I support both kinds of freedom. You asked me to make an artificial choice. I did so. If I had chosen the opposite, you would have also criticized that. Hey, I can’t win.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

2:24 am on February 14, 2020

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Is There A Right To Vote? Plus, Other Questions About Libertarianism

Letter 1

From: Jonathan Gress

Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 5:17 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: isidewith

Hello Walter, how have you been? It was great seeing our email conversations published on LRC; I hope they helped other people working through the same issues. Thanks for sharing them with the world!

I’m just writing to get more of your thoughts on things. Have you ever taken the quiz on the website ISideWith? On most of the questions I was pretty sure what the libertarian answer was, but on some I wasn’t sure. E.g. I’m not entirely sure whether illegal immigrants should have access to government-subsidized healthcare. A lot of libertarians oppose this but I’m wondering if government should not bar access for the same reason it should not bar access to other public property. This ties in to our article on the ethics of public spending, I suppose.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

Letter 2

Dear Jonathan:

As long as the illegal immigrants are not members of the ruling class, I think it is more libertarian for them to have the money than for the government.

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

https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block86.html

Best regards,

Walter

Letter 3

From: Jonathan Gress

Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 9:56 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: RE: isidewith

Thanks for your response! Would you say it depended on the immigrant’s own ideological beliefs? If an illegal immigrant were a libertarian, it seems he would have a right to take the state’s wealth, but if he were a statist who supported wealth redistribution, it seems arguable that him taking advantage of taxpayer-funded services counts as being an accomplice in the theft. Having the government perform political tests on potential welfare recipients seems impractical, though.

I notice you oppose lending to the government. If I had some government bonds in my portfolio, would you say I had an obligation to divest myself of them?

Letter 4

On November 21, 2019 at 1:00 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

In my view, this would not depend upon his ideological beliefs. Rather, it would depend upon presence or absence in the ruling class.

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

Letter 5

From: Jonathan Gress

Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 11:46 AM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: RE: isidewith

What do you think of the idea that convicted felons should get voting rights restored? Do you think there is a single libertarian answer or is this a fundamentally practical question?

Letter 6

On December 7, 2019 at 3:43 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

I don’t think convicted felons should be allowed to vote in political elections.

I don’t think women should be allowed to vote in political elections.

I don’t think men should be allowed to vote in political elections..

We should ban all votes apart from those where people have in advance signed something indicating they are willing to be bound by the result of the vote. Stockholders should be allowed to vote. Condominium owners should be allowed to vote.

On the other hand, as long as we have political elections, I think only libertarians should be allowed to vote

I think the best book ever written on this, by far is, Hoppe, Hans. 2001. Democracy: The God that Failed

Letter 7

From: Jonathan Gress

Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 9:02 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: RE: isidewith

So it sounds like you think we should not extend the franchise, even if the new voter might be a libertarian?

Letter 8

On December 7, 2019 at 10:43 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

I favor extending it, but, only to libertarians

Letter 9

From: Jonathan Gress

Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 10:23 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: RE: isidewith

I see. I guess in practice the vote can’t be limited to libertarians per se so maybe it’s a pragmatic question whether or not to support extending it to a particular group such as convicted felons. We could estimate how likely that group is to have a significant number of libertarians and support or oppose giving them the vote on that basis.

Letter 10

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2019 7:38 AM

To: Jonathan Gress

Subject: RE: isidewith

Yes, there are no principles here. No one has any “right” to vote. So it is just a pragmatic issue. If left handed red heads are more likely to vote libertarian, or people who like tiddlywinks, then, yes, they should be allowed to vote. On the other hand if people who play checkers and like Rachmininoff, are likely not to be libertarian, then we should take away their right to vote

Share

2:20 am on February 14, 2020

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

What’s the Correct Libertarian Perspective on Reparations?

Letter 1

From: Tim McGraw

Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 2:07 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Private Property; the Argument for Privatization

Deserve Has Nothing to Do With It; The Unforgiven

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kjYk2CrQF8

Dear Walter, Dec. 6th, 2019

I enjoyed your book about Private Property until the Reparations chapter.  I don’t believe in reparations. They remind me of child support payments and negroes yelling in the street trying to take my money, even though my ancestors were in Europe while theirs were enslaved in the Americas.

So, I’ll send you your book with my notes on the margins that I wrote as I read it. I did enjoy it. What a fun few weeks it was.

Walter, I don’t think we are going to make it. Us Libertarians had our time. Clint Eastwood and Dr. Ron Paul were the highlights of our society. I see no future for us.

So, to quote another Eastwood movie:

WE SHALL CONTINUE WITH STYLE; EIGER SANCTION

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vnmugDJDWU

And style is life as far as I’m concerned.

Take care my friend,

Tim McGraw

Healdsburg, CA

Letter 2

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

To: Tim McGraw

Sent: Sat, Dec 7, 2019 1:04 pm

Subject: RE: Private Property; the Argument for Privatization

Dear Tim:

Thanks for your kind comments about this book of mine:

Block, Walter E. 2019. Property Rights: The Argument for Privatization. Palgrave Macmillan; https://www.palgrave.com/in/book/9783030283520

Suppose my grandfather stole a clock from your grandfather. My grandfather bequeathed that clock to his son, my dad, who then gave it to me.

Posit that if my grandfather didn’t steal a clock from your grandfather, your granddad would have bequeathed that clock to his son, your dad, who then would have givenit to you.

I think I owe that clock to you, in the form of reparations, eg., return of stolen property. Why do you disagree?

Best regards,

Walter

Letter 3

From: Tim McGraw

Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 4:41 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Re: Private Property; the Argument for Privatization

Dear Walter,

It’s the time problem. Your family has had that grandfather clock now for three generations. It’s yours unless I forcibly take it back. And then it would be my clock.

I am reminded of the movie “Nobody’s Fool”. Paul Newman and Bruce Willis keep stealing a snow blower from each other. Who really owns the snowblower? Perhaps Bruce Willis bought it in the beginning or perhaps he stole it. It’s not clear. So who really owns it? Whoever has it owns it.

Healdsburg is on land that the Mexicans stole from the Pomo Indians, that was then stolen by Americans. There is a whole history of land squatters and conflict here after the Mexican vs. American War of 1848. Many Americans squatted on old Mexican estates which had been abandoned by their owners during the war. Sheriff Louis Norton is a local legend. He was a big fierce guy who would go out to the squatters and force them off the land. Norton supposedly stared down a grizzly bear that had climbed a redwood tree in front of his house. (The tree is still there on Grove Street). When Norton died he had a dozen bullets in his large frame. His grave is in the local cemetery. I knew his descendants who have since died or left town. They are quite a family of characters.

The NAP works for me most of the time, but when it comes to stolen property; force is what I would rely upon. Lawyers work, too, but again, that takes time.

I’ve often thought, “What would I do if the bank took all my money in the bank?” Well, of course due to legal mumbo jumbo I only have a lien on that money I deposited. I could try hiring a lawyer, or I could use force against the banker, or I could write it off as a loss like most folks did during the bank failures during the Depression.

I see no good solutions. Same for me with the grandfather clock in your example. You are an honest man willing to make good on a crime committed by a distant relative.

People like you are rare, Walter.

God bless ya!

Tim

Letter 4

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2019 5:45 PM

To: Tim McGraw

Subject: RE: Private Property; the Argument for Privatization

Time, schmime. I’m assuming the TRUTH of what I said.

So, you don’t believe in returning stolen property?

That means you don’t really support private property rights, of which the return is an integral part?

Share

2:18 am on February 14, 2020

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Is Rand Paul A Good Libertarian?

From: Richard Gaylord

Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2020 4:10 AM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: John Roberts blocks mentions of alleged whistleblower’s name – POLITICO

WTF? rand paul is a lousy libertarian (guess he likes playing golf with Trump).

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/29/john-roberts-whistleblower-name-mentions-109292

Dear Richard:

Yes, Rand Paul is a lousy libertarian – compared to Murray Rothbard, Mr. Libertarian.

But, in my view, he is by far the most libertarian senator we’ve now got, and, maybe, the most libertarian senator we’ve ever had, again by far.

That is to say, he is in my view an EXCELLENT libertarian, even though I don’t agree with him 100% of the time.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

3:04 am on February 9, 2020

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Austrian Economics Is Not The Same Thing As Libertarianism

From: ondu
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2020 7:01 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Re: thank letter + one question

I hope you can put me on the right track.

Thank you .

Dulava Ondrej

On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 2:00 PM ondu  wrote:

Hi.

I read your blogs on mises, read your book defending the undefendable, sometimes watch you on youtube.

Thankyou for such an eye opening work.

I am not stalker just interested in austrian school.

I am sorry but i have not found the right literature on principles of austrian economics. There is good book on praxeology from Selgin.

My understanding of austrian  school is surely simple.

Principle of nonagression, voluntary interaction without coersion, methodology is named praxeology.

Im sorry to bother you, i would love to be put on the right track.

Thank you sir.

Dear Ondu:

There are many people associated with the Mises Institute who are both libertarians and Austrian economists. I am one of them. However, Austrian economics is not the same thing as libertarianism. The former is part and parcel of objective (social) science; or positive economics. The latter is an aspect of law (what should the law be), or ethics, or normative economics.

Austrian economics has nothing to do with the principle of nonagression, or with voluntary interaction without coercion. That is the province of libertarianism, instead.

You can read more about this here:

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

Yes, Austrian economics is heavily involved with the methodology that is named praxeology.

You can read more about this here:

Block, 1973, 1980, 1999; Batemarco, 1985; Engel, 2018; Fox, 1992; Futerman and Block, 2017; Hoppe, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1995; Hulsmann, 1999; Mises, 1969, 1998; Polleit, 2008, 2011; Rizzo, 1979; Rothbard, 1951, 1957, 1960, 1971, 1973, 1976, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c, 1997d, 1993, 2011; Selgin, 1988; Torsel and Block, 2018; Wiśniewski, 2014.

Block, Walter E. 1973. “A Comment on ‘The Extraordinary Claim of Praxeology,’ by Professor Gutierrez,” Theory and Decision, Vol. 3, No. 4, June, pp. 377-387; http://tinyurl.com/2hwln2http://141.164.133.3/faculty/Block/Blockarticles/praxeology.htm; journal,181,192;linkingpublicationresults,1:100341,100

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

Block, Walter E. 1999. “Austrian Theorizing, Recalling the Foundations: Reply to Caplan,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 2, No. 4, winter, pp. 21-39; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_2.pdf; errata: http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_9.pdf

Batemarco, Robert. 1985.  “Positive Economics and Praxeology: The Clash of Prediction and Explanation,” Atlantic Economic Journal, July, 13(2), pp. 31-27.

Engel,  C. Jay. 2018. “Do Austrians Really Reject Empirical Evidence?” March 28;

https://mises.org/wire/do-austrians-really-reject-empirical-evidence

Fox, Glenn. 1992. “The Pricing of Environmental Goods: A Praxeological Critique of Contingent Valuation,” Cultural Dynamics, Vol. V, No. 3, pp. 245-259

Futerman, Alan G. and Walter E. Block. 2017. “A Praxeological Approach to Intentional Action.” Studia Humana. Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 10—33;

http://studiahumana.com/pliki/wydania/10443-Volume6_Issue4-02_paper.pdf;

http://studiahumana.com/pliki/wydania/10443_Volume6_Issue4.pdf.pdf;

DOI: 10.1515/sh-2017-0024

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1989. “In Defense of Extreme Rationalism: Thoughts on Donald McClosky’s The Rhetoric of Economics,” Review of Austrian Economics, 3, pp. 179-214; http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE3_1_16.pdf

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1991. “Austrian Rationalism in the Age of the Decline of Positivism,” Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, Vol.2, No. 2; reprinted as Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1994. “Austrian Rationalism in the Age of the Decline of Positivism,” in Austrian Economics: Perspectives on the Past and Prospects for the Future, Vol. 17, Richard M. Ebeling, ed., Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale College Press, pp. 59-96.

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1992.  “On Praxeology and the Praxeological Foundation of Epistemology and Ethics,” Herbener, J., ed., The Meaning of Ludwig von Mises, Boston: Dordrecht

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1995. Economic Science and the Austrian Method. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute; http://www.mises.org/esandtam/pes1.asp;

http://www.mises.org/esandtam/pfe3.asphttp://mises.org/pdf/esam.pdf

apodictic synethic apriori: praxeology::

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1995. Economic Science and the Austrian Method. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute; http://mises.org/books/esam.pdf;

http://www.mises.org/esandtam/pfe3.asp;

http://72.14.253.104/u/Mises?q=cache:qTUMZOPf0H0J:www.mises.org/esandtam.asp+Hoppe+praxeology&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&ie=UTF-8

examples of synthetic Apriori:: statements (search for “or consider this”): http://www.mises.org/esandtam/pes1.asp

“Now let us turn to some typical economic propositions. Consider the validation process of a proposition such as the following: Whenever two people A and B engage in a voluntary exchange, they must both expect to profit from it. And they must have reverse preference orders for the goods and services exchanged so that A values what he receives from B more highly than what he gives to him, and B must evaluate the same things the other way around.

“Or consider this: Whenever an exchange is not voluntary but coerced, one party profits at the expense of the other.

“Or the law of marginal utility: Whenever the supply of a good increases by one additional unit, provided each unit is regarded as of equal serviceability by a person, the value attached to this unit must decrease. For this additional unit can only be employed as a means for the attainment of a goal that is considered less valuable than the least valued goal satisfied by a unit of such good if the supply were one unit shorter.

“Or take the Ricardian law of association: Of two producers, if A is more productive in the production of two types of goods than is B, they can still engage in a mutually beneficial division of labor. This is because overall physical productivity is higher if A specializes in producing one good which he can produce most efficiently, rather than both A and B producing both goods separately and autonomously.

“Or as another example: Whenever minimum wage laws are enforced that require wages to be higher than existing market wages, involuntary unemployment will result.

“Or as a final example: Whenever the quantity of money is increased while the demand for money to be held as cash reserve on hand is unchanged, the purchasing power of money will fall.

“Considering such propositions, is the validation process involved in establishing them as true or false of the same type as that involved in establishing a proposition in the natural sciences? Are these propositions hypothetical in the same sense as a proposition regarding the effects of mixing two types of natural materials? Do we have to test these economic propositions continuously against observations? And does it require a never-ending trial and error process in order to find out the range of application for these propositions and to gradually improve our knowledge, such as we have seen to be the case in the natural sciences?

“It seems quite evident (except to most economists for the last forty years) that the answer to these questions is a clear and unambiguous. That A and B must expect to profit and have reverse preference orders follows from our understanding of what an exchange is. And the same is the case concerning the consequences of a coerced exchange. It is inconceivable that things could ever be different: It was so a million years ago and it will be so a million years hence. And the range of application for these propositions too is clear once and for all: They are true whenever something is a voluntary exchange or a coerced exchange, and that is all there is to it.”

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2006. “Austrian Rationalism in the Age of the Decline of Positivism” in The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy, 2nd, ed., pp. 347-379; Auburn AL: The Mises Institute

Hans: http://mises.org/daily/5740/How-Mises-Rebuilt-Economics

Hülsmann, Jörg Guido. 1999. “Economic Science and Neoclassicism.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 2 Num. 4, pp. 1-20; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_1.pdf

Mises, Ludwig von. 1969. Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House.

Mises, Ludwig von. 1998 [1949]. Human Action: The Scholar’s Edition, Auburn, AL.: The Mises Institute; http://mises.org/Books/HumanActionScholars.pdf

Polleit, Thorsten. 2008. “Mises’s Apriorism Against Relativism in Economics.” April 25; http://blog.mises.org/archives/008051.asp

Polleit, Thorsten. 2011. “True Knowledge from A Priori Theory.” June 8; http://mises.org/daily/5349/True-Knowledge-from-A-Priori-Theory

Rizzo, Mario. 1979. “Praxeology and Econometrics: A Critique of Positivist Economics,” New Directions in Austrian Economics, Louis Spadaro, ed., Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, pp. 40-56

Rothbard, Murray N. 1951. “Praxeology: Reply to Mr. Schuller.”  American Economic Review, December. Vol. 41 No. 5: 943-946.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1957. “In Defense of Extreme Apriorism,” Southern Economic Journal, January, 23(1), pp. 314-320.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1960. “The Mantle of Science.” Reprinted from Scientism and Values, Helmut Schoeck and James W. Wiggins, eds. (Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand), 1960; The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School (Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar, 1997), pp. 3-23; http://mises.org/rothbard/mantle.pdf

Rothbard, Murray N. 1971. “Lange, Mises and Praxeology: The Retreat from Marxism.”   Toward Liberty.  Vol. II, Menlo Park, CA: Institute for Humane Studies, pp. 307 321.  Reprinted in The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School.  Glos, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 1997, pp. 384-396.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. “Praxeology and the Method of Economics,” Phenomenology and the Social Sciences, M. Natanson, ed., Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, vol. 2, p. 311-342; and Austrian Economics: A Reader Vol. 18, Richard M. Ebeling, ed., Hillsdale, MI.: Hillsdale College Press, 1991, pp. 55-91.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1976. “Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics,” in The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics. Edwin G. Dolan, ed., Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, pp. 19-39. http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Dolan/dlnFMAContents.html

Rothbard, Murray N. 1997A. “Praxeology as the Method of the Social Sciences,” in The Logic of Action One. Murray N. Rothbard, ed., UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp.28-57.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1997B.  “Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics,” in The Logic of Action One. Murray N. Rothbard, ed., UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp.58-77.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1997C. “Praxeology, Value Judgments, and Public Policy,” in The Logic of Action One. Murray N. Rothbard, ed., UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp.78-99.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1997D. “In Defense of ‘Extreme Apriorism’,” Southern Economic Journal, January 1957, 314-320; reprinted in The Logic of Action One. Murray N. Rothbard, ed., UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp.100-108; http://mises.org/rothbard/extreme.pdf

Rothbard, Murray N. 1993.  Man, Economy, and State, 2 vols., Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute

Rothbard, Murray N. 2011. “Praxeology: the Methodology of Austrian economics.” Chapter 4 in Economic Controversies. Auburn, AL: Mises Institutehttp://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/Economic%20Controversies.pdfhttps://mises.org/store/Economic-Controversies-P10459.aspx

Selgin, George A. 1988. “Praxeology and Understanding: An Analysis of the Controversy in Austrian Economics,” Review of Austrian Economics, (2), pp. 19-58; and Praxeology and Understanding, Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1990; http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE2_1_2.pdf

Torsell, Christian and Walter E. Block.2018. “Misesian Epistemology.” Pp. 1-9; Mest (FBIM) http://www.mest.meste.org/MEST_Najava_clanaka.htmlhttp://mest.meste.org/MEST_Najava/XIII_Torsell.pdfhttp://mest.meste.org/MEST_1_2019/13_16.pdf

Wiśniewski, Jakub Bożydar. 2014. “The Methodology of the Austrian School of Economics: The Present State of Knowledge.” Ekonomia – Wroclaw Economic Review 20, 1, 39-54.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2599266

Rothbard, Murray N. 1997D. “In Defense of ‘Extreme Apriorism’,” Southern Economic Journal, January 1957, 314-320; reprinted in The Logic of Action One. Murray N. Rothbard, ed., UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp.100-108; http://mises.org/rothbard/extreme.pdf

Murray N. Rothbard, “Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics” in The Logic of Human Action I.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

3:02 am on February 9, 2020

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Invitation to Publish in Refereed Journal on Libertarianism

From: Edward Straka
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2020 7:25 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Invitation to Libertarianism

Hello Sir! It’s been nearly 10 years since we corresponded last (I was teaching Econ & Gov’t at a school in MS; currently am in TX).

I noticed you have asked for submissions.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/invitation-to-libertarian-scholars/;

You said a requirement was to mention the “I” word. What on earth is that?

Hope to hear from you soon!

Ed Straka

Dear Ed:

L word. Libertarianism. Not I word

Best regards,

Walter

Share

2:08 am on February 7, 2020

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

I have just accepted an offer to guest edit a special issue of the prestigious journal Studia Humana. This issue will be entirely devoted to libertarianism. I am looking for article lengths of between 3,000 and 18,000 words. I am not limiting contributions to pro-libertarian articles, although those would be ideal: stretching this theory to apply to new problems, ironing out the kinks in it, etc. Also, equally acceptable, would be essays critical of libertarianism. All realms of libertarianism are on the table: anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, constitutionalism, classical liberalism, even thick libertarianism. The history of libertarianism, defenses of this philosophy against critics, all will be acceptable.

I am interested in the following topics:

– Philosophy of libertarianism

– Economical Theory and libertarianism

– Political Theory of libertarianism

– The Libertarian Party

– Libertarian think tanks

– Libertarian leaders

I am looking for scholarly papers, including footnotes, text references, a reference section, etc.

The only requirement is that you must mention the “l” word, and your article should be relevant to this philosophy.

For more information about this journal, go here:

https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/sh/sh-overview.xml?lang=en

The deadline cutoff date for submissions is 5/1/20. Please send me your articles in word format by attachment.

Best regards,

Walter

The post Invitation to Libertarian Scholars appeared first on LewRockwell.

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