≡ Menu

Dear Marc:

I wrote this on that subject:

Block, Walter E. 2012. “Global Warming, Air Pollution and Libertarianism.” January 18; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block195.html

I think the burden of proof on global warming rests with those who advocate this thesis, and they have not come even close to meeting it.

Best regards,

Walter

read from the bottom up

From: Marc J. Victor

Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 7:51 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Cc: Andrew Marcantel <andy@attorneysforfreedom.com>

Subject: Re: New Libertarian Project

Hi Walter.  I just finished reading everything you sent on coronavirus.  It’s striking to me how we have both been pondering the exact same issues.  I’m curious to read your writings on global warming as I have the same concerns about the facts as you highlight for coronavirus.  I’d have a few more things to say about jury nullification as I agree with you the NAP/3LP doesn’t solve everything.  Also, I think mens rea should be more relevant to the analysis.  I’d sure like to sit and think through some of these issues with you sometime over a few hours.  It helps focus my own thinking.  I touched some of these issues in my book, but in a more cursory way.  I’m interested to get your thoughts.

Excellent work!

Marc

________________________________________

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 10:31 AM

To: Marc J. Victor

Subject: RE: New Libertarian Project

Dear Mark:

Good to talk to you today. Here are my homework assignments:

1.Why libt is a hard sell (sociobiology); I think this is the most important, so I’m putting it on the top:

Levendis, John, Walter E. Block and Robert B. Eckhardt.  2019. “Evolutionary psychology, economic freedom, trade and benevolence.” Review of Economic Perspectives – Národohospodářský obzor; Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 73-92; https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/revecp/19/2/article-p73.xml; 10.2478/revecp-2019-0005; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/revecp-2019-0005https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/here-is-one-of-my-best-scholarly-papers-ever/https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/evolutionary-psychology-economic-freedom-trade-and-benevolence

In no particular order:

2. continuums:

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

3. animal rights:

Montgomery, Stephen and Walter E. Block. 2016. “Animal torture and thick libertarianism.” Review of Social and Economic Issues (RSEI), Vol 1, No. 3, Spring, pp. 105-116. http://rsei.rau.ro/images/V1N3/Articol_5.pdfhttp://www.rebe.rau.ro/RePEc/rau/rseijr/SP16/RSEI-SP16-A5.pdf

Block, Walter E. and Steven Craig. 2017. “Animal torture.”  The Review of Social and Economic Issues (RSEI); http://rsei.rau.ro/index.php/lasthttp://rsei.rau.ro/index.php/10-published-issues/10-volume-1-number-4

Block, Walter E. https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/two-challenges-to-libertarianism/

Block, Walter E. 2020. “On Huemer on Ethical Veganism.” Studia Humana.

Volume 9:2, pp. 53-68; DOI: 10.2478/sh-2020-0013;

http://studiahumana.com/wyd,34.htmlhttp://studiahumana.com/pliki/wydania/10443-Volume9_Issue2-07_paper.pdfhttps://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/sh/9/2/article-p53.xml; file:///C:/Users/WBlock/Downloads/[22990518%20-%20Studia%20Humana]%20On%20Huemer%20on%20Ethical%20Veganism.pdf;

https://doi.org/10.2478/sh-2020-0013 |

4. Pandemic:

Block, Walter E. Forthcoming. “A libertarian analysis of the Covid-19 pandemic.” Journal of Libertarian Studies

Block, Walter E. 2020. “Quarantines.” March 10;

https://www.targetliberty.com/2020/03/walter-block-on-quarantines-because-of.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+TargetLiberty+(Target+Liberty);

https://www.targetliberty.com/2020/03/walter-block-on-quarantines-because-of.html?fbclid=IwAR2eKAqVI1zJ-2d-aCW6IQwwJQQKRWJf_lcJsDxLHp9RIfNx-1fYuMzUrO8

Block, Walter E. 2020. “Coronavirus Maximus: a thought experiment on forced quarantine.” May 19; https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/coronavirus-maximus-a-thought-experiment-on-forced-quarantine/

April 13, 2020. Debate on the Coronavirus Quarantine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWEjU6ejEQE. the post-debate correspondence: https://xoandelugo.org/post-debate-correspondence-between-walter-block-philipp-bagus-and-bernardo-ferrero-on-the-ethics-of-the-coronavirus-quarantine/?fbclid=IwAR1ZUOlXvdeDPDC53PdJ9ZeoQn-6SYvbNIpUv2xalgRY3a2xQ8hFHn1b35A;

Bernardo Ferrero <bernardo.96@hotmail.it>

Philipp Bagus <Philipp.Bagus@web.de>

Oscar Carreiro <o.r.carreiro2@gmail.com>

Noemi Díaz corral noemidiazcorral@gmail.com

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/vaccinations-part-ii/

LibertyTalk.FM, http://libertytalk.fm

5. Warming

Block, Walter E. 2012. “Global Warming, Air Pollution and Libertarianism.” January 18; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block195.html

6. reparations:

Alston and Block, 2007; 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/2b75fl

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;

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/reparations_slavery.pdfhttps://link.springer.com/journal/12142/3/4/page/1https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12142-002-1003-4

(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;

https://www.unz.com/article/reparations/

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

7. Public defender

discussed

Best regards,

Walter

From: Marc J. Victor <marc@attorneysforfreedom.com>

Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2020 6:34 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Re: New Libertarian Project

Hi Walter.  Below is the link for the Sunday meeting at 10am Central time.  I’m looking forward to seeing you!

Also, in case you have nothing to do between now and Sunday, 🙂 I’ve attached the very rough draft of my book which is intended to explain the Movement and its philosophy to the average reasonable person who never heard of libertarianism.  As you will see, several portions have yet to be written, but the important sections have been.  I’d really love your thoughts at some point.  Thanks!

________________________________________

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 4:18 PM

To: Marc J. Victor

Subject: RE: New Libertarian Project

Dear Mark:

We’re on for 10am central time. You’ll zoom me, right?

Best regards,

Walter

From: Marc J. Victor

Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2020 5:23 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Re: New Libertarian Project

Does Sunday 10am your time work?

Otherwise, 5pm-ish?

Let me know what’s best for you.

________________________________________

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:08 PM

To: Marc J. Victor

Subject: RE: New Libertarian Project

Dear Mark:

Of course. Sunday 9/13 would be better for me. I’m on central time. When’s good for you?

Best regards,

Walter

From: Marc J. Victor

Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2020 5:06 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Re: New Libertarian Project

I don’t have the words to describe how much that means to me.  Seriously.  Do you have some time to Zoom this weekend?

________________________________________

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:02 PM

To: Marc J. Victor

Subject: RE: New Libertarian Project

Dear Marc:

You must know I’m a big fan of yours. When I got an inkling you were asking me to do something for you, my immediate reaction was of course I’ll do it, whatever he asks. If you asked me to jump, I’d ask how high on the way up. Now that I’ve read some of the specifics, I’m with you 100%, as I fully expected I would be.

How can I be of help to you in this great initiative of yours?

Best regards,

Walter

From: Marc J. Victor

Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2020 4:38 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: New Libertarian Project

Hi Walter.  I hope all is well with you!  I’ve been frustrated with the libertarian movement for the past several years.  We have the best political philosophy.  We are promoting freedom for everyone.  Our political philosophy also reliably raises standards of living via the free market.  It’s almost impossible to believe that, given the curent two parties, we can’t seem to make any progress.  You and I both know that if everyone actually understood what we are saying, there would be more than enough people to achieve a free world.

We have a huge marketing problem.  As you know, our movement attracts people who act like idiots.  For the ones who don’t, we endlessly argue about implementation issues or the “best” way to promote freedom.  Although we both enjoy the discussions, we aren’t making progress.

Also, I wonder what Murry Rothbard would have to say about a world where people in China can easily create substantial threats to us here in a variety of ways.  There are many such possible threats.  I think we live in a different world that Murry couldn’t possibly envision.  I’m not saying anything was wrong with what he said, but I am saying I don’t think he could have considered today’s world.  A free society isn’t going to cut it anymore.  We need to work towards a free world.

Although the libertarian philosophy is mostly about changing the laws, we can say more about values and we need to.  Indeed, we need to if we are going to promore peace and not just freedom.

For these reasons, I think the libertarian movement needs a makeover, an update and a new marketing plan.   I’m planning to unveil the Live and Let Live Movement which will be marketed as “The World’s Only Real Peace Movement” in October 2021.  We have big plans.

I purchased www.liveandletlive.org which is currently under construction.  We are currently working on three professional videos; two very short ones to lead off with and a longer more detailed version for people with longer attention spans.  I’ve attached the script to the longer video if you are interested.  It will give you a flavor of what we are planning.

I’m writing a book entitled, “Live and Let Live: The Road to Peace, Prosperity and Happiness” which will be ready for October 2021.  I was scheduled to announce this at Freedomfest this year, but the world had other plans.  Instead, I’ll announce it at the Liberty International Conference in Colombia in January.  The Freedom Summit is now the Live and Let Live Conference which will be held in Honolulu and Phoenix annually then internationally.  The Movement will begin in the 49th most free state, Hawaii for a variety of reasons.  They badly need change there, they are ready for change, and I’m already off to a good start.

We have lots of other big plans too.  Here is what I’m asking from you:

Assuming you are interested in helping, I’d like for you to read the current draft of my book to get your thoughts on how I’m laying it all out. It is only about 50% done, but the important stuff is written.  It will take you about two hours as it is written for the average person.  However, anarchocapitalists would have no cause for disagreement. I’m not compromising on principle.  However, it is written to appeal to Socialists too.  I’m aiming for the reasonable people of the world.

I’d also like to chat with you to get your thoughts on how to roll it out.  Finally, maybe you could help us promote the Movement when it’s time?  Although I’m not aiming at libertarians, I need some to get initial interest and momentum going. You know everyone in the movement.  That said, it will only succeed if we can appeal to non-libertarians.  The website will be done soon so we can actually start promoting a prelaunch status in a few months..

Please let me know your thoughts.

Peace.

Marc

The contents of this message, together with any attachments, are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed and may contain information that is legally privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message, or any attachment, is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email message in error, please notify the original sender or The Attorneys For Freedom Law Firm at (480) 755-7110 immediately by telephone or by return e-mail and delete this message, along with any attachments, from your computer.  Thank you!!

“The Constitution is that sacred document that prevents the government from doing all the terrible things it does.”

Professor Butler Shaffer

Southwestern Law School

Share

4:17 am on January 10, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

In The Free Society, Would Individuals Be Allowed to Own Nuclear Weapons?

Letter 1

From: chris ar

Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 3:35 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Nuclear Weapon Ownership.

Dear Dr. Block.

You argue that owning a nuclear weapon is illegitimate because you cannot limit it’s use to the “bad” guys. A possible objection to this as pointed out in this article https://www.google.com/amp/s/miseschrist.com/2014/05/11/nuclear-weapons-free-society/amp/ is that using something and owning something are distinct.

A counterargument to this critique (in my opinion) is pointed out in this article https://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/nuclear-weapons-in-libertarianism/ Basically the author, using your methodology argues that the reason why nuclear weapons are, in almost all cases, invasive is because they are necessarily pointed at someone (or someone’s property). Since pointing a weapon (any weapon) at someone is a threat of aggression therefore nukes are invasive, since they are almost always pointed at someone.

My question is, is this your viewpoint as well? the author of the article seems to think so, he credits the argument to you. You do seem to hint at it in your own theory, or perhaps it is implied in that, if something cannot be limited(pinpointed) then of course it is pointed at everyone around you. Just wanted a clarification, if this is in fact your view as well.

Best regards,

Chris Armoutidis.

Letter 2

On Sep 23, 2020, at 3:41 PM, Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear Chris:

Wow. The second of these is VERY complimentary to me and my co author, who I’m taking the liberty of copying on this.

Maybe my coauthor thought of that, but, I fear, I did not. I think he makes and excellent contribution to this discussion. I only wish he were not anonymous, so I could thank him for this. His view is certainly compatible with mine, but I must credit him for pushing forward on what I take to be the Rothbardian position on this matter.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Please tell me a bit about yourself? Age, schooling, residence?

Best regards,

Walter

Letter 3

From: Michael Edelstein

Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 6:31 PM

To: Walter E. Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Cc: chris ar ; Matthew Block

Subject: Re: Nuclear Weapon Ownership.

Shall guns in my apartment be banned because one might be resting on a table pointed toward a wall I share with my neighbor?

Warm regards, Michael

Co-author of Three Minute Therapy

with David Ramsay Steele, Ph.D.

Features help for anxiety, depression,

relationships, panic attacks, addiction

Letter 4

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 7:03 PM

To: ‘Michael Edelstein’

Cc: ‘chris ar’ ; ‘Matthew Block’

Subject: RE: Nuclear Weapon Ownership.

Dear Michael:

It all depends upon whether or not that gun pointing constitutes a threat. If your “gun” is an armor pierceing bazooka, capable of plowing through that wall, and all you need is for that “gun” to drop, or you sneeze on it in just the right way to launch the missile, then, yes, it should be banned and you’d be a criminal.

On what constitutes a threat, see this:

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

Best regards,

Walter

Share

4:13 am on January 10, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Letter 1

From: Wesley Downs

Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 3:05 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Papers for E4B

Hi Walter,

I wanted to followup on our Zoom call a couple weeks ago. We discussed that you might be able to make suggestions for academic papers that could be condensed into user-friendly summaries. We have a stable of students ready to start on summarization and I’m reaching back out to our professors to ask for paper recommendations. Can you suggest papers that might be relevant to a business audience? Topics such as business ethics, Austrian business cycle theory, capital allocation, consumer sovereignty, and entrepreneurship would be ideal. If you have a link or pdf for the paper that would be very helpful but if not just the title and author will do. Thank you again for volunteering to help!

Best,

Wesley

Letter 2

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 10:09 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear Wesley:

You want me to send you papers on:

business ethics, Austrian business cycle theory, capital allocation, consumer sovereignty, and entrepreneurship?

Ones that I’ve published, or others, or both?

Best regards,

Walter

Letter 3

From: Wesley Downs

Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2020 7:06 AM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Re: Papers for E4B

Hi Walter,

Your papers would be great but the author isn’t as important as the topic being relevant to a business audience. We’re trying to bridge the connection between academia and practical application by taking dense papers written for the academic audience and distilling it into palatable language for businessmen. Thank you!

Letter 4

Dear Wesley:

I hope this is of help to you.

On cycles:

Barnett, William II and Walter E. Block. 2009B. “Financial Intermediaries, the Intertemporal-Carry Trade, and Austrian Business Cycles; or; Crash and Carry: Can Fraudulent Time deposits lead to an Austrian Business Cycle? Yes.” Journal Etica e Politica / Ethics & Politics; Vol. XI, No. 1, pp. 455-469; http://www2.units.it/~etica/2009_1/BARNETT_BLOCK.pdf

Barnett, William II and Walter E. Block. 2009. “Financial Intermediaries, the Intertemporal-Carry Trade, and Austrian Business Cycles; or; Crash and Carry: Can Fraudulent Time deposits lead to an Austrian Business Cycle? Yes.” Journal Etica e Politica / Ethics & Politics; Vol. XI, No. 1, pp. 455-469; http://www2.units.it/~etica/2009_1/BARNETT_BLOCK.pdfhttp://www2.units.it/etica/2009_1/BARNETT_BLOCK.pdf

Barnett, William II and Walter E. Block. 2006. “Tyler Cowen on Austrian Business Cycle Theory: A Critique.” New Perspectives on Political Economy, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 26-84; http://pcpe.libinst.cz/nppe/2_2/nppe2_2_2.pdf

Barnett, William II and Walter E. Block. 2005. “Professor Tullock on Austrian Business Cycle Theory,” Advances in Austrian Economics, Vol. 8, pp. 431-443; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/barnett-block_tullock-austrian-business-cycle-2005.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2001. “Yes, We Have No Chaff: A Reply to Wagner’s “Austrian Business Cycle Theory: Saving the Wheat While Discarding the Chaff,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring, pp. 63-73.  www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae4_1_4.pdf

Barnett, William II and Walter E. Block. 2008. “On Hummel on Austrian Business Cycle Theory.” Reason Papers Vol. 30, Fall, pp. 59-90; http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/30/rp_30_4.pdf

My pubs on Biz Ethics:

1. Block, Walter E. 1992. “Discrimination: An Interdisciplinary Analysis,” The Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11, No. 4, April, pp. 241-254;

http://www.walterblock.com/publications/discrimination_analysis.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/(xssjr32ur3v4lk555se0su55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=searchcitationsresults,1,1http://tinyurl.com/24yojfhttp://tinyurl.com/2fwlfchttp://tinyurl.com/2gejlp

2. Block, Walter E. 1993. “Drug Prohibition: A Legal and Economic Analysis,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 12, pp. 689-700; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/drug_prohibition.pdfhttp://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=249&hid=116&sid=781cb0b0-a517-47c5-9874-ee43ba5138d5%40sessionmgr3http://tinyurl.com/23zawx

3. 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;

http://141.164.133.3/faculty/Block/Blockarticles/environmentalism.htm; Romanian translation: www.antiteze.comhttp://mises.org/Etexts/Environfreedom.Pdf

4. Block, Walter E. 2001. “Cyberslacking, Business Ethics and Managerial Economics,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 225-231; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/cyberslacking.pdfhttp://www.itnews.com.au/News/60142,dont-let-your-boss-catch-you-reading-this.aspxhttp://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/cyberslacking.pdf

5. Block, Walter E. 2002. “A critique of the legal and philosophical case for rent control,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 40, pp. 75-90; http://www.mises.org/etexts/rentcontrol.pdf

6. Dreuil, Emile, James Anderson, Walter E. Block and Michael Saliba. 2003. “The Trade Gap: The Fallacy of Anti World-Trade Sentiment,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 45, No. 3, July, pp. 269-281; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/trade_gap.pdf

7. Block, Walter E. 2004. “The ‘digital divide’ is not a problem in need of rectifying,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53, No. 4, September, pp. 393-406

8. Walker, Deborah, Jerry W. Dauterive, Elyssa Schultz and Walter E. Block. 2004.  “The Feminist Competition/Cooperation Dichotomy: A Critique,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 55, No. 3, December, pp. 241-252

9. Morrel, Joseph, Walter E. Block and John Levendis. 2006. “Nuclear Power.” Journal of Business Ethics; Vol. 67, No. 1, August, pp. 37-49; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9003-y

10. Barnett, William II and Walter E. Block. 2009. “Time deposits, dimensions and fraud,” Journal of Business Ethics; Vol. 88, No. 4, September, pp. 711-716;www.WalterBlock.com/publicationshttp://www.springerlink.com/content/100281/?k=walter+block&sortorder=asc&v=condensed&o=20http://www.springerlink.com/content/a88l166702524r55/http://blog.mises.org/archives/011398.asphttp://www.springerlink.com/content/a88l166702524r55/fulltext.pdf?page=1https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225634696_Time_Deposits_Dimensions_and_Fraud?ev=prf_pubhttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10551-008-9976-9

11. Portillo, Javier and Walter E. Block. 2012. “Anti-Discrimination Laws: Undermining Our Rights,” Journal of Business Ethics; Vol. 109, No. 2, pp. 209-217; http://www.springer.com/home?SGWID=0-0-1003-0-0&aqId=2105739&download=1&checkval=0e046f4dd92abbdf3a08f3e26c9c7598http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10551-011-1120-6

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-011-1120-6

12. Smith, Taylor and Walter E. Block. 2015. “The Economics of Insider Trading and Labor: A Free Market Perspective” Journal of Business Ethics; March; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-015-2621-5?sa_campaign=email/event/articleAuthor/onlineFirsthttp://download.springer.com/static/pdf/937/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10551-015-2621-5.pdf?auth66=1427728764_9d09a26ff8fb21799943c9df3c097495&ext=.pdf; DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2621-5; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10551-015-2621-5

13. Block, Walter E. and William Barnett II. 2015. “Maturity Mismatching and ‘Market Failure’” Journal of Business Ethics; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-015-2706-1; DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2706-1; http://www.springer.com/home?SGWID=0-0-1003-0-0&aqId=2857155&download=1&checkval=bcf7a55607153e6921342e885ac6bb8fhttp://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10551-015-2706-1

Other pubs in biz ethics:

Block, Walter E. and Robert W. McGee. 1992. “Insider Trading,” Business Ethics and Common Sense, Robert W. McGee, ed., New York: Quorum Books, pp. 219-229.

Block, Walter E. and Paul Cwik. 2007. “Teaching Business Ethics: A Classificationist Approach,” Business Ethics: A European Review.  Vol. 16, No. 2 April, pp. 98-107; http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/beer/16/2

Block, Walter E. Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. 2000. “The Second Paradox of Blackmail,” Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 3, July, pp. 593-622; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/second_paradox.pdfhttp://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=149&hid=116&sid=781cb0b0-a517-47c5-9874-ee43ba5138d5%40sessionmgr3

Best regards,

Walter

Share

4:11 am on January 10, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

From: Darien Sumner

Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:37 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: re: Child Prostitution

Well, that’s the most awkward e-mail subject I’ve ever typed.

As regards your correspondence with Ed on the subject of child prostitution, I believe the matter can be cleared up a bit if one considers the nature of the parent-child relationship. This is a topic I dove into some years back on the topic of spanking ( http://www.bumblingbees.net/articles/should-libertarians-spank-their-children

— also your fault, Dr. Block!), and I think the same logic applies here.

Parentage, in my view, is a trust. Must as the manager of a trust fund has an obligation to deliver the fund in good condition when the heir is of age to inherit, the parents have the obligation to deliver the object of their trust — namely, the child himself — in good condition once the heir is of age. If we hold that prostitution is inherently harmful to a child, then there is no difficulty in seeing how parents who allow their children to become prostitutes are in grave violation of their stewardship obligations.

If a trustee of a monetary trust is found to have managed the money wrongfully — the classic example is of the trustee who gambles it away, planning to replace the missing money with “winnings” that never come — then he is certainly a criminal (note that this is different from the trustee who merely manages the money *badly*). Why would not parents who manage their child wrongfully (again, as distinct from merely badly) also be criminals? In both cases, the wrongful behavior of the trustee has damaged the object of the trust; indeed, one could comfortably argue that the parents are far worse criminals than the money manager, since surely causing the child himself to be sexually exploited is a graver crime than the theft of some money.

Anyhow, I hope my meanderings have been of some value to you. Thank you again for everything you do — especially for exposing such interesting questions for us to think about!

— D

Dear Darien:

You make excellent sense.

Here are my pubs on spanking:

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.mp3http://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; https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/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

4:09 am on January 10, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Letter 1

From: Sergey Fedorov

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 10:39 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: question about infamous utility

Greetings, dear Professor Block!

I have a brief question about the “utility” and its aggregation and comparison.

(Please do not take it as an effort to justify Neoclassical models, my question is exclusively on methodology.)

Do we refuse to accept any substance behind the concept of “utility” on praxeological or empirical grounds? That is, would you say it is impossible by definition or impossible due to actual limitations and imperfections of our knowledge?

It seems to me that an objective measure of “subjective safisfaction” might make sense at least when taken to stand for “pleasure”, even if current technology does not allow it practically.

Certain regions of brain cortex activate and certain hormones and neurotransmitters change when a given emotion is experienced. (I am not an expert on brain biochemistry, but I think my statement is sufficiently accurate.) If so, it should be possible to measure these, which would allow us to introduce a common denominator, be it a number of activated neurons, level of hormone in blood or what not.

What do you think?

P. S. I do understand that it is a very narrowly defined “utility” (someone can see a value in a thing that is not pleasurable – on ethical grounds etc.).

Letter 2

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 00:20, Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear Sergey:

I don’t at all think that utility and praxeology are incompatible. For Austrians, ordinal utility is a legitimate concept. We only oppose cardinal utility, indifference curves, etc.

Right now, we can measure body temperature. Normal is 98.6 degrees. But what the thermometer measures is speed of molecules running around, if I understand this correctly. It is not the SAME as temperature. Heat and speed are different.

One day, perhaps, we’ll come up with a similar “meaure” of happiness.” Maybe, it will be something like speed of electrons running through the brain. Does this mean that on that day cardinal utility will be licit? The interpersonal comparisons of utility will be possible? I think not. For happiness and speed of electons, similarly, will not be the SAME.

The best thing ever written on this sort of thing is this:

Rothbard. Murray N. 1997 [1956]. “Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics.” reprinted in “The Logic of Action” Vol. I. Lyme, NH: Edward Elgar. pp. 211-254; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/toward.pdf

Also see this very important contribution:

Gordon, David. 1993. “Toward a Deconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics,” The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 99-112; http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE6_2_4.pdf

Best regards,

Walter

Letter 3

From: Sergey Fedorov

Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1:55 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Re: question about infamous utility

Thank you very much for your reply!

You are right, I should have specified that I ask about “cardinal utility”. Obviously ordinal is totally okay.

As for your example about the temperature, regardless of the particular mechanism of measurement from the point of physics, can’t we in a meaningful sense compare temperatures of different objects and measure degrees of difference and not only more hot/more cold?

At the same time, upon an afterthought I am not sure purely biochemical measurements will accurately correspond to psychic experiences, since “default” level of neurotransmitters varies and perhaps magnitude of changes too. So perhaps you are right, it still won’t make cardinal utility legit.

Sincerely,

Sergey Fedorov

Letter 4

Dear Sergey:

Temperature measures the speed of molecules, somewhere in the body, I think. My temperature is 97.8. Yours in 98.6. Your temperature is higher than mine. No problem.

Now we get a “utility meter.” It also measures the speed of molecules, let’s posit, in the brain somewhere. You score a 50, I score a 25. Does this mean you are twice as happy as I am? Does this mean, even, that you have more utility than me? But, suppose I laugh a lot, tell jokes, and you are morose, depressed. What are we going to believe? The score on the “utility meter” or our lying eyes. Now invert the scores. You score a 25, I score a 50. Now, it is more believable that I am happier than you, even if not twice as happy. But why? Due to the score on the machine, or to our outward behavior. I think the latter

An analogy comes to mind. Indifference is a perfectly good English word. We all know what it means, even Austrian economists. But as a matter of technical economics, human action consists of preference; we can’t demonstrate indifference when we choose.

This “utility” meter might be like indifference is, for ordinary language. But for technical economics, I think it would be impossible for it to function.

Similarly, in physics, “work” is a function of mass and distance. Yet, if you hold 20 pound bar bells extended with elbows straight, you’ll be sweating, “working” but only in ordinary language, not in technical physics.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

7:03 am on December 28, 2020

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Dear Mike:

In my view, none of these things constitute a contract, or agreement, similar to a private contract or agreement. It cannot be under duress as in the case of these “contracts” with government.

A reading for you:

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

Thanks for the $5. My address is below.

The lady who shares my life is my wife, and I’m bccing her on this.

Best regards,

Walter

From: mike carl

Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 9:06 AM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Immunity From Government Procedures

Walter-

The following quote is from an article written by Anna von Reitz.

“The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedures, absent contract.” See Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 US (19 How.) 393, or as the Supreme Court has succinctly said, “….every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen, without his consent.” Cruden vs. Neale, 2 N.C. 238, 2 S.E. 70.”

The key phrase in that short statement, to me, is ‘absent contract’.

My question is what constitutes a contract. 1) Does a signature on voter registration authorize a contract to obey the results of the election? 2) Does my receiving a monthly SSA check constitute a contract? 3) Does my enrollment in VA health benefits constitute a contract? 4) If #2 or #3 should be contractural, would they be contractural with the Federal government in toto, or only within the pertinent agencies?

Your opinion on the subject would be much appreciated, as would your usual list of references for me to research! And if you might have an email for Mz. von Reitz where I could ask her the same questions . . . . .

BTW, I owe you $5.00. I lost a bet on the Democratic nominee. Where do I snail mail a check? I promise to make it large enough that you and the lady who shares your life can enjoy a lunch of filé gumbo.  :<))

Mike Carroll

Share

6:59 am on December 28, 2020

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Dear Andrew:

These are very important and interesting questions, and I’m honored you ask me to address them.

First of all, I’m not a free speech absolutist. “I’m going to kill you” is a threat that constitutions a violation of the NAP, when uttered seriously and in a context in which this could actually occur.

I do address “yelling fire in a crowded theater” in my book Defending I:

Block, Walter E. 2008 [1976]. Defending the Undefendable. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute; John Stossel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DJ7wFENHkchttp://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/11/friedrich-hayek-playing-chess-with.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29http://bit.ly/BlockDefending2; file:///C:/Users/WBlock/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/6I1PKZ08/Defending_the_Undefendable_2018_CS.pdf; https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Defending%20the%20Undefendable_2.pdf; audiobook on Amazon and Audible:  https://www.amazon.com/Defending-the-Undefendable/dp/B005VFU05O  and here: https://www.audible.com/pd/Defending-the-Undefendable-Audiobook/B005V1UV70;

As to you specific questions, I answer Yes to the first two. As to numbers 3-5, I offer this publication of mine:

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

Best regards,

Walter

From: Andrew Clifton

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 8:00 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Political conspiracies to initiate force – a justification for the proactive defence of liberty?

Importance: High

Dear Professor Block,

I have some questions I’d like to put to you about libertarian ethics and the justice of using force to defend oneself, and others, against actual or potential loss of liberty.  I notice a number of posts on your website (and on LewRockwell.com) which answer questions from members of the public – so, if you can spare the time, I’d be very grateful if you could do the same here (and let me know when your reply is posted).

1.            Does Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) prohibit actions which serve as  preparation, planning, or conspiracy to commit acts of violence to person or property?

2.            If so, does this – at least in principle – justify  proactive self-defence against people who merely plan, conspire, or intend to abuse our liberty?

It may be helpful to briefly explain the thinking behind these questions. The NAP is sometimes expressed as a  prohibition on  the “initiation of force” – but it surely doesn’t require that, before acting in self-defence,  one must wait for an evidently malevolent assailant to strike the first blow – or fire the first shot. Hence, it is usually stipulated that NAP also prohibits the threatened initiation of force – but this strikes me as insufficient to justify all cases of ethical self-defence. Acts of violence against person and property often occur without warning – precisely in order to ensure that victims are unable to take any effective defensive action. Hence, when police officers (whether employed by the State) discover evidence that some individual or group is planning a bank raid, or a terrorist outrage, the moral imperative is surely to prevent these crimes – not to wait until violence has commenced. I assume that most libertarians would agree that the would-be bank-robbers and terrorists can justly be punished for the crime of conspiracy to commit these offences. This would imply, I think, that the libertarian answer to 1 and 2 is “yes”.

This conclusion seems obvious and uncontroversial, but I think it has some radical implications. Imagine a future libertarian society in which government  is drastically reduced to the minimal function of protecting liberty. A popular movement of socialist malcontents and reactionaries seeks popular support for the return of Big Government – organising mass demonstrations, protests and so on. Their intent is very clear: should they win power, liberties of all kinds will be severely restricted.  It seems to me that, for libertarians,  these actions can be interpreted as ”preparation, planning, or conspiracy to commit acts of violence”.  If we answer yes to 1 and 2 above, we can then ask:

3.            Does the NAP justify proactive self-defence against a political movement which seeks to unjustly restrict liberty?

4.            If so, does this justify libertarian laws which prohibit, and punish, active participation in such a movement?

5.            If so, does this justify restrictions on supposed “civil liberties” such as free speech, public assembly etc. – when these are to incite and promote aggressive outcomes?

I suppose some libertarians might strongly object to any restrictions on free-speech – which is often considered an inalienable right. However, I think others might argue that, in order to protect everyone’s liberty,  certain limits on free-speech are necessary – the cliché example being that maliciously yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre (when there is no fire) can justifiably be treated as a crime, since it puts people at risk of injury. Likewise, incitement to acts of violence: it seems plausible, for example, that we can justly arrest and imprison a theocratic preacher who broadcasts sermons urging believers to murder atheists. This would suggest that, for libertarians, the correct answers to 3, 4 and 5 would be “yes”.

I would very much like to know where you stand on these questions – and I hope you find them interesting!

As mentioned above, if you decide to post a reply online, please let me know – and send me a link.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Clifton

Bath, England

Share

6:58 am on December 28, 2020

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Dear Aleksander:

I am honored that you come to me for help in resolving difficult to answer questions about libertarian theory.

I’m delighted that this book led you to me:

Block, Walter E. and Peter Lothian Nelson. 2015. Water Capitalism: The Case for Privatizing Oceans, Rivers, Lakes, and Aquifers. New York City, N.Y.: Lexington Books, Rowman and Littlefield; https://store.mises.org/Water-Capitalism-The-Case-for-Privatizing-Oceans-Rivers-Lakes-and-Aquifers-P11051.aspxhttps://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498518802/Water-Capitalism-The-Case-for-Privatizing-Oceans-Rivers-Lakes-and-Aquifershttps://mises.org/library/case-privatizing-oceans-and-rivers

Happily, I have already published on the “air grabber” as I characterize him:

Block, Walter E. 2016. “Response to Feser on libertarianism.” Journal Etica e Politica / Ethics & Politics; Vol. XVIII, No. 3, pp. 547-572; http://www2.units.it/etica/2016_3/BLOCK.pdf

Best regards,

Walter

From: Aleksander Serwiński

Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2020 6:53 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: A strange libertarian case

Dear Professor,

During a discussion among libertarian friends, we raised the topic of the so-called free goods, such as the water in the ocean or the air we breathe.

An extremely interesting, though very abstract case in libertarian ethics appeared in the discussion. If a man were able to appropriate all of the earth’s current oxygen supply – with a giant machine – would he have a right to do so, or would it break the NAP?

Free goods become economic goods when they become scarce. Long ago, land was a free good until fencing. From the standpoint of libertarian ethics, mixing free / no one’s good with work makes us its owner.

Basically, it was difficult for us to find a clear position as to whether and at what point aggression would occur – although the consequences for the rest of humanity would of course be deplorable. Since we know the professor’s book on the privatization of the oceans, we concluded that there would be no better person around the world who could respond to such a question.

An important point in the whole reasoning seems to be the identification of the point in time when free air becomes, in the described actual state, an economic good. Perhaps air, due to its unique properties, cannot be originally appropriated – and breathing human beings is some form of mixing it with work? It seems problematic in this understanding that biological activities are not a manifestation of human action.

I hope that despite the seemingly absurd nature of the case, you will see an intellectual value in it, as do we. Thus, we very much count on a (even short) answer.

Yours faithfully,

Libertarian and sympathizer from Poland,

Aleksander Serwiński

Share

6:56 am on December 28, 2020

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Jews and Gun Control

Dear Jean:

Thanks for your kind words about the MI and me.

Yes, my fellow co religionists are so smart, IQ wise, and so stupid in many other contexts.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Jean Carbonneau

Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 7:57 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Jews for Gun Control as well

Good morning Prof Block!

Hope you are well.  I’m up here in Maine, where it’s like trying to find a needle in the haystack when it comes to COVID-1984.  But, that’s a different subject.  I read your post about how Jews are supporting BLM.  But I also seem to recall there was support for gun control, amongst politicians(So I making an assumption that the people that put them in office, which includes Jews, also support it)

Pardon me for my assumptions, but people like Dianne Feinstein, and Charles Schumer, and the late Howard Metzabaum come to mind.  (There maybe even more)

It’s mind blogging to me, given that what happened in the holocaust would make Jews very leary of any law that limits the ability to obtain firearms for personal protection.  However, I am a big fan of yours, and I greatly admired the late great Aaron Zelman, who found the JPFO(Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)  I’m a lifetime member, and I’m Catholic, but what your religion is shouldn’t determine your stance on firearms.  We are all humans, and it’s well documented in the JPFO documentary, “Innocence Betrayed”, that the first thing that is done to create a genocide is to confiscate all private firearms.  People really don’t know much about history as the old song goes.

Bless you and all of you at Lew Rockwell.com.  I’ve gotten more of an education from here than I did in the 12 years of schooling, and 4 years of college.  Continued success always.

Mr. Jean Carbonneau

Portland, ME

Share

5:38 am on December 25, 2020

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

From: Sergey Fedorov

Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 10:39 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: question about infamous utility

Greetings, dear Professor Block!

I have a brief question about the “utility” and its aggregation and comparison.

(Please do not take it as an effort to justify Neoclassical models, my question is exclusively on methodology.)

Do we refuse to accept any substance behind the concept of “utility” on praxeological or empirical grounds? That is, would you say it is impossible by definition or impossible due to actual limitations and imperfections of our knowledge?

It seems to me that an objective measure of “subjective satisfaction” might make sense at least when taken to stand for “pleasure”, even if current technology does not allow it practically.

Certain regions of brain cortex activate and certain hormones and neurotransmitters change when a given emotion is experienced. (I am not an expert on brain biochemistry, but I think my statement is sufficiently accurate.) If so, it should be possible to measure these, which would allow us to introduce a common denominator, be it a number of activated neurons, level of hormone in blood or what not.

What do you think?

P. S. I do understand that it is a very narrowly defined “utility” (someone can see a value in a thing that is not pleasurable – on ethical grounds etc.).

Dear Sergey:

I don’t at all think that utility and praxeology are incompatible. For Austrians, ordinal utility is a legitimate concept. We only oppose cardinal utility, indifference curves, etc.

Right now, we can measure body temperature. Normal is 98.6 degrees. But what the thermometer measures is speed of molecules running around, if I understand this correctly. It is not the SAME as temperature. Heat and speed are different.

One day, perhaps, we’ll come up with a similar “measure” of happiness.” Maybe, it will be something like speed of electrons running through the brain. Does this mean that on that day cardinal utility will be licit? The interpersonal comparisons of utility will be possible? I think not. For happiness and speed of electrons, similarly, will not be the SAME.

The best thing ever written on this sort of thing is this:

Rothbard. Murray N. 1997 [1956]. “Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics.” reprinted in “The Logic of Action” Vol. I. Lyme, NH: Edward Elgar. pp. 211-254; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/toward.pdf

Also see this very important contribution:

Gordon, David. 1993. “Toward a Deconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics,” The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 99-112; http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE6_2_4.pdf

Best regards,

Walter

Share

5:36 am on December 25, 2020

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