≡ Menu

Letter 1

From: Sergey Fedorov

Re: question on applied Libertarian theory

Dear Professor Block,

Hope you are doing well and stay safe.

I have two questions on libertarian theory – if you have a minute to reply (or refer to your answer in a specific published article), I would be grateful.

1. You, as well as many other libertarian philosophers, explicitly oppose international usage of military force. But international arena is a sort of anarchy (self-emergent order). And we know that, assuming anarchy, division of labor will lead to specialization, including emergence of security agencies. So why is it wrong if a capable state intervenes by military force on behalf of others? (Let us ignore here any public choice and economic implications.)

To make a real-life example, what if China attacks Taiwan, and Taiwan asks for US military help? Clearly US has no obligation here, but at the same time non-intervening would mean not only violation of property rights and overriding free choice of Taiwanese people, but quite likely mass-murders.

And if we agree that international intervention for protection against violence is acceptable, specialization requires to possess military capital and technology.

2. What is your view in regard of ownership rights over kids (I refer to kids in a proper socio-biological sense, not arbitrary legal definition; say, anyone would agree that 6 year old human being is a “kid”)? Assuming a kid has at least one parent who is capable and willing to act as a parent. It is clear that a kid is not able to be fully responsible for him/herself. And historically, prior to modern era, families treated kids as a kind of property. If we do not state a proper self-ownership of a kid, who owns him/her and to what extent?

It seems intuitively clear that any direct violence against the kid is violation of NAP (unless we assume full ownership rights of parents over kids). But what about cases of deliberate carelessness that endangers a kid? For example, a kid walks into a window, parents see that and do nothing.

Two sum up, this question is twofold: a) what is the “thin” libertarian position regarding property rights here?

b) would you in principle admit that in some cases, including those not being of direct violence (physical abuse), external intervention may be justified (in anarchy, perhaps, by security agencies or by community, in the current world – by public agencies backed up by the government)?

Why I ask the second one is because many libertarians oppose vaccination – and while it is clear that vaccination for adults must be voluntary, it is not so clear in case of kids.

Yours faithfully,

Sergey Fedorov

Letter 2

Dear Sergey:

Very important questions.

1. The Lincoln Brigade from the US, Canada, elsewhere, went to Spain to fight Franco in 1936. That would be the libertarian model to save Taiwan from the possible invasion by China. The US government, if it has any legitimacy (it doesn’t) is to protect only inhabitants of that country, not those of Taiwan. Borrowing from the Franco example, invidivuals from all over the world would be free to help defend Taiwan against China. Ditto for ridding Venezuela of Maduro. No government should do that, but if private citizens did that, that would be compatible with libertarian non interventionism. The point is, the latter applies, only, to states, not individuals.

2. Parents can’t own children. But, they can own the guardianship rights to them. How do they get them, initially? By homesteading them. Typically by giving birth to them and caring for them. Also, by adopting them with the permission, maybe for payment to, the original owners of the guardianship rights. These guardianship rights can be lost by neglect or child abuse. Then, a private defense agency, or a govt if we are minarchists, would be justified in taking the kid out of the control of the parents who are abusive or neglectful.

I’ve written a bit about this. Here’s a bit of a biblio.

On vaccination:

Block, Walter E. 2013A. “Libertarianism and Compulsory Vaccinations.” January 19; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/130928.html

Block, Walter E. 2013B. “Forced Vaccinations.” February 4;


April 29, 2015. Marc Clair [mailto:marc.clair@gmail.com] evictionism, Rand Paul, vaccinations; Marc Clair Editor In Chief; LionsOfLiberty.com; (203) 558-8342; Skype is MarcMadness8780; http://lionsofliberty.com/104/;





February 11, 2015. Sam Seder debates Walter E. Block. The Majority Report [mailto:majorityreporters@gmail.com] The Majority Report with Sam Seder. Live M-F 12:00 NOON ET. http://majority.fm; Ring of Fire Radio. With Sam Seder, Mike Papantonio and Bobby Kennedy Jr. Weekends. http://www.ringoffireradio.com; Resolved: “laissez faire capitalism is the best system known to man” http://majority.fm/2014/05/01/51-professor-walter-block-defends-libertarianism/http://majority.fm/; 646-257-3920; topics: vaccinations, a reprise of our min wage discussion, your email sign off “If it moves, privatize it; if it doesn’t move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or doesn’t move, privatize everything.” and if it’s ok, a listener wanted me to ask you to explain the difference between consequentialist and deontological libertarianism; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNZwHw4eT8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulMRmIALBX8

February 11, 2015 Debate with Leftist Sam Seder on libertarianism, Non-aggression, property rights, retributions and libertarians, Native Americans, homesteading, property in America, Rand Paul and Vaccinations with Sam Seder on The Majority Report (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNZwHw4eT8)

On children:

Block, 1976, 2003, 2004, 2011, 2013; Block and Fleischer, 2010; Evers, 1978A, 1978B; Feser, 2004; Rothbard, 1982, chapter 14.

Block, Walter E. 2008 [1976]. Defending the Undefendable. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute; http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf

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

Block, Walter E. 2004. “Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children’s Rights,” International Journal of Social Economics; Vol. 31, No. 3, pp 275-286; http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do?containerType=Issue&containerId=18709http://www.walterblock.com/publications.php#recent-arts;


Block, Walter E. 2011. “Terri Schiavo: A Libertarian Analysis” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, pp. 527–536; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_26.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

Evers, Williamson M. 1978A. “Rawls and Children.” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 109-114; http://mises.org/journals/jls/2_2/2_2_2.pdf

Evers, Williamson M. 1978B. “The Law of Omissions and Neglect of Children,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1 – 10; http://mises.org/journals/jls/2_1/2_1_1.pdf

Feser, Edward. 2004. “Self-Ownership, Abortion and the Rights of Children.” Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 18, No. 3, Summer, pp. 91-114; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_5.pdf

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

Best regards,



2:23 am on July 8, 2020

Please follow and like us:

Letter 1

From: Sergey Fedorov

Subject: question on applied Libertarian theory

Dear Professor Block,

I have read your old article (1993) on drug legalization and wanted to ask your opinion on a somewhat related matter from a libertarian perspective and also a value-free economics.

Please forgive me for a relatively long exposition, but if cut short to a couple of sentences, it will sound trivial.

There are three parts below. Intro and two separate questions. I will really appreciate your opinion. I will also appreciate you being direct. I am Russian, I can understand and accept “Come on, that’s crap”.

As much as drugs are criminalized by the state, so – in most countries – explicitly commercial sex between consenting adults is. By ‘explicitly commercial’ I mean the one premised upon direct monetary exchange between involved parties. This criminalization, surprisingly, is not confined to religious or secular totalitarian societies that from the outset deny human freedom as a core value, but is common in ‘civilized’ world.

Unlike with the drugs (opinions on which widely vary), most people – perhaps with exception of religious fanatics – consider consensual sex between adults to have a positive utility. Unlike drugs that are criminalized per se, consensual sex between adults is as such perfectly legal in the most of ‘civilized’ world. While it can be debated whether most people consider ‘free sex’ as something rather commendable or rather a weakness, society is generally accepting such behavior.

Yet, the very introduction of media of exchange into this exchange magically makes it both illegal and largely condemned, at least publicly.

My question is twofold. It is evident that libertarian theory has no possible objections to any voluntary act of trade that does not violate property rights of third parties (which means that only voluntary slaves who transferred the title over their bodies may not be allowed to take part). But,

1. I wonder why libertarians seem to avoid the topic altogether. Okay, it might be challenging for those who are, for example, practicing Christians, and that is fine. But no one speaks or writes on it, despite that laws criminalizing sex trade are both praxeologically wrong and practically silly and inhumane (they also increase crime and foster violence against women in sex trade). They also constitute on the major assaults of state against people, denying one’s property rights over own body.

2. From a purely economic perspective, since sex is an economic good, that is naturally scarce and has demand for it, monetizing its market increases social welfare, as happens with any other market. What we have now is a largely barter economy of sex, when parties, being unable – at least legally – to make transaction directly to mutual benefit, are forced to look for a ‘package deal’ with related double coincident of wants problem. In the extreme case there is the institute of marriage that is promoted in society and essentially amounts to a fraudulent and internally inconsistent slavery contract that aims to secure long term stream of payments in exchange for a promise of accommodating sexual needs (not only and not necessarily, of course, but at its core that’s about it). Otherwise there are various socially acceptable substitutes, which separate an equivalent (i.e. normally not in cash) payment and service in time. This process inevitably has terrible transaction costs and results in permanent mismatch of supply and demand. The best possible – given constraints – solution is simply to do the same thing what we do elsewhere. Introduce common medium of exchange.

Religious beliefs set aside, the best thing that could be done with sexual relationships is commercialization. A large chunk of problems (social like women left struggling to support children or men who have no time for mating games, demographic imbalance of genders, psychological like frustration inherent in most long-term relationships and economic – inability of men and women to access desired partner due to inflated demands brought about by barter nature of exchange) can be solved by this move.

Yet, apparently no one suggest this.

Best regards,


Letter 2

On Nov 23, 2019 14:43 +0800, Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>, wrote:

Dear Sergey:

I’ll be speaking in Moscow and St. Pete in April 2020. I’ll give you the specifics when I have them. Do you live in either place?

I’m not sure of exactly what you’re asking.

All libertarians favor the legalization of prostitution. I’ve written about this in my book Defending I.

But, I think, you’re saying that libertarians should not only favor the legalization of this practice, but also favor prostitution itself. But this would make us thick libertarians, and I oppose that:

Block, Walter E. 2019. “Response to J.C. Lester on David Friedman on Libertarian Theory.” Management Education Science Technology Journal. Vol. 7      Issue 1, pp. 127-155; http://mest.meste.org/MEST_1_2019/13_17.pdf

Block, Walter E. and Nelson David Chavez Salazar. 2018. “Some unsuspected applications of the basic principles of libertarianism.” Management Education Science Technology Journal (MEST) 6 (1), pp.1-6, January. doi:10.12709/mest.; http://www.mest.meste.org/MEST_Najava_clanaka.html;


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?

Block, Walter E. 2019. “Crony Capitalism versus Pure Capitalism.” Independent Review. Vol. 23. No. 3, Winter, pp.

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=1347; (Munger)


Dominiak, Lukasz and Walter E. Block. 2017. “Libertarian Theory of Bribery and Incitement: A Reformulation.” MEST Journal; pp. 95-101


http://mest.meste.org/MEST_Najava/X_Lukasz.pdf; DOI 10.12709/mest.

Williamson, Kenn and Walter E. Block. 2017. “Is libertarianism thick or thin? Thin!” The Italian Law Journal. Volume 3, Issue 1, July; http://www.theitalianlawjournal.it/current2/www.theitalianlawjournal.it

Block, Walter E. 2017. “Rejoinder to Guenzl on Theft and the Return of Private Property.” Ekonomia Wroclaw Economic Review; Vol. 23, Issue, 2, pp. 35-44; http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-30958002-d902-4aca-918c-3a5579effa93?q=bwmeta1.element.desklight-aae0b775-be8c-43c7-9b8c-bfdb2172fddb;1&qt=CHILDREN-STATELESShttp://ekon.wuwr.pl/product/-8296

Block, Walter E. 2015. “Thin and thick libertarianism” Political Dialogues: Journal of Political Theory. Issue 19, pp. 11-20; http://apcz.pl/czasopisma/index.php/DP/article/view/DP.2015.013/10202

Block, Walter E. 2014A. “Pure libertarianism.” May 17; http://libertycrier.com/?s=pure+libertarianism;


Block, Walter E. 2014B. “Was Murray Rothbard a Thick Libertarian?” May 23;



Block, Walter E. 2014C. “Was Murray Rothbard a Thick Libertarian? Part II” May 23; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/was-murray-rothbard-thick-libertarian_23.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29.

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

Best regards,


Letter 3

From: Sergey Fedorov

Subject: RE: question on applied Libertarian theory

Dear Professor Block,

Thank you for reply. I still live in Taiwan as before when we initially communicated.

But I will definitely inform some of my friends in Moscow that you will be coming. I’m sure some will want to come.

As for the question, the second part of it referred to value-free economic analysis and not to libertarian position. You are right, libertarianism does not favor some sort of economic activity or particular market set-up. I get that.

But I do think that you and other economists who are at the same time libertarians are better value-free economists.

If I sounded as if I confuse the two, my bad, please excuse me. But I do draw the distinction.

What I was wondering is that for some reason economic reasoning is not applied to that particular market.

I intentionally avoided the term “prostitution” as it has a connotation of a professional occupation. I do not mean that at all (though I do include it as an option). Market of commercial sex is by definition a one where trade is done with money.

Market of “normal” dating and mating, on the other hand, is a barter one where parties avoid explicit money payments.



Letter 4

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 at 05:19, Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear Sergey:


You’re asking why economists qua economists don’t model sex along the lines of commercial endeavors (prostitution) and compare it to ordinary dating, marriage (barter)?

Best regards,


Letter 5

From: Sergey Fedorov

Subject: Re: question on applied Libertarian theory

Dear Professor Block,

If, as Rothbard writes, free market exchanges always improve social utility, and if we agree with Mengerian view that such exchanges are better coordinated when there is a common medium of exchange, it appears to me that a suggestion (not in a normative sense, but of matching means with ends) to move from barter exchange in dating & mating market to money-mediated exchange is a logical and necessary outcome of value-free economic theory.

Sex is a good that has according to people’s revealed preference a positive utility and is scarce, i.e. it is an economic good.

Money improves market coordination, so that in Pareto sense ‘welfare’ is improved.

My question is why economists seem not to apply economic reasoning to a market of dating (and even do not usually speak against criminalizing of sex-for-money exchanges as they speak against other trade barriers that leave everyone worse off).

To make myself clear, I do not primarily speak about prostitution as a professional occupation, nor do I mean that money-mediation can/will replace any other tangible or intangible incentives that people subjectively value.

What I mean is that from a purely economic perspective the most efficient way to deal with dating in general is via money. (Of course, this does not imply someone should follow this way, it just says that given ex-ante ends, this is the best means.)

P. S. While I think this reasoning should generally apply to mainstream economics as well, let me restrict my question to Austrian economists.

Best regards,

Sergey Fedorov

Letter 6

On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 07:23, Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear Sergey:

I now better understand where you’re coming from. You make an interesting and important point.

But, there are some things that can’t be bought and sold. If you try to do so, you obviate the good in question. For example, true love, true friendship. If it is paid for, it ceases to be true love, true friendship.

Best regards,



2:21 am on July 8, 2020

Please follow and like us:

What’s the Proper Relationship With Government?

Letter 1

From: Tommy Bateman

Subject: Libertarian resistance to big business.

Hi Walter and Michael,

My county (mostly rural with some suburbs) is facing the unholy amalgamation of local government and big business. See this.

There are obvious environmental impacts (acres upon acres of wetlands that spill into my neighborhood). Also,  my county is giving Wegmans heaps of monetary incentive.

Is there a coherent libertarian resistance? Is getting the EPA or Army Corp of Engineers involved an acceptable route? I have some libertarian ideas in mind, but I would love to hear your thoughts, if you have time.



P.S.: Run for county government as a libertarian Republican (more likely to be elected) or a Libertarian? Democrat is out in this very red county.

Letter 2

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 5:01 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear Tommy:

I don’t understand this:

acres upon acres of wetlands that spill into my neighborhood

What harm can wegman’s do to its new neighbors?

As for the money given to them, all’s fair in love and war. Sic EPA on ‘em!

Best regards,


Letter 3

From: Tommy Bateman

Subject: Re: Libertarian resistance to big business.

The wetlands flow into a creek that runs down the center of my neighborhood.

All’s fair indeed.

Letter 4

On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 5:09 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

How can Weg hurt you?

Letter 5

From: Tommy Bateman

Subject: Re: Libertarian resistance to big business.

This is an interesting question.  Nothing absolutely direct.

However,  they 1) increase my families risk of danger via significant increase truck traffic (hundreds a day on two lane roads)

2) light up the night sky taking away my enjoyment of stars at night

3) increase diesel air pollution via ticks

4) noise from industrial activity affecting my enjoyment of my home (trucks going by my home 24 hours a day; backup noises)

5) receive tax dollars that were robbed from me in order to bolster their business. ($6 million to Wegmans)

Have I become a statist!? Are emotions clouting my rationality!? Help!

One of the disturbing things (but not surprising) is the clear funny numbers and corruption from the local Board of Supervisors (our legislative body) of whom two are family friends.

-Tommy “too many tequilas tonight” Bateman

Letter 6

Dear Tommy:

I think point 5 is well taken. You would be justified, in my opinion, to unleash whichever branch of govt could help you ward off Weg, for that reason.

But the first 4 points are problematic. They all stem from government roads and/or the pollution (smell, light) or the danger thereof. If these were valid reasons to oppose new ventures, there’d be no new ventures.

Here are some readings that may be apropos:

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

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


Best regards,



2:19 am on July 8, 2020

Please follow and like us:

From: Sam Burgess

Question about open borders.

Dear Professor Block,

In a debate with Nick Gillespie, I heard you say that you are in favor of open borders and that you also believe that there are race differences in IQ.

How can you be in favor of open borders when you recognize that there are race differences in IQ? Wouldn’t a policy of open borders make America a more violent, poorer, and otherwise worse off place if we let low IQ races come into the country in mass numbers? I’m curious to hear your response to this concern.

Hope all is well.

Take care,

Sam Burgess

Dear Sam:

Thanks for your important, thoughtful, question. Please excuse me for not answering it. My only excuse is that I have already written about the subject, and find it wasteful to repeat myself.

Here is a biblio on this issue:

Berg, 2010; Block, 1983A, 1983B, 1988, 1990, 1998, 2004, 2011A, 2011B, 2013, 2015, 2016A, 2016B, 2017, 2018; Block and Callahan, 2003; Ebeling, 2015A, 2015B; Esplugas and Lora, 2010; Friedman, 1973, 2006; Gregory and Block, 2007; Hornberger, 2016A, 2016B; Hudson, 1986; Krepelka, 2010; Rothbard, 1962; Rozeff, 2005; Salin, 2000, chap. 11; Todea, 2010

Berg, Chris. 2010. “Open the borders.” Policy. Vol. 26,  No. 1, Autumn, pp. 3-7 http://www.cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-magazine/2010-autumn/26-1-10-chris-berg.pdf

Block, Walter E. 1983A. “How immigrants CREATE jobs,” North Shore News, p. A6, January 30; http://tinyurl.com/2xklvn

Block, Walter E. 1983B. “Protect Canadian Jobs From Immigrants?” Dollars and Sense. January 2.

Block, Walter E. 1988. Dollars and Sense: “Migration patterns tell real story.” January 12.

Block, Walter E. 1990.  “Immigration,” Fraser Forum, January, pp. 22-23.

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, 2001 May 25. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1522

Block, Walter E. 2011A. “Hoppe, Kinsella and Rothbard II on Immigration: A Critique.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, 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: pp. 771–792; https://www.mises.org/library/rejoinder-hoppe-immigrationhttp://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_38.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2013. “Rejoinder to Todea on the ‘Open’ Contract of Immigration.” The Scientific Journal of Humanistic Studies, Vol. 8, No. 5, March, pp. 52-55

Block, Walter E. 2015. “On immigration.” December 21; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/12/walter-block-on-immigration.html

Block, Walter E. 2016A. “Contra Hoppe and Brat on immigration.” Management Education Science Technology journal, Vol 4, No. 1, pp. 1-10; http://mest.meste.org/MEST_1_2016/Sadrzaj_eng.htmlhttp://mest.meste.org/MEST_1_2016/7_01.pdf; (1333)

Block, Walter E. 2016B. “A response to the libertarian critics of open-borders libertarianism,” Lincoln Memorial University Law Review; Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 142-165; +http://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/lmulrev/vol4/iss1/6/;


Block, Walter E. 2017. “Immigration and Homesteading.” March. The Journal Jurisprudence. Vol. 35, pp. 9-42; http://www.jurisprudence.com.au/juris35/block.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2018. “A libertarian theory of immigration.” The Scientific Journal of Humanistic Studies. March, Issue18, pp.34-42 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/1623e40642314669?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1;



Block, Walter 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; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-callahan_right-immigrate-2003.pdfhttp://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=13&hid=116&sid=905a5e5a-2bf8-4aac-bec0-e39eeb9a3b10%40sessionmgr105

Ebeling, Richard. 2015A. “Freedom To Move: Personal Liberty or Government Control, Part I.” July 20; http://www.epictimes.com/richardebeling/2015/07/freedom-to-move-personal-liberty-or-government-control-part-i/

Ebeling, Richard. 2015B. “Practicing Freedom: Markets, Marriage, and Migration.” August 3; http://www.epictimes.com/richardebeling/2015/08/practicing-freedom-markets-marriage-and-migration/

Esplugas, Albert and Manuel Lora. 2010. “Immigrants: Intruders or Guests? A reply to Hoppe and Kinsella” Journal of LibertarianSstudies, Vol. 22: 185–218; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_10.pdf

Friedman, David D. [1973] 1995. “Open the Gates.” The Machinery of Freedom: A Guide to Radical Capitalism. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.

Friedman, David. 2006. “Welfare and Immigration—The Other Half of the Argument,” Ideas, April 1; http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Welfare_and_Immigration.html

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_Hoppe

Hornberger, Jacob G. 2016. “Open Borders Is the Only Libertarian Immigration Position.” May 19; http://fff.org/2016/05/19/open-borders-libertarian-position-immigration/

Hornberger, Jacob G. http://fff.org/explore-freedom/articles/category/immigration/

Hornberger, Jacob G. http://fff.org/store/the-case-for-free-trade-and-open-immigration-paperback/

Hornberger, Jacob G. 2016. “Bionic Mosquito Has It Wrong on Immigration.” May 25; http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/bionic-mosquito-wrong-immigration/

Hudson, James L. 1986. “The Philosophy of Immigration.” Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 51–62; http://mises.org/journals/jls/8_1/8_1_5.pdf

Krepelka, Jan. 2010. “A pure libertarian theory of immigration.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol.  22: pp. 35-52 http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_3.pdf

Rothbard, Murray N. (2004 [1962]). Man, Economy and State, Auburn AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, Scholar’s Edition; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp;

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap15d.asp mesmes

Rozeff, Michael. 2005. “Communities, Immigration, and Decentralization.” December 14.


Salin, Pascal. 2000. “L’immigration dans une société libre” [Immigration In A Free Society]. Libéralisme. Paris: Odile Jacob.

Todea, Diana V. 2010. “A libertarian account of freedom of movement and open borders,” 2(2), The Scientific Journal of Humanistic Studies, Argonaut Publishing House, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.

Anti open immigration:

Brimelow, 1995; Hoppe, 1998, 2001, 2002;  Hospers, 1998; Kinsella, 2005; Machan, 1998;  Mosquito, 2016A, 2016B, 2016C, 2016D, 2016E, 2016F, 2016G, 2016H, 2016I, 2017A, 2017B; Rockwell, 2016; Rothbard, 1994; Simon, 1998; de Soto, 1998

Brimelow, Peter. 1995. Alien Nation: Common Sense about America’s Immigration Disaster. New York: Random House

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1998. “The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 221-233; http://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_8.pdf

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2001. Democracy, the God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order, New Brunswick, N.J. Transaction Publishers. 159-160

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2002. “Natural order, the state, and the immigration problem.” Volume 16, no. 1, Winter, pp. 75–97; http://mises.org/journals/jls/16_1/16_1_5.pdf

Hospers, John. 1998. “A Libertarian Argument Against Open Borders.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 13 (2); http://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_3.pdf

Kinsella, Stephan. 2005. “A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders.” September 1; https://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella18.html

Machan, Tibor. 1998.  “Immigration into a free society.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; 13:2, Summer: 199–204; http://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_6.pdf

Mosquito, Bionic. 2016A.  “The Real Action is in the Reaction of the Opposition.” January 11; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/01/bionic-mosquito/open-borders-saul-alinsky/

Mosquito, Bionic. 2016B.  “Borders, Culture, and Decentralization.” April 9; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/04/bionic-mosquito/open-borders-anti-libertarian/

Mosquito, Bionic. 2016C.  “Open Borders in THIS World.” April 15; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/04/bionic-mosquito/open-borders-world/

Mosquito, Bionic. 2016D.  “Open Borders and Culture: a Reading List; April 19; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/04/bionic-mosquito/open-borders-culture/

Mosquito, Bionic. 2016E.  “Libertarian Open Borders: Oxymoron in Theory and Practice.” May 16; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/bionic-mosquito/libertarian-open-borders/

Mosquito, Bionic. 2016F. “Jacob Hornberger, I See You.” May 20; http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/05/jacob-hornberger-i-see-you.html

Mosquito, Bionic. 2016G.  “Open Borders and the Real World.” May 24; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/bionic-mosquito/open-borders-real-world/

Mosquito, Bionic. 2016H. “Burnt Toast.” May 26; http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/05/burnt-toast.html

Mosquito, Bionic. 2016I. “Thank You, Jacob.” June 1; http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/06/thank-you-jacob.html

Mosquito, Bionic. 2017A. “How Much Mixing of Labor with Land?” May 10; http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.ca/2017/05/how-much-mixing-of-labor-with-land.html

Mosquito, Bionic. 2017B. “Success.” May 12; http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2017/05/success.html

Rockwell, Lew. 2015. “Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal.” November 10; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/lew-rockwell/open-borders-assault-private-property/

Rothbard, Murray N. 1994. “Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State,” Journal of Libertarian Studies; 11, no. 1, Fall; http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_1.pdf

Simon, Julian. 1998. “Are there grounds for limiting immigration?” Journal of Libertarian Studies ; 13:2, Summer: 137–152; http://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_2.pdf

de Soto, Jesús Huerta. 1998. “A Libertarian Theory of Free Immigration.” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, pp. 187-197; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_5.pdf


2:40 am on July 6, 2020

Please follow and like us:

A Trick Question in Money and Macroeconomics

From: Jack T. Bahl

Subject: having trouble finding the flaw

Professor Block,

I received the following from a friend and am having trouble seeing the flaw in the logic that I know must exist:

It is a slow day in the small Saskatchewan town of Pumphandle, and streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody is living on credit. A tourist visiting the area drives through town, stops at the motel, and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs to pick one for the night. As soon as he walks upstairs, the motel owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill to his supplier, the Co-op. The guy at the Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her “services” on credit. The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel owner. The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the traveler will not suspect anything. At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, picks up the $100 bill and leaves. No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However the whole town is now out of debt and looks to the future with optimism. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a Stimulus package works.

I’ve followed you on LRC for years and admire your economic knowledge and your efforts on behalf of liberty.  Can you give me a hint or point me in the right direction?

Kindest regards,

Jack Bahl

Canton, Ohio

Dear Jack: I’ve asked Bill Barnett, my friend and mentor in Austrian macroeconomics and monetary theory, to respond to this question of yours. Here is his answer:

From: William Barnett <wbarnett@loyno.edu>

Subject: Re: FW: having trouble finding the flaw

It has nothing to do with the tourist and the $100 bill.  Ceteris paribus, everyone in town has an asset worth $100 in the form of a note owed to each by someone, and everyone also has a liability of $100 note owed to someone else.  So each person’s net is $0.  The same result would occur if someone in town said let’s have a marshmallow roast, and when the fire got going everyone threw the notes they held into the fire.  Everyone would see their $100 asset destroyed, but they would also see the $100 note they owed destroyed.  And, they could all enjoy the marshmallow roast.


2:38 am on July 6, 2020

Please follow and like us:

Where to get a Ph.D. in Econ in the US? Should the State Have a Monopoly Over Money?

From: Acevedo, Rafael

Dear Professor Walter,

I hope you and yours are well.

Professor, first I wanted to know how are you, and secondly I was wondering if you could help me with a doubt I have (actually two).

The first, in Venezuela there is a “debate” around the “state monopoly of currency”. An economist argues that the monopoly of currency must continue on State’s hands. He says this, because under his logic there is nor academic neither scientific (or anthropological) evidence that the commerce emerged before the sate. In brief his line of argument is this:

1) The weather changed and people could live in the same place (before that they had to move)

2) Appears the agriculture

3) Appears the State introducing the money and offering protection to people.

4) Finally, appears the market (commercial exchange)

As far as I knew the commercial exchange appears before the State, and currency was not issued by the State but by the people to ease the commercial exchange… I am right, or he is… If I am right which recent literature could be used to support it?

The second question, is about PhD in Economics programs. If you would have to recommend some PhD in Economics program to a person that is in his 40s, with experience teaching and researching in mainstream academia (out of the US), and that those programs were feasible (not top ranked but good enough to be competitive in the US Academia Job Market) and affordable (that the person does not have to take a never-ending student debt), which programs would you suggest?

Thank you very much and sorry to bother you with my questions.

Best regards,

Rafael Acevedo.-

Dear Rafael:

Your questions are no bother. The very opposite.

Commercial acts took place in pre history, long before there was any state.

One of my papers makes this point:

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

Before there was any state money, fishhooks, salt, sugar, served as a medium of exchange, overcoming the double coincidence of wants challenge. These intermediaries were money, as were cigarettes in prison of war camps for soldiers.

Here’s a good reading on this:

Rothbard, Murray N. 1963, 1985, 1990 What Has Government Done to Our Money? Auburn, AL.: Mises Institute; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/rothmoney.pdf

In the US, the phd programs I highly recommend are Texas Tech and Mason. I’m taking the liberty of copying on this my contacts there, Ben and Pete.

Best regards,



2:37 am on July 6, 2020

Please follow and like us:

From: Allan Stevo

Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 6:14 AM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Suggestions on placing a piece with an editor?

Dear Professor Block,

I hope this note finds you well. I was wondering if you might have some advice on how to place an essay where an interested reader might see it.

I have written a 2,200 word “how to” piece on how a person affected by the corona bans can sue the governor of his state. It goes through steps, names lawyers and organizations, and of course cites a 2011 list of libertarian legal scholars that I came across created by you.

I believe that I am putting out more work right now than Mr Rockwell will publish at LRC from one individual, and I don’t know if it is a fit for Mises.org. Those are my two favorite venues for writing and reading analysis.

You have such vast contacts and you are so diligent in your defense of the truth, so I bet there are a few other high quality sites I may know little of that might come to your mind. Might you have any other suggestions, off the top of your head, on where such a piece may best fit and be read?

Thank you, Sir.

Allan Stevo

Dear Allan:

Please call me Walter, and allow me to call you Allan. We’re buddies after all, both having written very positive, complimentary, books on Ron Paul!

Stevo, Allan. 2012. How to Win America for Ron Paul and the Cause of Freedom in 2012; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; http://www.amazon.com/America-Paul-Cause-Freedom-2012/dp/1469988380


Block, Walter E. 2012. Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty. New York: Ishi Press; http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871873234;



Had you asked for my advice, not disqualifying also my two favorite venues, I would have mentioned precisely them! But, I sharply disagree with you about you wearing out your welcome with Lew and Jeff. This is an empirical issue, not one of praxeology. The best way to test this is to send them your article. If they both reject it, that suggests you’re sending them too much, but not definitively. They just might not like what you send them in any one specific case. Hey, I don’t have a 1000 batting average with the MI, or LRC, but I never feel I’m wearing out my welcome with them, and neither should you. You’re one of us! (For me, Ron Paul is a litmus test, and you pass that with flying colors!)

But, since you want suggestions for other venues, there are other good libertarian blogs beside those two. The Independent Institute, CEI, Bob Wenzel’s blogs, Acton Institute.

Another option: stick on a few footnotes, and try to get this published in a Law Review.

If all this fails, send your essay to me and I’ll give you more suggestions.

Best regards,



2:44 am on July 4, 2020

Please follow and like us:

Is The Political Vote Compatible With Libertarian Theory?

Letter 1

From: Joshua Crosby

Subject: lesser of two evils

Not to disagree with the great Jack Benny or the august heir apparent to the mantle of Murray, but you will remember that the state is the repeat thug and it’s not your money or your life this one time, it’s your money for the rest of your life.  Public avarice will always push the envelope two steps beyond what you’ve allowed so it matters not whether in each instance you choose the evil with the least impact.  In the face of this, may as well maintain your dignity since your freedom is no longer on the table.

Hope you’re doing well and gracing us with an increased level of output given your classes have been cancelled.

Joshua Crosby

Accounting Manager

Letter 2

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

To: Joshua Crosby

Subject: RE: lesser of two evils

Dear Joshua:

Thanks for your kind words about me being the heir apparent to Mr. Libertarian.

When Ron Paul ran for president, he was the lesser of two evils. What? Ron? Evil? Yes, evil. He and I disagree with each other on, oh, .000000001% of all issues (abortion, for example). So, according to your view, I shouldn’t support Ron? I find that highly problematic.

Here’s my book on Ron; its my love letter to him:

Block, Walter E. 2012. Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty. New York: Ishi Press; http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871873234;



The slave master has two subordinates, Goody and Baddy. Goody beats the crap out of all the slaves once per year. Baddy does this every day. The master allows the slaves to vote for either of the two. They all vote for Goody. You’re saying they are in error? They violated libertarian principles?

Best regards,


Letter 3

From: Joshua Crosby

Subject: RE: lesser of two evils

Respectfully, I disagree with your premise.  Ron Paul was not a lesser of two evils.  He was a complete good as much as was humanly possible as I know you fully agree.  He represented a reversal of the bad, not a brake to the increase.

I find it hard to respond to hypotheticals because so often the one who poses it bakes in his own conclusion.  But in the case presented, I have taken the lesson from WarGames as “the only way to win is not to play the game” and subsequently abstain from voting.  I may prefer Goody to Baddy on my own, but I’m still not going to let the master think his plan is anything other than sadistic.

Doesn’t all voting under the condition of no escape from the outcome violate libertarian principles?  I vote in my church because if the vote goes a way I can’t abide I can just leave the church.  If the result of a vote traps other people in a regime not of their own choosing, I have a hard time asserting myself over them just because I sided with 50% plus 1.  Per the usual, Ron Paul is the exception that proves the rule.

Joshua Crosby

Accounting Manager

Letter 4

Dear Joshua:

I agree with you that voting is only fully compatible with libertarianism if you agree to be bound by the vote in the first place. For example, your church. Or the chess club hold an election for president. You can always quit the church, the chess club, or your condominium.

But what right did I, a slave, violate, when I voted for overseer Goody, not Baddy? Oh, I forgot to mention, the slave owner stipulated that if no one voted, or, if the vote was a tie, then Baddy takes over. Yes, voting, here, gives the imprimatur to slavery. I see that point. But this vote was under duress.

Take another case. A pulls a gun on B and demands his money. B complies, rather than being shot. If we extrapolate from your view, B should not have complied. He’s aiding and abetting the evil A. A can use B’s money to buy more and better guns. And, let’s abstract from the point that A is going to get B’s money whether or not B hands it over. That is, assume, if B resists, his money disappears and A doesn’t get it. You are now saying that libertarianism requires B to die? But, libertarianism is not a suicide pact.

Best regards,



2:42 am on July 4, 2020

Please follow and like us:

Fiscal and Monetary Policy

From: David Iglesias

Subject: Taxes and Handouts

Dear Walter,

I’ve been spending some time wondering about the criticism of government stimulus checks/unemployment checks causing inflation and distorting the market and the desire of libertarians to not be taxed anymore and get their stolen money back from the state. It seems (on the surface) that each would essentially spur the same economic activity. Obviously taxes work to redistribute wealth while tax reparations would simply restore wealth to the proper owner. However, it also seems that tax reparations/abolishing taxes would amount to way more than any government subsidy to the individual — and of course tax reparations would apply to everybody who was a victim of taxation, not just select groups.

I am not at all thinking or claiming that they are the same, simply that it seems on the surface that they would appear to have strikingly similar economic effects; nevertheless, I believe that there are differences and favor tax reparations/tax abolishment over any government subsidy/stimulus check. I am curious to hear your thoughts on this.

Best regards,


Dear David:

There are two ways to conduct tax subsidies and reparations: via inflation or not.

If either is done via the printing press (nowadays demand deposit money creation), prices will be higher than they otherwise would be.

But suppose there is no additional money creation. It is all done via taxes. The big difference, I think, is that the present govt subsidies would be very different than reparations in that different people would gain and lose.

Best regards,



2:41 am on July 4, 2020

Please follow and like us:

Austrianism is a Praxeological Science, Not an Empirical One

Letter 1

From: Jeffrey Stewart

Re: Economics Question

Dear Dr. Block,

How, exactly how are prices of production or equilibrium prices determined in your theory?


Jeffrey Stewart

Letter 2

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2020 7:19 PM

To: Jeffrey Stewart <stewarjt@cinci.rr.com>

Subject: RE: Economics Question

Supply and demand. Am I missing something?

Walter E. Block,

Letter 3

On 4/24/2020 11:10 AM, Walter Block wrote:


Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

Letter 4

From: Jeffrey Stewart

Subject: Re: Economics Question

You STILL don’t have any empirical evidence for your theory.  And yet, you still believe it.  Why?

Letter 5

Dear Jeffrey:

Austrianism is a logical discipline, not an empirical one. I don’t have any empirical evidence that voluntary trade is necessarily mutually beneficial in the ex ante sense either, and, yet, I believe that too. Further, there can be no such empirical evidence. Should I stop believing in this? I also believe that man acts, since to deny it is to engage in an action. Again, I have no empirical evidence for this.  Should I stop believing in this too?

Hans Hoppe answers these objections thusly:

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1988. Praxeology and Economic Science, Auburn, Al.: Mises Institute, Auburn University; http://www.mises.org/esandtam/pes1.asp

“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.”

Best regards,



2:40 am on July 4, 2020

Please follow and like us:
Follow by Email