≡ Menu

From: A
Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 1:50 PM
To: Dr.Walter Block
Subject: Two questions

Dear Walter, I hope this mail finds you well. I have two questions, if you have the time I would love to know your thoughts:
1- Why is it that Rothbard says that at any given time the amount of money is the optimum amount? I do understand that prices accommodate. But at the same time the increase or decrease of the money supply affects interest rates, and therefore investment (thereby causing business cycles). Is Rothbard’s view a static view of the money supply and prices in general, while Business Cycle Theory integrates a dynamic view of money supply and its impact on interest rates in particular?
2- What is your view on Bitcoin?
Best, A

Dear A: Instead of answering either in detail, I hope and trust you won’t mind that I send you what I’ve published on these two topics instead.

1: Optimal quantity of money

Barnett, William II and Walter E. Block. 2004. “On the Optimum Quantity of Money,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 39-52; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_1_4.pdf

Barnett II, William and Walter E. Block. 2012. “The Optimum Quantity of Money, Once Again.” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets; Vol. 7, No. 1, March, pp. 9-24; http://www.addletonacademicpublishers.com/component/option,com_sectionex/Itemid,103/id,23/view,category/#catid145; Password: AddletonAP2009.

Barnett, William II, and Walter E. Block. 2005. “Money: Capital Good, Consumers’ Good, or (Media of) Exchange Good?” Review of Austrian Economics. 18 (2): 179-194; http://www.gmu.edu/rae/archives/VOL18_2_2005/4_Barnett.pdf

2: Bitcoin

Davidson, Laura and Walter E. Block. 2015. “Bitcoin, the Regression Theorem, and the Emergence of a New Medium of Exchange.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 18, No. 3, Fall, pp. 311-338; https://mises.org/library/bitcoin-regression-theorem-and-emergence-new-medium-exchange

January 15, 2014. Subject: RE: Reddit AMA; berrysuttle@outlook.com; reddit.com/r/anarcho_capitalism; Username: DrWalterBlockPassword: loyola123; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/walter-block-on-bitcoin-seasteading-and.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

September 10, 2013. Michael Shanklin [mailto:shanklinmike@yahoo.com] lmr.radio
Duke Boyne dukeboyne@hotmail.com; shanklinmike@yahoo.com;
https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/36d86793428dfcb299c3fbf640452d3ae1a62141?authuser=0;
http://youtu.be/qyYgGBBmjR8; liberty movement radio.com; How Walter Block Became A Voluntaryist Libertarian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPkstrFj2NI. on Rand Paul and Political Action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD4AUslAaFU. full interview on Voluntary Virtues Radio 9/10/2013 Rand Paul, Bitcoin, Tragedy of the anticommons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUikrwcWXIw. on Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duDykrxwIxw. Video interviews: on Animal Rights & Untouched/NonHomesteaded Land. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZt2Sz2UpLo. full interview on Triple-V: Inchoate Crimes, Political Action, Self-Defense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTfyC9YyhXk. “Obama & Bush Are War Criminals”, Hitmen, and Inchoate Crimes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4hyFyLsxY4;

critique of wb on bitcoin: http://www.economicsofbitcoin.com/2013/09/professor-walter-block-is-clueless.html; Freedomforall Volunaryvirtues@gmail.com

September 20, 2013. Guillermo Jimenez, gjimenez@tracesofreality.com; Skype: tracesofreality; RBN Producer; 800-313-9443; the philosophy of libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, stateless order, bitcoin, rights to privacy; http://tracesofreality.com/2013/09/20/tor-radio-09202013-walter-block-on-the-fed-qe-infinity-bitcoin-and-anarchy/

November 24, 2013. Vancouver. LibertyMingle, Victor Pross artpross@hotmail.com; gabrielscheare@gmail.com; pj_hawkins@hotmail.com; LibertyMingle Presents: An Evening with Walter Block & Victor Pross. 7pm. The Cobalt – 917 Main St, Vancouver City. Pavil Hawkins hosts an evening of live music and talks by Anarchist Artist and Austrian Economist Walter Block. This is followed up with an open talk between the two speakers concluding with a Q&A from the audience. Mark “going” on the Facebook Invite Page! http://www.meetup.com/bitcoinvan/events/151194782/; http://allevents.in/vancouver/libertymingle-walter-block,-victor-pross,-mike-shanklin-at-the-cobalt/514884495263609; Freedomforall Volunaryvirtues@gmail.com

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/10/is-bitcoin-money-what-economists-have.html

Block, Walter E. 2013. “The regression theorem and bitcoin.” December 28;
http://bastiat.mises.org/2013/12/regression-theorem-and-bitcoin/

Block, Walter E and Robert Wenzel. 2013. “Walter Block Responds to Wenzel Comments on Bitcoin.” December 31; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/12/walter-block-responds-to-wenzel.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

September 10, 2013. Michael Shanklin [mailto:shanklinmike@yahoo.com] lmr.radio
Duke Boyne dukeboyne@hotmail.com; shanklinmike@yahoo.com;
https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/36d86793428dfcb299c3fbf640452d3ae1a62141?authuser=0;
http://youtu.be/qyYgGBBmjR8; liberty movement radio.com; How Walter Block Became A Voluntaryist Libertarian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPkstrFj2NI. on Rand Paul and Political Action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD4AUslAaFU. full interview on Voluntary Virtues Radio 9/10/2013 Rand Paul, Bitcoin, Tragedy of The anticommons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUikrwcWXIw. on
Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duDykrxwIxw. Video interviews: on Animal Rights & Untouched/NonHomesteaded Land. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZt2Sz2UpLo. full interview on Triple-V: Inchoate Crimes, Political Action, Self-Defense: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTfyC9YyhXk. “Obama & Bush Are War Criminals”, Hitmen, and Inchoate Crimes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4hyFyLsxY4;

September 20, 2013. Guillermo Jimenez, gjimenez@tracesofreality.com; Skype: tracesofreality; RBN Producer; 800-313-9443; the philosophy of libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, stateless order, bitcoin, rights to privacy; http://tracesofreality.com/2013/09/20/tor-radio-09202013-walter-block-on-the-fed-qe-infinity-bitcoin-and-anarchy/

Share

10:43 pm on November 14, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

From: B
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 10:31 PM
To: walterblock@business.loyno.edu
Subject: Public Employees Claim?
Prof. Block: I had a question regarding taxation being theft: if it is, do public employees then have a moral claim to what they’re paid? Why or why not? Sincerely, B
Dear B: Yes, I regard taxation as theft. In my view, the proper answer to your query is a bit more complicated than a simple yes or no. My short answer is that libertarian public employees most certainly do have a moral claim, well, at least, a properly legal claim, to their salaries, but no one else does, certainly not statists. My long answer to this very important question appears below, in my several publications on this very topic.

Block, 1972, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009A, 2009B, 2010, 2011A, 2011B, 2011C, 2011D, 2016; Block and Arakaky, 2008, Block and Barnett, 2008, D’Amico and Block, 2007

Block, Walter E. 1972. “The Polish Ham Question.” The Libertarian Forum. June-July, Vol. 4, No. 6-7, p. 5; http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1972/1972_06-07.pdf; http://mises.org/daily/4054; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block143.html

Block, Walter E. 2002. “Accepting Government Subsidies,” Fraser Forum, February, p. 27; http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/forum/2002/02/section_13.html

Block, Walter E. 2004. “Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Part I” Reason Papers, Vol. 27, Fall, pp. 117-133;
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2006. “Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Part II” Reason Papers, Vol. 28, Spring, pp. 85-109; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf; http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/28/rp_28_7.pdf; (death penalty justified, net taxpayer, ruling class analysis p. 87)

Block, Walter E. 2007. “Ron Paul and Matching Funds,” October 1;
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block86.html

Block, Walter E. 2008. “Replies to readers” September 23;
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block108.html (libertarians hypocrites for using public school?)

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

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

Block, Walter E. 2010. “You are a rotten kid (rent control and libertarianism),” February 27;
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block150.html

Block, Walter E. 2011A. “It’s Ayn Rand Bashing Time, Once Again.” February 18; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block172.html
Block, Walter E. 2011B. “May a Libertarian Take Money From the Government?” March 11; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block175.html; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/03/walter-e-block/may-a-libertarian-take-money-from-the-government/
Block, Walter E. 2011C. “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Guilt and Punishment for the Crime of Statism,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 22; pp. 665-675; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_33.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2011D. “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. 2016. “Is It Compatible With Libertarianism to be a Banker? Yes!” September 29; https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/compatible-libertarianism-banker-yes/

Block, Walter E. and Chris Arakaky. 2008. “Taking Government Money for Grad School?” May 23; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block100.html

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

D’Amico, Dan and Walter E. Block. 2007. “A Legal and Economic Analysis of Graffiti” Humanomics Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 29-38; http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/damico.pdf; http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do?containerType=Issue&containerId=24713; http://ssrn.com/abstract=1008525

This book of mine might be of interest to you:

Block, Walter E. 2012. Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty. Ishi Press; http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871873234;
http://www.amazon.com/Paul-President-2012-Liberty-ebook/dp/B0085IEQB8/; http://www.dailypaul.com/232336/new-book-on-ron-paul-by-walter-block;
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0085IEQB8#reader_4871873234; http://search.barnesandnoble.com/books/product.aspx?ISBN=4871873234;
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/ron-paul-for-president-in-2012-walter-block/1110505571?ean=9784871873239;
http://jfrp.org/2012/05/10/just-released-walter-blocks-new-book-on-ron-paul/?preview=true&preview_id=73&preview_nonce=242eff3860;
http://runronpaul.com/economy/why-do-economists-say-that-ron-paul-would-be-the-best-president-for-the-economy/; http://bastiat.mises.org/2012/06/defending-the-defendable/;
http://www.libertarianbookclub.com/2012/06/02/4750/;
http://www.loyno.edu/news/laag/20120601/3729?utm_source=LAAG&utm_medium=enews&utm_content=20120601&utm_campaign=PublicAffairs;
http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871873234/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=lewrockwell&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=4871873234&adid=022PCECJPWPJ8DJNW8YP;

Share

4:05 pm on November 12, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Aviation Economics? Looking for Material.

From: G
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 9:17 AM
To: Dr. Walter E. Block
Subject: FAA Air Traffic Control, general aviation

Dr. Block: I have long admired your written works and the grace and poise you have demonstrated in recorded interviews and debates. Thank you for showing us who know the joyful libertarian only through his words that happiness and warmth are much more attractive to outsiders than bile and vitriol. As an instrument-rated private pilot, I am a regular user of FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC) services. Pilots are a curious lot. Individualism is strong: according to FAR 91.3, the pilot in command is directly responsible for and the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft, so not even the FAA may legally command a pilot to take an unsafe action. On the other hand, some are regulation-quoting collectivists, protectionists, and nannies. FlyteNow sought to be the flight sharing Uber of the skies, but the FAA moved to shut them down to the cheers of commercial and airline transport pilots who tut-tutted that the ignorant public cannot truly appreciate the risks involved. Lately there has been debate over proposed privatization of ATC. Advocacy groups and even the famed Captain Sully are opposed. You wrote Road Socialism, so who is the Walter Block of the Victor airways? Likewise the general aviation fleet and the average pilot are aging. Costs are likely a critical factor in both. I recently read that the average general aviation aircraft is some 40 years old, bringing to mind the sad picture of old cars strung along under the Castro regime in Cuba. Which Austrian scholars have studied the general aviation market in the U.S. or elsewhere (where it is sadly almost zero)? Thank you for your kind consideration. In liberty, G

Dear G: Thanks for your kind words. Unhappily, I know of no research of this sort from an Austrian or Austro-libertarian point of view. I am blogging this in the hope that some readers will be able to supply me with such, and, if so, I’ll pass on their suggestions to you. Bob Poole of Reason Foundation has studied transportation in general, and may have published some material on aviation, but he is not an Austrian, and not even much of a libertarian (more of a beltway type libertarian). However, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Sorry, that’s the only lead I have at present.

Share

4:57 pm on November 11, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

A Student Asks Me For Career Advice

From: G
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 3:35 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: career
Dr. Block, I will be visiting New Orleans as often as I can, though, so anytime I do I will come to any event you’re hosting. I certainly miss you. I wish my time at Loyola was more productive and prioritized studying with you more, as I originally intended, rather than socializing and partying. Lesson learned for next time. In other news, I have moved back to Texas, and I’m taking a career path that you might not expect, and I welcome your thoughts on it – both as a mentor and a libertarian scholar. I have decided to join the military, specifically the Marine Corps. I chose this path because it fulfills a number of things I think I need in my life right now: development of physical fitness and discipline, stable income so as to pay down debts, seclusion from society and many of its features and distractions, and the opportunity to experience US foreign policy – and war if it comes down to it – for myself. What are your thoughts on my decision, particularly the last reason I named? Do you see any conflicts with serving in the military and libertarianism? What other thoughts might you have? Most people I tell this to don’t challenge me on it, so I would welcome it if you did. Best, G

Dear G: If you must enter the US military, why not the Coast Guard instead? They do not engage in (nearly as much) imperialistic war-mongering, as do the other 3 branches, and, will give you most of the benefits you mention that the Marines offer: “development of physical fitness and discipline, stable income so as to pay down debts, seclusion from society and many of its features and distractions.” The main problem with them is that they interdict illegal drugs, all of which ought to be legal. But, better that, I suppose, than the more explicit illicit activities engaged in by the Marines. The US now has some 1000 military bases in some 130 countries. That is not defense, that is offense. Even better, as for “development of physical fitness and discipline,” why not take up karate? A stable income can be earned in many, many ways, apart from the military. As for “seclusion from society and many of its features and distractions” maybe get a job with a (private!) lumber company, watching out for forest fires. You can earn a stable income in that way, while not seeing anyone else for days; weeks, maybe.

Share

9:37 pm on November 8, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Voluntary Mayhem

From: N
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 2:47 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Another question about the NAP
Good morning, Professor Block: Thanks for answering my previous question https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/murder-save-entire-human-race-steal-prevent-starvation/, I found your answer very useful. Now, my query is this: well, as libertarians, we must oppose to initiate violence against another man´s person or legitimate property. There can be no contemplation for murder or theft. But what happens when those violations are agreed upon? For example, a person asks someone (a friend, a relative, whoever) to kill her, she wants to end with her life but is not capable of committing suicide, so ask for “help”. The other person agrees. Here clearly a murder is being committed, but should we see this act differently considering that the victim did want that fate? Another example, one person asks another to break her legs. Obviously it is a grotesque act and constitutes an aggression but, again, it is consensual, so does it deserve special treatment? Not only by the law, but by those simple spectators like us who defend the NAP. Thank you. Sincerely, N

Dear N: If these acts of mayhem are agreed upon, then there can be no crime involved. Whether it is assisted suicide, or voluntary “leg breaking,” it would not be illicit under the libertarian legal code. Of course, great care would have to be taken to ensure these acts of violence were indeed welcomed by the “victim.” We need not resort to such fanciful examples as leg breaking. When boxer A punches boxer B in the nose, the latter may not accuse the former of assault and battery. That is because both agreed to be punched, above the belt that is.

Share

11:06 pm on November 6, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Evictionism Once Again: The Libertarian Solution to the Abortion Controversy

From: M
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 5:35 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Abortion
Dear Professor Block: Sorry to bother you, but I find your approach to the very difficult topic abortion really creative and interesting. So I thought it’s worth a try to write an e-mail. Since I am an Austrian (I mean literally), I apologize for my lack of English in advance. As sort of an orientation: I admire the work of Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and the essence of my understanding of justice is mainly based on the publications of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. And obviously I pay attention to your activities. On abortion (by now) I am at the so called pro-choice side. My starting point for becoming an independent individual is birth. To refer to birth in a more poetic way, in German there is the term “to give life”. The mother gives life to the infant at birth. And you can give something away, only if you owned it before. Of course this is just a tradition manifested in language, but it’s not the only reason why I’m holding this position. Another aspect is, that the baby not only resides inside the pregnant woman, but is a part of her. For instance, if the (guilty) woman is in jail, so is the (innocent) baby. If the woman commits suicide, the baby dies with her. I consider them as a unit, controlled by the will of the woman. Don’t get me wrong, I can easily imagine horrible scenarios under this premises, like what if the mother decides to abort shortly before birth. This is why I call it a very difficult topic. If I understand your position correctly it is: Eviction yes, killing no. Killing the unborn might be a just consequence of eviction, if technology doesn’t provide other options yet, but is not justified per se. Here are my (current) troubles with that:
1. The ultimate option to avoid injustice is killing, right? If I see a woman preparing to chop her newborn to pieces, I could (ultimately) kill her to save the infants life, without becoming a criminal myself, right? But this doesn’t apply to a pregnant woman who is preparing to tear the fetus inside her apart. Because to kill her, would mean to kill the unborn as well which then would turn me into a murderer. Since you pointed out in your speeches, that you are not like Ayn Rand, I dare to ask: Isn’t it somehow logically inconsistent then, to see the unborn as an individual just like a newborn or any other human being who is not existing within the borders of another human being?
2. I also have difficulties to get the justification of killing as a consequence of eviction. From my point of view this opens a wide field of individual interpretation. Instead of a clear objective border (like birth), there is a pretty big grey zone in which it’s nearly impossible to separate just from unjust behavior. For instance who decides at a given time what sort of eviction method the woman needs to use? The most advanced one, which would save the unborn, might cost a fortune or might put the woman’s life in a much bigger danger, than other methods which would kill the fetus. I’d really appreciate if you could answer, but of course I completely understand if you don’t. Anyway I thank you for your acchievements in promoting liberty. Best Regards, M

Dear M: Thanks for your very important, well thought out objection to my thesis on evictionism. I am delighted to respond. It is no “bother“ whatsoever. Your English is fine. Heck, maybe better than mine!

1. No. the ultimate essence of libertarianism, at least the way I see matters, is that justice does not consist of avoiding killing. Rather, it is predicated upon private property rights based on homesteading, and the non aggression principle (NAP). I learned this at Murray Rothbard’s knee. Under libertarian law, these are sacrosanct. It is licit to kill in self defense, or, in protection of private property rights. To wit, the unwanted pre-born baby is a trespasser.

2. Private property rights must be defended in the gentlest manner possible. If you are attacking me, and I have one gun with lead bullets, and another with rubber bullets, and either one will stop you, I am obligated to use the latter weapon, not the former. In like manner, the trespassing baby (the mother owns the womb, she homesteaded it long before the baby was created) must remove the unwanted baby, also, in the genlest manner possible. But not if it endangers her life, or, even inconveniences her. If it costs more money to do so, then others, pro lifers presumably, should put up the funds, or shut up.
For more on this see the following:

All: Akers, 2012A, 2012B; Block, 1977, 1978, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2010A, 2010B, 2011A, 2011B, 2011C, 2011, 2012, 2014A, 2014B, 2014; Block and Whitehead, 2005; Davies, 2012; Dyke and Block, 2011; Parr, 2011, 2013; Rothbard, ; Sadowsky, 1978; Shaffer, 2012; Wisniewski, 2010A, 2010B, 2011, 2013.

I. Here are Walter E. Block’s publications and speeches on abortion, pro life, pro choice, evictionism, followed by critiques of his views, followed by his responses to these critiques:

Block, 1977, 1978, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2010A, 2011, 2012, 2014A, 2014B; Block and Whitehead, 2005; Dyke and Block, 2011

Block, Walter E. 1977. “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Abortion.” The Libertarian Forum. Vol. 10, No. 9, September, pp. 6-8; http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1977/1977_09.pdf

Block, Walter E. Undated (1997?). “L’Aborto: Una Legittima Difesa,” Claustrofobia, anno 1, n. 3, pp. 16-22.

Block, Walter E. 1978. “Abortion, Woman and Fetus: Rights in Conflict?” Reason, Vol. 9, No. 12, April, pp. 18-25.

Block, Walter E. 2001. “Stem Cell Research: The Libertarian Compromise.” September 3; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block5.html

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

Block, Walter E. 2008. “Homesteading, ad coelum, owning views and forestalling.” The Social Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 96-103; http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1890872

Block, Walter E. 2014A. “Evictionism and Libertarianism.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 290-294; http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/04/27/jmp.jhu012.full?keytype=ref&ijkey=3n1zc8zcBRnT586;
http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jhu012?ijkey=3n1zc8zcBRnT586&keytype=ref

Block, Walter E. 2010B. “A libertarian perspective on the stem cell debate: compromising the uncompromisible,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. Vol. 35: 429-448;
http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/jhq033?
ijkey=oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref; http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jhq033?ijkey=oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref ; http://wipimd.com/?&sttflpg=78eaf87fd81ebaaa7a245cca600b15bba8497c2cfbf1284c08a0260ba068d4ad&cmpgp0811Ueh016=ICD20811TEH0PkRLpL1IF; http://wipimd.com/?&sttflpg=4b842f7f4697bce38422e0bfe03e6ccad53070377a9303d5#JAL1

Block, Walter E. 2011A. “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; http://libertycrier.com/walter-block-terri-schiavo/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LibertyCrier+%28Liberty+Crier%29

Block, Walter E. 2012. “A Not So Funny Thing Happened to Me in Tampa.” August 30; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block208.html

Block, Walter E. 2014A. “Should abortion be criminalized? Rejoinder to Akers, Davies and Shaffer on Abortion” Management Education Science Technology (MEST) Journal. Vol. 2, No. 1, January, pp. 33-44; http://fbim.meste.org/FBIM_1_2014/Sadrzaj_eng.html; http://fbim.meste.org/FBIM_1_2014/_04.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2014E. “Toward a libertarian theory of evictionism,” Journal of Family and Economic Issues. June; Volume 35, Issue 2, pp. 290-294; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10834-013-9361-4;
http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s10834-013-9361-4; http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/463/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10834-013-9361-4.pdf?auth66=1385583057_5dd1e3442d2db3f98c91dcf5a5d5fa43&ext=.pdf; http://www.springer.com/home?SGWID=0-0-1003-0-0&aqId=2507833&download=1&checkval=feff928fe5dfc72bc210032f220ca40a.

Block, Walter E. and Roy Whitehead. 2005. “Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy,” Appalachian Law Review, 4 (2) 1-45; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228125532_Compromising_the_Uncompromisable_A_Private_Property_Rights_Approach_to_Resolving_the_Abortion_Controversy?ev=prf_pub

Dyke, Jeremiah and Walter E. Block. 2011. “Explorations in Property Rights: Conjoined Twins.” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 3, Art. 38; http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/38-dyke-block-conjoined-twins/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTAmwUHcLM
http://conza.tumblr.com/tagged/evictionism
http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/jhq033?
ijkey=oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref; http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jhq033?ijkey=oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref
https://hangouts.google.com/call/rubwfb4uhrdbdpstpiik5niljie

II. Critics of evictionism:

Akers, 2012A, 2012B; Davies, 2012; Feser, 2004; Goodwin, 2014; Parr, 2011, 2013; Mosquito, 2014, 2015; Rothbard, ; Sadowsky, 1978; Shaffer, 2012; Rothbard, 1978; Vance, 2008, 2012; Wisniewski, 2010A, 2010B, 2011, 2013.

Akers, Becky. 2012A. “Not My Definition — or Webster’s Either — of ‘Trespassing’” September 6; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/120226.html
Akers, Becky. 2012B. “What if the ‘Fetus’ Could Shoot Back?” September 12; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/120728.html
Davies, Jim. 2012. “Abortion.” September 24;
http://strike-the-root.com/abortion

Feser, Edward. 2004. “Self-ownership, abortion, and the rights of children: toward a more conservative libertarianism.” Journal of Libertarian Studies. Volume 18, no. 3 (Summer), pp. 91-114; http://www.indytruth.org/library/journals/libertarianstudies/18/18_3_5.pdf

Goodwin, Jonathan. 2014. “Libertarians and Abortion.” December 23;
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2014/12/libertarians-and-abortion.html

Mosquito, Bionic. 2014. “Libertarians and Abortion.” December 23;
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2014/12/libertarians-and-abortion.html

Mosquito, Bionic. 2015. “Walter Block, Specific Performance Contracts, and Abortion.” July 12; http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2015/07/walter-block-specific-performance.html

Parr, Sean. 2011. “Departurism and the Libertarian Axiom of Gentleness.” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 3, No. 34, http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-34.doc

Parr, Sean. 2013. “Departurism Redeemed – A Response to Walter Block’s ‘Evictionism is Libertarian; Departurism is Not: Critical Comment on Parr.’” Journal of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom, Vol. 2, pp. 109-123; http://jppfaustralia.weebly.com/home/departurism-redeemed-a-response-to-walter-blocks-evictionism-is-libertarian-departurism-is-not-critical-comment-on-parr

Presley, Sharon and Robert Cooke (aka Morgan Edwards). 1979. “The right to abortion: a libertarian defense.” Association of libertarian feminists discussion paper
http://www.alf.org/abortion.php

Rothbard, Murray N. 1978. “The editor replies.” Libertarian Forum. July-August, p. 3; http://mises.org/journals/lf/1978/1978_07-08.pdf

Sadowsky, S.J., James. 1978. “Abortion and Rights of the Child.” Libertarian Forum. July-August, pp. 2-3; http://mises.org/journals/lf/1978/1978_07-08.pdf

Shaffer, Butler. 2012. “Of Children and Fetuses.” September 17;
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer259.html

Vance, Laurence. 2008. “Is Ron Paul Wrong on Abortion?” January 29; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance133.html

Vance, Laurence. 2012. “Libertarianism and Abortion.” July 17;
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance297.html

Wisniewski, Jakub Bozydar. 2010A. “A Critique of Block on Abortion and Child Abandonment.” Libertarian Papers Vol. 2, No. 16; http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/16-wisniewski-block-on-abortion/

Wisniewski, Jakub Bozydar. 2010B. “Rejoinder to Block’s Defense of Evictionism.” Libertarian Papers. Vol. 2, Art No. 27; http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-37.pdf

Wisniewski, Jakub Bozydar. 2011. “Response to Block on Abortion, Round Three.” Libertarian Papers. Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 1-6;
http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/6-winiewski-response-to-block-on-abortion-round-three/; http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-6.pdf

Wisniewski, Jakub Bozydar. 2013. “Abortion, Libertarianism and Evictionism: A Last Word.” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 153-162; http://libertarianpapers.org/2013/6-wisniewski-abortion-libertarianism-and-evictionism/

III. Block responds to critics:

Block, 2010A, 2010B, 2011A, 2011B, 2011C, 2014; forthcoming

Block, Walter E. 2010A. “Objections to the Libertarian Stem Cell Compromise,” Libertarian Papers 2, 34; http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/34-block-objections-to-the-libertarian-stem-cell-compromise/

Block, Walter E. 2010B. “Rejoinder to Wisniewski on Abortion.” Libertarian Papers; Vol. 32, No. 2; http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/32-block-rejoinder-to-wisniewski-on-abortion/; http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-32.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2011A. “Response to Wisniewski on Abortion, Round Two.” Libertarian Papers; Vol. 3, Article No. 4; http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/4-block-response-to-wisniewski-on-abortion-round-two/

Block, Walter E. 2011B. “Response to Wisniewski on Abortion, Round Three.” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 3, No. 6; http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/37-block-response-to-wisniewski-on-abortion/

Block, Walter E. 2011C. “Evictionism is libertarian; departurism is not: critical comment on Parr.” Vol. 3, Article 36, Libertarian Papers;
http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/36-evictionism-is-libertarian-departurism-is-not-critical-comment-on-parr/

Block, Walter E. 2014D. “Response to Wisniewski on Abortion, Round Four.” Management Education Science Technology Journal (MEST); Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 1-14;
http://www.fbim.meste.org/FBIM_2_2014/Sadrzaj_eng.html;
http://www.fbim.meste.org/FBIM_2_2014/4_01.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2013. “Rejoinder to Parr on Evictionism and Departurism” Journal of Peace, Prosperity & Freedom, Vol. 2, pp. 125-138; http://jppfaustralia.weebly.com/current-issue.html; http://jppfaustralia.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/5/5/14558572/journalpeaceprosperityfreedom_single.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2014. “Should abortion be criminalized? Rejoinder to Akers, Davies and Shaffer on Abortion” Management Education Science Technology (MEST) Journal. Vol. 2, No. 1, January, pp. 33-44; http://fbim.meste.org/FBIM_1_2014/Sadrzaj_eng.html; http://fbim.meste.org/FBIM_1_2014/_04.pdf

Block, Walter E. Forthcoming. “Abortion Once Again; a response to Feser, Goodwin, Mosquito, Sadowsky, Vance and Watkins.” Journal of Constitutional Research (Brazil)

Forestalling: forestall: bagel: donut:

Block, 1977, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010A, 2010B, 2011, 2016; Block and Whitehead, 2005; Epstein vs Block, 2005

Block, Walter E. 1977. “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Abortion.” The Libertarian Forum. Vol. 10, No. 9, September, pp. 6-8; http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1977/1977_09.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2001. “Stem Cell Research: The Libertarian Compromise.” September 3; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block5.html

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=18709; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2008. “Homesteading, ad coelum, owning views and forestalling.” The Social Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 96-103; http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1890872

Block, Walter E. 2010A. “A libertarian perspective on the stem cell debate: compromising the uncompromisible,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. Vol. 2
http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/jhq033?
ijkey=oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref; http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jhq033?ijkey=oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref

Block, Walter E. 2010B. “Van Dun on Freedom and Property: A Critique” Libertarian Papers; Vol. 2, No. 4; http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/4-block-van-dun-on-freedom-and-property/

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; http://libertycrier.com/walter-block-terri-schiavo/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LibertyCrier+%28Liberty+Crier%29

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

Block, Walter E. and Roy Whitehead. 2005. “Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy,” Appalachian Law Review, 4 (2) 1-45; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdf; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228125532_Compromising_the_Uncompromisable_A_Private_Property_Rights_Approach_to_Resolving_the_Abortion_Controversy?ev=prf_pub

Epstein, Richard vs. Walter E. Block, 2005. “Debate on Eminent Domain.” NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1144-1169
http://www.nyujll.org/articles/Vol.%201%20No.%203/Vol.%201%20No.%203%20-%20Block%20and%20Epstein.pdf

Share

4:45 pm on November 5, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

From: R
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 5:54 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Utility Maximization in Extreme Hypothetical

Dr. Walter Block, I’m a stranger who’s seen some of your lectures online and was wondering if you would be kind enough and interested enough in giving me your thoughts on something. In my limited understanding of economics, I see it as the study of goods and services whose supply and demand fluctuate. What if we were dealing with an essential good/service whose supply was fixed in the long term? (So, the point being the metaphorical pie cannot get larger.) So imagine a world with 10,000 people living in it. One day everyone comes down with pain in both legs. There is no cure that a human can create. An alien gives 10,000 vials of medicine to someone, say John. One vial can only cure pain in one leg. Everyone wants to rid themselves of pain as their top priority. How would you want to see this medicine distributed? Would you be in favor of John selling this medicine, which would most likely lead to an uneven distribution where for every person who gets two vials, someone out there will get zero or would you be in favor of some entity seizing this medicine and distributing it 1 vial per person? Let’s also add that the pain one feels from this is multiplicative for each leg. In other words, if utility is better maximized from forced redistribution, would you be in favor of it? I never studied economics but I’m guessing your view would be that in the long term utility is never maximized from forced redistribution, but that’s why I’m framing this from the point of view of an extreme hypothetical. So, in an extreme hypothetical, such as the one I provided, where it’s undeniable that utility is maximized from forced redistribution would you favor it?

Dear R: An interesting question. I am both a libertarian, and a utilitarian (the latter in that I favor human happiness). I cannot answer your question, however, as a libertarian, since that philosophy asks but one question, when is violence justified, and gives but one answer, only when prior violence is initiated, and, then, only in self defense or retaliation, that is, punishment. In other words, not all questions can be answered from a libertarian point of view.

But I can answer it as a utilitarian. Given that “that the pain one feels … is multiplicative for each leg,” assuming all people are alike in feeling pain, and that there is no question of private property rights, then, yes, an equal distribution would minimize pain, and thus maximize happiness.

Share

6:44 pm on November 2, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Murder to Save the Entire Human Race? Steal to Prevent Starvation?

From: D
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 4:42 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Question about thorny situations according to NAP
Good afternoon, Professor Block:
Should the following situations be considered evil?:
– A man who steals food because he has no money to feed his family, assuming that in the place where he lives there is no charitable entity that can provide free food.
– A man who is forced to kill an innocent person because the survival of the entire human species depends on it.
On the other hand, certainly, these are violations of the Non-Aggression Principle, which any libertarian would condemn, but could not previous cases constitute exceptions? Sincerely, D

Dear N: A very good and important question. Thanks for raising it. Here’s my short answer: Whether something is “evil” or not is a question for an ethicist, or a moralist. I’m neither. Rather, I’m a libertarian (a small branch of ethics, morality). For libertarians, there is really only one question of interest, of relevance, and that is this: “Under what conditions is the use of force justified.” And, libertarians give only one answer to this sort of question: “Only in defense against, or in retaliation against, the prior use of unjustified, initiatory force.” So, I then ask, does stealing food from innocent people, or killing them, constitute the use of justified force? And I answer, “No.” Therefore, if someone engages in either of these two acts, it would be justified to punish him (or for the innocent person, or food owner, to defend his property, or his life, against the attacker). So, no exceptions to the NAP.

Here is my long answer to this question, with which I’ve wrestled quite a bit:

Block, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2010, 2011

Block, Walter E. 2001. “Jonah Goldberg and the Libertarian Axiom on Non-Aggression.”
June 28; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig/block1.html

Block, Walter E. 2002. “Radical Privatization and other Libertarian Conundrums,” The International Journal of Politics and Ethics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 165-175; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/radical_privatization.pdf (murder park)

Block, Walter E. 2003. “The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism,” February 17; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html
(15th floor flagpole)

Block, Walter E. 2004. “Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Part I” Reason Papers, Vol. 27, Fall, pp. 117-133; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2006. “Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Part II” Reason Papers, Vol. 28, Spring, pp. 85-109; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf; http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/28/rp_28_7.pdf; (death penalty justified, net taxpayer, ruling class analysis p. 87)

Block, Walter E. 2010. “Response to Jakobsson on human body shields.” Libertarian Papers. http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-25.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2011. “The Human Body Shield,” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, pp. 625-630; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_30.pdf

Share

6:08 pm on October 31, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Would the Mental Health Profession Exist in the Free Society? Yes.

From: T
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2017 2:32 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Anarcho-counseling!
Happy Sunday, Walter! I hope you’re doing well. My mind is stuck, and I was hoping you could help un-stuck it. Most of my friends in mental health desire to start private practices, but also balk at the thought of “profiting from the mentally ill.” Of course, that position is mentally ill. But it got me thinking, what would a mental health “system” look like in an ancap society? Mental healthcare is qualitatively different from medical care (it’s easier for me to imagine ancap medical care). It is also characterized by a clientele that is typically poor at gaining or maintaining resources. MH is heavily subsidized by government. I believe the field is riddled with terrible service, bad science and incompetent providers (which would immediately disappear once a government spigot is turned off). Because of the MH field having heavy influence by government, I have trouble imagining if this field would even exist in anarchy. Can you kick me in a direction of clearer thinking? -T

Dear Tommy: You say this: “… bad science and incompetent providers (which would immediately disappear…).” Not so fast. The market is not instantaneous. It grinds, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. Under ancap this market would be like the market for anything else where the clients are to a great degree poor: fast food; used cars; Walmart; used clothes; substandard housing. Bad providers would be tend to be left by the wayside, but not instantaneously. I have no doubt that psychiatry, psychology, counseling, would also exist in the free society. ALL sellers “take advantage” of the needs of their customers; even those catering to the rich. I’m not sure why it is, but anti market sentiment crops up on some professions more than others. In yours, to be sure, but, also, among artists, musicians, journalists, clergy, academics.

Share

4:07 pm on October 29, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Private Courts
—–Original Message—–
From: T
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 9:09 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Social Services
Professor Block, I am T, a Libertarian and avid reader of the Mises Institute, its books and Lewrockwell.Org. I am wondering on what is the libertarian alternative to things like Social Services and domestic abuse? I have seen the state consistently wrong and unjust towards those I personally know where the state has intervened to take away children, etc. Thanks! –T

Dear T: The alternative is private courts:

Benson, 1990, 2002; Friedman, 1979, 1989; Hoppe, 2001; Osterfeld, 1989; Peden, 1977; Rothbard, 1973, 1982, 1991; Stringham, 1998-1999; Tannehill and Tannehill, 1984; Woolridge, 1970

Benson, Bruce L. 1990. The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.

Benson, Bruce L. 2002. “Justice without Government: The Merchant Courts of Medieval Europe and Their Modern Counterparts,” printed in Beito, Gordon and Tabarrok (editors) /The Voluntary City: Choice, Community and Civil Society. / Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute pp. 127 – 150.

Friedman, David. 1979. “Private creation and enforcement of law: a historical case.” University of Chicago Law Review. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

Friedman, David. 1989. The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism, La Salle, IL: Open Court, 2nd ed. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_41.html
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_42.html

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2001. Democracy – The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order, Rutgers University, N.J.: Transaction Publishers

Osterfeld, David. 1989. “Anarchism and the Public Goods Issue: Law, Courts and the Police,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1, Winter, pp. 47-68; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_3.pdf

Peden, Joseph R. 1977. “Property rights in Celtic Irish law,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1. No. 2, Spring, pp. 81-96

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

Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. “Free Market, Police, Courts, and Law.” Reason, March, pp. 5 19.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1982. The Ethics of Liberty, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, N.J.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1991. “On Denationalizing the Courts,” Rothbard-Rockwell Report. Burlingame, CA: Center for Libertarian Studies, Vol. 2, No. 10, October.

Stringham, Edward. 1998-1999. “Justice Without Government,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter, pp. 53-77

Tannehill, Morris and Linda. 1984. The Market for Liberty, New York: Laissez Faire Books

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

Share

5:17 pm on October 26, 2017

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