≡ Menu

Canadian Imperialist Warmongering; A Gratuitous Attack on the Voluntary Military

Email Print

Share

From: A
Sent: Sat 7/22/2017 7:36 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: essay
Doctor Block, I enjoyed (with IMMENSE pleasure) your essay on the Canadians this morning. I have the same thoughts every time someone mentions a ‘hero’ who has been killed in ‘service to our country’ in Afghanistan or Iraq or Yemen or some other place 7,000 miles from America’s shores. I have great empathy for the man’s family, but why the hell did the man sign on the dotted line to go kill for Uncle Sam those who have not attacked or invaded one square inch in America? Sorry, but he’s not my hero. Sincerely, A

Dear A: You are entirely correct. If there were a military draft, then, at least, there would be some excuse for soldiers to “bomb, burn, rape and kill” innocents abroad. Duress, and all that. I don’t say they would be innocent; only that there would be some mitigating factor involved. But the U.S. now has a voluntary military (Canada too). Why in bloody blue blazes do so many young people travel in this manner to foreign countries? Why does everyone thank them for their service when they do so? I’d like to recommend to you, and to everyone else for that matter, the important work of Laurence M. Vance, on this topic. He has made this case over and over again, brilliantly, that U.S. soldiers engaged in war with countries that have never come within a million miles of attacking our nation, are not exactly heroes.

Almost 50 years ago (I’ve been at this for a while now) I wrote this essay attacking Milton Friedman. I think it is still relevant:

Block, Walter E. 1969. “Against the Volunteer Military,” The Libertarian Forum, August 15, p. 4; http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1969/1969_08_15.pdf

Share

5:19 pm on July 22, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

A Libertarian Perspective on Nuclear Weapons

Email Print

Share

From: D
Sent: Fri 7/21/2017 8:48 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Re: 4 questions blog entry 20 July 2017
Dear Dr. Block,
In yesterday’s blog entry
(https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/four-important-challenges-libertarian-
theory-responses/) the answer to question 3 regarding nuclear weapons was blank. I don’t believe that was intentional, was it? Defending the Undefendable, and your other articles, are great resources when debating my socialist-leaning colleagues. It’s amazing the level of shock and disbelief when I mention something as simple as competition among gas stations. This in relation to their statements that government regulation is necessary to keep gas stations from charging whatever they want, since we HAVE to buy gas at any price, among other examples. Thanks for your work, D

Dear D: Thanks for your kind comments. Sorry, it was inadvertent. Here ‘tis:

Block, Walter E. and Matthew A. Block. 2000. “Toward a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun (Weapon) Control,” Ethics, Place and Environment, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 289-298; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/theory_gun_control.pdf; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228127780_Toward_a_Universal_Libertarian_Theory_of_Gun_(Weapon)_Control_A_Spatial_and_Georgraphical_Analysis?ev=prf_pub; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228127780_Toward_a_Universal_Libertarian_Theory_of_Gun_Weapon_Control_A_Spatial_and_Georgraphical_Analysis; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/toward-a-universal-libertarian-theory-of-gun-weapon-control-a-spatial-and-geographical-analysis/

Share

10:02 pm on July 21, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

From: H
Sent: Wed 7/19/2017 5:46 PM
To: Walter Block
Dear Walter, Here are a series of nine questions I and my friends would like to ask you.

Dear H: See your questions below, interspersed with my responses. Thanks for all of them. Some are very challenging.

1. What are the rights of a dead body immediately upon death if nobody is established as an inheritor of the person’s estate? Assume the deceased has no family and no will.

Dead people, of course, no longer have any rights, as they no longer exist. Given that this person dies intestate, in the free society a (private) court would then determine what is to be done with this person’s estate.

2. What should a libertarian member of a jury do if the crime is aggressive (and guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt), is there any reason to vote not-guilty based on the belief that the state is illegitimate and the punishment necessitates further aggression (taxes to pay for imprisonment, not restitution for the victim)?

In my view, to think that a libertarian jurist should vote not-guilty on this ground is to give the government too much credit. As Murray Rothbard says: “If you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place.”

The Blood, the Crips, the Mafia, are also gangs; only their public relations accomplishments are far inferior to that of the government. Suppose on a given occasion, one of these gangs is robbing an innocent person, and another gang stops the first one from doing so. Then, at least at that point, the second good is doing a “mitzvah” (a good deed). Similarly, when an evil government (that is a redundancy) puts a murderer out of circulation, it, too, is acting properly, at least in this one regard. So, I see no justification for the libertarian member of the jury to undermine this. I am assuming, here, that there are only two choices: either the murderer is placed in a government prison, or goes free, to continue his depredations. While the gang, whether statist or “private” is not a righteous organization, it is capable of sometimes committing righteous acts. In other words, it is not unjust for the government to prevent the furtherance of crime and the libertarian juror should vote not guilty.

3. Collateral damage question: A stabs B in the leg. B sends private police to punish A. A flees onto the property of C. B’s private police run through property of C to catch A. Are B’s private police guilty of trespass? Or is A guilty of trespass for the damages incurred by both his own trespass and that of B’s private police, because as a recent-aggressor he knew that he was dragging pursuers with him? If not, then murderers can just hide on private property with impunity.

A is guilty of trespass, not the police. However, A’s private police may be guilty as well if they took negligent or unnecessarily violent measures. Murderers cannot just hide on C’s private property; the owner of said property would be a criminal as well. If C used his private property rights to prevent private police B from capturing the criminal, A, then C would be aiding and abetting a criminal, and would become a criminal himself. Private property rights do not give the owner the right to do whatever he pleases. X invites Y to his house for dinner. Whereupon X shoots Y. X’’s defense: “Well, it was my private property, a man’s home is his castle; he can do anything he pleases.” Certainly this is incompatible with libertarianism.

4. If so, what if B’s private police need to use guns to catch A (assume that he murdered B so that use of guns is acceptable)? What if they shoot and hit a gas line on C’s property and it kills A, C, and C’s family? Are B’s private police liable? Or is A?

Both A and B’s police force are responsible for this mayhem.

5. What if the only conceivable way to ever catch A, the criminal, is by dropping a bomb that kills A and his 100 closest (innocent) friends who are over for a barbecue? Is A the only one at fault if this occurs?

I have published on this issue, and offer these cites in lieu of a substantive response:

Block, Walter E. 2010. “Response to Jakobsson on human body shields.” Libertarian Papers. http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/25-block-response-to-jakobsson-on-human-body-shields/

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

Block, Walter E. Unpublished. “Human shields, missiles, negative homesteading and libertarianism”

My answer involves negative homesteading (whoever homesteads the misery the one who has to keep it) a concept I concocted in order to respond to challenges like this.

6. Siamese twins A and B share a body. A stabs some part of this body. B does not “consent” to the stabbing. But A says: “It’s my body, I can do what I want to.” Assuming that the nerves hit by the stabbing only connect to A’s brain, is the act aggressive? Or must no negative effects at all accrue on B (e.g. loss of blood, susceptibility to infection)? Or is it always illegitimate by virtue of it being a shared resource?

I have also published on this topic, so I’ll let that be my answer to this query of yours:

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/

7. What should we make of the argument that libertarians should be more open to restrictions on campaign finance because donations to statists border on acts of aggression?

Border on? I think that donations to statists is in effect aiding and abetting criminals. Campaign finance for non-libertarian candidates is the equivalent of funding a criminal organization and should indeed be restricted.

8. If free speech is unlimited as you argue in DTU, what about yelling someone to death? Or wait is this taken care of by property rights, homesteading noise rights, etcetera? Well how much different is it than going into someone’s house and stabbing them? Obviously they can kick you out after but shouldn’t there be more?

Free speech isn’t unlimited–threats are illegitimate. Yelling loudly at someone to his death violates the NAP. Screaming so loudly that you burst his eardrums also violates the NAP. The best essay ever written on environmentalism in general, and noise pollution in particular, is this one:

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://mises.org/story/2120; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf

9. Spanking. What is the libertarian view on spanking children?

I have been engaged in two debates and one interview on this topic, and I’ll let those constitute my answer to this question:
Block versus Tim Moen: https://youtu.be/J6Kto38tk1I

Block versus Stefan Molyneux, Freedomain Radio: http://youtu.be/EgCmoVbdYtE;
MP3: http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2552_Walter_Block_Debate.mp3;

July 21, 2013. Interview with Steve Patterson, FEE
http://libertariannerds.com/2016/11/19/wizardly-wisdom-reality-anxiety-ep-4-darien-sumner-
from-bumblingbees-net/

The post Nine Challenging Libertarian Questions; And Answers: appeared first on LewRockwell.

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Here Are Four Important Challenges To Libertarian Theory And My Responses To Them

—–Original Message—–
From: FL
Sent: Mon 7/17/2017 10:52 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Some Questions
Hello Dr. Block, My name is LF, and I’m a graduate student studying math at the University of ZZZ. I came across your positions while listening to Sam Seder’s podcast. I usually align myself with the left when it comes to American politics, but I have to say that I found many of your arguments very interesting. I still have some questions though, and I would really appreciate it if you answer them, or direct me to materials that will answer them.

1) As a more general point, who is deserving of property rights? For this, I’m less concerned with rights to exterior property like land, a car, etc., and more concerned with the right to one’s own body. Are brain dead individuals deserving? What about mentally handicapped people? Babies? Animals? The way I see it, one tenable position might base property rights off free will. I think even this requires some caveats though. First, if I own a pet, is it ethically allowable under deontological libertarianism for me to torture this animal? What about small children, who can exercise some amount of free will? I would conclude that many entities are deserving of property rights to their own bodies, but there may be rankings to such rights.

As a thought exercise, let’s assume there is a super intelligent alien species, and this species possesses some form of higher consciousness as compared to humans (one that we cannot fathom just as cows cannot fathom the concept of free will). Would the aliens be ethically justified in using human beings as human beings use animals?

2) How would you address the problem of climate change? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the basic principles of anthropogenic global warming are true (something that I think most reasonable people would accept). Would you be open to the idea of using force to limit the emission of greenhouse gasses? Based on your answer to the vaccine question raised by Sam, I would assume that you think in some cases this would be justified. As a concrete justification, if you own beachfront property in Miami, and you can prove to your court that my factory is emitting greenhouse gasses which contribute to sea level rise that harm your beachfront property, I think you would have justification in forcing me to stop. Do you agree with what I’ve concluded?

3) What do you believe about the concept of preemptive compulsion? I think a reasonable position to take is that individuals (at least certain ones) should not be able to own things like nuclear weapons, or chemical weapons. To give an example, if my neighbor hates me, and he has said in the past that he wants to buy a bomb to destroy me, can I bring this to the court system and stop him from buying a weapon? Is the only thing to do wait until he blows me up, and then have my family bring suit against him? This seems like a very unfavorable reality to me.

4) When you talked with Sam, you proposed having a court to decide conflicts. I assume that this court would own a courthouse, and be funded by the residents of certain area, and there would be certain standards set out by the court which, if violated, would result in punishment. This seems awfully close to a system of government to me. Where do you draw the distinction? Is it just the scale of things? As you mentioned to Sam, in some ways we do live in an anarchic system vis-à-vis international relations.

I understand that you are probably a busy guy, and there are a lot of questions here, so please respond at your leisure. Best, LF

Dear LF: Before answering your very important and interesting challenges to libertarian theory, I shall offer readers of this blog some background. Sam Seder is a leftist, “progressive,” socialist, interventionist radio host who likes to argue and debate about political economy. He had me on his show twice, but since then has lost his taste for disputation on these matters, at least with me.

Here are the two interviews Sam Seder did with me:

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=sBNZwHw4eT8; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulMRmIALBX8

April 30, 2014. 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; http://archive.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/walter-block-defends-the-ethical-argument-for-eliminating-the-minimum-wage/

Now for my specific responses, interspersed with your questions:

1) As a more general point, who is deserving of property rights? For this, I’m less concerned with rights to exterior property like land, a car, etc., and more concerned with the right to one’s own body. Are brain dead individuals deserving? What about mentally handicapped people? Babies? Animals? The way I see it, one tenable position might base property rights off free will. I think even this requires some caveats though. First, if I own a pet, is it ethically allowable under deontological libertarianism for me to torture this animal? What about small children, who can exercise some amount of free will? I would conclude that many entities are deserving of property rights to their own bodies, but there may be rankings to such rights.

As a thought exercise, let’s assume there is a super intelligent alien species, and this species possesses some form of higher consciousness as compared to humans (one that we cannot fathom just as cows cannot fathom the concept of free will). Would the aliens be ethically justified in using human beings as human beings use animals?

<<< The “super intelligent alien species” would be obligated to respect our rights, since we can petition for them, something animals cannot do to us.

Please forgive me for not answering all of your questions. In many cases, I have already published responses, and see no reason to write you, once again, about them. However, if these publications of mine do not fully satisfy you, please feel free to follow up with more questions, challenges.

On brain dead people, see this:

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

On animal rights:

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

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

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

On children:

Block, Walter E. 2014. “Rozeff on Zwolinski; Block on Rozeff.” April 28;
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/rozeff-on-zwolinski-block-on-rozeff/ (starve child? Positive rights?).

Smith, Edward, Jordan Reel and Walter E. Block. 2014. “The Natural Rights of Children” International Journal of Health Policy and Management. Vol. 2, No. 2, February, pp. 85-89; http://www.ijhpm.com/?_action=article&vol=602

December 9, 2013. Debate: Walter E. 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

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

Block, Walter E. 2015. “Expiration of private property rights.” The Journal of Philosophical Economics. Vol. VIII, Issue 2, Spring; http://www.jpe.ro/?id=revista&p=410;
http://www.jpe.ro/pdf.php?id=7114

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. 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. 1991 [1976]. Defending the Undefendable, New York: Fleet Press, first printing 1976, second printing 1980, third printing 1985; New York: Fox and Wilkes, fourth printing, 1991; chapter on “The Litterer” translated into Italian as “L’imbrattatore Di Luoghi Pubblici: Un Eroe”, in Claustrofobia, March 1978, No. 33, pp. 19-24; chapter on “The Employer of Child Labor” reprinted in Libertarian Familist, Vol. 11, No. 8, October 1992, pp. 1-4

April 27, 2015. Michael FreeMan [mailto:sithfit138@gmail.com]; Josh Davis;
https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/hoaevent/AP36tYf_4FiPkEMZZUXkwGLSWokcvU1VB6JoPapQz1DLdLfXJFYM0Q?authuser=0&hl=en; how I became a libertarian, minimum wage, the future of higher education, anarchism versus monarchism, children’s rights, pro choice versus pro life, kid’s rights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIwYRxVlKTQ; http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/05/walter-block-on-how-he-became.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TargetLiberty+%28Target+Liberty%29

Spanking children:

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; http://libertariannerds.com/2016/11/19/wizardly-wisdom-reality-anxiety-ep-4-darien-sumner-from-bumblingbees-net/

Block, Walter E. 2016. Starving Child, Part III: Spanking Children; November 5;

Starving Child, Part III: Spanking Children

Mosquito, Bionic. 2016. “Walter Hits One Out of the Park.” November 5;
http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2016/11/walter-hits-one-out-of-park.html

July 16, 2017. Vancouver, BC, Canada. Walter Block debates Tim Moen, Leader of the Canadian Libertarian Party. https://www.facebook.com/events/1800169280300222/
436 W Pender Street, downtown Vancouver at 2:30pm. Topic: Is spanking children compatible with libertarianism? Contact: Victor Pross: artpross@hotmail.com; or go here:
https://www.facebook.com/events/1800169280300222/1831218550528628/?acontext=%7B%22ref%22%3A%2229%22%2C%22ref_notif_type%22%3A%22admin_plan_mall_activity%22%2C%22action_history%22%3A%22null%22%7D&notif_t=admin_plan_mall_activity&notif_id=1498028247599964. Open to the public. https://youtu.be/J6Kto38tk1I

2) How would you address the problem of climate change? Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the basic principles of anthropogenic global warming are true (something that I think most reasonable people would accept). Would you be open to the idea of using force to limit the emission of greenhouse gasses? Based on your answer to the vaccine question raised by Sam, I would assume that you think in some cases this would be justified. As a concrete justification, if you own beachfront property in Miami, and you can prove to your court that my factory is emitting greenhouse gasses which contribute to sea level rise that harm your beachfront property, I think you would have justification in forcing me to stop. Do you agree with what I’ve concluded?

<<< Yes, under these conditions, I would indeed be open to the idea of using force to limit the emission of greenhouse gasses.

A reading on this:

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; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf; http://mises.org/story/2120

In my view, this is the best essay ever written on environmentalism, no exceptions. If you read only one of these articles I am recommending, read this one.

3) What do you believe about the concept of preemptive compulsion? I think a reasonable position to take is that individuals (at least certain ones) should not be able to own things like nuclear weapons, or chemical weapons. To give an example, if my neighbor hates me, and he has said in the past that he wants to buy a bomb to destroy me, can I bring this to the court system and stop him from buying a weapon? Is the only thing to do wait until he blows me up, and then have my family bring suit against him? This seems like a very unfavorable reality to me.

<<< On nukes in the free society, here are my views:

4) When you talked with Sam, you proposed having a court to decide conflicts. I assume that this court would own a courthouse, and be funded by the residents of certain area, and there would be certain standards set out by the court which, if violated, would result in punishment. This seems awfully close to a system of government to me. Where do you draw the distinction? Is it just the scale of things? As you mentioned to Sam, in some ways we do live in an anarchic system vis-à-vis international relations.

<<< No, this is not government. It is all voluntary. Not even close. Here are many, many publications of anarcho-capitalism, or free market anarchism:

Anderson and Hill, 1979; Benson, 1989, 1990; Block, 2007, 2010, 2011; Casey, 2010; DiLorenzo, 2010; Gregory, 2011; Guillory & Tinsley, 2009; Hasnas, 1995; Heinrich, 2010; Higgs, 2009, 2012, 2017; Hoppe, 2008, 2011; Huebert, 2010; King, 2010; Kinsella, 2009; Long, 2004; McConkey, 2013; Molyneux, 2008; Murphy, 2005; Oppenheimer, 1926; Paul, 2008; Rockwell, 2013, 2016; Rothbard, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1998; Spooner, 1870; Stringham, 2007, 2015; Tannehill, 1984; Tinsley, 1998-1999; Wenzel, 2013; Woods, 2014.

Anderson, Terry and Hill, P.J. 1979. “An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 3: 9-29; http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Benson, Bruce L. 1989. Enforcement of Private Property Rights in Primitive Societies: Law Without Government,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 1, Winter, pp. 1-26; http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_1.pdf

Benson, Bruce L. 1990. “Customary Law with Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing Justice: A Description of a Modern System of Law and Order without State Coercion.” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 2,” pp. 25-42; http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_2.pdf

Block, Walter. 2007. “Anarchism and Minarchism; No Rapprochement Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring, pp. 91-99; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_5.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2011. “Governmental inevitability: reply to Holcombe.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 22; pp. 667-688; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_34.pdf

Block, Walter E. and Michael Fleischer. 2010. “How Would An Anarchist Society Handle Child Abuse?” October 13; http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block167.html
Casey, Doug. 2010. “Doug Casey on Anarchy.” March 31; http://www.caseyresearch.com/cwc/doug-casey-anarchy
DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 2010. “The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality.” The Independent Review, v. 15, n. 2, Fall 2010, pp. 227–239; http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_02_4_dilorenzo.pdf

Gregory, Anthony. 2011. “Abolish the Police.” May 26; http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory213.html

Guillory, Gil & Patrick Tinsley. 2009. “The Role of Subscription-Based Patrol and Restitution in the Future of Liberty,” Libertarian Papers 1, 12; http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/12-the-role-of-subscription-based-patrol-and-restitution-in-the-future-of-liberty/
Hasnas, John. 1995. “The myth of the rule of law.” Wisconsin Law Review 199;
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

Heinrich, David J. 2010. “Justice for All Without the State.” The Libertarian Standard. May 6; http://www.libertarianstandard.com/articles/david-j-heinrich/justice-for-all-without-the-state/

Higgs, Robert. 2009. “Why We Couldn’t Abolish Slavery Then and Can’t Abolish Government Now.” August 20; http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs128.html

Higgs, Robert. 2012. “What is the point of my libertarian anarchism?” January 16;
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs180.html

Higgs, Robert. 2017. “Is a National Government Necessary for National Defense?” March 23; http://www.targetliberty.com/2017/03/is-national-government-necessary-for.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TargetLiberty+%28Target+Liberty%29

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2008. “Reflections on the Origin and the Stability of the State.” June 23; http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe18.html

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2011. “State or Private Law Society.” April 10;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe26.1.html

Huebert, Jacob. 2010. Libertarianism Today. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger

King, Seth. 2010. “Daily Anarchist Interviews Walter E. Block,” September 9;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block165.html

Kinsella, Stephan. 2009. “The Irrelevance of the Impossibility of Anarcho-Libertarianism.” August 20; http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/20/the-irrelevance-of-the-impossibility-of-anarcho-libertarianism/

Long, Roderick. 2004. “Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections” http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html

McConkey, Michael. 2013. “Anarchy, Sovereignty, and the State of Exception: Schmitt’s Challenge.” The Independent Review, v. 17, n. 3, Winter, pp. 415–428. http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_17_03_05_mcconkey.pdf

Molyneux, Stefan. 2008. “The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives.”
http://www.mail-archive.com/libertarianenterprise@yahoogroups.com/msg02056.html

Murphy, Robert P. 2005. “But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?” July 7; http://mises.org/story/1855; http://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

Oppenheimer, Franz. 1926. The State. New York: Vanguard Press

Paul, Ron. 2008. “On the Inner Contradictions of Limited Government.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o4kiWpqoeg&feature=PlayList&p=9645F6A68683F679&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4

Rockwell, Lew. 2013. “What Would We Do Without the State?” March 31;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/134782.html
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/what-would-we-do-without-the-state/

Rockwell, Lew. 2016. “The Trouble With Politics.” November 8;
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/11/lew-rockwell/fatal-flaw-politics/

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

In the view of Rothbard (1973, emphasis added by present author): “For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as ‘members of the government’) has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it ‘war’; then ennobled the mass slaughter that ‘war’ involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it ‘conscription’ in the ‘national service.’ For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it ‘taxation.’ In fact, if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place.”

Rothbard, Murray N. 1975. “Society Without a State.” The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January; http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

Rothbard, Murray N. 1977. “Do you hate the state?” The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 10, No. 7, July; http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html
“…there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State – any State – is a predatory gang of criminals.”
“The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.”
Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

Paul, Ron. 2008. “On the Inner Contradictions of Limited Government.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o4kiWpqoeg&feature=PlayList&p=9645F6A68683F679&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4

Shaffer, Butler.
www.mises.org/books/wizards/pdf

Spooner, Lysander. 1966[1870]. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority and A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard, Larkspur, Colorado: Rampart College; http://jim.com/treason.htm

Stringham, Edward, ed. 2007. Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice, Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Stringham, Edward. 2015. Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life. Oxford University Press

Tannehill, Morris and Linda Tannehill. [1970] 1984. The Market for Liberty, New York: Laissez Faire Books; http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/tannehill1.html

Tinsley, Patrick. 1998-1999. “With Liberty and Justice for All: A Case for Private Police,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter, pp. 95-100; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf

Wenzel, Robert. 2013. “Robert Ringer’s Strawman Anarchist.” February 2;
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/wenzel/wenzel211.html

Woods, Tom. 2014. “Four things the state is not.” July 29;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/07/no_author/4-things-the-state-is-not/

private police: private army:

Gregory, 2011; Guillory, & Tinsley. 2009; Hoppe, 2011; Huebert, 2010; Murphy, 2005; Rothbard, 1973, 1975, 1998 [1982]; Stringham, 2007; Tannehills[1970] 1984; Tinsley, 1998-1999; Wiśniewski, 2014; Wollstein, 1969; Woolridge, 1970.

Gregory, Anthony. 2011. “Abolish the Police.” May 26; http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory213.html

Guillory, Gil & Patrick Tinsley. 2009. “The Role of Subscription-Based Patrol and Restitution in the Future of Liberty,” Libertarian Papers 1, 12; http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/12-the-role-of-subscription-based-patrol-and-restitution-in-the-future-of-liberty/
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2011. “State or Private Law Society.” April 10;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe26.1.html

Huebert, Jacob. 2010. Libertarianism Today. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger

Murphy, Robert P. 2005. “But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?” July 7; http://mises.org/story/1855; http://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

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

Rothbard, Murray N. 1975. “Society Without a State.” The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January; http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

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

Stringham, Edward, ed. 2007. Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice, Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Tannehill, Morris and Linda Tannehill. [1970] 1984. The Market for Liberty, New York: Laissez Faire Books; http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/tannehill1.html

Tinsley, Patrick. 1998-1999. “With Liberty and Justice for All: A Case for Private Police,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter, pp. 95-100; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf

Wiśniewski, Jakub Bożydar. 2014. “Defense as a private good in a competitive order” Review of Social and Economic Issues, Vol. 1, No. 1, Summer, pp. 2-35;
http://rsei.rau.ro/images/V1N1/Jakub%20Bozydar%20Wisniewski.pdf

Wollstein, Jarret B. 1969. Society Without Coercion. In Society Without Government. New York: Arno Press

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

Share

1:11 pm on July 20, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Are Sting Operations Against Merely Potential Child Sex Predators Justified? Yes.

—–Original Message—–
From: L
Sent: Sun 7/16/2017 2:36 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Are Creeps Defendable?
Dear Dr. Block, I have been a fan of your work since I was in high school 8 years ago. Particularly, I am a fan of your *Defending the Undefendable* series to which the theme of this email relates. I am writing to you because I am trying to parse out whether it is deontologically libertarian to support private sting operations that publicly expose potential child sex predators (i.e. Creep Catchers, POP Squad, Internet Interceptors) and if so, to what degree? If you are not familiar with the trend, it is when a group of private citizens pretend to be a child, known as a “decoy”, online and wait for a potential predator to initiate the first chat and subsequently inform the potential predator within the first 3 messages that they are an underage child. If the potential predator continues the chat knowing that they are speaking to a child, the vigilante then sets up a usually public meeting place, films, and publishes the interaction which usually leads to a public or private shaming and/or police arrest if they so choose to contact the police. I assume you agree with me that, per libertarian ethics, an individual cannot be punished, by the state or otherwise, if he or she has not aggressed against anyone. This includes one who has merely typed some messages to an imaginary person. Would I be acting within libertarian principals if I complete the sting and publish the video/chat log while maintaining to never contact the police or hurt the potential predator for the duration of the meet? If yes, one can argue that by publishing the materials, the police will inevitably get involved and subpoena all parties to court anyway, which would then increase the likelihood that the potential predator, who has not committed aggression against anyone, would go to prison thus violating libertarian ethics. So, I ask you, would “creep catching” be a pointless endeavor to ruin the lives of innocent people or a courageous way to use the private sector to raise awareness?

Also, if yes, based on the severity of the online chat, would it be deontologically libertarian to call the police? Say for example, the potential predator agrees to meet a decoy mother who says she will pimp out her 6-year-old for money; as seen here . In this case there is no question that the imaginary child is objectively unable to consent and the potential predator is innocent given that he has not aggressed against anyone or even threatened to aggress against a *real* person. As vile as the case might be, and with the objectivity of the age of consent out of the question, is the potential child sex predator defendable? Thank you in advance, Luke.

Dear L: Thanks for raising this very important and intriguing challenge to libertarian theory. Every fiber in our being cries out to heavily punish these creeps, and, yet, have they really violated the non-aggression principle (NAP), the foundation of libertarianism, given that they have seemingly not (yet) actually DONE anything untoward? I think the proper answer to this conundrum lies in the same direction of our libertarian analysis of attempted murder. It is not clear that the latter has violated the NAP, either. He aimed to murder an innocent person, but his bullet missed. Still, I think, we can properly punish the attempted murderer on the ground that he is guilty of a threat. Remember, the NAP not only proscribes actual physical invasion, but also the threat thereof. Surely, the child molester constitutes a threat. If kiddie sex predators do not constitute a threat to the innocent, it is difficult to see how any threat can exist. Ok, if all that these creeps do is think about what they would like to do to children, or, even write about it or draw pictures about it, that is one thing. But, in your example, these creeps are actually attempting to engage in their evil deeds. In my view, they have stepped way over the line of violating the NAP, and therefore libertarian theory has no difficulty in engaging in punitive violence against them. To sum up, my short answer is No, these creeps are not Defendable.

For libertarian readings on attempted murder, see the following:

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

Kinsella, Stephen. 2006. “The Problem with “Fraud”: Fraud, Threat, and Contract Breach as Types of Aggression.” July 17; http://blog.mises.org/5327/the-problem-with-fraud-fraud-threat-and-contract-breach-as-types-of-aggression/

Kinsella, Stephen. 2009A. Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach.” February 3; http://blog.mises.org/9367/fraud-restitution-and-retaliation-the-libertarian-approach/

Kinsella, Stephen. 2009B. “The Libertarian Approach to Negligence, Tort, and Strict Liability: Wergeld and Partial Wergeld.” September 1; http://blog.mises.org/10572/the-libertarian-approach-to-negligence-tort-and-strict-liability-wergeld-and-partial-wergeld/

Share

12:17 pm on July 20, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Let Us All Have FUN!!

Email Print

Share

—–Original Message—–
From: V
Sent: Sun 7/16/2017 5:46 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Feedback

Last year I emailed you a week after Mises U with the query of which major to select for the PhD (finance vs economics), however, I found your response
shocking as I would thought that you will aggressively advocate for economics, you replied “Whichever is the most fun for you” , this got me thinking and all themes and topics of interest for me where related to internationalization, so after a year of giving a lot of thinking I decided to purse my PhD in International Business which I will start on August 2017. I will like to thank you for your response because I’m now pursing the PhD I that I find the most fun, without any hesitation and/or second thoughts.

Dear V: I’m delighted your happy with your choice. I have several coauthors with whom, at any given time, we have 3-4 articles in the works. Sometimes, one of these coauthors asks me, “What should I work on first, and in what order?” My answer, invariably, apart from cases where an editor is breathing down our necks with deadlines, is: “Do whatever is the most fun!” We Austro-libertarians are supposed to have FUN in our professional (and personal, too) lives. I get this from my friend and mentor Murray Rothbard, who was just about the most joyous person I have ever met. I try to emulate him in every way I can.

Share

1:45 am on July 19, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

—–Original Message—–
From: A
Sent: Sat 7/8/2017 3:37 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Google antitrust case joke

Hello Walter: “Google suffered a major blow on Tuesday after European antitrust officials fined the search giant a record $2.7 billion for unfairly favoring some of its own services over those of rivals.” Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/technology/eu-google-fine.html?mcubz=0 Have you thought out any reductio ad absurdums or plain jokes, perhaps involving sports or entertainment figures which can show the absurdity of these rulings? My best regards, A

Dear Arnie: How about this:

The anti trust authorities should fine team sports members (soccer, basketball, football) for passing the ball to their own team members rather than competitors. They should for a portion of the time (that portion to be determined by economists, using econometrics, in a full employment initiative for dismal scientists and statisticians) pass the ball to members of the competing team. After all, that would only be fair. Passing to one’s own team members is an unfair use of monopoly power (when it is in their possession, they are “monopolizing” the ball). Let’s take a look at the statistics. The leaders in the NBA for assists, and in the NFL for passes completed, should be fined. That’ll teach ‘em to favor their own team-mates over their competitors. Hey, fair is fair. Obama missed a bet when he didn’t appoint me to head up the anti trust division of the so-called department of justice.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fac: (504)864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
http://www.walterblock.com/

Walter Block Publications

Skype: Walter.Block4

If it moves, privatize it; if it doesn’t move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or doesn’t move, privatize everything.

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” Murray, N. Rothbard

“Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping toward destruction. Therefore, everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interest of everyone hangs on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.” Ludwig von Mises

Top Ten Contemporary Academics Helping The Political Right (#8)
http://www.poletical.com/academics-helping-the-right.php

100 Most Influential Libertarians: A Newsmax/FreedomFest List (#46)
http://www.newsmax.com/BestLists/libertarians-newsmax-freedomfest/2017/06/01/id/793510/

Share

4:10 pm on July 8, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Kenneth Rogoff, with his book, The Curse of Cash, is one of the most outspoken critics of cash. He wants to immediately prohibit use of large bills ($100, $50) and eventually even smaller ones ($20, $10). Graciously, he will leave us with the smallest ones ($1, $5). For very different reasons than he puts forth, I agree with his contention. I, too, oppose the use of U.S. fiat currency. Had Ron Paul become president of our country, and had he appointed me to be in charge of this sort of thing, I would have implements the Rogoff plan, only I would have been more through: not only $1 and $5 bills would have to go, but the same would apply to quarters, dimes, nickels and pennies. (I now renounce this essay of mine: Block, Walter E. 8/26/01. “Keep the penny; ditch the Fed,” New Orleans Times Picayune, p. B-7; reprinted in http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block7.html, 8/29/01; “Freedom News Daily” info@free-market.net, 8/30/01; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2016/04/the-penny-and-fed.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29).

How can I justify making common cause with Prof. Rogoff, an interventionist if ever there was one (bless his heart, as we say in the South; not to bring in an irrelevancy, but they can take away our statue of Robert E. Lee, however, not that saying, at least not yet)? I do so because I oppose U.S. fiat currency, just as he does, which is what we are now talking about, which it what this Harvard professor is advocating doing away with (partially on his part, completely on mine). Where I part company from the good (money) socialist professor lies in what we would substitute for present money. He would go to electronic money, not bitcoin, of course. I, in sharp contrast, favor the gold standard. Let us, then, by all means, get rid of all government connection with money, from the penny to the largest denomination, and substitute for it gold as money!

Share

2:31 pm on July 8, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Is An Cap Vulnerable to Warlords, Crony Capitalists, Or Corporativists?

—–Original Message—–
From: C
Sent: Sat 7/8/2017 3:18 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Question about Cartels

Hello Professor Block, My name is C, I am 20 years old and I live near Seattle. I used to be a socialist, and though I now know socialism has never succeeded, requires a state to function, and markets produce more liberty and freedom of thought, there is one argument made by more clever anarcho-statists which I have never heard addressed. I am unable to find fault with it logically, and it has been gnawing on me for a while. Perhaps I have missed something obvious, but since you are the most consistent Anarcho-capitalist, and have published over 500 papers, I was hoping you could point me to any detailed responses to this argument. The argument goes roughly as follows: Corporations who collaborate with the state against the market, will violate the NAP whether the state exists or not. Of course they cannot wield the power of the democratic state to lobby for subsidies and favorable regulations, which is good. But with freedom of association they can form cartels, and with the absence of a police force, they will not voluntarily submit to any investigation which might uncover a conspiracy to violently seize the property of a defenseless curmudgeon, or violently oust competing businesses. Without libel laws, they can spread convincing fake news about any potential muckraker, if they don’t resort to assassinating him. Put simply, though we have excessive regulations now, without any at all, the most successful businesses form corporate cartels which are functionally no different from states with regards to self-ownership and private property rights. In other words capitalism vs. corporatism is a false dichotomy. What have I missed? Thanks, From C

Dear C:

What’s “gnawing” at you is the classical question of whether anarcho capitalism is stable. If we ever had such a system, would it survive, or, would it be vulnerable to corporatists? I think an cap would survive, although crony capitalists are always a danger. One bit of evidence for my contention: an cap has existed for 10s of thousands of years on the global scale. Canada and Chile are in a state of anarchism vis a vis each other; there’s no world government. Ditto for ALL other nations. For the libertarian view on libel laws, see below. I’m also sending you a large reading list on an cap. I think the essay that most closely answers your question, challenge, is the one by Bob Murphy on Warlords taking over.

Also, on an entirely different matter, please read this and get back to me on it:

Block, Walter E. 2017. “C’mon Down To New Orleans; The Water’s Fine. Enroll at Loyola University.” June 27; https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/cmon-new-orleans-waters-fine-enroll-loyola-university/

On libel:

Block 1976, ch. 7, 2008; Rothbard, 1998, ch. 16

Block, Walter E. 2008 [1976]. Defending the Undefendable. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute;

Block, Walter. 2008. “Sue for libel?” December 29; http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block124.html

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

On an cap:

Anderson and Hill, 1979; Benson, 1989, 1990; Block, 2007, 2010, 2011; Casey, 2010; DiLorenzo, 2010; Gregory, 2011; Guillory & Tinsley, 2009; Hasnas, 1995; Heinrich, 2010; Higgs, 2009, 2012, 2017; Hoppe, 2008, 2011; Huebert, 2010; King, 2010; Kinsella, 2009; Long, 2004; McConkey, 2013; Molyneux, 2008; Murphy, 2005; Oppenheimer, 1926; Paul, 2008; Rockwell, 2013, 2016; Rothbard, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1998; Spooner, 1870; Stringham, 2007, 2015; Tannehill, 1984; Tinsley, 1998-1999; Wenzel, 2013; Woods, 2014.

Anderson, Terry and Hill, P.J. 1979. “An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, 3: 9-29; http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Benson, Bruce L. 1989. Enforcement of Private Property Rights in Primitive Societies: Law Without Government,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 1, Winter, pp. 1-26; http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_1.pdf

Benson, Bruce L. 1990. “Customary Law with Private Means of Resolving Disputes and Dispensing Justice: A Description of a Modern System of Law and Order without State Coercion.” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 2,” pp. 25-42; http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_2.pdf

Block, Walter. 2007. “Anarchism and Minarchism; No Rapprochement Possible: Reply to Tibor Machan,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, Spring, pp. 91-99; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/21_1/21_1_5.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2011. “Governmental inevitability: reply to Holcombe.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 22; pp. 667-688; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_34.pdf

Block, Walter E. and Michael Fleischer. 2010. “How Would An Anarchist Society Handle Child Abuse?” October 13; http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block167.html
Casey, Doug. 2010. “Doug Casey on Anarchy.” March 31; http://www.caseyresearch.com/cwc/doug-casey-anarchy
DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 2010. “The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality.” The Independent Review, v. 15, n. 2, Fall 2010, pp. 227–239; http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_15_02_4_dilorenzo.pdf

Gregory, Anthony. 2011. “Abolish the Police.” May 26; http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory213.html

Guillory, Gil & Patrick Tinsley. 2009. “The Role of Subscription-Based Patrol and Restitution in the Future of Liberty,” Libertarian Papers 1, 12; http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/12-the-role-of-subscription-based-patrol-and-restitution-in-the-future-of-liberty/
Hasnas, John. 1995. “The myth of the rule of law.” Wisconsin Law Review 199;
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

Heinrich, David J. 2010. “Justice for All Without the State.” The Libertarian Standard. May 6; http://www.libertarianstandard.com/articles/david-j-heinrich/justice-for-all-without-the-state/

Higgs, Robert. 2009. “Why We Couldn’t Abolish Slavery Then and Can’t Abolish Government Now.” August 20; http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs128.html

Higgs, Robert. 2012. “What is the point of my libertarian anarchism?” January 16;
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs180.html

Higgs, Robert. 2017. “Is a National Government Necessary for National Defense?” March 23; http://www.targetliberty.com/2017/03/is-national-government-necessary-for.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TargetLiberty+%28Target+Liberty%29

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2008. “Reflections on the Origin and the Stability of the State.” June 23; http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe18.html

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2011. “State or Private Law Society.” April 10;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe26.1.html

Huebert, Jacob. 2010. Libertarianism Today. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger

King, Seth. 2010. “Daily Anarchist Interviews Walter E. Block,” September 9;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block165.html

Kinsella, Stephan. 2009. “The Irrelevance of the Impossibility of Anarcho-Libertarianism.” August 20; http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/20/the-irrelevance-of-the-impossibility-of-anarcho-libertarianism/

Long, Roderick. 2004. “Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections” http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html

McConkey, Michael. 2013. “Anarchy, Sovereignty, and the State of Exception: Schmitt’s Challenge.” The Independent Review, v. 17, n. 3, Winter, pp. 415–428. http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_17_03_05_mcconkey.pdf

Molyneux, Stefan. 2008. “The Stateless Society: An Examination of Alternatives.”
http://www.mail-archive.com/libertarianenterprise@yahoogroups.com/msg02056.html

Murphy, Robert P. 2005. “But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?” July 7; http://mises.org/story/1855; http://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

Oppenheimer, Franz. 1926. The State. New York: Vanguard Press

Paul, Ron. 2008. “On the Inner Contradictions of Limited Government.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o4kiWpqoeg&feature=PlayList&p=9645F6A68683F679&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4

Rockwell, Lew. 2013. “What Would We Do Without the State?” March 31;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/134782.html

What Would We Do Without the State?

Rockwell, Lew. 2016. “The Trouble With Politics.” November 8;

The Fatal Flaw in Politics

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

In the view of Rothbard (1973, emphasis added by present author): “For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as ‘members of the government’) has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it ‘war’; then ennobled the mass slaughter that ‘war’ involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it ‘conscription’ in the ‘national service.’ For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it ‘taxation.’ In fact, if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place.”

Rothbard, Murray N. 1975. “Society Without a State.” The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January; http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

Rothbard, Murray N. 1977. “Do you hate the state?” The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 10, No. 7, July; http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html
“…there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State – any State – is a predatory gang of criminals.”
“The radical cannot think in such terms, because the radical regards the State as our mortal enemy, which must be hacked away at wherever and whenever we can. To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.”
Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

Paul, Ron. 2008. “On the Inner Contradictions of Limited Government.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o4kiWpqoeg&feature=PlayList&p=9645F6A68683F679&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4

Shaffer, Butler.
www.mises.org/books/wizards/pdf

Spooner, Lysander. 1966[1870]. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority and A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard, Larkspur, Colorado: Rampart College; http://jim.com/treason.htm

Stringham, Edward, ed. 2007. Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice, Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Stringham, Edward. 2015. Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life. Oxford University Press

Tannehill, Morris and Linda Tannehill. [1970] 1984. The Market for Liberty, New York: Laissez Faire Books; http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/tannehill1.html

Tinsley, Patrick. 1998-1999. “With Liberty and Justice for All: A Case for Private Police,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter, pp. 95-100; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf

Wenzel, Robert. 2013. “Robert Ringer’s Strawman Anarchist.” February 2;
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/wenzel/wenzel211.html

Woods, Tom. 2014. “Four things the state is not.” July 29;

4 Things the State Is Not

private police: private army:

Gregory, 2011; Guillory, & Tinsley. 2009; Hoppe, 2011; Huebert, 2010; Murphy, 2005; Rothbard, 1973, 1975, 1998 [1982]; Stringham, 2007; Tannehills[1970] 1984; Tinsley, 1998-1999; Wiśniewski, 2014; Wollstein, 1969; Woolridge, 1970.

Gregory, Anthony. 2011. “Abolish the Police.” May 26; http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory213.html

Guillory, Gil & Patrick Tinsley. 2009. “The Role of Subscription-Based Patrol and Restitution in the Future of Liberty,” Libertarian Papers 1, 12; http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/12-the-role-of-subscription-based-patrol-and-restitution-in-the-future-of-liberty/
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2011. “State or Private Law Society.” April 10;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe26.1.html

Huebert, Jacob. 2010. Libertarianism Today. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger

Murphy, Robert P. 2005. “But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?” July 7; http://mises.org/story/1855; http://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

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

Rothbard, Murray N. 1975. “Society Without a State.” The Libertarian Forum, volume 7.1, January; http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html

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

Stringham, Edward, ed. 2007. Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice, Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Tannehill, Morris and Linda Tannehill. [1970] 1984. The Market for Liberty, New York: Laissez Faire Books; http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/tannehill1.html

Tinsley, Patrick. 1998-1999. “With Liberty and Justice for All: A Case for Private Police,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter, pp. 95-100; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf

Wiśniewski, Jakub Bożydar. 2014. “Defense as a private good in a competitive order” Review of Social and Economic Issues, Vol. 1, No. 1, Summer, pp. 2-35;
http://rsei.rau.ro/images/V1N1/Jakub%20Bozydar%20Wisniewski.pdf

Wollstein, Jarret B. 1969. Society Without Coercion. In Society Without Government. New York: Arno Press

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

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fac: (504)864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
http://www.walterblock.com/

Walter Block Publications

Skype: Walter.Block4

If it moves, privatize it; if it doesn’t move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or doesn’t move, privatize everything.

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” Murray, N. Rothbard

“Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping toward destruction. Therefore, everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interest of everyone hangs on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.” Ludwig von Mises

Top Ten Contemporary Academics Helping The Political Right (#8)
http://www.poletical.com/academics-helping-the-right.php

100 Most Influential Libertarians: A Newsmax/FreedomFest List (#46)
http://www.newsmax.com/BestLists/libertarians-newsmax-freedomfest/2017/06/01/id/793510/

Share

11:37 am on July 8, 2017

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

From: B
Sent: Wed 7/5/2017 11:10 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Learning Praxeology, Austrian Economics

Greetings Mr. Block, My name is B, a 26-years-old from Morocco. After failing couple of small businesses I realized how complex the world is, stopped everything, went back to my room and tried to learn how choices, people, economics, works, I felt lost and nothing made sens to me till I’ve discovered the Austrian School of economics. Learning and reading about economics the Austrian way changed m life forever, it changed the way I deal with people, the way I live, the way I see things, the way I explain the world. I felt an extraordinary enlightenment, and knew that I will never be the same again. Getting deep into Human Action and Praxeology led me to my first conversion, from Socialism to Libertarianism, and then, I had my second conversion from Libertarianism to Anarcho-Capitalism, and it feels just AMAZING. Now I wanna learn more about Austrian Economics “the radical way” and I consider you maybe the best Economist alive, I feel that Austrian Economics could not just explain things better, further more, it could really change completely the way we master economics, and to be honest, I have no interest at all in main stream economics, I feel that main stream economics is just bullshit, even if I have a technological training and I was trained to become a “positivist”, and I have a deep belief that Austrian Economics and especially Praxeology could be the science of the future, Artificial Intelligence is eating the economy and only a clear precise understanding of the Humain Action could be help entrepreneurs, economists and philosophers. I’m emailing you to ask you if there is any way to learn from you, by joining your university or attempting any program you’re animating, I really wanna learn from you personally. Thank you for your amazing talks, and thank you for reading my email. B

Dear B:

Thanks for your kind words. What academic degrees do you already have? High school graduation? College degree?

Best regards,

Walter

—–Original Message—–
From: B
Sent: Wed 7/5/2017 11:30 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Learning Praxeology, Austrian Economics

1000 Thanks Mr. Block for answering my email.

I have something like an Associate’s degree in general engineering, I don’t know exactly how the academic system works in the U.S. but it’s technically 2 successful years after High School, we follow the French academic system here in Morocco.

But trust me Mr. Block I’ve watched thousands of hours of Mises Institute’s video and read almost all the popular works of Rothbard, Mises, some of yours because I couldn’t buy them all, read almost all of the free e-books out there about Austrian Economics from Menger’s to Hoppe’s and Murphy’s, and I have no problem starting from the beginning.

Thank you again Mr. Block, I still can’t believe you answered me. B

Dear B:

Enroll at Loyola U and take courses with me and my free enterprise colleagues:

Block, Walter E. 2017. “C’mon Down To New Orleans; The Water’s Fine. Enroll at Loyola University.” June 27;

C’mon Down To New Orleans; The Water’s Fine. Enroll at Loyola University

If you’ve passed deadlines for admission, I’ll try to help you overcome them.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318
New Orleans, LA 70118
tel: (504) 864-7934
fac: (504)864-7970
wblock@loyno.edu
http://www.walterblock.com/ <http://www.walterblock.com/
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/ <http://www.walterblock.com/publications/
Skype: Walter.Block4

If it moves, privatize it; if it doesn’t move, privatize it. Since everything either moves or doesn’t move, privatize everything.

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” Murray, N. Rothbard

“Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping toward destruction. Therefore, everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interest of everyone hangs on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.” Ludwig von Mises

Top Ten Contemporary Academics Helping The Political Right (#8)
http://www.poletical.com/academics-helping-the-right.php <http://www.poletical.com/academics-helping-the-right.php

100 Most Influential Libertarians: A Newsmax/FreedomFest List (#46)
http://www.newsmax.com/BestLists/libertarians-newsmax-freedomfest/2017/06/01/id/793510/ <http://www.newsmax.com/BestLists/libertarians-newsmax-freedomfest/2017/06/01/id/793510/

Share

1:08 pm on July 5, 2017

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