≡ Menu

From: Walter Block <[email protected]>

To: Don

Subject: RE: Consensus of relevant data

Dear FA:

Wow. Fascinating. One error is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with “libertarian logic.” Rather, it is an aspect of economics. Libertarianism is a theory of the proper use of violence, and has nothing at all to do with this question. The chatgpt takes a mainstream view that there is indeed such a thing as “market failure.” Austrian economics has a long bibliography refuting this claim, which chatgpt seems unaware of.

Four Arrows is my co-author of this book:

Four Arrows and Walter E. Block. 2010. Differing Worldviews: Two Scholars Argue Cooperatively about Justice Education; Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers; http://www.amazon.ca/Differing-Worldviews-Higher-Education-Arrows/dp/9460913504/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336603241&sr=1-6[email protected][email protected]

Best regards,


From: Don

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Consensus of relevant data

Just for the fun I asked this question in in literally 7 seconds it gave this answer (It took me longer to write the question):

Question: In the book by Four Arrows and Walter Block, Walter argues that if “endless rows of identical trees” are truly inferior to natural regrowth of diverse original life after a clear cut were really a problem, the competitive market strggle for profits against t counter parts that eschew this type of tree planting would cause the owners to rethink for the sake of profit and start planting more diverse trees. But if biodiversity does not promote profits, then the laws of economics then the rows of same trees is most just. What is wrong with this libertarian logic?

The libertarian logic presented in the book assumes that market forces alone will always ensure the best outcomes for society and the environment. However, this assumption overlooks several important factors:

1. Externalities: The impact of clear-cutting and monoculture plantations on the environment and local communities can be negative and far-reaching, such as soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, and damage to water systems. These impacts are often not reflected in market prices and can create negative externalities that are not accounted for by the market.

2. Short-term thinking: The profit motive can lead to short-term thinking and neglect long-term environmental impacts. Planting monoculture plantations may be cheaper and easier in the short term, but it can have negative consequences for the environment and society in the long term.

3. Information asymmetry: The assumption that market competition will drive companies to adopt sustainable practices assumes that consumers have perfect information about the products they buy. However, this is often not the case, and companies may be able to hide negative impacts from consumers.

4. Power dynamics: The assumption that all actors in the market have equal bargaining power overlooks the fact that some companies may have more power than others, allowing them to dominate the market and drive out competitors who promote sustainable practices.

Therefore, relying solely on market forces to promote sustainability and biodiversity can be insufficient and may lead to negative outcomes for the environment and society. It is important to recognize the limitations of the market and to use other mechanisms, such as regulation and public policies, to ensure sustainable practices and protect the environment.


3:42 am on March 25, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

From: Brandon

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Dear Walter,

I’ve been hearing from a lot of libertarians online that if they were given the option of stealing a penny to save the world, they would not steal the penny. Although I absolutely understand the ethics behind it, the scenario seems extremely discomforting. Although I understand stealing a penny to save the world is unjust, it seems like one of those things you’d do either way out of fear. But some of the people I’ve spoken to not only regard stealing a penny to save the world unjust, but they’ve even said they would refuse to steal the penny if the scenario was real. Could you imagine any line of reasoning that could possibly justify stealing a penny to save the world or is it the case of it being unjust clear cut? Also, would you steal a penny to save the world?

Thank you.

Yours truly,


Dear Brandon:

Of course I’d steal a penny to save the world. I’d steal a lot more than that to save the world.

The problem with these libertarians is that they are stuck on libertarianism 101, the non aggression principle, and private property rights. That’s a good approximation of libertarianism. No, it is a VERY good approximation on intro to libertarianism. But it is not advanced libertarianism.

What, you may ask, is advanced libertarianism. It is punishment theory. It says the if you steal a penny, here’s the punishment for you.

I was just watching the magnficient movie, Dr. Strangelove. My favorite episode was the scene where mandrake demanded that this idiot soldier shoot a coke machine, to get a dime, to call the president, to enable him to call off a nuclear strike against the USSR, to save the entire world. This idiot initially refused, on the ground that “that’s private property.” This is a ploy used by the left to embarrass us libertarians.

Here’s some biblio on libt punishment theory:


Block, 2009A, 2009B, 2016, 2018; Gordon, 2020; Kinsella, 1996, 1997; Loo and Block, 2017-2018; Olson, 1979; Rothbard, 1977, 1998; Whitehead and Block, 2003

Block, Walter E. 2009A. “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;

http://mises.org/books/property_freedom_society_kinsella.pdf; festschrift

Block, Walter E. 2009B. “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. 2016. “Russian Roulette: Rejoinder to Robins.” Acta Economica et Turistica. Vol. 1, No. 2, May, pp.  197-205; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309300488_Russian_Roulette_Rejoinder_to_Robins; file:///C:/Users/walterblock/Downloads/AET_2_Block_6.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2018. “The case for punishing those responsible for minimum wage laws, rent control and protectionist tariffs.”  Revista Jurídica Cesumar – Mestrado, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 235-263; http://periodicos.unicesumar.edu.br/index.php/revjuridica/article/view/6392http://periodicos.unicesumar.edu.br/index.php/revjuridica/article/view/6392/3190

Gordon, David. 2020. “Rothbard and Double Restitution.” September 4;


Loo, Andy and Walter E. Block. 2017-2018. “Threats against third parties: a libertarian analysis.” Baku State University Law Review; Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 52-64; http://lr.bsulawss.org/archive/volume4/issue1/http://lr.bsulawss.org/archive/volume4/issue1/block/http://lr.bsulawss.org/files/archive/volume4/issue1/4BSULawRev13.pdf?

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, Stephan. 1997. “A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights,” 30 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 607-45

Olson, Charles B. 1979. “Law in Anarchy.” Libertarian Forum. Vol. XII, No. 6, November-December, p. 4;

Rothbard, Murray N. 1977. “Punishment and Proportionality.”  R. E. Barnett and J. Hagel, III (eds.), Assessing the Criminal: Restitution, Retribution, and the Legal Process.  Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., pp. 259‑270.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1998. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press. https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Ethics%20of%20Liberty%2020191108.pdf;

In the view of Rothbard (1998, p. 88, ft. 6): “It should be evident that our theory of proportional punishment—that people may be punished by losing their rights to the extent that they have invaded the rights of others—is frankly a retributive theory of punishment, a ‘tooth (or two teeth) for a tooth’ theory. Retribution is in bad repute among philosophers, who generally dismiss the concept quickly as ‘primitive’ or ‘barbaric’ and then race on to a discussion of the two other major theories of punishment: deterrence and rehabilitation. But simply to dismiss a concept as ‘barbaric’ can hardly suffice; after all, it is possible that in this case, the ‘barbarians’ hit on a concept that was superior to the more modern creeds.”

Whitehead, Roy and Walter E. Block. 2003. “Taking the assets of the criminal to compensate victims of violence: a legal and philosophical approach,” Wayne State University Law School Journal of Law in Society Vol. 5, No. 1, Fall, pp.229-254


3:40 am on March 25, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

From: Teyo

To: [email protected]

Subject: Hoppe’s Response to Your Response & Walter Block Video Account

Hello Dr. Block,

I asked at AERC if you had made a response to Hoppe’s paper, Two Notes on Preference and Indifference, particularly the second section titled II. Further Notes on Preferences and Indifference: Rejoinder to Block, originally published in the QJAE 3, no. 4

The second thing I asked was if you had ever heard of the Twitter account “Water Block No Context”


The account isn’t trying to smear you, it’s more so meant to show various funny things you have said.






Dear Teyoman:

What’s the deal on twitter?

Here are my debates with Hans and on indifference:

Block, 1998, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011A, 2011B; Block and Barnett, 2010; Block, Barnett and Salerno, 2006; Block and Callahan. 2003; Gregory and Block. 2007.

Block, Walter E. 1998. “A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration,” Journal of Libertarian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, summer, pp. 167-186; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_4.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2004. “The State Was a Mistake.” Book review of Hoppe, Han-Hermann, Democracy, The God that Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order, 2001May 25. http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1522

Block, Walter E. 2007. “Plumb Line Libertarianism: A Critique of Hoppe.” Reason Papers, Vol. 29, Fall, pp. 151-163; http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/29/rp_29_10.pdfhttp://www.academia.edu/1425340/Plumb_Line_Libertarianism_A_Critique_of_Hoppehttps://reasonpapers.com/pdf/29/rp_29_10.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2009. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on indifference” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 12, No. 1: 52–59; http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae12_1_4.pdf

Block, Walter E. with William Barnett II. 2010. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on indifference, once again.” Reason Papers, Vol. 32, pp. 141-154; http://reasonpapers.com/pdf/32/rp_32_9.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2010. “Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left: a critique of the views of Long, Holcombe, and Baden on the left, Hoppe, Feser and Paul on the right.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22: 127–70; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_8.pdfhttp://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdfhttps://mises.org/library/libertarianism-unique-and-belongs-neither-right-nor-left-critique-views-long-holcombe-and

Block, Walter E. 2011A. “Hoppe, Kinsella and Rothbard II on Immigration: A Critique.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 593–623; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_29.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2011B. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on Immigration,” Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 771–792; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_38.pdf

Block, Walter E., William Barnett II and Joseph Salerno. 2006. “Relationship between wealth or income and time preference is empirical, not apodictic: critique of Rothbard and Hoppe,” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 69-80; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11138-006-6094-8

Block, Walter E. and Gene Callahan. 2003. “Is There a Right to Immigration? A Libertarian Perspective,” Human Rights Review. Vol. 5, No. 1, October-December, pp. 46-71

Gregory, Anthony and Walter E. Block. 2007. “On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 21, No. 3, Fall, pp. 25-42; http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_2.pdfhttp://www.academia.edu/1360109/On_Immigration_Reply_to_Hoppehttps://mises.org/system/tdf/21_3_2.pdf?file=1&type=document

Indifference:: indifferent:: title: The economics of indifference

Debate between Walter Block and Hans-Hermann Hoppe on Nozick’s methodology and indifference::

1. Block, Walter E. 1980. “On Robert Nozick’s ‘On Austrian Methodology’.” Inquiry, Vol. 23, No. 4, Fall, pp. 397-444; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/on_robert_nozick.pdf;

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/on_robert_nozick.pdf; Spanish translation, Libertas, Vol. 14, No. 26, May 1997, pp. 71-131

2. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2005. “Must Austrians Embrace Indifference?” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 8 (4): 87–91; online at: http://www.Mises.org/story/2003.

3. Block, Walter E. 2009. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on Indifference” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 12, No. 1: 52–59; http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae12_1_4.pdf

4. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2009. “Further Notes on Preference and Indifference: Rejoinder to Block,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 12, no. 1, pp. 60-64, http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae12_1_5.pdf.

5. Block, Walter E. with William Barnett II. 2010. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on indifference, once again.” Reason Papers, Vol. 32, pp. 141-154; http://reasonpapers.com/pdf/32/rp_32_9.pdf

“Perhaps these divisions amongst scholars who might be expected to agree are due to the fact that we are all imperfect human beings. Perhaps some young scholar(s) will one day come along and definitively solve all of these disputes in such a way that all present parties to them will agree to the solution. Until that time, the most we can do, I think, is to do our best—to publish our ideas, imperfect as they are, in the hope that the process of public debate itself will shed some light on these vexing issues. Two heads are better than one, and all of the professionals who read this journal, plus the two of us (Hoppe and the two present authors), are better than just the three of us alone.”

Block, Walter E. 2012. “Response to Ben O’Neill on indifference.” Dialogue; Issue No. 2, pp. 76-93; https://www.uni-svishtov.bg/dialog_old/2012/2.12.7.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2009. “Rejoinder to Machaj on Indifference,” New Perspectives on Political Economy, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 65-71; http://pcpe.libinst.cz/nppe/5_1/nppe5_1_5.pdfhttps://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=

Wysocki, Igor and Walter E. Block. 2018A. “Homogeneity, heterogeneity, the supply curve and consumer theory.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. Volume 21, no. 4, pp. 398–416 (Winter); https://mises.org/library/homogeneity-heterogeneity-supply-curve-and-consumer-theoryhttps://qjae.scholasticahq.com/article/7807-homogeneity-heterogeneity-the-supply-curve-and-consumer-theory

Wysocki, Igor and Walter E. Block. 2018B. “An analysis of the supply curve: does it depict homogeneity among its constituent elements? Another rejoinder to Nozick.”  Management Education Science Technology Journal (MEST). pp. 1-11;


http://mest.meste.org/MEST_Najava/XI_Wysocki.pdf; DOI 10.12709/issn.2334-7058

Block, Walter E. 2022. “Rejoinder to Wysocki on indifference.” Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce); No. 72, pp. 37–61 ∙ CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0; https://zfn.edu.pl/index.php/zfn/article/view/578;

Best regards,



2:37 pm on March 21, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Abortion, Voluntary Slavery

Walter Block interviewed by Mary J Ruwart, Liberty International


12:13 pm on March 9, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Five Books Recommended

I was asked to recommend my favorite five books.

Here they are:

Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. For a New Liberty, Macmillan, New York;


Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press. https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Ethics%20of%20Liberty%2020191108.pdf; file:///C:/Users/WBlock/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/1E895L3B/The%20Ethics%20of%20Liberty%201998.pdf

Rand, Ayn. 1957. Atlas Shrugged, New York NY: Random House. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0525934189/lewrockwell/104-7552446-8407165

Hazlitt, Henry. [1946]1979. Economics in One Lesson, Arlington House Publishers; http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics.asphttp://jim.com/econ/

Mises, Ludwig von. [1949] 1998. Human Action, Scholars’ Edition. Auburn: Mises Institute. http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp


2:48 am on March 1, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share
{ 1 comment }

Walter Block Gave Two Recent Presentations at FEE:

Walter Block Gave Two Recent Presentations at FEE:

  1. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MJBRA4SePV21poyNHm9d-nZkpeC85L4d/view?usp=sharing
  2. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E-RDzbsaStmq23iZuv_jmF4I2VHNCH23/view?usp=sharing

Both were on Austrian economics and libertarian theory (what else do I know anything about?  Nothing!). In the one I did recently, the second one listed, entitled Why I Am A Happy Libertarian Warrior?, I was put on the spot: I was asked who I thought was the best now-living, Austrian economist. Watch how I bobbed and weaved on that one. Well, tried to duck out of answering it.

I’m lucky I wasn’t asked who I thought was the best now-living libertarian theorist. That would have been even rougher for me to answer


4:21 am on February 12, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Nate the Voluntaryist interviews Walter Block

Topics: libertarianism and Austrian economics (what else do I know anything about?  Nothing, really.)

1st show: https://odysee.com/@natethevoluntaryistlivestream:d/Nate-the-Voluntaryist-Livestream–52—-SPECIAL_-Walter-Block-(09-08-2019):7

2nd show: https://odysee.com/@natethevoluntaryist:2/Nate-the-Voluntaryist-Interviews-Walter-Block:6 (#100)

3rd show: https://odysee.com/@natethevoluntaryistlivestream:d/Nate-the-Voluntaryist-Livestream–120—-SPECIAL_-Walter-Block-Returns-(04-17-2020):d

4th show: https://odysee.com/@natethevoluntaryistlivestream:d/Nate-the-Voluntaryist-Livestream–152—-SPECIAL_-Walter-Block—Minarchism-(08-24-2020):3

5th show: https://odysee.com/@natethevoluntaryistlivestream:d/Nate-the-Voluntaryist-Livestream–172—-SPECIAL_-Walter-Block—Michael-Edelstein-(10-03-2020):8

6th show: https://odysee.com/@natethevoluntaryistlivestream:d/Nate-the-Voluntaryist-Livestream–188—-SPECIAL_-Monica-Perez—Walter-Block-(12-05-2020):2

7th show: https://odysee.com/@natethevoluntaryist:2/Nate-the-Voluntaryist-Livestream–200—Intermission—Walter-Block—Michael-Edelstein:9 (#200)

8th show: https://odysee.com/@natethevoluntaryistlivestream:d/Nate-the-Voluntaryist-Livestream–207—-SPECIAL_-Walter-Block,-Economics—More-(04-19-2021):2

9th show: https://odysee.com/@natethevoluntaryistlivestream:d/Nate-the-Voluntaryist-Livestream–209—-SPECIAL_-Monica-Perez—Walter-Block-Pt.-2-(05-03-2021):5

10th show: https://odysee.com/@natethevoluntaryistlivestream:d/Nate-the-Voluntaryist-Livestream–222—-SPECIAL_-Walter-Block—Michael-Edelstein-Part-2-(09-13-2021):e

11th show: https://odysee.com/@natethevoluntaryistlivestream:d/Nate-the-Voluntaryist-Livestream–233—-SPECIAL_-Walter-Block—Michael-Edelstein-on-REBT-(01-12-2022):5

12th show: https://odysee.com/@natethevoluntaryistlivestream:d/Nate-the-Voluntaryist-Livestream–237—-SPECIAL_-Walter-Block—Marxism-(01-22-2022):c

13th show: https://odysee.com/@natethevoluntaryistlivestream:d/Nate-the-Voluntaryist-Livestream–252—-SPECIAL_-Walter-Block,-Evictionism—More-(08-27-2022):c


4:04 am on February 8, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Book Reviews

I published 5 books in 2021:

30. Block, Walter E. 2021. Evictionism: The compromise solution to the pro-life pro-choice debate controversy. Springer Publishing Company.

29. Block, Walter E. 2021. Free Enterprise Environmentalism. Lexington books

28. Block, Walter E. 2021.  Defending the Undefendable III. Springer Publishing Company

27. Block, Walter E. and Alan Futerman. 2021.  The Classical Liberal Case for Israel. With commentary by Benjamin Netanyahu. Springer Publishing Company;

26. Block, Walter E. and Alan Futerman. 2021. The Austro-Libertarian Point of View. Springer Publishing Company.

If you want to do a book review of any or all of the ones published by Springer, go here:


Best regards,



4:03 am on February 8, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Call For Papers

Igor Wysocki and Walter Block will be guest editing a special issue of Philosophical Problems in Science (a Polish journal: Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce — ZFN). We are looking for papers addressed to the philosophy of economics.

Here is the official announcement: https://zfn.edu.pl/index.php/zfn/announcement/view/26


3:30 am on January 15, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

To: Walter’s Newsletter <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Jews May No Longer Like What the Democrats Are Selling

I’d love to understand why Jews have been so liberal for so long.  It’s never made sense to me.  Entrepreneurial, smart, successful people who are too dumb to understand the environment that nurtures success?  Just doesn’t add up.  Yet, I’ve never heard any Jew explain it.  Not Friedman, not Schiff, not Walter…


Dear John:

It is, indeed, a big mystery. Take Albert Einstein for example. He’s supposed to be pretty smart. I don’t know enough about physics or math to independently assess this claim, but I take everyone’s word for it.

And yet, he was a socialist:

Einstein, Albert. 1949. “Why Socialism?” May;



How can we account for this? The only explanation that pops up in my mind is that he was malevolent; hated mankind. Wanted to saddle us with a horrid economic system. The only problem with this hypothesis is that there’s not a scintilla of evidence for it, and lots against it.

And this explanation doesn’t account for the fact that the overwhelming majority of (non orthodox) Jews are pinkos. I’m Jewish. I know a lot of Jews. They are NOT malevolent. They honestly feel that socialism will benefit mankind.

Go figure.

However, I do think I have at least part of the explanation of why most people, Jews included, are pinkos, commies, “progressives,” socialists, lefties, liberals:

Levendis, John, Walter E. Block and Robert B. Eckhardt.  2019. “Evolutionary psychology, economic freedom, trade and benevolence.” Review of Economic Perspectives – Národohospodářský obzor; Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 73-92; https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/revecp/19/2/article-p73.xml; 10.2478/revecp-2019-0005; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/revecp-2019-0005; https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/here-is-one-of-my-best-scholarly-papers-ever/https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/evolutionary-psychology-economic-freedom-trade-and-benevolencehttps://www.growkudos.com/publications/10.2478%252Frevecp-2019-0005/reade; file:///C:/Users/WBlock/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/Content.Outlook/18LCUGME/18041663%20-%20Review%20of%20Economic%20Perspectives%20Evolutionary%20psychology%20economic%20freedom%20trade%20and%20benevolence.pdf

Best regards,



3:54 am on January 5, 2023

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share
Follow by Email