≡ Menu

—–Original Message—–
From: G
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 9:25 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: how to answer when an Austrian skeptic says you’re “dogmatic”

Dear Professor Block,

I’m a business engineer student from Belgium and also a huge fan of your work! I’m obviously a radical Austro-libertarian and I’m always trying to spread our word. Last night, I was discussing QE with a famous economist who is at the head of a big private bank. He was a big fan of fiat money and of fractional reserve banking while I told him that I was for a 100% gold standard, that we should never have bailed-out banks and that monetary policy shouldn’t exist. Moreover, I told him about praxeology and why economics isn’t an empirical science…

Unfortunately, I always get the answer from guys like him. Namely, that I’m too confident about our theory, that things aren’t that easy and clear, and that sometimes we should print money and sometimes we shouldn’t.

My Question to you is: How to answer to people who are saying that we believe too much in the soundness of praxeology, that we’re dogmatic and that you shouldn’t always apply the same principles?

Thank you very much for your time and I hope you will be able to answer my question.

kind regards,

G

Dear G:

Ask him how “confident” he is about the truth of the Pythagorean theorem, the claim that 2+2=4, the view that triangles have 180 degrees, the economic law that trade is necessarily beneficial, at least in the ex ante sense. If he says he is totally confident about these claims, suggest he might be “dogmatic.”

As for specific case of money and banking, suggest that he peruse the following:

Rothbard, Murray N. The Mystery of Banking, New York: Richardson and Snyder, Dutton, 1983.

Rothbard, M. 1963. America’s Great Depression. Kansas City: Sheed Andrews.
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

Share

3:55 pm on November 16, 2018

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

From: S, J
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 8:51 PM
To: Walter_Block Mises Libertarian

Lehmann, Claire. 2018. “Why is There a Pay Gap Between Male and Female Uber Drivers?.” February 6;
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2018/02/why-is-there-pay-gap-between-male-and.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

equal pay: http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/09/01/women_pay/index.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/1/ end of men

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/06/thomas-sowell-dismantles-feminism-and.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29, 1974

Perry, Mark J. 2014. “Once you impose the ‘ceteris paribus’ condition, the alleged 23% gender pay gap starts to quickly evaporate.” April 2;
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/once-you-impose-the-ceteris-paribus-condition-the-alleged-23-gender-pay-gap-starts-to-evaporate/

Lukas, Carrie. 2011. “There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap: A study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30 found that women earned 8% more than men.” Wall Street Journal, April 12;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

wage gap: “Study: Higher education playing bigger role in gender wage gap”
http://www.physorg.com/news169051532.html

Pay gap: equal pay: http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/09/01/women_pay/index.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/1/ end of men

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/06/thomas-sowell-dismantles-feminism-and.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29, 1974

Perry, Mark J. 2014. “Once you impose the ‘ceteris paribus’ condition, the alleged 23% gender pay gap starts to quickly evaporate.” April 2;
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/04/once-you-impose-the-ceteris-paribus-condition-the-alleged-23-gender-pay-gap-starts-to-evaporate/

Lukas, Carrie. 2011. “There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap: A study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30 found that women earned 8% more than men.” Wall Street Journal, April 12;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Hoff-Summers, Christina. 2017. “Male-female wage gap.” March 7; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2017/03/feminists-celebrities-and-politicians.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

Woods, Tom. 2017. “That Male-Female Wage Gap.” February 4;

That Male-Female Wage Gap

The True Story of the Gender Pay Gap

Block, Walter E. 2014. “On The REAL Threat Against Blacks and Jews .” April 2;
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/on-real-threat-against-blacks-and-jews.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29.

Block, Walter E. 2010. The Case for Discrimination. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute; http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-Discrimination-Walter-Block/dp/1933550813/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336605494&sr=1-1;
http://mises.org/store/Case-for-Discrimination-P10442.aspx; available for free here: http://mises.org/daily/4957

Portillo, Javier and Walter E. Block. 2001. “Anti-Discrimination Laws: Undermining Our Rights,” Journal of Business Ethics
http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1120-6; http://www.springerlink.com/content/6216t06p2kw5502h/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/6216t06p2kw5502h/; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10551-011-1120-6;

Block, Walter E., Nicholas Snow and Edward Stringham. 2008. “Banks, Insurance Companies and Discrimination.” Business and Society Review, Vol. 113, No. 3, September, pp. 403-419;
http://eproof.graphicraft.com.hk/loginDownload_a.asp?ID=38056&type=pdf&flag=_LOW; http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/bauthor/WISproxy.asp?doi=10.1111/j.1467-8594.2008.00326.x&ArticleID=449398

Raskin, Max and Walter E. Block. 2007. “National Basketball Association Newest Target of EEOC.” July 5; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/raskin/raskin21.html

Whitehead, Roy and Walter E. Block. 2004. “The Boy Scouts, Freedom of Association and the Right to Discriminate: A Legal, Philosophical and Economic Analysis,” Oklahoma City Law Review, Vol. 29, No. 3, Fall, pp. 851-882; http://tinyurl.com/24qjht

Block, Walter E. 1989. “Racism: Public and Private,” The Freeman Ideas on Liberty, January, pp. 28-29, http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2010; Block, Walter E. 1989. “Racism: Public and Private,” Lincoln Review. Vol. 9, No. 3, Spring-Summer, pp. 49-50.

Block, Walter E. 1982. “Economic Intervention, Discrimination and Unforeseen Consequences,” Discrimination, Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity, Walter Block and Michael A. Walker, eds., Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, pp. 101-125.

Block, Walter E. 3/19/88. Dollars and Sense: “Exclusion of bisexual is justified,” Alaska Highway News.

Block, Walter E. 1989. “Discrimination Runs Rampant,” Fraser Forum, March, pp. 22-23.

Block, Walter E. 9/8/89. “Racial discrimination exists everywhere,” Squamish Times.

Block, Walter E. 3/28/85. “Those Beards,” Review

Block, Walter E. 5/31/84. Dollars and Sense: “Akin to bigotry,” Nelson Daily News.

Block, Walter E. 1982. “Discrimination Helps the Under-Privileged,” The Journal of Economic Affairs, July, pp. 215-218

Block, Walter E. 1975. “On the Woman’s Liberation Movement; or, the Male Chauvinist Pig as Hero.” The Libertarian Forum. September, Vol. 7, No. 9, pp. 5-8; http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1975/1975_09.pdf

Pay gap: wage gap: pay equity: female: gap::

Block, Walter E. 2008. “More Controversy Over Female-Male Pay Gap.” December 5;
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block117.html (misc letters)

May 28, 2014. Wake Up Call [mailto:2014wakeupcall@gmail.com] Adam Camac (832 646 9014) and Daniel Laguros (281-638-5871, L9902370@gmail.com); Wake Up Call Podcast; wages and labor, such as income inequality, the minimum wage, the male/female pay gap, the racial pay gap, labor unions, and right-to-work legislation; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mULwueOvGa0; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/walter-block-there-is-no-gender-wage-gap/

March 25, 2009. New Orleans, LA. Loyola University New Orleans, Economics Club. “Is the capitalist system guilty of racism, sexism? No.: Walter E. Block responds to his politically correct critics, defending against charges of racism and sexism. Pay gap. Glass Ceiling. http://mises.org/MultiMedia/Block/Block_03-25-2009.wmv; http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2011/02/professor-walter-block-on-sexual.html; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/127152.html; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty0QXqHcQHo;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EDykuMDLpM; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZxh1_8LzZc; tomwoods.com/walter; http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/02/walter-block-responds-to-his.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TargetLiberty+%28Target+Liberty%29

Ragan, Trey and Walter E. Block. 2003. “’Wage gap’ due to differentiation among sexes’ roles,” Loyola Maroon, Friday, April 11; http://praxeology.net/RaganBlockWageGap.htm; http://library.loyno.edu/research/digital/

May 31, 2011. Salinas CA. Male-female wage gap. Mark Carbonaro, markcarbon@sbcglobal.net; KION Radio. http://www.1460kion.com/main.html; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFlEd-7qG38

November 5, 2009. Lexington, Virginia 24450; Washington and Lee University Law School, 5:15pm, Sydney Lewis Hall. AKA “The Law School,” room B; Topic: The Market is NOT Sexist nor Racist: the Black-White, the Male-Female Wage Gap and the Glass Ceiling; mms://vodwm.wlu.edu/webpublic/federalistsociety%20b1105091600.wmv

November 22 New Orleans. Interview with Steve Heath of the Maroon, male-female, black-white wage gap; http://www.loyolamaroon.com/news/maryland_university_apologizes_for_block

November 23 New Orleans Interview with James Gill of the Times Picayune; male-female, black-white wage gap; http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/gill/index.ssf?/base/news-0/122768049689950.xml&coll=1; http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/a_tough_sell_in_the_marketplac.html; http://library.loyno.edu/research/digital/

November 26 New Orleans. Interview with Kevin Griffin, WBOK, radio 1230 AM, male-female, black-white wage gap kevin@wbok1230am.com; Kevin Griffin, 1639 Gentilly Blvd, New Orleans, LA 70119, 504.942.0106, Ofc; 504.942.0309 Fax; 504.722.0498 Cell

J16 – Economics of Gender gender: female: females: feminist: feminism:
June O’Neil: https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=june+o%27neill+wage+gap&oq=June+O%27Neil&gs_l=hp.1.1.0l4.2380.6516.0.10011.11.7.0.4.4.0.71.385.7.7.0…0.0…1c.1.9.psy-ab.q-amspWZ70I&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45512109,d.eWU&fp=aef67418749e9333&biw=1600&bih=760

March 25, 2009. New Orleans, LA. Loyola University New Orleans, Economics Club. “Is the capitalist system guilty of racism, sexism? No.: Walter E. Block responds to his politically correct critics, defending against charges of racism and sexism. Pay gap. Glass Ceiling. http://mises.org/MultiMedia/Block/Block_03-25-2009.wmv; http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2011/02/professor-walter-block-on-sexual.html; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/127152.html; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty0QXqHcQHo;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EDykuMDLpM; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZxh1_8LzZc; tomwoods.com/walter; http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/02/walter-block-responds-to-his.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TargetLiberty+%28Target+Liberty%29; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EDykuMDLpM&index=6&list=WL; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo169.html

http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2004/Block7.mp3

Block, Walter E. 2014. “The Cost of Being female: Rejoinder to Sayers.” Review of Social and Economic Issues, Vol. 1, No. 1, Summer, pp. 37-69; http://rsei.rau.ro/images/V1N1/Walter%20E%20Block%20.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2012. “Several fatal flaws mar the feminist movement: Perspectives on Feminism,” March 1; https://www.loyolamaroon.com/100304/oped/opinions/column-several-fatal-flaws-mar-the-feminist-movement/

The battle with the diversity task force at Loyola New Orleans, Maryland:

March 25, 2009. New Orleans, LA. Loyola University New Orleans, Economics Club. “Is the capitalist system guilty of racism, sexism? No.: Walter E. Block responds to his politically correct critics, defending against charges of racism and sexism.
http://mises.org/MultiMedia/Block/Block_03-25-2009.wmv; http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2011/02/professor-walter-block-on-sexual.html; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/127152.html; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty0QXqHcQHo; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZxh1_8LzZc; tomwoods.com/walter

July 30 – Aug 6 Auburn, AL. Mises University 22; Lectures on interventionism, private property, Fallacies of Public Finance, A Critique of Public Choice on Government, Health Economics equal pay, discrimination and the glass ceiling; http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/MU2004/Block7.mp3; http://www.mises.org/upcomingstory.aspx?Id=83

November 5, 2009. Lexington, Virginia 24450; Washington and Lee University Law School, 5:15pm, Sydney Lewis Hall. AKA “The Law School,” room B; Topic: The Market is NOT Sexist nor Racist: the Black-White, the Male-Female Wage Gap and the Glass Ceiling; mms://vodwm.wlu.edu/webpublic/federalistsociety%20b1105091600.wmv

2008

Block, Walter E. 2008. “The Idea Police vs. Walter E. Block: A (Not So) Funny Thing Happened To Me in Baltimore.” November 18; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block112.html; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig5/top-ten.html; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig5/top-ten-nov8.html (Gwartney and Stroup)

Block, Walter E. 2008. “Block Replies To Readers, Part II.” December 1; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block115.html

Block, Walter E. 2008. “Afraid to debate.” December 3; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block116.html

Block, Walter E. 2008. “More Controversy Over Female-Male Pay Gap.” December 5;
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block117.html (misc letters)

Block, Walter E. 2008. “Further Developments on the Issue of Social Justice in Baltimore” December 6; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block118.html (Quant)

Block, Walter E. 2008. “Block to Fok.” December 8;
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block119.html

Block, Walter E. 2008. “No Justice, No Peace: No Justice at Loyola.” December 11;
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block121.html (task force)

Block, Walter E. 2008. “Battling Political Correctness, and beating it: The Battle Over Political Correctness Continues.” December 16; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block122.html; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig5/top-ten.html (Times Pic letters)

Block, Walter E. 2008. “J’Accuse (Walter E. Block seeks justice from the Affirmative Action Diversity Task Force, Loyola University New Orleans; good luck!)” December 23; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block123.html; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig5/top-ten.html

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

2009

Block, Walter E. Forthcoming. “Free speech and political correctness.” Andrew Roocroft [mailto:andrew.roocroft@chch.ox.ac.uk]; Libertarian Society at the University of Oxford. The Individualist.

Block, Walter E. 2009. “Diversity Task Force draws professor’s ire.” The Maroon. March 6;
http://www.loyolamaroon.com/editorial_and_opinions/diversity_task_force_draws_professor_s_ire-1.1597525

Block, Walter E. 2009. “Enough with the ‘diversity.’” March 9;
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block125.html

Block, Walter E. 2009. “An Open Letter to the Members of the Diversity Task Force of Loyola University New Orleans,” March 23; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block127.html

Block, Walter E. 2009. “How I Offended the Diversitarians.” April 20;
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block130.html

Block, Walter E. 2009. “University has great room for improvement” April 24;
http://www.loyolamaroon.com/editorial-and-opinions/university-has-great-room-for-improvement-1.1730554

Block, Walter E. 2009. “On the Attack: Racists and Sexists at Loyola University New Orleans and of Loyola University in Maryland, Beware.” October 15; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block136.html

Block, Walter E. 2009. “The Case for Enrolling at Loyola University New Orleans.” October 27;
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block137.html

Block, Walter E. 2009. “Striking Back at the Forces of Barbarism and Political Correctness.” October 28; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block138.html

Block, Walter E. 2009. “Hey, Diversityites: Open Letter to the Loyola University Academic Community (well, at least as much of it as I can reach).” November 11;
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block139.html

Block, Walter E. 2009. “Libertarian Basics.” November 30;
https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block141.html

Go here: http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=author&ID=443
Look for this: Is the Market Racist and Sexist: The Wage Gap and the Glass Ceiling

July 30 – Aug 6, 2006. Auburn, AL. Mises University 22; Lectures on interventionism, private property, Fallacies of Public Finance, A Critique of Public Choice on Government, Health Economics equal pay, discrimination and the glass ceiling; http://www.mises.org/upcomingstory.aspx?Id=83

Block, Walter E. 2007. “National Basketball Association Newest Target of EEOC.” July 5; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/raskin/raskin21.html

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

Block, Walter E. 9/3/03 “Silver Lining Part IV: Term Limits and Female Politicians” https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block33.html

Block, Walter E. 5/24/03. “Female Golfer,” https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block27.html
reprinted in:http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-e/a-e-misc/block052503.htm

Ragan, Trey and Walter E. Block. 2003. “’Wage gap’ due to differentiation among sexes’ roles,” Loyola Maroon, Friday, April 11; http://praxeology.net/RaganBlockWageGap.htm

Whitehead, Roy and Walter E. Block. 2002. “Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A Property Rights Perspective,” University of Utah Journal of Law and Family Studies, Vol. 4, pp.226-263; http://141.164.133.3/faculty/Block/Articles%20for%20web/Sexual%20Harassment%20in%20the%20Workplace.doc

Block, Walter E. 6/6/02. “Take Our Daughters to Work Day,” https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block13.html (overlapping bell curves for men and women)

Whitehead, Roy, Walter E. Block and Lu Hardin. 1999. “Gender Equity in Athletics: Should We Adopt a Non-Discriminatory Model?” The University of Toledo Law Review, Vol. 30, No. 2, Winter, pp. 223-249; http://141.164.133.3/faculty/Block/Blockarticles/genderequity.htm; http://tinyurl.com/ypvz5h

Block, Walter E. 1998. “Compromising the Uncompromisable: Discrimination,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 57, No. 2, April, 1998, pp. 223-237; http://www.babson.edu/ajes/issues/past.htm

Block, Walter E. 1994. “Sex Education” Cliches of Politics, Mark Spengler, ed., Irvington on Hudson, New York: Foundation for Economic Education, pp. 240-242

Block, Walter E. 1992. “Discrimination: An Interdisciplinary Analysis,” The Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 11, pp. 241-254; http://tinyurl.com/24yojf; http://tinyurl.com/2fwlfc; http://tinyurl.com/2gejlp

Block, Walter E. 1991. Book review of Michael Levin, Feminism and Freedom, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1987, in The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. X, No. 1, pp. 97-106; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/10_1/10_1_6.pdf; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228278236_Levin_on_Feminism_and_Freedom?ev=prf_pub;

Block, Walter E. 3/28/91. “Pay equity won’t close wage gap,” The Financial Post p. 14.

Block, Walter E. 2/15/90. “Another role for women,” The Vancouver Sun.

Block, Walter E. 1989. Book review of Michael Levin, Feminism and Freedom, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1987, in Nomos, Vol. 7, No. 1, spring, pp. 25-26.

Block, Walter E. 3/9/89. “Debunking the mythical gap,” The Financial Post.

Block, Walter E. 3/28/89. “Pay equity won’t close wage gap,” The Financial Post, p.14.

Block, Walter E. 4/26/89. “Pay equity undermines marketplace,” The Financial Post.

Block, Walter E. 1989. “Discrimination Runs Rampant,” Fraser Forum, March 1989, pp. 22-23. (2)

Block, Walter E. 1989. “Sexist Advertising and the Feminists,” Fraser Forum, January, pp. 21-22.

Block, Walter E. 12/17/88. “Sexist advertising and the feminists,” Thunder Bay Ontario Daily

Block, Walter E. 5/5/88. “Equal pay laws spell disaster,” The Financial Post.

Block, Walter E. 10/7/88. “Myth of equal pay legislation.”

Block, Walter E. and Michael A. Walker. 1985. Focus on Employment Equity: A Critique of the Abella Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.

Block, Walter E. Speech. 1985. “Equal Pay Legislation,” delivered to the Economic Council of Canada’s Colloquium on the Economic Status of Women in the Labour Market, Montreal; reprinted in Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. LI, No. 8, February 1, pp. 239-241;

Block, Walter E. 1985. “Directions for Future Research in Equal Pay Legislation,” Towards Equity: Proceedings of a Colloquium on the Economic Status of Women in the Labour Market, Muriel Armstrong ed., Ottawa: The Economic Council, pp. 119-21, 134-135, 179-182.

Block, Walter E. 5/16/85. Dollars and Sense: “No males need apply,” Alberni Valley Times.

Block, Walter E. 11/16/85. “Why paying housewives won’t work,” The Financial Post.

Block, Walter E. 1984. “Directions for Future Research,” Towards Equity, November, pp. 119-121 (panel discussion), 134-135 (floor discussion).

Block, Walter E. 1/30/82. “Single women have better chance to earn equal salary,” Brockville Recorder and Times.

Block, Walter E. 1982. “Discrimination Helps the Under-Privileged,” The Journal of Economic Affairs, July 1982, pp. 215-218

Block, Walter E. 1982. “Economic Intervention, Discrimination and Unforeseen Consequences,” Discrimination, Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity, Walter E. Block and Michael A. Walker, eds., Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, pp. 101-125. (25)

Block, Walter E. and Walter E. Williams. 1981. “Male-Female Earnings Differentials: A Critical Reappraisal,” The Journal of Labor Research, Vol. II, No. 2, Fall, pp. 385-388;
http://www.walterblock.com/publications/mfearningdifferentials.pdf;
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/mfearningdifferentials.pdf

Block, Walter E. 1975. “On the Woman’s Liberation Movement; or, the Male Chauvinist Pig as Hero.” The Libertarian Forum. September, Vol. 8, No. 9, pp. 5-8; http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1975/1975_09.pdf

Block, Walter E. 1973. “The Pimp as Hero.” The Libertarian Forum. January, Vol. 4, No. 11, p. 2; http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1973/1973_01.pdf

Speeches, interviews:

March 25, 2009. New Orleans, LA. Loyola University New Orleans, Economics Club. “Is the capitalist system guilty of racism, sexism? No.: Walter E. Block responds to his politically correct critics, defending against charges of racism and sexism. Pay gap. Glass Ceiling. http://mises.org/MultiMedia/Block/Block_03-25-2009.wmv; http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2011/02/professor-walter-block-on-sexual.html; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/127152.html; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty0QXqHcQHo;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EDykuMDLpM; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZxh1_8LzZc; tomwoods.com/walter; http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/02/walter-block-responds-to-his.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TargetLiberty+%28Target+Liberty%29;

Share

3:30 pm on November 15, 2018

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 11:26PM T wrote:
Dr. Block,

Your point concerning a libertarian approach to abortion is interesting, but you fail to accurately describe the situation.

A pregnancy where the woman was a willing participant isn’t merely a case of trespass. It is like inviting a disabled person to your home and then deciding you don’t want that person there. Knowing the person to be incapable of leaving on his or her own power, libertarian philosophy would say that the inviter has a responsibility to ensure that the “trespasser” departs safely. Any action to expel the “trespasser” which would result in death or serious injury would constitute an initiation of aggression on the part of the property owner.

In the case of a forced pregnancy, the disabled “trespasser” has been forcibly dropped off by a stranger. It is the stranger who committed the offense, not the “trespasser.” In this case, too, the “trespasser” has committed no willing offense and has no ability to produce a remedy, and I hardly think that libertarian philosophy would consider this “trespass” to be a capital offense.

The true issue in abortion, is whether the fetus is or is not a person. If the answer is yes then how the pregnancy occurred is irrelevant. If the answer is no then the timing of the abortion is irrelevant. Yes or no; that’s where the real battle is. T

Dear T: Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this challenging issue with me. I think I anticipate your objections to my theory in the publications below. If you don’t think so, do, please, get back to me on this matter. Best regards, Walter

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

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

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

Share

12:17 pm on November 14, 2018

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

From: A
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 9:44 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Question about death penalty

Dear Mr. Block, I’m a Brazilian student of Austrian Economics and I’ve read your excellent argument about the death penalty using Nozick’s example of the life transfer machine. Some people I’ve spoke with still think that the criminal’s life is only forfeit in the presence of the machine (they think the concept of justice is somehow dependent of the technology of the time). I’d like to humbly ask you some suggestion of arguments or reading material to answer to these claims, proving that the morality/justice of the death penalty does not depend on the actual existence of the machine. Please help, Thank you ! A

From: Walter Block [mailto:wblock@loyno.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 10:41 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: Question about death penalty

Dear A: I argue here that justice is timeless, independent of technology:

Block, Walter E. 1986. The U.S. Bishops and Their Critics: An Economic and Ethical Perspective, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute. (127 pages) isbn: 0-88975-085-8; http://www.fraserinstitute.org/researchandpublications/publications/7221.aspx; http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Bishops-Their-Critics-ebook/dp/B00BGJDHDG/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1

Block, Walter E. 1983. Focus on Economics and the Canadian Bishops, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute. (76 pages) isbn: 0-88975-057-2; http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1349328; http://www.amazon.com/Focus-Economics-Canadian-Bishops-ebook/dp/B00BH3T20S/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1

Here is my case for the death penalty:

Block, 2003A, 2003B, 2003C, 2006, 2015; Rothbard, 2010; Whitehead and Block, 2003

Block, Walter E. 2003A. “The Death Penalty.” November 11; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block34.html

Block, Walter E. 2003B. “Death Penalty Essential for Social Justice.” Loyola University New Orleans Loyola University New Orleans The Maroon; October 10; http://maroon.loyno.edu/news/2003/10/10/Editorial/Death.Penalty.Essential.To.Social.Justice-525232.shtml

Block, Walter E. 2003C. “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

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

Rothbard, Murray N. 2010. “The Libertarian Position on Capital Punishment.” July 13;
http://mises.org/library/libertarian-position-capital-punishment

Block, Walter E. 2015. “The Death Penalty: Response to Ron Paul.” Criminal Justice Ethics, Vol. 34, No. 3; pp. 339-349; http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0731129X.2015.1109786;

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; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block_taking-assets.pdf (death penalty justified)

Best regards,

Walter

Share

3:04 pm on November 13, 2018

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Is the Income Tax Slavery? No.

From: C
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2018 8:31 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Indentured servitude

Dr. Block,

Is income taxation involuntary servitude?

I ask because the first section of the 13th Amendment reads “Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” The 16th Amendment reads, simply “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Are not these two concepts diametric opposites? Isn’t taxation of my labor a form of involuntary servitude? Does the latter Amendment supersede the former? Respectfully, C

From: Walter Block [mailto:wblock@loyno.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2018 10:41 PM
To: C
Subject: RE: Indentured servitude

Dear C:

I don’t think income taxation is involuntary servitude. I think it is theft.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

3:05 pm on November 12, 2018

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Empirical Measures of Economic Freedom

From: W
Sent: Saturday
To: Wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Measure of gov manipulation in markets

Hello Dr. Block,

We spoke after your talk to LPMC today.

I was asking how to get a measure of how the government interferes in the markets in ways not generally recognized- the size of the ESF and how it is used, agreements between central banks to purchase stocks etc., and how much this invalidates mainstream financial analysis.

Thanks for your attention! W

Dear W:

You’re asking for an empirical measure of the level of government interference. This is the closest I can come to that sort of measurement, even though it is not exactly on point.

Gwartney, James, Robert W. Lawson and Walter E. Block. 1996. Economic Freedom of the World, 1975-1995; Vancouver, B.C. Canada: the Fraser Institute (308 pages); http://www.amazon.ca/Economic-freedom-world-1975-1995-Gwartney/dp/0889751579/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336605884&sr=1-1; http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/pdf/catalogue.pdf; isbn: 0-88975-157-9; http://www.fraserinstitute.org/researchandpublications/publications/7094.aspx; http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research/economic-freedom-of-the-world-1975-1995

There have been many follow up books to this one. For example:

Lawson, Robert. Economic Freedom of the World: 2003 Annual Report, with James Gwartney. (Vancouver: The Fraser Institute), 2003.

For more go here:

http://www.freetheworld.com

Best regards,

Walter

Share

1:57 pm on November 11, 2018

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

From: M
Sent: Friday,
To: walter block

Dear M:

I suggest a unilateral US declaration of free trade with all other nations, China included, regardless of their own tariff policies. I’m pretty sure that Ron Paul would support exactly that. There is indeed some evidence that President Trump pursues his tariff wars with the ultimate goal of a pure free trade regime. He has said as much. However, there is also strong evidence to the contrary, his oft-repeated mercantilist statements.

Some readings on this:

Anderson, 1999; Barron, 2017; Bastiat, 1848A, 1848B; Block, 1976, ch. 23, 2013, ch. 2; Block, Horton and Walker, 1998; Boudreaux, 2010, 2016A, 2016B, 2017; Brandly, 2002; Brown, 1987; DiLorenzo, 2018; Ebeling, 2018; Epstein, 2016; Folsum, 1996; Friedman and Friedman, 1997; Gwartney, et. al, 1976; Hazlitt, 1946, ch. 11; Johnsson, 2004; Krasnozhon, Simpson and Block, 2015; Landsburg, 2008; McGee, 1994A, 1994B; McMaken, 2016; Mises, 1927; Mullen, 2015; Murphy, 2004; Ricardo, 1821; Roberts, 2016; Rothbard, 2005; Rouanet, 2016; Smith, 1776; Vance, 2016; Wenzel, 2018A, 2018B; Williams, 2017A, 2017B

Anderson, William L. 1999. “Tariffs Are Sanctions.” December 17;
https://mises.org/library/tariffs-are-sanctions

Barron, Patrick. 2017. Two Common Objections to Unilateral Free Trade.” April 6; https://mises.org/blog/two-common-objections-unilateral-free-trade

Bastiat, Frederic. 1848A. “The Balance of Trade.” https://mises.org/library/balance-trade

Bastiat, Frederic. 1848B [2018]. “Must Free Trade Be Reciprocal?” March 14;
https://mises.org/library/must-free-trade-be-reciprocal

Block, Walter, Joseph Horton and Debbie Walker. 1998. “The Necessity of Free Trade,” Journal of Markets and Morality, Vol. 1, No. 2, October, pp. 192-200

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

Block, Walter E. 2013. Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in all realms; Terra Libertas Publishing House; isbn: 978-1-908089-37-3; http://store.mises.org/Defending-the-Undefendable-2-P10932.aspx ; http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Undefendable-II-Freedom-Realms/dp/1908089377/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379098357&sr=8-1&keywords=freedom+in+all+realms

Block, Walter E. 2018A. “The Road to Free Trade.” The Epoch Times. October 29;
https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-road-to-free-trade_2701883.html

Block, Walter E. 2018B. “Trump’s Fake Fix for a Bad Economic Policy; Using tax dollars to bailout farmers hurt by President Trump’s tariffs is not the way to strengthen the economy.” New York Times, July 26; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/opinion/trump-tariffs-farmers-iowa-libertarian.html; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/08/walter-e-block/687066-2/

Brandly, Mark. 2002. “A Primer on Trade.” November, 4;
http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1084

Boudreaux, Donald J. 2010. “On Trade and Currency Manipulation.” January 5; http://fee.org/freeman/on-trade-and-currency-manipulation/

Boudreaux, Donald J. 2016A. “Should Gates clean his own toilets?” August 9; http://triblive.com/opinion/donaldboudreaux/10888506-74/workers-gates-wages

Boudreaux, Donald J. 2016B. “On Being Too Rigid & Dogmatic & Inflexible on Free Trade.” December 19; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2016/12/on-being-too-rigid-dogmatic-inflexible.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

Boudreaux, Don. 2017. “Trump’s Ignorance Is Matched Only by His Thuggishness.” January 3; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2017/01/trumps-ignorance-is-matched-only-by-his.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

Brandly, Mark. 2002. “A Primer on Trade.” November, 4;
http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1084

Brown, Pamela J. 1987. “Free Thought and Free Trade: The Analogy Between Scientific and Entrepreneurial Discovery Process,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2, Summer, pp. 289-292; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/8_2/8_2_8.pdf

DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 2018. “Trade and the Rise of Freedom.” March 7;

Trade and the Rise of Freedom

Ebeling, Richard. 2018. “Trump’s protectionist follies threaten a trade war.” March 5;

Trump’s Protectionist Follies Threaten a Trade War

Epstein, Richard A. 2016. “The Rise of American Protectionism.” March 14;
http://www.hoover.org/research/rise-american-protectionism
Folsum, Jr., Burton W. 1996. The Industrial Revolution and Free Trade
Friedman, Milton and Rose Friedman. 1997. “The Case for Free Trade.” Hoover Digest No. 4.http://www.hooverdigest.org/974/friedman.html

Gwartney, James, Robert Lawson and Walter E. Block. 1996. Economic Freedom of the World, 1975-1995, Vancouver, B.C.: The Fraser Institute

Hazlitt, Henry. 2008 [1946]. Economics in One Lesson. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute;
http://mises.org/books/economics_in_one_lesson_hazlitt.pdf
https://mises.org/store/Economics-in-One-Lesson-P33C1.aspx

Johnsson, Richard C.B. 2004. “On Ricardo and Free Trade.” January 12;
http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1421&

Krasnozhon, Leo, David Simpson and Walter E. Block. 2015. “Fair trade: Its Real Impact on the Working Poor.” The Review of Social and Economic Issues (RSEI). Vol. 1, No. 2, Spring, pp- 5-28; http://rsei.rau.ro/index.php/last; http://rsei.rau.ro/images/V1N2/Articol_1.pdf; translation by ‘Alexandru Butiseacă’ butiseaca@gmail.com

Landsburg, Steven E. 2008. “What to Expect When You’re Free Trading.” The NY Times. January 16; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/opinion/16landsburg.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Steven+E.+Landsburg&oref=slogin.

McGee, Robert W., 1994A. A Trade Policy for Free Societies: The Case Against Protectionism, Quorum Books.

McGee, Robert W. 1994B. “The Fatal Flaw in NAFTA, GATT and All Other Trade Agreements,” Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, Vol. 14, No. 3, 549-565.

McMaken, Ryan. 2016. “To Oppose Free Trade Is To Embrace Violence.” https://mises.org/library/oppose-free-trade-embrace-violence

Mises, Ludwig von. Mises, Ludwig von. 1927. Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition. Auburn, AL: the Mises Institute; https://mises.org/library/liberalism-classical-tradition

Mullen, Tom. 2015. “Trump’s Protectionist Fallacies Have Been Refuted By Free Market Economists for Hundreds of Years.” August 31; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-mullen/trumps-protectionist-fall_b_8056400.html

Murphy, Robert P. 2004. “Can Trade Bring Poverty?” December 24; http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1699

Ricardo, David. 1821 [1912]. The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, 3rd ed., London: J. M. Dent

Roberts, Russ. 2016. “The Human Side of Trade.” December 11; https://medium.com/@russroberts/the-human-side-of-trade-7b8e024e7536#.nkypmt8hc

Rothbard, Murray N. 2005. Protectionism and the Destruction of Prosperity. Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute; http://mises.org/rothbard/protectionism.asp

Rouanet, Louis. 2016. “The Case for Unilateral Free Trade.” October 13;
https://mises.org/blog/case-unilateral-free-trade

Smith, Adam. [1776] 1979. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund

Vance, Laurence. 2016. “Free trade is fair trade.” June 1;

Free Trade Is Fair Trade

Wenzel, Robert. 2018. “Pat Buchanan: Foundational War Hawk.” March 8;
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2018/03/pat-buchanan-foundationtional-war-hawk.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

Wenzel, Robert. 2018. “Most Pro-Tariff and Anti-Tariff Supporters Use the Same Dumb Argument.” March 9;
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2018/03/most-pro-tariff-and-anti-tariff.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

Williams, Walter E. 2017A. “International Trade Thuggery.” January 18; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/01/walter-e-williams/free-trade-3/

Williams, Walter E. 2017B. “Trade Ignorance and Demagoguery.” May 5;

The US Is Protectionist

Best regards,

Walter

Share

6:59 pm on November 10, 2018

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

I got into a long, drawn out debate with C over whether or not Wilson’s entry into WWI was (legally, according to libertarian law) responsible for the rise of Hitler, and then WWII. If so, he’s a criminal. I said yes, C said no. C’s main argument is that even if Wilson caused WWII, people are not responsible for what they cause. Hitler’s parents “caused” Hitler, but are not (legally) responsible for his evil deeds. The Chinese invented gunpowder a while back, but are not responsible for gun deaths nowadays. I agreed with this, of course. My main attempt at a refutation is that there is a disanalogy: giving birth to a child, inventing guns or gunpowder, are not per se rights violations; heck, they are not rights violations at all. But, entry into a non-defensive war is indeed a rights violation, and, thus, Wilson is indeed guilty of a crime, at least according to libertarian law. If you are interested in the details of this convoluted debate, keep reading (from the bottom up, so as to follow the discussion). As for the timing, there are no limits. I don’t believe in explicit statutes of limitations. Yes, there are implicit, legitimate statutes of limitations, in that the further you go back into history, the harder it is to prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Walter:

I see a disanalogy. the Chinese early invention of guns was not a per se rights violation. Wilson’s act was.

I don’t hold the 10 century Chinese guilty for a shooting in inner city Chicago, since there is no direct causal relationship between the two. I do hold Wilson guilty for WW2, even though he didn’t intend that, we can posit, arguendo, since there is a direct causal relationship.

now, consider Wilson’s action in 1917 and WW3, which will occur in the year 2525. to me, it is an open question as to whether we hold him guilty for that event: it all depends upon whether a historian can come up with an accurate causal relationship, which we can very much doubt.

this question is identical to the one regarding reparations. how far back do you go? For the Japanese in WW2, that’s easy; they can prove stuff was stolen from them in 1942. how about the blacks and slavery. a bit tougher, since it occurred longer ago. the burden of proof always rests with he who wants to overturn present property rights (possession is properly 9/10 of the law). but, if a black can prove his grandfather was a slave on plantation X, he is entitled to a part of that property, even now. the American Indians have a tougher row to hoe. it occurred even longer ago, and they didn’t have a written language. The Jews 2000 years ago. Even tougher once again, because longer ago, and time erases our knowledge. But, there was a written language. the point is, there is no time period, statute of limitations, for libertarians. there is only a “natural” statute of limitations: the further back in the past the harder it is to prove anything.

now get back to Wilson. the same thinking applies. the further forward in history, the harder it is to prove a direct connection. it is easy to demonstrate the causal connection between what Wilson did in 1917, and what occurred in 1941. it will be far more difficult to prove a causal connection between what Wilson did in 1917, and what will occur in 2525. If we can, then Wilson is responsible for WW3 also. if not, then not.

I fully agree with this statement of yours: “But with each step down the chain, it becomes harder to hold A responsible. One reason is: distance in time and space.” here’s where we part company. You say this: If Wilson “knew or should have known that there was a high risk” of his action in 1917 causing WW2, then he’s guilty of it, if not, not. I go along with you on this: if this is the proper criterion, then Wilson is innocent of WW2. He couldn’t have anticipated that. I stipulate this. But, I employ a different criterion: is there a clear causal connection. And, there is. So I hold Wilson guilty of WW2.

The problem I have with your criterion is that it resorts too heavily, way too heavily, on mens rea. Yes, this is important, but far more important are the facts. A shoots B intending to murder him. A is a murderer. Mens rea applies. C is cleaning his gun and shoots D by accident. No mens rea here. So, if you are logically consistent with your Wilson analysis, you would let C off scott free. He has no mens rea whatsoever. C didn’t even know of D’s existence. I in contrast, would impose a lesser penalty on C, but, still, a penalty. here are some readings on libertarian punishment theory:

Block, 1999, 2002-2003, 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b, 2006, 2009, 2016A, 2016B, 2017; Block, Barnett and Callahan, 2005; Gregory and Block, 2007; Olson, 1979; Rothbard, 1998, p. 88; Whitehead and Block, 2003

Block, Walter E. 1999. “Market Inalienability Once Again: Reply to Radin,” Thomas Jefferson Law Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, Fall, pp. 37-88; https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/794d/06bfb1186588c840ae3c68d09aa21e74732a.pdf; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/market_inalienability.pdf;

Block, Walter E. 2002-2003. “Berman on Blackmail: Taking Motives Fervently,” Florida State University Business Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 57-114; http://www.law.fsu.edu/current_students/organizations/businessreview/vol3/block.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2003A. “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

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

Block, Walter E. 2004a. Austrian Law and Economics: The Contributions of Adolf Reinach and Murray Rothbard, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 7, No. 4, Winter, pp. 69-85; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_4_5.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2004b. “Reply to Frank van Dun’s ‘Natural Law and the Jurisprudence of Freedom,’” Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 18, No. 2, Spring, pp. 65-72.

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

Block, Walter E. 2009. “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. 2016A. “Does Rothbard contradict himself on punishment theory? No.” May 7; https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/rothbard-contradict-punishment-theory-no/

Block, Walter E. 2016B. “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

Block, Walter E. 2017. “Libertarian punishment theory and unjust enrichment.” Journal of Business Ethics; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-017-3469-7?wt_mc=Internal.Event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst; DOI: 10.1007/s10551-017-3469-7; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-017-3469-7

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; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block_taking-assets.pdf (death penalty justified)

C:

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere in search of our limiting principle.

Actor A intentionally does a bad act because he wants a bad result. He gets the bad result he planned for: bad thing A.

Actor A intentionally does a bad act to get bad thing A, the result is bad thing A (which happens immediately) plus bad thing B (which happens a month later, as a result of bad thing A) and bad thing C (which happens a year later as the result of bad thing A) and bad thing D (which happens a century later).

So, at what point does Actor A stop being responsible and why? We can easily agree that Actor A is responsible for bad thing A: he wanted and sought and intended this result and surely people are responsible for the results they deliberately produce.

But with each step down the chain, it becomes harder to hold A responsible. One reason is: distance in time and space. The Chinese military engineers invented the first guns in China in 1000 AD or thereabouts, and the Chinese army perpetrated the first attack using guns shortly thereafter. You take the position that offensive use of weapons is a bad act. Starting with this premise, you characterize the Chinese military of 1000 AD as Actor A and their offensive use of weapons in China in 1000 AD as bad thing A. So far, I understand your position and it seems completely reasonable to me.

Now we get to Bad thing D: an American drug dealer shooting at a rival drug dealer during a drive by and accidentally killing a child in inner city New Orleans in 2018.

We agree that the Chinese are not responsible for Bad thing D. My reasoning is standard legal philosophy: when actor A does something that results in bad thing D, actor A is morally or legally responsible if he deliberately intended bad thing D, or if he knew or should have known that there was a high risk that his actions would produce Bad thing D. In practical terms, bad actors are usually not responsible for consequences of their actions that are “remote” in time and space from the original bad act. Applying these principles to the Chinese of 1000 AD, at the time they invented and deployed the first guns, there was no United States, let alone a United States with inner cities consumed by a drug war. The Chinese of 1000 AD couldn’t possibly have foreseen the situation that exists in the US in 1918, and they certainly didn’t desire it, and they shouldn’t be held responsible for it.

Looking at Woodrow Wilson and WWII, I use the same reasoning and reach the same result. Wilson wanted the allies to defeat Germany in WWI, but he didn’t intend for the allies to crush Germany economically during the post war era and when he entered the war, he didn’t have any way to know the British and French would be so vindictive. To the contrary, Wilson dreamed of a peaceful cooperative post war era and when the French and British leaders opted to crush Germany economically instead of being cooperative, he did his best to prevent this from happening. So I would say that Wilson did not want Germany to be crushed economically and, when he got the US into WWI, he couldn’t have foreseen that this would be the result. He certainly couldn’t have foreseen Hitler and the Holocaust which were a bizarre kink in history. Accordingly, I put Wilson in the same category as the 1000 AD Chinese. He may in fact be a bad actor because he got the US into WWI, but that doesn’t make him responsible for WWII.

You, on the other hand, exonerate the 1000 AD Chinese of inner city violence, but you are prepared to hold Wilson morally responsible for WWII.

Obviously you are applying a principle of responsibility that is different than the ones I am familiar with. Your limiting principle for moral responsibility is not the same as my limiting principle.

So, can you concisely state your limiting principle?

Walter:

What I’m interested in, at this point, is how far the thread of moral responsibility/guilt extends?

the burden of proof rests with those who want to blame the bad guy.

I think this burden is met with Wilson and WW2. As for WW3, if a direct line can be made between him and this war of 2230, then, yes, he’s guilty of that too. but, this is exceedingly doubtful.

it is the same with the libertarian view of reparations. the further back in history you go, the harder it is to prove you are owed reparations.

I’ve written a bit about that:

Alston and Block, 2007; Block, 1993, 2001, 2002; Block and Yeatts, 1999-2000

Alston, Wilton D. and Walter E. Block. 2007. “Reparations, Once Again.” Human Rights Review, Vol. 9, No. 3, September, pp. 379-392; http://tinyurl.com/2b75fl

Block, Walter E. 1993. “Malcolm X,” Fraser Forum, January, pp. 18-19; http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5361.aspx

Block, Walter E. 2001. “The Moral Dimensions of Poverty, Entitlements and Theft,” The Journal of Markets and Morality, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 83-93; http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2001_spring/block.html; http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=922087; http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketsandmorality.com%2Findex.php%2Fmandm%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F587%2F577&ei=lBn9UuLIOtDOkQe1toHwBw&usg=AFQjCNF2MZ5XoFKKMF5UcOfOT5Kv-HQgZA&sig2=VVYWZhyl0ZmAWRAKXtkxWw; Search for “Walter Block” under “Authors” here: http://www.marketsandmorality.com/index.php/mandm/search

Block, Walter E. 2002. “On Reparations to Blacks for Slavery,” Human Rights Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, July-September, pp. 53-73;
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/reparations_slavery.pdf; https://link.springer.com/journal/12142/3/4/page/1; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12142-002-1003-4
(David Horowitz, Randall Robinson)

Block, Walter E. and Guillermo Yeatts. 1999-2000. “The Economics and Ethics of Land Reform: A Critique of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace’s ‘Toward a Better Distribution of Land: The Challenge of Agrarian Reform,’” Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Law, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 37-69; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/ethics_land_reform.pdf

C:

Okay, now I’m starting to understand.

Where are the outer limits on responsibility located, and on what principle do we locate them?

(1) The US

Wilson was culpable in causing the US to enter WWI.

WWI resulted in WWII.

So, in your view, Wilson was culpable in causing WWII. What I’m interested in, at this point, is how far the thread of moral responsibility/guilt extends?

What if, in 2230, a chain of events which began with WWII causes WWIII? Is Wilson responsible for WWIII?

In other words, is it your view that anyone who performs a culpable act is culpable for all negative consequences ad infinitem no matter how remote? Or is there some outer limit on culpability? If so, what principle establishes the outer limit on culpability?

(2) China

The Chinese invented guns and hand grenades and flame throwers and cannons and land mines. Then the Chinese used these weapons for both offensive and defensive warfare.

Then European visitors saw that the Chinese were winning battles by use of these weapons and said, “That’s great, we need those weapons too!”

So the Chinese weapons were brought to Europe, copied, and improved upon.

Result: modern mass casualty warfare.

I am pretty sure that I can dig through the history books and find at least one case in which the Chinese used gunpowder weapons in an offensive capacity along about 1120 A.D. And I am pretty sure that you will respond that this, without more, is not enough to make the Chinese responsible for gun violence in US inner cities in 2018.

In this situation, we are in agreement. I would say that the people who are responsible for gun violence in US inner cities in 2018 are the people who are pulling the triggers. My explanation: I do not believe in collective responsibility or inherited guilt. So I absolve the Chinese of 1120 AD (and the modern Chinese) of responsibility for what happens in US inner cities in 2018.

You apparently do believe in collective responsibility and inherited guilt? Up to a point at least? Or maybe not?

Clarification, please.

Walter:

Hitler’s parents caused a lot of deaths. Yet, they were entirely innocent. Why: Because giving birth is not a per se invasion, not a violation of the NAP

Those who invented guns caused a lot of deaths. Yet, they were entirely innocent. Why: Because inventing a gun is not a per se invasion, not a violation of the NAP

Wilson caused a lot of deaths. He is not at all innocent. Why: Because entering an offensive war (attacking a country that has not attacked you) IS not a per se invasion, IS a violation of the NAP

C:
I wasn’t asking you to explain your moral judgments in your capacity as a Libertarian, I was asking you to explain your moral judgments in your capacity as a person.

To summarize the conversation thus far:

1. You stated that, in your opinion, the US is an evil imperialist war mongering country and the US is morally responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths including those that occurred during WWII.

Me: Why do you think that?

2. Your answer: Wilson and the US caused WWII by getting into WWI, which resulted in crushing Germany instead of a stalemate.

Me: As a practical matter, I think you may be correct that the US entering WWI produced the crushing of Germany instead of a stalemate, and crushing Germany caused WWII. But why does this mean the US is morally guilty? We can agree that just because the Chinese invented guns during the Song dynasty (circa 1000 AD), that doesn’t mean the Chinese are responsible for gun deaths resulting from drug dealer rivalries in US inner cities today. There’s some point at which the consequences are so remote from the original action that the original actor is no longer responsible. So what principle are you applying to make the US guilty of deaths during WWII but the Chinese not guilty of deaths in American inner cities?

3. Your answer: We just have to agree to disagree.

Me: We haven’t gotten as far as disagreeing, I’m still just trying to understand the process by which you are reaching your conclusions. What principles are you applying in order to decide when an actor is morally responsible for the consequences of his actions and when he isn’t?

4. Your answer: that’s outside the ken of libertarianism.

Then you criticize Wilson for getting us involved in WWI. But I still don’t have an explanation of the principle you apply in order to start with the premise, “The US should not have gotten involved in WWI” in order to reach the conclusion “Therefore the US is responsible for the deaths which occurred during WWII.”

Walter:

moral guilt, morality, are outside the ken of libertarianism. we are only concerned with what the law should be, and what should happen to law violators.

Wilson is a criminal, since he sent US forces to fight in a war against countries that were not attacking us.

C:

We only have to disagree if you are unable to answer my questions I am not trying to trip you with debater ju jitsu I am trying to understand the principles you apply in assigning moral responsibility

Woodrow Wilson obviously did not intend to cause WWII but I am inclined to agree that WWII was a result of his actions So is he morally guilty for an unintended consequence Or is he innocent because he had no way of knowing what would result from his behavior? I am genuinely trying to follow your thought processes here I gather you think he is morally guilty but what principle do you apply in order to reach that conclusion ?

Sent from my iPhone

Walter:

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this philosophical point.

let me try again. A murders B. Was A solely responsible for B’s death? No. there were other causal elements. If B’s parents hadn’t given birth to B, A wouldn’t have been able to murder B. So, A was not solely responsible for B’s death. But, A is a murderer.

C:

Please explain how you get from a simple statement of fact (“America’s actions in 1918 were one of multiple causes of WII occurring in 1941 to 1945”) to “America is morally guilty for WWII” and then go even beyond that to “America is an imperialist warmonger.”

Causing something and being morally responsible for it are two different things.

Being one of multiple causes of something and being responsible for the entire something are two different things.

I expect you, as a a philosopher, to make these distinctions!

Furthermore, I know perfectly well that you are CAPABLE of making these distinctions. I have studied you closely and have come to the conclusion that you are neither mentally deficient nor mentally lazy.

So why are you trying to snow me with arguments which are inadequate on their face?

Is it possible that you confuse me with one of your undergraduates students? Hmpppfff.

Share

11:53 am on November 9, 2018

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Reconciling Liberating Property From the Unjust Government and Reparations for Stolen Property in the Past

From: Sam Hage [mailto:shage001@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2018 3:28 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Libertarian Scholars’ Conference

Mr. Block,

I meant to email you right after the Libertarian Scholars’ conference in NYC, but it slipped my mind until now. I was hoping to expand on the question I asked about your Ragnar Danneskjöld presentation.

You said that if I can prove your grandfather stole my grandfather’s watch and handed it down to you, you have to give me the watch back. You also said that if the state steals my car, then you steal it from the impound lot, you are not required to give it back to me. Now I’m not sure there’s a contradiction there, but it seemed as though there might be. A clarifying question: if Mr. Salerno steals my watch, then you steal it from him, are you obligated to give it back to me?

I think I understand that once the original theft happens, you’re not really committing violations of the NAP by ‘stealing’ from the thief, but wouldn’t that also be true in the grandfather example? Is that example different because the thief died and you’re merely the unwitting beneficiary of a theft? I hope you can help me understand this idea.

I thought you did a tremendous job at the conference, particularly with your impromptu talk during the Marxism section.

I look forward to hearing from you.

All the best,
Sam Hage

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 8:00 PM Walter Block wrote:

Dear Sam:

Yours was just about the best question/challenge, I’ve ever had at any public gathering, such as this one. Please tell me about yourself. I won’t say that yours was the only thing I’ve been thinking about since that conference, but I won’t deny that either. I am very grateful to you for pointing this out.

The way I see matters, I barely escape contradicting myself by the fact that there is a disanalogy in the two cases. In the Ragner case, there is an intermediate person, that is, Ragnar himself. In the other reparations case, there is no intermediary to complicate matters. Does this satisfy you? If not, please let me have your misgivings.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Sam Hage [mailto:shage001@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2018 8:57 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Re: Libertarian Scholars’ Conference

Mr. Block,

Thanks for getting back to me, and thanks for your kind words. I am a master’s student at the St. John’s great books program in Annapolis and a carpenter. I also do the postproduction and show notes for Scott Horton’s podcast.

I do think the presence of the intermediary may be the salient factor in your Ragnar example. Do you think it’s necessary that the intermediary also be a victim of the state? I just remembered that you made a comment to the effect of “Go appropriate your own tax reparations!” It’s true that you happened to take my truck, but it’s also true that you’re owed something yourself, which you’ve now undertaken an effort to get back.

I had another question that I started formulating during your “what is libertarianism” talk, but I didn’t have a good enough grasp of it at the time. My question is something like this:

Libertarianism is the non-agression principle. Of course, we now need to know what aggression is. You claim (as do I and everyone else) that aggression is the violation of property rights, the most important of which is self-ownership. I’m wondering if this gets us into an unfortunate situation of circular definitions. After all, if everyone has the absolute right to their body, wouldn’t me violently resisting you trying to punch me be a violation of your self-ownership? No, says the libertarian, because you forfeit some degree of property rights by aggressing against me… but that hasn’t really gotten us anywhere, because we’ve only defined aggression as the violation of self-ownership. Another example that deals with non-self property rights: Say you and I are both trying to homestead a piece of land; libertarian principles say that “first use” dictates the rightful owner (which property ownership will then inform future cases of aggression). But suppose I violently prevent you from otherwise attaining the land before me, perhaps by pushing you out of the way or putting you in a cage. Something is definitely wrong about what I did, and I think it prevents me from being considered the rightful owner of the land. But if all we have is ‘aggression’ for determining the legitimacy of my ownership, we’re back to a question of what aggression is in the very course of trying define it.

I doubt I’m the first to wonder about this. Have you heard of anyone take on this objection?

A personal note—after a brief exposure to libertarianism, which I dismissed out of hand with my main objection being “who would build the roads?” (really public goods in general), the first libertarian book I read was Privatization of Roads and Highways, of all things. I was immediately persuaded, of course, and after that it was a very short leap to the Mises Institute with their many great YouTube lectures and online texts. I think you do extremely fine work, and I hope we can meet in person next time.

Thanks,
Sam Hage

Dear Sam:
I don’t think it’s necessary that the intermediary also be a victim of the state. As far as I’m concerned, Ragnar might have come to earth fresh from Mars, where he spent his entire life, as in one of the Robert Heinlein novels.

Here are my publications regarding Ragnar:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block, Walter E. 2011D. “Hoppe, Kinsella and Rothbard II on Immigration: A Critique.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, pp. 593–623; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_29.pdf

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

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

Block, Walter E. and William Barnett II. 2008. “Continuums” Journal Etica e Politica / Ethics & Politics, Vol. 1, pp. 151-166 June; http://www2.units.it/~etica/; http://www2.units.it/~etica/2008_1/BLOCKBARNETT.pdf

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

Share

4:40 pm on November 8, 2018

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

From: A
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 8:50 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Internet and Scarcity

Dear Dr. Block,
I recall you telling me at Mises U that non scarce things can’t be privatized. If this were true, how could the oceans be privatized? Additionally, if someone were to somehow monopolize air (very ridiculous, but for the sake of argumentation), then wouldn’t this non-economic good hence be privatized? Thank you! A

Dear A:

In this book of mine I try to make clear that at present, the oceans are not scarce, and cannot, yet, be privatized. But, soon, they will be. We’re getting pretty close with the South China Sea. Rivers like the Hudson, the Mississippi, I think, can now be privatized.

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

As for air, it, too, is not scarce. But airplane routes are. They are in the air. See this book on that:

Nelson, Peter Lothian and Walter E. Block. 2018. Space capitalism: the case for privatizing space travel and colonization. Palgrave Macmillan; https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-74651-7; https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/3319746502/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&condition=new&qid=1531187909&sr=8-1&linkCode=sl2&tag=economicpolicyjournal-20&linkId=959e913e476f48b289a16223d557a826; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2018/07/new-walter-block-book-space-capitalism.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29;
https://www.c-span.org/video/?448910-4/space-capitalism;
https://mises.org/power-market/walter-block-talks-space-capitalism-cspan;

Hey, I’m On TV: C-Span

Share

2:41 pm on November 5, 2018

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