≡ Menu

From: Walter Block [mailto:wblock@loyno.edu]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 2:24 PM
To: Y
Subject: RE: Animal Rights

Dear Y:

See below

Best regards,


From: Y
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 11:30 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Animal Rights

Hello Dr. Block,

I’m Y from XYZ, fellow Anarchist / Libertarian. I got a lot of clarity on the subject of Animal rights after watching your debate. I just wanted to ask you one specific question, which is a problem I’ve run into while debating vegans:

If a person was torturing an animal in his own property, and a bunch of people felt justified to intervene and use force against him, would that be wrong?


Also after they’ve gone and successfully stopped the torture from being committed, would you want to see those same people imprisoned for having violating the property rights of the animal abuser?


If they were imprisonment was done by a third group of people, would you support them / oppose them / be neutral about it?

Thanks for all the work you’ve done.  Best, Y

I’ve written a bit about this:

Montgomery, Stephen and Walter E. Block. 2016. “Animal torture and thick libertarianism.” Review of Social and Economic Issues (RSEI), Vol 1, No. 3, Spring, pp. 105-116. http://rsei.rau.ro/images/V1N3/Articol_5.pdfhttp://www.rebe.rau.ro/RePEc/rau/rseijr/SP16/RSEI-SP16-A5.pdf

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

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


3:39 am on January 1, 2020

Please follow and like us:

Should Illegal Immigrants Have Access To Government-Subsidized Healthcare? Should It Be A Crime To Donate Money To The Government?

Letter 1:

From: J
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 5:17 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: isidewith

Hello Walter, how have you been? It was great seeing our email conversations published on LRC; I hope they helped other people working through the same issues. Thanks for sharing them with the world!

I’m just writing to get more of your thoughts on things. Have you ever taken the quiz on the website ISideWith? On most of the questions I was pretty sure what the libertarian answer was, but on some I wasn’t sure. E.g. I’m not entirely sure whether illegal immigrants should have access to government-subsidized healthcare. A lot of libertarians oppose this but I’m wondering if government should not bar access for the same reason it should not bar access to other public property. This ties in to our article on the ethics of public spending, I suppose.

Do you know when we should hear back about our submission, by the way?

Best wishes,


Letter 2:

On November 20, 2019 at 7:32 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear J:

As long as the illegal immigrants are not members of the ruling class, I think it is more libertarian for them to have the money than for the government.

Block, Walter E. 2007. “Ron Paul and Matching Funds,” October 1;


Best regards,


Letter 3:

From: J

Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 9:56 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: RE: isidewith

Thanks for your response! Would you say it depended on the immigrant’s own ideological beliefs? If an illegal immigrant were a libertarian, it seems he would have a right to take the state’s wealth, but if he were a statist who supported wealth redistribution, it seems arguable that him taking advantage of taxpayer-funded services counts as being an accomplice in the theft. Having the government perform political tests on potential welfare recipients seems impractical, though.

I notice you oppose lending to the government. If I had some government bonds in my portfolio, would you say I had an obligation to divest myself of them?


Letter 4:

Dear J:

Lending to government is very complicated. My view on donating money to criminal organizations is that this should be considered a crime.

In my view,  whether illegal immigrants should have access to government-subsidized healthcare  or not would not depend upon their ideological beliefs. Rather, it should depend upon presence or absence in the ruling class.

I’ve published lots on this topic:

Block, 1972, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009A, 2009B, 2010, 2011A, 2011B, 2011C, 2011D, 2012, 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.pdfhttp://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;


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.pdfhttp://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;


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;


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.htmlhttps://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.pd

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.pdfhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do?containerType=Issue&containerId=24713http://ssrn.com/abstract=1008525

This book of mine might be of interest to you:

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








Walter E. Block, Ph.D.


2:17 am on January 1, 2020

Please follow and like us:

Those Martians Just Won’t Quit Plaguing Us Earthlings

From: K
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:40 PM
To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>
Subject: Compelled Aggression

Dear Dr Block,

You wrote,

“If the Martians threaten to blow up our entire planet unless someone kills innocent person Joe, it is murder to do so, but it would not be wrong to murder him, paradoxically, saving all others except for him.”

Isn’t this a case of “compelled aggression” ? Martians are compelling earthlings to kill Joe in order to save themselves from Martian aggression. It is still wrong to kill Joe but the guilt lies with Martians, not the person who pulled the trigger. If later it became possible to prosecute the Martians for Joe’s murder that would be a just prosecution.



Dear K:

Yes, indeed, those vicious Martians are indeed the bad guys. But they are too strong to be prosecuted. The question is, is the person who murders Joe a criminal or not. I say he is. The Martians didn’t “compel” us to kill Joe. They gave us a choice: kill him, or we all die. Hey, I’m the one making this all up. I get to decide what the Martians want. If people don’t like my Martians, they can make up their own Martians.

Best regards,



2:15 am on January 1, 2020

Please follow and like us:

Ron Paul Had Little Or No Lasting Impact On US Politics Or Political Thought? Part II

Here is part I of this series.

From: Elwood Earl “Sandy” Sanders, Jr. [mailto:eesjresquire@aim.com]
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2019 3:57 PM
To: lewrockwell@mac.com; lew@lewrockwell.com; wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Ron Paul, Hero

I am a regular reader of Lew Rockwell and I saw the column you did on Ron Paul – and Walter Block’s response and I think the impact of Cong. Paul on making liberty ideas and issues mainstream is huge and an important reason why Trump was elected President.

Here is a prior blog post I wrote in 2016:

And the WINNER of the 2016 Presidential Election is (and he also Won in 2008 and 2012) is…RON PAUL!!!

As an aside:  I was traveling by plane yesterday and we just finished the security sector and another passenger was unhappy about the process.  I agreed and said:  Let’s put it this way:  I voted for Ron Paul twice!

Elwood Earl “Sandy” Sanders, Jr.



Dear Sandy:

Yours is a magnificent response to my correspondent, R. Yes, Ron is not the president of the U.S. but his ideas have had great and important influence.

I usually maintain anonymity with letters I post on this blog, but, won’t do so in this case for obvious reasons.

Best regards,



1:57 pm on December 28, 2019

Please follow and like us:

From: M
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2019 8:20 PM
To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>
Subject: Re: Curious

Thank you Professor! I don’t deserve to bug you with my simpleton questions!

One thing I think about is that the logic of Austrian Economics- as I am (thus far) learning about how methodically Mises (and others) have laid out the basic principles [i am on Chapter 9 in B Murphy “Choice”]- its sorta makes it hard to understand why ‘everyone’ doesn’t just say- aha, that makes sense? Obviously I lack knowledge of other types of Economic thought -except perhaps in the broadest sense- so maybe my ignorance prevents me from understanding their disregard for Austrian E thought? Like, especially if they have read about it…

Also, what is Marxism and polylogism really about? I don’t quite get ‘multiple logics’. I can see how different people have different perspectives and interests and values, etc. but I don’t think that’s what they mean when they use those terms.

Also the Schmoller and positivist perspectives are rather confusing. Especially positivists.

And how can understanding logical, deductive economics help individuals ‘navigate the real world’? As in, they’re not just interesting thoughts to have, concepts to philisophicate (i know that isn’t a word 😊 ). I’m wondering about how this will affect me personally (or anyone).

Thank you in advance- I spent some time trying to clarify my questions and not ask too many.

I hope all is well with you!


Dear M:

None of your questions are simpleton questions. We all have to start somewhere on this great journal of Austro-libertarianism. Simpletons don’t ask important questions, such as yours!

Marxism is based upon the labor theory of value. This means that returns like profits, rents, interest payments amount to exploitation of the workers.

Polylogism: white and blacks, men and women, gays and straights, have different logics. There is no one correct logic. 2+2=4 for some people. For others, math is exploitative, racist, sexist. Go figure.

Here’s a good reading attacking positivism:

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1995. Economic Science and the Austrian Method, Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute; http://mises.org/esandtam/pes1.asp

Best regards,



1:52 am on December 27, 2019

Please follow and like us:

Ron Paul Had Little Or No Lasting Impact On US Politics Or Political Thought?

From: R

Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 1:30 AM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Ron Paul, Hero – LewRockwell

This is delusional. Ron Paul had little or no lasting impact on US politics or political thought. There was no Ron Paul revolution. Trump has made a far greater impact on American governance and policy.

From: Walter Block [mailto:wblock@loyno.edu]

Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 9:37 AM

To: R

Subject: RE: Ron Paul, Hero – LewRockwell

Dear R:

Ron has converted more people to libertarianism than anyone else, with the possible exception of Ayn Rand.

I’ll grant you Donald Trump has had, and will have had, a greater impact on US politics, political thought, than Ron Paul. So what. The same can be said of Obama, FDR, Keynes, Hitler and many others.

Do, please, read this book of mine on Ron. It is my love letter to him:

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



Best regards,



1:51 am on December 27, 2019

Please follow and like us:

Murder Is Always A Violation of the NAP, But it is Not Always Wrong. Part V

Here is part IV.

From: J
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 7:52 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Murder justified by Martian threats

Thank you for the link.

Prior to this discussion, my definition of “murder” has always been “wrongful killing,” which distinguishes such acts from justifiable homicide. Your argument that murder is not always wrong negates my longstanding definition, if your argument holds. How then would you define murder if it is not always wrong? That is, what belongs in the set of homicidal acts that the term “murder” encompasses? J

Dear J:

You make an important and correct point. Thanks.

In my view, it is murder to kill innocent person Joe. The murderer of Joe should be punished.

I discuss this in far greater detail in my defense of the libertarian Nazi concentration camp guard who murders innocent Jews, blacks, gays, Romany.

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

Best regards,



1:07 am on December 24, 2019

Please follow and like us:

Murder Is Always A Violation of the NAP, But it is Not Always Wrong. Part IV

Here is part III.

From: J

Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2019 7:27 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Murder justified by martian threats

Dr. Block,

Given the hypothetical (“We martians will murder everyone unless you humans murder one”), the martians could merely be testing human fidelity to the non-aggression principle. If if we engaged in murder under the martian threat, the martians might (a) destroy us anyway or (b) demand another murder, and then another, and then another, until morally we are no longer human, but martian. On the other hand, if we refuse to buckle, they might leave us alone out of respect for our devotion to principle.

The NAP is not just an ideal good but a practical one as well. Best not to mess with it. J

From: Walter Block [mailto:wblock@loyno.edu]

Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2019 3:26 PM

To: J

Subject: RE: Murder justified by martian threats

Dear J:

That scenario of yours is indeed possible. Were it true, it would be silly not to call their bluff, and refuse to murder ninocent person Joe. But, why not, also, consider my scenario? My Martians are not kidding. They really will blow up our entire planet unless we do as they say.

The point I’m trying to make is that the non aggression principle (NAP) is a very, very good first approximation of what libertarianism is all about. It suffices for 99.99% of all objections. It is an explanation of libertarianism that does will in virtually all cases.

But it fails, and fails dismally, in the face of the Martian example. I bring this up to demonstrate that the real, more basic, undersanding of libertarianism is not the NAP. Rather, it is our libertarian punishment theory. A more sophisticaed understanding of libertarianism does not say, with the NAP: “Thou shalt not murder, initiate violence against innocent persons or their legitimate possessions.” Rather, it states, that if you do, you will be punished in accordance with libertarian punishment theory. On this, see below.

Why did I concoct this Martian threat example. I did so to demonstrate that not only is libertarianism deontologically sound, it also is compatible with practicality, with pragmatism, with utilitarianism, broadly defined. Any “defense” of libertarianism in which everyone on the earth dies might be compatible with the NAP, (e.g., don’t murder Joe, and we all  perish), but it certainly is not compatible with  practicality, with pragmatism, with utilitarianism.

So, what I’m trying to do here is have our cake and eat it. Support deontological libertarianism, alright, but, also, not allow everyone to die in the Martian example. The only way I can do this is to more accurately define the essense of our philosophy not in terms of NAP (don’t murder Joe), but in terms of punishment theory (if you murder Joe, you’ll be punished).

Many people on this blog, like you,  just won’t accept the Martian example. They keep trying to change it around to suit their own purposes. My purpose in employing it is twofold: 1. to put forth a more accurate version of libertarianism than the NAP, and 2. To demonstrate that our precious philosophy can withstand challenges from utilitarians. If you change the example, we can’t refute those utiliatarians!


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

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

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

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

(15th floor flagpole)

Block, Walter E. 2004. “Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Part I” Reason Papers, Vol. 27, Fall, pp. 117-133;


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

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

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

Punishment theory:

Block, 2009A, 2009B, 2016, 2018; 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/6392; http://periodicos.unicesumar.edu.br/index.php/revjuridica/article/view/6392/3190

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. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp;

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

Best regards,



2:04 am on December 23, 2019

Please follow and like us:

Students: Transfer to Loyola University New Orleans!

Dear I:

Thanks for your very kind words.

If you’re not careful, I’m gonna go up to XYZ, kidnap you, grab you kicking and screaming, and enroll you back here at Loyola University.

On a more serious note, please consider transferring to Loyola, and taking some of my courses in the spring 2020 semester. I make the case for this below.

There must be, oh, 10 or so profs here who are interested in free enterprise, and maybe a dozen students who are too. Plus, there are a few more at next door Tulane who attend my Human Action seminar. To be fair, the econ depts at Hillsdale and Grove City College also support free enterprise.  But the former has gone neo con, and the latter has far fewer libertarian profs than we do.

What can you do if you cannot transfer, and must stay at XYZ University? Avail yourself of the Mises Institute! Attend Mises University! Attend the AERC! Ok, both are in Auburn, AL, a large trip for you. But, there is also the Libertarian Scholars’ Conference, held in New York City, much closer to you.

Send me something you’ve written, and I’ll offer you, hopefully, some constructive criticism, and suggestions for places to publish.

Best regards,


From: I
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 5:41 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Inquiry from an eager student

Dear Dr. Block,

I am a first year student at the University of XYZ, and while I am not officially studying economics or political philosophy there, I have read countless articles and listened to many lectures about Austrian economics and libertarian theory of the Rothbardian tradition online over the past few years. I discuss and debate these ideas with anonymous users on the internet, but I have found that online forums are not conducive to productive or nuanced discourse. I came across some of your work, notably Defending the Undefendable and your paper on Evictionism, and found it to be the most pure, undiluted, and stimulating form of libertarian thought I have encountered. The praxeological approach appealed to me immediately, as my mode of thought leans heavily towards rationalism. I am contacting you only because I got the sense (from an interview you gave and from a link at the bottom of one of your articles at lewrockwell.com) that you would welcome inquiries from eager students such as myself. The crux of my issue is that I am consuming more and more libertarian philosophy every day, yet I have no one to openly share it with, and am ignorant as to how to go about finding others who are as interested in it as I am. There are no such groups at my university, and XYZ does not even have a libertarian party. I heard about the genesis of the libertarian movement from your interview on the Tom Woods Show, and thought you were the best person to ask. I also have ideas of my own to present, but don’t know how to go about organizing them, or sharing or publishing them. I would greatly appreciate your advice on any of these topics.




Loyola has a high tuition; this cannot be denied. However, this Jesuit University does award scholarships, not only on a need basis. As well there is the Walter Block Scholarship, which is additional to the funds offered by Loyola: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2018/12/introducing-walter-e-block-scholarship.html

Further info on the WB scholarship:

Block, Walter. 2019. “Prospective libertarian students should consider the Walter Block scholarship.” February 3;



The Walter Block Scholarship

I have been a professor of economics at Loyola since 2001. During that time, I have had numerous excellent students, who were interested in my research projects: Austrian economics and libertarian theory. I have been lucky that many of these students, while still in high school, read my publications and listened to my speeches, some in person for example at the Mises University, and others on the web. As a result, they enrolled at Loyola in order to study with me, and my half dozen fellow free enterprise professors. This might not sound like all that much, given that we have some 200 professors, but, believe me, Loyola New Orleans is a beacon of light as far as Rothbardianism and Misesianism are concerned. At next door Tulane University, with a faculty at least triple our size, there are only two professors who fit this bill. And at LSU in Baton Rouge, quadruple our size, there is not a single solitary professor who espouses such a political economic philosophy. Yes, we have numerous social justice warriors, Marxists, feminists, professors, as do virtually all universities. But, at least at Loyola, a student will be introduced to both sides of debatable issues, unlike at most universities. As well, with so many professors who appreciate economic freedom, there are many students who also do. According to research I have seen, one of the best predictors of student satisfaction is finding friends among the student body.  You will, here at Loyola.

So, if you are a student at a junior or two year university, which has no libertarian professors, and no students of this persuasion either, think of transferring to Loyola. If you are a high school student, getting ready to apply to university, consider us. If you are a parent or grandparent of a college age person, do consider suggesting that they apply for admission to Loyola, in order to study with me and my free enterprise fellow colleagues.

Just recently, a former student of mine has set up a Walter E. Block scholarship. It is worth $25,000, for the next four years, for a total of $100,000. I am now able to disburse these funds to Loyola students who demonstrate an interest in private property, free markets and limited government. Make no mistake about this, Loyola’s tuition is very high. However, my school does give generous scholarships, based on financial need, and also for other reasons. My scholarship money will be in addition to those funds, not a replacement for them. So, apply to Loyola, even if you thought our price tag was too high. With this scholarship money at my disposal, we can be financially competitive even with public universities.

This award is for students who are interested in studying the economics of free enterprise, who are supporters of the philosophy of private property rights, limited government, deregulation, free trade. Please provide me with evidence of your interest in this libertarian free market philosophy. Books you have read on this subject? Book reports on them? Term papers on this subject? Leaders of this philosophy by whom you have been influenced? As an application, please write me a letter along these lines. You can reach me at wblock@loyno.edu

Block, Walter. 2019. “Attention High School Students.” February 6;

Attention High School Seniors

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

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

Loyola Economics Students Published Widely in Refereed Journals; http://www.loyno.edu/news/story/2017/7/17/3962


Block, Walter. 2017. “The Best Place to Study Undergraduate Economics.” June 30; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2017/06/the-best-place-to-study-undergraduate.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

Wenzel, Robert. 2017. Interview with Walter E. Block. “The Inside Scoop on Studying Economics at Loyola University-New Orleans” September 3;



Block, Walter E. 2008. “Attention Students: Should You Get Your Ph.D. and Become a Professor?” June 28; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block104.html (debate with Gary North) https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/young-person-saved-from-academia/;


Top Ten Contemporary Academics Helping The Political Right (#8)


https://www.literature-map.com/max+stirner.html Literature map; some interesting writers

100 Most Influential Libertarians: A Newsmax/FreedomFest List (#46)


Block, Walter E. 2018. “Scholarship Opportunity: Spring 2019 New Business Students!” December 15; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/12/walter-e-block/scholarship-opportunity-spring-2019-new-business-students/

Wenzel, Robert. 2018. “An Opportunity to Study Under a Libertarian Great.” December 11;


Wenzel, Robert. 2018. “Introducing the Walter E. Block Scholarship.” December 11; http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2018/12/introducing-walter-e-block-scholarship.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

Our economics department: http://www.business.loyno.edu/bios/faculty?field_bio_program_filter_value=Economics

Walter E. Block is Harold E. Wirth Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics, College of Business, Loyola University New Orleans, and senior fellow at the Mises Institute. He earned his PhD in economics at Columbia University in 1972. He has taught at Rutgers, SUNY Stony Brook, Baruch CUNY, Holy Cross and the University of Central Arkansas. He is the author of more than 500 refereed articles in professional journals, two dozen books, and thousands of op eds. He lectures widely on college campuses, delivers seminars around the world and appears regularly on television and radio shows.  He is the Schlarbaum Laureate, Mises Institute, 2011; and has won the Loyola University Research Award (2005, 2008) and the Mises Institute’s Rothbard Medal of Freedom, 2005; and the Dux Academicus award, Loyola University, 2007.

Prof. Block counts among his friends Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard. He was converted to libertarianism by Ayn Rand. Block is old enough to have once met Ludwig von Mises, and shaken his hand. Block has never washed that hand since.  So, if you shake his hand (it’s pretty dirty, but what the heck) you channel Mises.

Block is a leading Austrian School economist and an international leader of the freedom movement. His earliest work Defending the Undefendable (first edition Fleet 1976, latest edition Mises 2008, translated in 12 languages) is now, more than 30 years later, still regarded as a classic of libertarianism. This collection of essays, which argues in behalf of societal villains as economic scapegoats based on the principles of nonaggression, forces its reader to think and to rethink his initial knee-jerk emotional responses, and to gain a new and far sounder appreciation of economic theory and of the virtues and operations of the free market economy. Block’s writing was inspired by Henry Hazlitt, the author of the most widely read economics text Economics in One Lesson. Block’s latest book is: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

Block has been a fixture in the libertarian movement for some four Decades. He actually met Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek, and was friends with, and mentored by, Murray Rothbard.  His contributions to academic libertarianism and to Austrian economics have been prodigious. Block’s writings continue to challenge the conventional wisdom (or ignorance) of how economics works and will retain its freshness for decades to come.  His public speaking style has been described as a combination of that of Woody Allen, Lenny Bruce and Murray Rothbard

Dr. Block has written over 500 articles for peer reviewed refereed journals, some two dozen books, and literally thousands of op eds for magazines and newspapers. Block appears widely on radio and television. He is a contributor to such scholarly journals as The Review of Austrian Economics, Journal of Libertarian Studies, The Journal of Labor Economics, and the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He is currently Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics, College of Business Administration, at Loyola University New Orleans….

Walter E. Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics at Loyola University New Orleans. His Ph.D. was from Columbia University. His interests include Austrian economics and libertarian theory. He has published almost 600 articles in refereed journals, 27 books, and thousands of op eds.He lectures globally at university campuses, business and civic groups. He has a series on privatization (roads, oceans and space); his most popular books are Defending the Undefendable I and II; he is now working on volume III in this series plus a libertarian analysis of abortion. His main claim to fame is that he once shook the hand of Ludwig von Mises, and never washed his hand afterward. It is now pretty dirty, but if you shake his hand, you channel this hero of his.


2:04 am on December 22, 2019

Please follow and like us:

Murder Is Always A Violation of the NAP, But it is Not Always Wrong. Part III

From: D
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 8:01 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: re: Murder

“If the Martians threaten to blow up our entire planet unless someone kills innocent person Joe, it is murder to do so, but it would not be wrong to murder him, paradoxically, saving all others except for him.”

I believe murder is ALWAYS morally wrong.  However, in a situation such as you describe it may (most likely will) be decided that the greater good necessitates that this wrong act is carried out.  However necessary it is,  it is still wrong and the perpetrator(s) must bear the guilt of this wrong act, whether or not they are punished for it. (Likely not punished)


Dear D:

Of course any decent person would have qualms about, feel guilty about, killing, murdering, an innocent person. However, I don’t see why it is morally wrong to save the entire planet. Maybe we just define “wrong” and “moral” differently.

Best regards,



2:03 am on December 22, 2019

Please follow and like us:
Follow by Email