≡ Menu

As a deontological libertarian, I have two main arguments in favor of open borders.

First, immigration without permission is not a per se violation of rights. To prove this, all I need is one example, even a theoretical one. Here’s mine: a Martian, or an African, comes to totally virgin territory in Alaska, or the Wyoming Rockies, and starts homesteading. He violates no rights. This is a victimless “crime.” In my book Defending I, I defended the pimp. Even if none of them refrained from beating up his prostitute, still, I could conceive of this occurring. That is all I need in my defense of the pimp, and the same goes for the illegal immigrant. Even if none of them homesteaded virgin territory, I can still conceive of this occurring.

Second, a reductio ad absurdum: an immigrant comes from outside of the US. So do new babies. The stork brings them from Storkovia (you’ve been led astray in your biology classes if you think otherwise). Thus, if it is justified to regulate the incoming of immigrants from Mexico, Africa, Asia, it is justified to regulate the incoming of babies from the country, Storkovia.

How, then, do we protect ourselves from rape-fugees, from truck-fugees, from being inundated by trillions of nice Martians, but with a different culture so that we lose ours? I answer this utilitarian objection as follows: privatize every single square inch of the US. Then, if immigrants come here, they must have the permission of the owners of the property in question. If not, they are trespassers. They no longer commit a victimless crime.

Libertarian theoreticians who favor regulated borders are so concerned about being over-run, about being victimized by criminal immigrants, that they are throwing the libertarian baby out with the utilitarian bathwater. They do not realize that immigration is not a per se violation of rights (if done on virgin territory)

I have published several refereed journals elaborating on these two justifications for open borders, and on how to have our cake and eat it too: to both adhere to libertarian principles and also be safe.

For my publications on this, see below.

Also see two letters criticizing my views on this matter. I suspect neither write has perused my scholarly publications on this matter.

Letter I:
From: P
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 2:57 PM

Cc: Walter Block

Subject: Open borders?

When Walter Block puts forth his argument for open borders, in the interest of transparency he ought to let his readers to know that he enjoys dual citizenship in both the U.S. and Canada, and therefore has a personal wormhole to escape any negative consequences resulting from permitting any and all entry into the U.S.

“One can’t have one’s cake and eat it too.”  The meaning of this is clear.  One can’t have both.  To say otherwise is an exercise in nonsense.  Why Walter Block tramples this perfectly clear figure-of-speech is a mystery.

Perhaps that’s part of why for me his argument for open borders falls flat.  I realize that Block says that only property that is not already privately owned would be available for use by immigrants.  In principal, few people calling themselves libertarians would oppose such an argument. But with all due respect, is that what we’re speaking about here, a Martian, or an African, or a Pakistani, descending into the middle of Alaska, or Wyoming in the Rockies, and starts to homestead virgin territory?  Certainly it is not.  Leaping from the example of one Pakistani family living on top of a mountain, to thousands upon thousands or even of millions of immigrants seeking and getting welfare benefits for the asking is an absurd comparison.

For another comparison, this, from Bionic Mosquito’s blog, by one of his commenters calling himself, “A Texas Libertarian,” “I think we all are utilitarians if you dig deep enough.  Would you advocate liberty purely based on the moral argument even if it’s real world effect could be reliably predicted to cause bad outcomes for most people?  As libertarians, we spend a good deal of our time learning, discussing, and arguing over why and how a stateless society will work.  If we weren’t utilitarians, we wouldn’t care if it would ‘work’ or not.”

This I think, is the position Professor Block puts himself in. He won’t consider the utilitarian position, i.e. what will be the actual outcome given the political reality in today’s world if open borders are sanctioned? Will it “work” or not?

Isn’t it paramount to consider not just the principle of open borders, but the reality of consequences for most people.

Kind regards,


From: M

Sent: Monday, March 04, 2019 11:32 AM

To: Walter Block

Subject: Re: immigrant vs baby

Dear Walter:

Suppose an immigrant has been a criminal all his life and is likely to continue being a criminal. Or suppose he’s an advocate of criminal acts, or even admits he may act criminally. Keeping him out is justifiable based on the probable consequences, whereas  the baby faces no such challenge.

Why ignore important and relevant facts? Why limit argument to appraisal of actions on their right and wrong merits according to a series of pre-set rules? Why ignore consequences?

Furthermore, how choose certain rules (in the deontological approach) unless one has some criteria to judge them? What might these criteria be? I’m sure at least some thinkers about ethics will justify the criteria by reference to what is good or not good or by consequences.

If the deonotological ethics depend on some morality, where does it come from? Why do moral codes exist and arise? Isn’t this because they codify certain behaviors that have consequences? There is no escape from bringing in consequences.

Your prediction of the baby’s behavior based on the parents is likely to be more noisy than a prediction of the 20-year old immigrant because you have more information about the immigrant’s actual behavior for 20 years. But you say that’s not the point anyway, because you are going deontological.

So, your other point: New babies are immigrants to the country. This is false. Most new babies are the offspring of people already in the country for some time. They will be raised in an American culture. There will be variation in the results because we have many sub-cultures, ethnicities, religions, groups, etc., but they’ll still be exposed to Americanization for 20 years.

The immigrant arrives having already been Mexicanized, or Europeanized, or Muslimized or whatever for 20 years. Calling the baby an immigrant ignores this fact. The baby is not an immigrant in the sense of starting out from the same point that the 20-year olf (sic) immigrant starts out from. M

My pubs on this:

Block, 1983A, 1983B, 1988, 1990, 1998, 2004, 2011A, 2011B, 2013, 2016A, 2016B, 2017; Block and Callahan, 2003; Deist, 2018; Gregory and Block, 2007;

Block, Walter E. 1983A. “How immigrants CREATE jobs,” North Shore News, p. A6, January 30; http://tinyurl.com/2xklvn

Block, Walter E. 1983B. “Protect Canadian Jobs From Immigrants?” Dollars and Sense. February 7; reprinted in Block, Walter E. 2008. Labor Economics from a Free Market Perspective: Employing the Unemployable.  London, UK: World Scientific Publishing; http://www.amazon.ca/Labor-Economics-Free-MarketPerspective/dp/9812705686/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336603241&sr=1-7;

Available for free here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B00FX9dsY4zJNXU5SmVKYVBQOWs/edit?usp=sharing;


Block, Walter E. 1988. Dollars and Sense: “Migration patterns tell real story.” January 12;

Block, Walter E. 1990.  “Immigration,” Fraser Forum, January, pp. 22-23.

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

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

Block, Walter E. 2011A. “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. 2011B. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on Immigration,” Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 22: pp. 771–792; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_38.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2013. “Rejoinder to Todea on the ‘Open’ Contract of Immigration.” The Scientific Journal of Humanistic Studies, Vol. 8, No. 5, March, pp. 52-55

Block, Walter E. 2015. “On immigration.” December 21;


Block, Walter E. 2016A. “Contra Hoppe and Brat on immigration.” Management Education Science Technology journal, Vol 4, No. 1, pp. 1-10;http://mest.meste.org/MEST_1_2016/Sadrzaj_eng.htmlhttp://mest.meste.org/MEST_1_2016/7_01.pdf; (1333

Block, Walter E. 2016B. “A response to the libertarian critics of open-borders libertarianism,” Lincoln Memorial University Law Review; Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 142-165;http://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/lmulrev/vol4/iss1/6/;


Block, Walter E. 2017. “Immigration and Homesteading.” March. The Journal Jurisprudence. Vol. 35, pp. 9-42; http://www.jurisprudence.com.au/juris35/block.pdf

Block, Walter E. and Gene Callahan. 2003. “Is There a Right to Immigration? A Libertarian Perspective,” Human Rights Review. Vol. 5, No. 1, October-December, pp. 46-71; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-callahan_right-immigrate-2003.pdf

Deist, Jeff. 2018. “Block on immigration.” September 4;


Gregory, Anthony and Walter E. Block. 2007. “On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 21, No. 3, Fall, pp. 25-42; http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_2.pdf; http://www.academia.edu/1360109/On_Immigration_Reply_to_Hoppe;



1:38 am on March 8, 2019

Please follow and like us:

Advertising, Part II

Dear Walter,

As always I admire your writings. I just saw this one on LRC about ads “conditioning” people to buy a product: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/is-laissez-faire-capitalism-evil-since-firms-condition-customers-to-buy-their-goods-no/

This reminds me of a conversation I had with Murray Rothbard many, many years ago on the subject.  He told me that there are three ways to view ads.

1: It “forces” people to buy something (Socialist view)

2: It “conditions” people to buy a product

3: It makes people aware of the option of the product (aka it tells them something they were not aware of).  (Austrian view)

2 and 3 are not completely opposite or exclusive of each other. However, I agree with Rothbard that 3 is more correct. Let me give an example: I drive down the highway and I see a Billboard sign saying “Does advertising work? It just did” … Well no. All it did was showing me an option to buy a billboard. It doesn’t mean I will.  Likewise with any other product they would put on the billboard. Commercials per se do not increase sales IMHO. Commercials as information on products might help customers to buy something they were not aware of in terms of brand. Like I might buy Gilette instead of BiC. I was already in the market for a shaver though. I just didn’t know about Gilette.

I hope I added a bit. Of course I’m aware you already knew this but the person asking you didn’t know ;o)

Thanks B

Dear B: Thanks for your kind words. Here’s a bibliography of Austrian, and some mainstream, views on advertising:


Becker, 1990; Telser, 1966.

Becker, Gary S. 1990. “A simple theory of advertising as a good.” Chicago: Center for the Study of the Economy and the State, University of Chicago

Telser, Lester G. 1966. “Supply and Demand for Advertising Messages,” American Economic Review, Vol. 56, May.


Benham, 1972; Block, 1976, 1979, 1997, 2003; Block, Barnett and Wood, 2002; Coase, 1977; Dyke, 2010; Ekelund and Sauman, 1988; Hayek, 1967; Kirzner, 1973; Ogilvy, 1985; Rothbard, 1978, 1993, 839-850;

Benham, Lee. 1972. “The Effect of Advertising on the Price of Eyeglasses,” 15 Journal of Law and Economics, October

Block, Walter E. 1976. “The Advertiser as Hero.” Defending the Undefendable, New York: Fox and Wilkes, pp.  68-79

Block, Walter E. 1979. “Billboards.” The Libertarian Forum. Vol. 12, No. 6, November-December, p. 8; http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1979/1979_11-12.pdfhttp://

Block, Walter E. 1997. “Tobacco Advertising,” International Journal of Value Based Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, May, pp. 221-235.

Block, Walter E. 2003.  “Coordination Economies, Advertising and Search Behavior in Retail Markets by Bagwell and Ramey: A Comment,” Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 80-86
Block, Walter E. William Barnett II and Stuart Wood. 2002. “Austrian Economics, Neoclassical Economics, Marketing and Finance,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Summer, Vol. V, No. 2, pp. 51-66; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae5_2_4.pdf

Coase, Ronald H. 1977. “Advertising in Free Speech,” Journal of Legal Studies, 6:1-34

Dyke, Jeremiah. 2010. “The Supposed Sham of Advertising” April 2; http://mises.org/daily/4207

Ekelund, Robert B. Jr., and David S. Sauman. 1988.  Advertising and the Market Process, San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute

Hayek, Friedrich A. 1967. “The Non Sequitur of the ‘Dependence Effect,’” in Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, New York, Simon and Schuster

Kirzner, Israel M. 1973. Competition and Entrepreneurship, Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Ogilvy, David. 1985. Ogilvy on Advertising. New York: Vintage Books.

Reisman, George. 2006. “Galbraith’s Neo-Feudalism”


Rothbard, Murray N. 1978. “The Tarring and Feathering of John Kenneth Galbraith.”  The Mercury, January, pp. 25‑32.

Rothbard, Murray N. (1993 [1962]).  Man, Economy, and State, 2 vols., Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mespm.pdf


5:49 pm on March 7, 2019

Please follow and like us:

Is Laissez Faire Capitalism Evil Since Firms “Condition” Customers to Buy Their Goods? No.

From: B

Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 8:19 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Did Rothbard Smoke?

Dear Prof. Block,

I’m writing because I have a couple questions I’d like to ask. First, during episode 1200 of the Tom Woods Show, you described Murray Rothbard as everything your parents warned you about, saying that he smoked. But in Rothbard’s article ‘The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult’, he says that he’s allergic to smoke. Did Rothbard smoke?

Second, I’ve run into an anti-capitalist argument that has me stumped. A friend made a case that went something like this: “under capitalism, firms are incentivized to engage in advertisement in order to attract demand. Advertisement is the manufacturing of demand; a person may not want a new car, but effective advertising can psychologically condition him to want it.” It doesn’t appear a very powerful argument, but it’s the only interventionist argument I’ve run across against which I’m not sure how to argue. In your view, what is the correct way to reply to this argument?

I very much appreciate you taking your time to read this and hope to hear from you. Kind regards, B

Dear B:

I fear I erred on the smoking business. Murray did not smoke.

On advertising, we all do this to each other all the time.

A boy wants to date a girl. She’s reluctant. So, he buys her flowers. He “conditions” her to want him. A girl wants to attract a boy. He’s indifferent to her. So, she wears makeup. She “conditions” him to want her. I usually dress sloppy. I go on a job interview. I wear a suit and tie. I’m trying to “condition” the employer to hire me. I want to get my students to study. They are lazy, don’t want to. So I “condition” them to study by mentioning an upcoming exam. The six year old doesn’t want to go to bed. So the parent “conditions” him to do so by offering bribes, making threats.

There’s nothing untoward about such “conditioning.” It’s a basic part of the human experience. Capitalists do this too. This is not a rights violation.

Best regards,



1:35 am on March 7, 2019

Please follow and like us:

From: R
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 2:11 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Inquiry about research

Hello Dr. Block!

We’ve corresponded a couple of years ago following the Ron Paul convention. I appreciated the reading material that you provided for me at that time on your theory of “eviction” instead of abortion. However, I’m currently researching information on an article I’m about to write for my blog, “The Blue Collar Economist” and subsequently as an op-ed for Epic Times, about the Flint Michigan water scandal.

Specifically, I’m attempting to tie Ronald Coase into this story. I want to appeal to the reader how important private property rights are and how much of this could have been avoided had private markets provided the water for Flint. I’m needing help in the history of how tort reforms have impeded the public from suing for damages (the public good vs. individual rights). I understand the concepts of Sovereign Immunity where governments are protected from public lawsuits via English Common Law and the Right of Kings. Where I need material is in the private market area. When did the courts begin to discourage suing fledgling industries for externalities? The Coase Theorem ties into this, I understand.

I know you’ve done a yeoman’s work in these areas. Anything you might shove my way that you have written on about these topics would be greatly appreciated. I intend to site your work in this article as well.

Thanks ahead of time!


Dear R:

Here are some critical pubs on Coase:

Coase, Ronald H. 1960. “The Problem of Social Cost,” Journal of Law and Economics, 3:1-44;  http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/UCSBpf/readings/coase.pdf

Anti Coase:: Austro libertarian critics of Coasean law and economics:: Coase critics:

Barnett and Block, 2005, 2007, 2009; Block 1977, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2010A, 2010B, 2010C, 2011; Block, Barnett and Callahan, 2005; Cordato, 1989, 1992a, 1992b, 1997, 1998, 2000; DiLorenzo, 2014; Fox, 2007; Hoppe, 2004; Krause, 1999; Krecke, 1996; Lewin, 1982; North, 1990, 1992, 2002; Rothbard, 1982, 1997; Stringham, 2001; Stringham and White, 2004; Terrell, 1999.

Barnett, William II and Walter E. Block. 2005. “Professor Tullock on Austrian Business Cycle Theory,” Advances in Austrian Economics, Vol. 8, pp. 431-443

Barnett, William II and Walter E. Block. 2007. “Coase and Van Zandt on Lighthouses,” Public Finance Review, Vol. 35, No. 6, November, pp. 710-733; http://pfr.sagepub.com/content/35/6/710

Barnett, William and Walter E. Block. 2009. “Coase and Bertrand on Lighthouses,” Public Choice; 140(1–2):1–13, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11127-008-9375-x

Block, Walter E. 1977. “Coase and Demsetz on Private Property Rights,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Review, Vol. I, No. 2, Spring, pp. 111-115, http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_4.pdf; reprint translation: “Coase y Demsetz sobre el derecho de propiedad privada,” Libertas 37, Octubre de 2002, año XIX, pp.5-20.

Block, Walter E. 1995. “Ethics, Efficiency, Coasean Property Rights and Psychic Income: A Reply to Demsetz,” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 61-125, http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae8_2_4.pdf; http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/r82_4.pdf; reprint translation: “Ética, eficiencia, derechos de propiedad Coasianos e ingreso psíquico: una respuesta a Demsetz,” Libertas 37, octubre de 2002, año XIX, pp. 71-210

Block, Walter 1996. “O.J.’s Defense: A Reductio Ad Absurdum of the Economics of Ronald Coase and Richard Posner,” European Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 3, pp. 265-286; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block_oj’s-defense.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2000. “Private Property Rights, Erroneous Interpretations, Morality and Economics: Reply to Demsetz,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring, pp. 63-78; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae3_1_8.pdf; reprint translation: “Derecho de propiedad privada, interpretaciones erróneas, moralidad y economía: en respuesta a Demsetz,” Libertas 37, octubre de 2002, año XIX, pp. 227-264

Block, Walter E. 2003. “Private property rights, economic freedom, and Professor Coase: A Critique of Friedman, McCloskey, Medema and Zorn,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 26, No. 3, Summer, pp. 923-951; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2782/is_3_26/ai_n6640908/?tag=content

Block, Walter E. 2006. “Coase and Kelo: Ominous Parallels and Reply to Lott on Rothbard on Coase,” Whittier Law Review, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 997-1022; https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=27+Whittier+L.+Rev.+997&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=7abe221cecca64ce06068c3cbfa36fd1

Block, Walter E. 2010A. “A Response to Brooks’ Support of Demsetz on the Coase Theorem.” Dialogue, Vol. 2; http://www.uni-svishtov.bg/dialog/2010/2.10.WB.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2010B. “Rejoinder to Brooks on Coase and Demsetz.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 13, No. 4, Winter, pp. 56-73; http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae13_4_3.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2010C. “Rejoinder to Boettke on Coasean Economics and Communism.” Romanian Economic and Business Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, Fall, pp. 9-90; http://www.rebe.rau.ro/REBE%205%203.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2011. “Rejoinder to Bertrand on lighthouses.” Romanian Economic and Business Review, Vol. 6, No. 3, Fall, pp. 49-67; http://www.rebe.rau.ro/REBE%206%203.pdf

Block, Walter E., William Barnett II and Gene Callahan. 2005. “The Paradox of Coase as a Defender of Free Markets,” NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1075-1095; http://tinyurl.com/2hbzd4; http://www.nyujll.org/articles/Vol.%201%20No.%203/Vol.%201%20No.%203%20-%20Barnett,%20Block%20and%20Callahan.pdf; http://tinyurl.com/2hbzd4

to be reprinted in Mario Rizzo, ed. forthcoming. Austrian Law and Economics

Cordato, Roy E. 1989. “Subjective Value, Time Passage, and the Economics of Harmful Effects,” Hamline Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, Spring, pp.229-244.

Cordato, Roy E. 1992A. “Knowledge Problems and the Problem of Social Cost” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol.14, Fall, pp. 209-224.

Cordato, Roy E. 1992B. Welfare Economics and Externalities in an Open-Ended Universe: A Modern Austrian Perspective, Boston: Kluwer.

Cordato, Roy E. 1997. “Market-Based Environmentalism and the Free Market: They’re Not the Same,” The Independent Review, Vol. 1, No. 3, Winter, pp. 371-386.

Cordato, Roy. 1998. “Time Passage and the Economics of Coming to the Nuisance: Reassessing the Coasean Perspective,” Campbell Law Review, vol. 20, No. 2, Spring, pp. 273-292

Cordato, Roy. 2000. “Chasing Phantoms in a Hollow Defense of Coase” The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 13, No. 2, September, pp. 193-208.

DiLorenzo, Tom. 2014. “When Did Ronald Coase Become the Ayatollah of Economic Theory?” January 2; https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/01/thomas-dilorenzo/the-beltarian-cult/

Fox, Glenn. 2007. “The Real Coase Theorems.” The Cato Journal: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Public Policy Analysis. Volume 27 Number 3, Fall, pp. 373-396; http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj27n3/cj27n3-5.pdf

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2004. “The Ethics and Economics of Private Property.” October 11; https://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe11.html

Krauss, Michael. 1999. “Tort Law, Moral Accountability, and Efficiency: Reflections on the Current Crisis” Markets and Morality, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring; http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/1999_spr/krauss.html

Krecke, Elisabeth. 1996. “Law and the Market Order: An Austrian Critique of the Economic Analysis of Law,” Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines 7(1), March, pp.19-37; Commentaries on Law&Economics, 1997 Yearbook, ed., Robert W. McGee, pp.86-109.

Lewin, Peter.  1982. “Pollution Externalities: Social Cost and Strict Liability.”  Cato Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, Spring, pp. 205-229.

North, Gary. 1990. Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus, Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics.

North, Gary. 1992. The Coase Theorem, Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics

North, Gary. 2002. “Undermining Property Rights: Coase and Becker,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Review, Vol. 16, No. 4, Fall, pp. 75-100; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/16_4/16_4_5.pdf

Rothbard, Murray N. 1982. “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution,” Cato Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring; reprinted in Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation, Walter E. Block , ed., Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1990, pp. 233-279. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf; http://mises.org/story/2120

Rothbard, Murray N. 1997.  “Value Implications of Economic Theory,” Logic of Action I (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar), pp. 255-265.

Stringham, Edward Peter, and Mark White. 2004. “Economic Analysis of Tort Law: Austrian and Kantian Perspectives.” In Law and Economics: Alternative Economic Approaches to Legal and Regulatory Issues, ed. Margaret Oppenheimer and Nicholas Mercuro, 374-392. New York: M.E. Sharpe. http://www.sjsu.edu/stringham/docs/Stringham.and.White2005.pdf

Stringham, Edward. 2001. “Kaldor-Hicks Efficiency and the Problem of Central Planning,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 4, No. 2, Summer, 41-50; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae4_2_3.pdf

Terrell, Timothy D. 1999. “Property Rights and Externality: The Ethics of the Austrian School.” Journal of Markets and Morality. Vol. 2, No. 2, Fall; http://www.acton.org/publications/mandm/mandm_article_114.php

Debate: Block vs. Demsetz: Block – Demsetz debate (on Ronald Coase):

1. Block, Walter E. 1977. “Coase and Demsetz on Private Property Rights,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Review, Vol. I, No. 2, 1977, pp. 111-115; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_4.pdf

2. Demsetz, Harold. 1979. “Ethics and Efficiency in Property Rights Systems,” in Time, Uncertainty and Disequilibrium: Explorations of Austrian Themes, Mario Rizzo, ed., Lexington Mass.: D.C. Heath and Co; http://mises.org/Books/timeuncertainty.pdf (see chapter 5)

3. Block, Walter E. 1995. “Ethics, Efficiency, Coasean Property Rights and Psychic Income: A Reply to Demsetz,” Review of Austrian Economics, 8 (2): 61-125, http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae8_2_4.pdf

4. Demsetz, Harold. 1997. “Block’s Erroneous Interpretations,” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 101-109; http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae10_2_6.pdf

5. Block, Walter E. 2000. “Private Property Rights, Erroneous Interpretations, Morality and Economics: Reply to Demsetz,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring, pp. 63-78; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae3_1_8.pdf

Block-Lott Debate on Coase

Lott, John R. 1983-1984. “A Note on Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution.” Cato Journal. Volume 3 Number 3, Winter, pp. 875-878

Block responded here:

Block, Walter E. 2006. “Coase and Kelo: Ominous Parallels and Reply to Lott on Rothbard on Coase,” Whittier Law Review, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 997-1022

Lott did not reply to this Block, 2006.


5:15 pm on March 6, 2019

Please follow and like us:

What Is The Libertarian Solution To High Drug Prices? (read from the bottom up)

Dear C:

Of interest:

Block, Walter E. 2018. “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/

I’m glad that at least some of your neighbors are nice people.

Best regards,


From: C

Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 12:06 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Re: Great talk on Intro to, Boo/Hiss NYTimes … plus ONE question


Wow! Thanks for the links. May take me a while so before I forget, here is the link re your NY Times lawsuit: https://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2015/05/walter_block_lawsuit_times.html

Regards, C

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:36 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear C:

Who told you, where did you learn, that I lost my lawsuit against the NYTimes?

The answer to your question is this: in the free society, there’d be no intellectual property rights; no patents on drugs. If a pharmaceutical firm charged a very high price this would be an invitation for reverse engineering. See below for readings on this:

Block, 2013; Boldrin and Levine, 2008; De Wachter, 2013; Kinsella, 2001, 2012; Long, 1995; Menell, 2007A, 2007B; Mukherjee and Block, 2012; Navabi, 2015; Palmer, 1989.

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

Boldrin, Michele & David K. Levine. 2008. Against Intellectual Monopoly. http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm; http://mises.org/store/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-P552.aspx

De Wachter, Joren. 2013. “IP is a thought crime.” at TEDxLeuven. June 6;

Kinsella, N. Stephan. 2001. “Against Intellectual Property,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2, Winter, pp. 1-53; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

Kinsella, N. Stephan. 2012. “Economic Freedom of the World Rankings and Intellectual Property: The United States’ Bad Ranking is Even Worse Than Reported.” http://c4sif.org/2012/09/economic-freedom-of-the-world-indexes-and-intellectual-property-the-united-states-bad-ranking-is-even-worse-than-reported/

Long, Roderick. 1995. “The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights.” Formulations. Vol. 3, No. 1, Autumn; http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

Menell, Peter S. 2007. “Intellectual Property and the Property Rights Movement.” Regulation, Fall; http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n3/v30n3-6.pdf

Menell, Peter S. 2007. “The Property Rights Movement’s Embrace of Intellectual Property: True Love or Doomed Relationship?” Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 34.

Mukherjee, Jay and Walter E. Block. 2012. “Libertarians and the Catholic Church on Intellectual Property Laws.” Journal of Political Philosophy Las Torres de Lucca. Issue No. 1, July-December, pp. 59-75;


Navabi, Ash. 2015. “To Taylor, Love Freedom.” June 23;


Palmer, Tom. 1989. “Intellectual Property: A Non-Posnerian Law and Economics Approach” Hamline Law Review, Spring, Vol 12 No. 2.

Best regards,


From: C

Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 2:46 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Great talk on Intro to, Boo/Hiss NYTimes … plus ONE question

Mr. Block,

Saw/heard your talk on Intro to Libertarianism on youtube.

Thank you so much for such an intelligent, yet intelligible,

presentation of Libertarian philosophy. You so mirrored my

own philosophy that it was all I could do to shout “Amen!”

Sorry about your losing your NY Times suit. All of us

not on the left should be/grow accustomed to the Left’s/Socialists’

taking small bits of data/information out of context and

misusing them as smear campaigns with which to undermine

any/all positions not advocated by them.

That’s what has given rise to political correctness, safe spaces,

and such restraints on freedom of speech, expression, and conscience,

unless you espouse a Socialist ideology.

It has also given rise to virtual “show trials” such as that of

Kavanuagh’s nomination hearings. (I was nearly raped

[I fought back against brute force- no weapons, thank goodness]

no less than 3 times and I remember everything.

Just sayin,’ plus I’m wondering: Are white girls taught

not to fight back when they are attacked without weapons?

Also, unless your parent was a veterinarian date-rape drugs

Did not really “exist” at the time [She’s my age, so I know].

I can understand not fighting back against knives/guns.)

Anyways, I actually have a question that I have not found a

Libertarian answer to, as follows. I am all in favor of

what the market will bear, however:

What if you develop a drug against a mortal disease

such as cancer or AIDS and demand a huge price that

none except the very wealthy can afford? This seems

to have happened with Hugin’s cancer medication and

an AIDS drug that went from $13.50 to $700+ overnight.

If you could point me (via hyperlink to a Libertarian reponse

I would very much appreciate it.

Congratulations on your happy gift for explaining things

clearly and rationally. Everything you said made sense to me.

BTW: As a New YoRican female, we moved into a very racist,

white neighborhood and I felt anyone had a perfect right to hate me.

However, they did not have the right to hurt me or

“get in my face” as you yourself mentioned. However, it wasn’t all bad.

I made a few friends in spite of their parents and, after a few years,

the neighborhood’s prejudices actually diminished considerably.

Best Regards, C


3:52 pm on March 5, 2019

Please follow and like us:

From: A
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2018 11:24 PM
To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>
Subject: Blockean Proviso

Dear Dr Block,

I have a question regarding the “Blockean Proviso”, your view on homesteading. If for example, a person owns a donut of property and others happen to live in the circle in the donut, you believe that they would be trapped if not let out, and hence the person who owns the donut must let them through if they want to get out. If you accept this position, wouldn’t you also accept that if all roads were privatized, people living in their houses are “trapped” and should hence be given free access to the roads. Even if those who can afford to pay should be forced to do so, then what would happen to those who can’t afford to pay? If we are “trapped”, wouldn’t that then give us the right to walk on anyone’s property to escape from being “trapped”?

Thank you!

I try to deal with the problem of being “trapped” in this book on pp. 264-269:

Block, Walter E. 2009. The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors; Auburn, AL: The Mises Institute; http://www.amazon.com/Privatization-Roads-And-Highways-Factors/dp/1279887303/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336605800&sr=1-1; available for free here: http://mises.org/books/roads_web.pdfhttp://mises.org/daily/3416http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/radical_privatization.pdf; audio: http://store.mises.org/Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Audiobook-P11005.aspxhttp://www.audible.com/pd/Business/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Audiobook/B0167IT18K?tag=misesinsti-20http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=bf16b152ccc444bdbbcc229e4&id=6cbc90577b&e=54244ea97d


here is my pub on the donut or bagel issue:

Kinsella, Stephan. 2007. “The Blockean Proviso.” September 11;


Block’s Proviso: http://blog.mises.org/?p=007127

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

Block, Walter E. 2004. “Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children’s Rights,” International Journal of Social Economics; Vol. 31, No. 3, pp 275-286; http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContainer.do?containerType=Issue&containerId=18709http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf;https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/03068290410518256; https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03068290410518256?fullSc=1&journalCode=ijse


1:42 am on March 5, 2019

Please follow and like us:

What Is The Proper U.S. Foreign Policy Regarding Dictators Abroad?

From: R
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2018 3:25 AM
To: Walter Block <Wblock@loyno.edu>
Subject: Idlib

Dr. Block,

It seems like Assad is going to order his troops to enter Idlib within a week, maybe sooner. What if a promise is made to the Turks that the Kurds now armed and engaged will not be allowed passage through Tell Abyad? And, that so-called “refugees” would be stopped (meaning killed) before they flood Al-Hawa?

Erdogan is a scoundrel no doubt, but the 2016 election and Hillary-Neocon gambit back-stabbed him even after he had helped Israel and the Saudis by selling their ISIS stolen oil. His biggest concern politically is the Kurd problem and has been.

One thing I am sure of, victory for the Syrian government will be met with a thunderous sound of silence in the western media. I think the jig is already up on the false-flag tactic of chemical gas that would justify F-16 bombings.

What are your thoughts? What have you heard?


Dear R:

My thought is that the US should stay entirely out of this. The sole function of the US government according to the limited government version of libertarianism, is to protect US citizens, and visitors, in the domestic US (in the anarchist version of libertarianism, the US government, no government, should even exist). There are many evil dictators all around the world. In Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, China, Syria and many others. The position of the US government with regard to all of them should be to ignore them all. If individual US citizens want to go abroad to make the “world safe for democracy” or safe for anything else, there is nothing in the libertarian philosophy to stop them. Let them borrow a leaf from the Lincoln Brigade, a bunch of private citizens from the US, the UK, and elsewhere, who went to Spain in 1936 to fight Franco. But the US government should adopt a strict hands-off policy; it should confine itself to protecting us from foreign aggression. At the present time, there is no country, no groups of individuals with the power, or the intention, to invade us, to conquer us. (I don’t count unarmed Mexicans trying to cross our border as an invading army. Certainly, the US should not invade Mexico to stop this flow of immigrants).

Best regards,



1:41 am on March 5, 2019

Please follow and like us:

From: S

Sent: Sun 1/1/2017 7:27 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Corporate legitimacy

Dear Professor Block,

I often see people make the argument that you posted from MM, that governments designate corporations and therefore they are not legitimate. It seems to me that this is confusing legitimate institutions with which the government meddles with illegitimate institutions which the government *creates*. Government regulations and taxation can create incentives to set up an institution like a corporation or a marriage, but people might organize into corporations or marriages for reasons outside of coercive governments. The Bureau of Motor Vehicles, on the other hand, *only* exists because of government. Do any of the articles you posted address that? Would it be possible to post those as hotlinks on the blog, or is there a place where they are hotlinked?

Thank you, S

Dear S:

I agree with you entirely. Private corporations are compatible with libertarianism, government bureaus are not. Here are some readings for you on this:

Hessen, Robert. 1979. In Defense of the Corporation Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press,

Huebert, J. H. and Walter E. Block. 2008. “In Defense of Corporations, Tax Breaks, and Wal-Mart” November 24; http://www.jhhuebert.com/articles/corporations.html

Huebert, J. H. and Walter E. Block. 2008. “Response to Long on Corporations, Unions, and Wal-Mart.” December 12; http://jhhuebert.com/articles/response-to-long-on-corporations-unions-and-wal-mart/http://www.jhhuebert.com/articles/corporations2.htmlhttps://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024387.html

Block, Walter E. and J.H. Huebert. 2008-2009. “Defending Corporations (reply to van Eeghen.)” Cumberland Law Review, Vol. 39(2), pp. 363-385; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-huebert_defending-corporations-2009.pdf;



Klein, Peter G. 2008A.  “Long on the corporation.” November 10;


Klein, Peter G. 2008B. “More on the Corporation.”  November 8


Here are the links to Roderick’s pieces in the exchange: https://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/12/01/government-and-the-corporation/

Klein (2007A, 2007B, 2008A, 2008B)

Klein, Peter G. 2007A. “The Wikified Firm.” February 6;


Klein, Peter G. 2007B. “Vaguely Defined Property Rights.” April 4;


Klein, Peter G. 2008A. “Long on the Corporation.” November 10



Klein, Peter G. 2008B.  “More on the Corporation.” November 30



Long (2008A, 2008B)

Long, Roderick T. 2008A. “Corporations versus the Market; or, Whip Conflation Now.” November 10; http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corporations-versus-the-market-or-whip-conflation-now/

Long, Roderick T. 2008B. “Free Market Firms: Smaller, Flatter, and More Crowded.” November 25; https://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/25/roderick-t-long/free-market-firms-smaller-flatter-more-crowded


4:26 pm on March 4, 2019

Please follow and like us:

From: X
Sent: Wed 12/21/2016 3:48 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: introduction

Externality has a pop meaning, i.e. “harm.” Harm can rise to the level of an NAP violation. I’m talking about externalities in the political sense and legal sense.

But you haven’t helped the small town Alabamians. Unless and until they successfully abolish government, are they responsible for bearing the cost Tyson’s won’t bear? Must they move, and seek a stateless society? Are they effectively at fault for allowing taxpayer-funded compulsion to arise?

People having babies is not the same as people migrating. Related, but not the same. Fears of “outbreeding,” say by Arabs in Israel, is a reason for Israel to restrict Arab migrants in the first place. Not saying Israel should, but rather that the stork problem is not a direct analogy to the migrant issue.

Ok, so what’s your answer for the small town in Alabama? S**t happens?

Dear X:

There is a sharp distinction, between harm and NAP violations. A chasm. We may, compatibly with libt law, harm each other in a myriad of ways. A can seduce B’s finance away from him. C can open a store next door to D, and “steal” all his customers away from him. E can beat F in tennis. All these things are harmful to B, D and F, but entirely legal under our libt philosophy. The very essence of libertarianism, at least as I see it, is to distinguish these things, one from the other. You, in contrast, are trying to conflate them.

Anything you say about an immigrant (he’ll commit a crime, be a burden, change our culture, etc), I can say about a baby, 18 years later. Anything. Can you offer a counterexample? If it is justified on libt grounds to prevent immigration, or reduce it, or regulate it, the same goes for babies; here comes the Chinese one-baby policy. No one will accept the latter. The former can only be accepted on a logically inconsistent basis.

No. My answer is, no public schools, no public hospitals. Even more deeply, no Mexican workers in the first place, or at the very least, no inundation of them; yes, maybe, a few of them; invitees, only. If every square inch not only of Alabama, but Alaska, Wyoming, the entire country, is privately owned, the only people coming to this country will be those who are explicitly invited. And, if you’re an invitee, your host is responsible for your behavior.

Forget about that small town in Alabama. Let’s talk about the rapefugees in Germany. Say Merkel invites a dozen of them to her house (she can only invite, say, that many, not 1 million of them, they won’t all fit into her house!). And, now, a few of them go out and commit rape. SHE is responsible for these rapefugees’ actions. She aided and abetted a rape. She goes to jail (actually, libertarian punishment theory is a bit more draconian than that, but that’s another story), along with them of course. This ought to slow down the invitees from Muslim countries quite a bit.

As I said, in my view, we get to have our cake and eat it too. In “my” (private property right!) system we can be just as safe as in Hans’. But, with mine, we can adhere to the NAP. With Hans’, we can’t. Murray changed his mind on this because the USSR stuck hundreds of thousands of Russians in small places like Latvia, Lithuania, etc. But this was statism! This was not the operation of the free enterprise system.

My answer for the small town in Alabama is this: adopt the proper libertarian view on immigration (mine), and in that way we’ll both be safe and, also, just.


1:45 am on March 4, 2019

Please follow and like us:

What is the Correct Libertarian Position on Open Borders? That of Hoppe or Block?

Dear Walter:

What is your opinion of this essay by Jeff Deist; it mentions you and Hans Hoppe as taking incompatible positions on immigration:

Deist, Jeff. 2016. “Market Borders, not Open Borders.” December 20;


Deist writes as follows:

“Immigration and borders have been debated at length, and vociferously, by libertarians. Probably no better examples exist than several exchanges by open borders advocate Walter Block and restricted immigration advocate Hans Hermann Hoppe.  There is little to say about the subject that is novel or more insightful than what Block and Hoppe already have provided. That said, certain points bear repeating or elaboration…”

Thanks, X

Dear X:

To me, this issue is clear: with open borders, and full private property rights over every square inch of land, we can have our cake and eat it too: we can be true to the NAP, and, also, be safe from the problems now besetting Germany, mentioned by Deist. With Hans’ view, we can only have the latter.

Answer me this: A Martian, or an African, or a Pakistani, descends into the middle of Alaska, or Wyoming in the Rockies, and starts to homestead virgin territory (claimed by the BLM). Did he thereby violate the NAP, the foundation of our libertarian philosophy? Of course not. So Hans’ soldiers, who will stop this illegal immigrant, are acting incompatibly with the NAP, I claim.

What about immigrants from Storkovia? The logical implication of Hans’ view is that you’ll need a permit to give birth to a baby.

I don’t see how you can take a neutral view on this. It seems to me I am entirely in the right here, and Hans and Murray entirely in the wrong. I’d be happy to debate Hans, or anyone else, on this matter, either at the AERC or the MU or at a Mises Circle; I’ll betcha this would perk up our students and general audience.

Here are my pubs on this matter, which I think are definitive:

Block, 1983A, 1983B, 1988, 1990, 1998, 2004, 2011A, 2011B, 2013, 2016A, 2016B; Block and Callahan, 2003; Gregory and Block, 2007;

Block, Walter E. 1983A. “How immigrants CREATE jobs,” North Shore News, p. A6, January 30; http://tinyurl.com/2xklvn

Block, Walter E. 1983B. “Protect Canadian Jobs From Immigrants?” Dollars and Sense. February 7; reprinted in Block, Walter E. 2008. Labor Economics from a Free Market Perspective: Employing the Unemployable.  London, UK: World Scientific Publishing; http://www.amazon.ca/Labor-Economics-Free-Market Perspective/dp/9812705686/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336603241&sr=1-7;

Available for free here: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B00FX9dsY4zJNXU5SmVKYVBQOWs/edit?usp=sharing;


Block, Walter E. 1988. Dollars and Sense: “Migration patterns tell real story.” January 12;

Block, Walter E. 1990.  “Immigration,” Fraser Forum, January, pp. 22-23.

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

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

Block, Walter E. 2011A. “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. 2011B. “Rejoinder to Hoppe on Immigration,” Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. 22: pp. 771–792; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_38.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2013. “Rejoinder to Todea on the ‘Open’ Contract of Immigration.” The Scientific Journal of Humanistic Studies, Vol. 8, No. 5, March, pp. 52-55

Block, Walter E. 2015. “On immigration.” December 21;


Block, Walter E. 2016A. “Contra Hoppe and Brat on immigration.” Management Education Science Technology journal, Vol 4, No. 1, pp. 1-10; http://mest.meste.org/MEST_1_2016/Sadrzaj_eng.html; http://mest.meste.org/MEST_1_2016/7_01.pdf; (1333)

Block, Walter E. 2016B. “A response to the libertarian critics of open-borders libertarianism,” Lincoln Memorial University Law Review; Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 142-165; +http://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/lmulrev/vol4/iss1/6/;


Block, Walter E. and Gene Callahan. 2003. “Is There a Right to Immigration? A Libertarian Perspective,” Human Rights Review. Vol. 5, No. 1, October-December, pp. 46-71; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-callahan_right-immigrate-2003.pdf

Gregory, Anthony and Walter E. Block. 2007. “On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 21, No. 3, Fall, pp. 25-42; http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_2.pdf; http://www.academia.edu/1360109/On_Immigration_Reply_to_Hoppe

Best regards,



5:24 pm on March 2, 2019

Please follow and like us:
Follow by Email