≡ Menu

From: P
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2019 7:27 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: A Question About the NAP

Hello Dr Block,

On a recent podcast, Nick Gillespie stated, “25 years ago no libertarian was talking about the NAP.” Basically, he was saying it’s only become a bedrock of Libertarianism in the Ron Paul era. Can you confirm?

Thank you, P

Dear Pete:

Isn’t 25 years ago 1996? Murray Rothbard “was talking about the NAP” in the 1950s, certainly before then.

I’m not a big fan of Nick Gillespies’:

November 1, 2016. NYC.  Soho Forum  https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/debate-reasons-nick-gillespie-trump-president-slavery-nytimes/ Gene Epstein gene.epstein@gmail.com

go here, http://www.thesohoforum.org/; then here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNHcqc6jNrg (the debate starts at the 19 minute mark) Resolved: “Libertarians should vote for Donald Trump for president.”

Debate: Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans versus Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine; https://twitter.com/skycorridors/status/793580125488943105 (the debate starts at around the 24 minute mark; the comedic introduction starts at about the 18 minute mark);

http://141.164.71.80/exchange/walterblock/Deleted%20Items/Good%20job.EML/1_multipart_xF8FF_2_walter%20vs%20douchebag.jpg/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/walter%20vs%20douchebag.jpg?attach=1http://sohovote.com/;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/upcoming-speaking-engagements-youre-town-cmon/;http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/25/should-libertarians-vote-trump-nick-gillwww.thesohoforum.org.  Tickets can be reserved here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-soho-forum-debate-walter-block-vs-nick-gillespie-tickets-26140849986;  http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?499611-Nick-Gillespie-debating-Walter-Block gene.epstein@gmail.comthesohoforum@gmail.comnaomibrockwell@gmail.com November 1, 2016. NYC.  Soho Forum (http://www.thesohoforum.org/) Debate: Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans versus Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine; Resolved: “Libertarians should vote for Donald Trump for president.”  https://twitter.com/skycorridors/status/793580125488943105; (the debate starts at around the 24 minute mark; the comedic introduction starts near the 18 minute mark)

http://141.164.71.80/exchange/walterblock/Deleted%20Items/Good%20job.EML/1_multipart_xF8FF_2_walter%20vs%20douchebag.jpg/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/walter%20vs%20douchebag.jpg?attach=1http://sohovote.com/http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/02/walter-block-nick-gillespie-debate;https://twitter.com/SkyCorridorshttp://www.targetliberty.com/2016/11/last-nights-walter-block-nick-gillespie.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TargetLiberty+%28Target+Liberty%29http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/02/walter-block-nick-gillespie-debatehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNHcqc6jNrghttp://www.targetliberty.com/2016/11/the-debate-walter-block-vs-nick_3.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TargetLiberty+%28Target+Liberty%29https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/walter-block-demolishes-dishonest-nick-gillespie-debate/;http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/03/video-nick-gillespie-and-walter-block-de

Here is my summary of the debate, with reasons why I think I won:

1. Dr. Nick Gillespie has his own central planning industrial policy: factory jobs are bad.

2. He thinks the supreme court is unimportant. So what that Hillary will appoint more pinkos

3. He denigrated free association as unimportant. So what that the baker had to pay a fine of $130,000 for refusing to service a gay wedding

4. In his view, the rust belt had nothing to do with labor unions

5. He kept interrupting me all throughout the debate

6. He refused to rank Hillary vs. Donald

7. He’s a thick libertarian: if you’re not wildly enthusiastic about inter-racial marriage, you’re really not a libertarian, in his view

8. He dismissed as any problem at all the rape-fugees now plaguing Sweden, Germany.

9. He supports political correctness

10. Most egregious, he refused to apologize in the venue he did this for repeating without demur the NYTimes smear that I think actual slavery was “not so bad”

I would have been DELIGHTED to patch things up with Gillespie and shake his hand. The first time he apologized to me, it was in front of 3 other people. I said that the apology had to be a public one, and in the same venue as the offense took place (he wrote it in a Reason communication). The second and third times he tried to apologize, I again said the same thing. In none of these cases did he ever LISTEN to me. Instead, both privately, in front of the three people, and in front of the big audience, he kept interrupting me, saying he didn’t really owe me an apology since he was only quoting the NYTimes, and never got through his head that I wanted (just merely the promise of) a WRITTEN, not just a spoken apology. It is difficult to talk to people who keep interrupting you, do not listen to you.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

2:59 pm on September 5, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

From: S
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2019 5:11 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject:

Reading Hoppe you realize each of his sequential ideas has a positively sloped marginal utility.

Dear Sebastian:

However, I’m sure that Hans, along with me, would disagree with your assessment, were it to be taken literally. For one thing, when you talk of “slope” you imply a diagram. And, what, pray tell, would be on the vertical axis of that diagram? Why, utils. What else could be there? But, this implies cardinal utility, which Austrians oppose, not ordinal utility, which we accept. But even in the latter case, strictly speaking, the first thing my friend Hans says is surely more important than the very last thing he says, because he usually states principles first, and, only later, examples. But, suppose, in order to foil me, he wrote the very best thing in an essay of his, last. Then, would your assessment be correct? Sorry, not even then, since we would claim that he offered us two different kinds of insights. Insights A, which decreased in ordinal value as he wrote them, and, singular insight B, which was a different type of “good.” (I’m now assuming, arguendo, that cardinal utility is valid.)

The point is, diminishing marginal utility is not an empirical generalization, not only, anyway, although it might be looked at that way, but, rather, it is a matter of praxeology. It is a necessary condition of human action.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

2:26 am on September 3, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

May One Eat Peanuts If This Will Harm His Neighbor?

From: N
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2019 4:56 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Abnormal Vulnerabilities Under Libertarian Law

Dear Dr. Block,

Say someone is deathly allergic to peanuts, so much so that if his neighbor eats peanuts in his own yard the vulnerable one will die. Does the neighbor have an obligation not to eat peanuts?

Dear N:

No. Your example is similar to the case where a sick person needs an oxygen tent to live. He can’t go outside, unless everyone ceases smoking, eating peanuts, burning wood, etc. But, other people have been doing these things long before this guy came on the scene, and, thus have homesteaded these rights. So, he has to stay indoors, if he wants to keep living. Similarly, for eating peanuts. People have been doing this for years.

Now Coase, Posner, David Friedman and the Law and Economics scholars would answer this question very differently. They would engage in a “cost-benefit” analysis, and, if the harm to the allergic neighbor is greater than the joy of the peanut eater, eating peanuts would not be allowed.

For a critique of this sort of thinking, see:

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

Austro libertarian critics of Coasean law and economics:

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

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 inEconomics and the Environment: A Reconciliation, Walter E. Block , ed., Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1990, pp. 233-279. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdfhttp://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

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.

Share

2:24 am on September 3, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

From: K
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 2:05 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Late thank for your class

Dear Dr. Block,

I’ve tried writing this email a few times but have never known where to start. I’ll attempt to make this email as short as possible and get to the point. I took and intro to economics class in 2010 with you at Loyola University. The combination of my parents having left communism in 1988 (and to this day being very anti socialist) and MM (my sister’s mother in law) telling me you were looney made me already think you had something good to say. Unfortunately for me I didn’t end up paying attention or read anything on the syllabus and walked out of your class with a C+.

Fast forward to today. I am 28 years old working as an accountant in XX after having left New Orleans and then YY. From 2011ish to 2018 I thought internally I was a Republican by default only because I viewed Democrats as pandering con artists. Anyway….I began listening to Dave Smith’s Part of the Problem podcast late 2018 and that led me to watching youtube clips of Ron Paul, reading Defending the Undefendable, and Rothbard’s Anatomy of the State. I haven’t been able stop reading, listening and watching debates for almost a year now. I have to say that everything I read just seems right.

I say that I regret not having paid attention in your class, but honestly I wasn’t ready for it anyway. If you ever have a seminar or debate in Louisiana or Texas I would love to attend.  My only problem is some books and essays I try reading refer to ideas or economic concepts that I am not familiar with which makes it difficult to follow. (If you could recommend a few books that would be great for a student I’d really appreciate it.)

Sincerely, K

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 4:18 PM
To: K
Subject: RE: Late thank for your class

Dear Andrew:

Better late than never. I’m delighted you now have “got religion.” Why’d MM say I was “looney?”

Here is material you could start in on. When you finish these, do get in touch for more.

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

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

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

Block, Walter E. 2013. Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in all realms; Mises Institute, Auburn AL; Terra Libertas Publishing House; isbn: 978-1-908089-37-3; http://store.mises.org/Defending-the-Undefendable-2-P10932.aspx

Rothbard, Murray N. 2019. “Myth and Truth about Libertarianism.” July 20;

https://mises.org/library/myth-and-truth-about-libertarianism?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=12e674bcd6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-12e674bcd6-227976965

When next you’re in NO, come see me.

Share

4:36 pm on September 1, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

What is the Difference Between Free Banking and Fractional Reserve Banking?

From: A
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 10:35 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: GMU and free banking versus fractional reserve banking versus 100% reserve banking

Dear Dr. Block,

I am a little confused after reading your exchange with XYZ over free banking versus fractional reserve banking (FRB) versus 100% reserve banking.

Are free banking and FRB the same thing? I was under the impression that free banking simply meant that anyone was free to engage in the service, i.e., competition in banking was the norm. Does free banking necessarily imply FRB practices over against 100% reserve banking?

I would appreciate your time in clearing this up for me.

Sincerely, A

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 1:28 PM

To: A

Subject: RE: GMU and free banking versus fractional reserve banking versus 100% reserve banking

Free banking allows frb, but doesn’t require it. Here’s some background on both concepts.

Frb: https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C2CHBF_enUS724US724&ei=JvQ5XZCDNvbB0PEPobiumAc&q=Fractional+Reserve+Banking&oq=Fractional+Reserve+Banking&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67j0i7i30l8j0.20874.20874..22832…0.0..0.100.100.0j1……0….1..gws-wiz…….0i71.mbGTJ4OoqOU&ved=0ahUKEwiQrtnt2NDjAhX2IDQIHSGcC3MQ4dUDCAo&uact=5

Free banking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking

Rothbardians such as me oppose both.

Here are some critiques:

Bagus, 2003; Bagus, Howden and Block, 2013; Barnett and Block, 2005, 2008, 2009; Baxendale, 2010; Block, 2008; Block and Caplan, 2008; Block and Garschina, 1996; Block and Humphries, 2008; Block and Posner, 2008; Davidson, 2008; Davidson and Block, 2011; Hanke, 2008; Hazlitt, 1979; Hollenbeck, 2013, 2014; Hoppe, 1994; Hoppe, Hulsmann and Block, 1998; Howden, 2013; Huerta de Soto, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2006, 2010, 2018; Hulsmann, 1996, 2000, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2008; Murphy, 2010; North, 2009; Polleit, 2010; Reisman, 1996, 2009; Rothbard, 1975; 1990, 1991, 1993; Salerno, 2010A, 2010B, 2011.

Bagus, Philipp. 2003, ‘The Commons and the Tragedy of Banking’, November 12, http://mises.org/story/1373

Bagus, Philipp, David Howden and Walter E. Block. 2013. “Deposits, Loans and Banking: Clarifying the Debate,”American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Volume 72, Issue 3, pages 627–644, July;http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12023/abstracthttp://bastiat.mises.org/2013/07/fractional-reserve-banking-paper/

Barnett, William II and Walter E. Block. 2005. “In defense of fiduciary media— a comment; or, what’s wrong with “clown” or play money?” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 8, No. 2, Summer, pp. 55-69;http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae8_2_4.pdf

Barnett, William and Walter E. Block. 2008. “Time deposits, dimensions and fraud,” Journal of Business Ethics;www.WalterBlock.com/publicationshttp://www.springerlink.com/content/100281/?k=walter+block&sortorder=asc&v=condensed&o=20www.WalterBlock.com/publications

Barnett, William and Walter E. Block. 2009. “Financial Intermediaries, the Intertemporal-Carry Trade, and Austrian Business Cycles; or; Crash and Carry: Can Fraudulent Time deposits lead to an Austrian Business Cycle? Yes.” Journal Etica e Politica / Ethics & Politics; Vol. XI, No. 1, pp. 455-469;http://www2.units.it/~etica/2009_1/BARNETT_BLOCK.pdf

Baxendale, Tony. 2010. Free Banking, the Balance Sheet and Contract Law Approach; March 15;http://www.cobdencentre.org/2010/03/free-banking-the-balance-sheet-and-contract-law-approach/

Block, Walter and Bryan Caplan. 2008. “Walter E. Block  versus Bryan Caplan on Fractional Reserve Banking.” Nov 1;https://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block110.html

Block, Walter and Kenneth M. Garschina. 1996. “Hayek, Business Cycles and Fractional Reserve Banking: Continuing the De-Homoginization Process,” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1995, pp. 77-94;http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_1_3.pdf.

Block, Walter and John Humphries. 2008. “Humphries vs Block on fractional reserve banking.” November 17;http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/fractional-reserve-banking/

Block, Walter versus Eric Posner. 2008. “Posner vs. Block on fractional reserve banking.” November, 29;https://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block114.html

Davidson, Laura. 2008. “Fractional Reserve Banking Is Indeed Fraudulent,” November 17;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/davidson-l1.html

Davidson, Laura and Walter E. Block. 2011. “The Case Against Fiduciary Media: Ethics Is The Key,” The Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 98, Issue 3, pp. 505-511;

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j76323752648720g/http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0590-2; 10.1007/s10551-010-0590-2

Hanke, Steve. 2008. “Banking Crises: Plus Ça Change…” GlobeAsia, November, pp. 168-169;http://www.freemarketfoundation.com/Hanke%5CBanking%20Crises–Plus%20%C3%87a%20Change,%20November%202008.pdf

Hazlitt, Henry. 1979. “Gold versus Fractional Reserves Part 1 .” The Freeman. May;

https://mises.ca/posts/articles/gold-versus-fractional-reserves-part-1/

https://mises.ca/posts/blog/gold-verses-fractional-reserves-part-2/

Hollenback, Frank. 2013. “Insuring Deposits, Ensuring Insolvency.” July 24;

http://mises.org/daily/6487/Insuring-Deposits-Ensuring-Insolvency

Hollenback, Frank. 2014. “The Fraud in Fractional Reserve Banking.” November 26; http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=7e6cc2f6072b7ebfaa847047f&id=189c14aa12&e=53fc31c1bb

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1994. “How is Fiat Money Possible? or, The Devolution of Money and Credit,” Review of Austrian Economics, 7(2), pp. 49-74.

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann, with Guido Hulsmann and Walter E. Block. 1998. “Against Fiduciary Media,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 19-50, http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_1_2.pdf

Howden, David. 2013. “A Simple Math Question for Bankers.” December 28;

http://mises.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=7e6cc2f6072b7ebfaa847047f&id=b10182ff5e&e=cb339c58df;http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/12/the-best-critique-i-have-ever-read.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+economicpolicyjournal%2FKpwH+%28EconomicPolicyJournal.com%29

Huerta de Soto, Jesús. 1995. “A Critical Analysis of Central Banks and Fractional-Reserve Free Banking from the Austrian Perspective,” Review of Austrian Economics, 8(2), pp. 25-38.

Huerta de Soto, Jesús. 1998, ‘A Critical Note on Fractional-Reserve Free Banking’, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 1(4), 25-49.

Huerta de Soto, Jesús. 2001. “A Critical Note on Fractional Reserve Free Banking,” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 1, No. 4, Fall, pp. 34-35

Huerta de Soto, Jesús. 2006. Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles (Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn AL.)

Huerta de Soto, Jesús. 2010. “Economic Recessions, Banking Reform, and the Future of Capitalism.”http://mises.org/daily/4817

Huerta de Soto, Jesús. 2018. “What Free-Banking Advocates Get Wrong.” February 26;

https://mises.org/wire/what-free-banking-advocates-get-wrong

Hülsmann, Jorg Guido. 1996, ‘Free Banking and the Free Bankers’, Review of Austrian Economics 9(1), 3-53.

Hulsmann, Jorg Guido. 2000. “Banks Cannot Create Money”, The Independent Review: A Journal of Political Economy, vol. 5, no. 1, summer, 101—110;  http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_1_hulsman.pdf

Hulsmann, Jorg Guido. 2002a. “Free Banking and the Free Bankers.” Review of Austrian Economics. Vol. 9, No. 1. pp. 3-53; http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_1_1.pdf

Hulsmann, Jorg Guido. 2002b. “Free Banking Fractional Reserves: Reply to Pascal Salin.” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 1, No. 3.

http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae1_3_8.pdf

Hulsmann, Jorg Guido. 2003. “Has Fractional-Reserve Banking Really Passed the Market Test?,” Independent Review 7/3, Winter, 399-422.  http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=90

Hülsmann, Jorg Guido. 2008. The Ethics of Money Production Auburn AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute

Murphy, Robert P. 2011.  The Fractional-Reserve Banking Question.” June 14; http://mises.org/daily/4499

North, Gary. 2009. “What Is Money? Part 5: Fractional Reserve Banking.” October 10;

https://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north769.html

Polleit, Thorsten. 2010. “The Faults of Fractional-Reserve Banking.” December 23;

http://mises.org/daily/4880

Reisman, George. 1996. Capitalism. Ottawa, Il.: Jameson Books; pp. 954-963

Reisman, George. 2009. “A Pro-Free-Market Program for Economic Recovery,” November 20;http://mises.org/daily/3870

Rothbard, Murray N.  [1963] 1975. America’s Great Depression (Sheed and Ward, Kansas City).

Rothbard, Murray N. 1990. What Has Government Done to Our Money?, Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute; http://www.mises.org/rothbard/rothmoney.pdf

Rothbard, Murray N. [1962] 1991. “The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar,” In Search of a Monetary Constitution, Leland B. Yeager, ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 94-136, and Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute. See also “The Logic of Action One” pp. 364-384; http://mises.org/story/1829;http://mises.org/rothbard/100percent.pdf

Rothbard, Murray N.  [1962] 1993. Man, Economy, and State. Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, AL

Rothbard, Murray N. 1988.  The Myth of Free Banking in Scotland,  Review of Austrian Economics;http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE2_1_15.pdf

Salerno, Joseph T. 2010A. Money, Sound and Unsound. Auburn, Ludwig von Mises Institute

Salerno, Joseph T. 2010B. White contra Mises on Fiduciary Media,” May 14;

http://mises.org/daily/4389

Salerno, Joseph T. 2011. “Dr. Joseph Salerno Explains Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Money (But Were Afraid to Ask)”, The Daily Bell, July 3; http://www.thedailybell.com/2602/Anthony-Wile-Dr-Joseph-Salerno-Explains-Everything-You-Ever-Wanted-to-Know-About-Money-But-Were-Afraid-to-Ask

Share

4:33 pm on September 1, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Profits Disappear Only In Equilibrium, Which We Never Reach

Dear U:

Thanks for your important question. In my humble opinion, unless we are in equilibrium, no such equality will occur. But, while we are always tending in that direction, we are never in equilibrium.

You might ask, along the same lines, why are not profits in all industries (apart from risk considerations) not equal. And, also, why do profits, all of them, not fall to zero. I give the same response now: this would indeed occur, were we ever in full equilibrium, but we never attain that situation.

I hope and trust you’ll find this of help to you in your deliberations.

Best regards,

Walter

From: u

Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 9:31 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Cc: wbarnett@loyno.edu

Subject: Fw: greeting from Istanbul again

Dear Professors Block and Barnett,

It’s been a very long time since our correspondences. But I still consider the issue unresolved as Prof. Barnett has not replied to my last e-mail addressing the questions he raised. I would very much appreciate it if either of you can enlighten me on the matter or would refer me to someone who can.

Austrian theory on this topic is eloquently summarized by Rothbard in the following quote:

“Time Preference is the insight that people prefer “present goods” (goods available for use at present) to “future goods” (present expectations of goods becoming available at some date in the future), and that the social rate of time preference, the result of the interactions of individual time- preference schedules, will determine and be equal to the pure rate of interest in a society.

The economy is pervaded by a time market for present as against future goods, not only in the market for loans (in which creditors trade present money for the right to receive money in the future), but also as a “natural rate” in all processes of production. For capitalists pay out present money to buy or rent land, capital goods, and raw materials, and to hire labor (as well as buying labor outright in a system of slavery), thereby purchasing expectations of future revenue from the eventual sales of product. Long-run profit rates and rates of return on capital are therefore forms of interest rate. As businessmen seek to gain profits and avoid losses, the economy will tend toward a general equilibrium, in which all interest rates and rates of return will be equal, and hence there will be no pure entrepreneurial profits or losses.”

If this is true, then over the very long-term and taken as a whole, the average rate of return on equity should be roughly equal to average long-term corporate bond yields (which the Fed does NOT control). However, they are not and never have been. I have pointed out in my last e-mail below that the average rate of return on equity has been 12-14% while long-term corporate bond yields (as well as the 10-year US Treasury yield) has been about half that (6-7%). This data has been consistent going back nearly a century. You are welcome to double check any source you like.

My question is simply this: If entrepreneur-capitalists will bid up and bid down factor prices to their discounted marginal value productivity, which, in turn, reflects and is equal to the prevailing rate of social time preference (interest rates), then what explains the divergence pointed out above? How is it that I can earn an average annual rate of 12-14% if I invest in an S&P 500 index fund and just hold it for decades but will earn only half that if I buy & hold the long-term bonds of the very same basket of corporations? The prices of the stocks should be bid up and/or the prices of the bonds should be bid down until their respective average returns over time converge at whatever rate that reflects the prevailing time prefence. The very long-run averages should equalize. Yet the only thing that remains stubbornly equal is the spread between the two.

So either I’m missing something huge and will look like an idiot or the Rothbardian theory of time preference is wrong in a huge way.

Best Regards,

U

________________________________________

From: u

Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2018 2:29 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Cc: wbarnett@loyno.edu <wbarnett@loyno.edu>

Subject: Re: greeting from Istanbul again

Below is an article written by Warren Buffett for Fortune Magazine in 1977. In it he explains that the roughly 12% rate of return on equity capital has remained so consistent that he considers it to be effectively equivalent to the fixed coupons of bonds. He even coined the term “equity bond” to drive the point home. A quick look at the returns of the S&P 500 index since the article was published will reveal that the figure still hovers around the same 10-12%.

By the way, anyone who studies Buffett’s shareholder meetings will recognize that his definition of “profits” is synonymous with “cash” (what he calls Owner Earnings). So he leaves no room for fuzzy opinions in these figures.

Profits soar here, plummet there but in the AGGREGATE and OVER TIME American corporations have returned an average of 12% on equity. Buffett points out that roughly half were paid out as dividends. Another 2% was lost to inflation, leaving 4% to be reinvested for future growth. Finally, US population growth of roughly 1% brought that increase in equity capital down to 3%.

And that, in a nutshell, is how we achieved an average of 3% GDP growth since (let me rephrase) the dawn of the industrial revolution.

http://fortune.com/2011/06/12/buffett-how-inflation-swindles-the-equity-investor-fortune-classics-1977/

Buffett: How inflation swindles the equity investor …

fortune.com

The central problem in the stock market is that the return on capital hasn’t risen with inflation. It seems to be stuck at 12%.

I’d love to continue our conversation as I am still confused as to the source of these constant rate of returns. Because its existence is indisputable.

Kind Regards,

U

________________________________________

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 6:36 PM

To: U

Subject: RE: greeting from Istanbul again

It appears below. Here it is, again:

From: William Barnett [mailto:wbarnett@loyno.edu]

Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 10:50 AM

To: Walter Block

Subject: RE: greeting from Istanbul again

W,

First, there is no such thing as an ERE; it is a logical impossibility as are such concepts as a square circle and a three-sided square.  Therefore, your statement “that we’ve never been at equilibrium, ERE, all during that time” is correct a fortiori.

Second, I challenge the assertion that “there is a rate of return on equity capital that has remained astonishingly constant almost since the dawn of capitalism (roughly 12%). And it has hovered around that level regardless of the changes in interest rates and time preferences throughout that time.”  I know not of any source for that alleged fact, but would challenge it on a number of points, not necessarily in order of importance:

1. From the economic perspective, in contradistinction to that of accounting, I think it impossible, to separate the owners’ capital into owners’ entrepreneurial capital and owners’ capitalist capital; i.e., I think MNR is correct to concentrate on “capitalist-entrepreneurs” (MES+P&M Sch. ed., 509) because I do not think these two aspects of action (capitalist function-“invest [saved] money in factors [of production]” [MES+P&M Sch. ed., 299] and entrepreneurial function–“determining the employment of the factors of production” [HA Sch. Ed., 288]) may be distinguished save in the fairy-tale world of the ERE.

2. Moreover, as the aphorism has it: “Cash is a fact, profit is an opinion.”

3. There is no such thing as a rate of return on equity capital – this is a highly aggregated concept that in reality is meaningless.

4. Does the 12% include the capital gains as well as operating profits?

5. And, that such a return, if it existed in reality, has remained roughly constant since the dawn of capitalism is an invalid statement, in my opinion. There is no agreement on when capitalism began, or even exactly what is meant by capitalism.

6. Who made these calculations and on what basis?  Where did the data come from and how inclusive and accurate is it?  What methodology was used?

Third, and I think this goes to the heart of what is at issue, MNR (and LvM) both consider business profits to be non-existent in the ERE, so there can be no “rate of return.”  On the other hand, both see that  in the real world; i.e., outside of the ERE, if for no other reason that in the real world action is continuous, and profits arise from actions that necessarily involve speculation as to the (future) outcome of these very same current actions because “the future is unknown and unknowable,” and thus profits are transitory, so there can be no “rate of return.”

B

From: u

Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2018 7:44 AM

To: Walter Block

Subject: Re: greeting from Istanbul again

I’m afraid I haven’t received a reply from Prof. Barnett.

Sent from Outlook

________________________________________

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 5:44:45 AM

To: ‘William Barnett’

Cc: uygaraktan@hotmail.com

Subject: RE: greeting from Istanbul again

Dear Bill:

Thanks.

Dear U:

Your question is more in the field of my friend Bill  than mine, so I asked him to reply to your question. See below.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics

Loyola University New Orleans

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

From: William Barnett [mailto:wbarnett@loyno.edu]

Sent: Monday, July 30, 2018 10:50 AM

To: Walter Block

Subject: RE: greeting from Istanbul again

W,

First, there is no such thing as an ERE; it is a logical impossibility as are such concepts as a square circle and a three-sided square.  Therefore, your statement “that we’ve never been at equilibrium, ERE, all during that time” is correct a fortiori.

Second, I challenge the assertion that “there is a rate of return on equity capital that has remained astonishingly constant almost since the dawn of capitalism (roughly 12%). And it has hovered around that level regardless of the changes in interest rates and time preferences throughout that time.”  I know not of any source for that alleged fact, but would challenge it on a number of points, not necessarily in order of importance:

1. From the economic perspective, in contradistinction to that of accounting, I think it impossible, to separate the owners’ capital into owners’ entrepreneurial capital and owners’ capitalist capital; i.e., I think MNR is correct to concentrate on “capitalist-entrepreneurs” (MES+P&M Sch. ed., 509) because I do not think these two aspects of action (capitalist function-“invest [saved] money in factors [of production]” [MES+P&M Sch. ed., 299] and entrepreneurial function–“determining the employment of the factors of production” [HA Sch. Ed., 288]) may be distinguished save in the fairy-tale world of the ERE.

2. Moreover, as the aphorism has it: “Cash is a fact, profit is an opinion.”

3. There is no such thing as a rate of return on equity capital – this is a highly aggregated concept that in reality is meaningless.

4. Does the 12% include the capital gains as well as operating profits?

5. And, that such a return, if it existed in reality, has remained roughly constant since the dawn of capitalism is an invalid statement, in my opinion. There is no agreement on when capitalism began, or even exactly what is meant by capitalism.

6. Who made these calculations and on what basis?  Where did the data come from and how inclusive and accurate is it?  What methodology was used?

Third, and I think this goes to the heart of what is at issue, MNR (and LvM) both consider business profits to be non-existent in the ERE, so there can be no “rate of return.”  On the other hand, both see that  in the real world; i.e., outside of the ERE, if for no other reason that in the real world action is continuous, and profits arise from actions that necessarily involve speculation as to the (future) outcome of these very same current actions because “the future is unknown and unknowable,” and thus profits are transitory, so there can be no “rate of return.”

B

From: U

Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2018 8:46 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: greeting from Istanbul again

Dear Professor Block,

I’d be grateful if you could enlighten me on the following question. I was reading Rothbard’s Man, Economy and State. My question is regarding the part where he talks about “entrepreneurial profits” being “ephemeral” because the undervaluation of a factor discovered by an entrepreneur (which made ‘pure profits’ possible) will soon be bid up by competition so that the entrepreneur’s income (in an ERE) would return to the prevailing time preference. Rothbard concludes, therefore, that it is absurd to even talk about “a RATE of return” in this regard.

And that is where I’m confused because there is a rate of return on equity capital that has remained astonishingly constant almost since the dawn of capitalism (roughly 12%). And it has hovered around that level regardless of the changes in interest rates and time preferences throughout that time.

What am I missing/misunderstanding here?

Kind Regards,

U

Sent from Outlook

Share

9:00 pm on August 29, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Bryan Caplan: Excellent Libertarian; Critic of Austrianism

Dear K:

I think my friend Bryan Caplan is an excellent libertarian. I also think he is an excellent economist, except insofar as his attacks on Austrianism are concerned. I don’t want to spend time refuting the passage of his you send me, since, in my opinion, this has already been done. For some literature making this case, see below.

Best regards,

Walter

From: K

Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2019 9:27 PM

To: Walter Block

Subject: RE: Hi

Dear Dr. Block,

Sorry for the late response.

Bryan Caplan says,

“Hans-Hermann Hoppe, arguing for Rothbard’s approach, makes a subtly stronger claim: “Pareto-optimality is not only compatible with methodological individualism; together with the notion of demonstrated preference, it also provides the key to (Austrian) welfare economics and its proof that the free market, operating according to the rules just described, always, and invariably so, increases social utility, while each deviation from it decreases it.”[21] (emphasis mine) Strictly speaking, however, Rothbard could only claim the welfare effects of government intervention upon “social utility” are indeterminate; i.e., since the victim loses and the intervener gains, it is impossible to say anything about social utility without making a verboten interpersonal welfare comparison. This is an important point, because it shows that Rothbard’s welfare economics provides a much weaker defense of the free market than usually assumed. In particular, Rothbard’s own theory strips him of the ability to call any act of government “inefficient.” By denying the ability to endorse state action in the name of efficiency, Rothbard also implicitly denies the ability to reject state action in the name of efficiency. This is no logical flaw in Rothbard’s theory (although it does reveal a logical flaw in Hoppe’s presentation of Rothbard’s theory), but it’s political implications are rather different than commonly assumed: Rothbard’s welfare criterion justifies agnosticism about – not denial of – the benefits of statism.

There is however a more serious flaw in Rothbard’s welfare economics – a flaw which again flows from his behaviorist insistence that only preferences demonstrated in action are real. Thus, Rothbard rejects the argument that the envy of a third party vitiates the principle that voluntary exchange increases social utility: “We cannot, however, deal with hypothetical utilities divorced from concrete action. We may, as praxeologists, deal only with utilities that we can deduce from the concrete behavior of human beings. A person’s ‘envy.’ unembodied in action, becomes pure moonshine from a praxeological point of view… How he feels about the exchanges made by others cannot be demonstrated unless he commits an invasive act. Even if he publishes a pamphlet denouncing these exchanges, we have no ironclad proof that this is not a joke or a deliberate lie.”[22] Indeed, Rothbard could have taken this principle further. When two people sign a contract, do they actually demonstrate their preference for the terms of the contract? Perhaps they merely demonstrate their preference for signing their name on the piece of paper in front of them. There is no “ironclad proof” that the signing of one’s name on a piece of paper is not a joke, or an effort to improve one’s penmanship.”

2.4 Welfare Economics in “Why I am not an Austrian Economist by Bryan Caplan”

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

Now, I’m just saying that perhaps the conclusion of austrian economics is necessarily anarcho-capitalist society, because perhaps the consumers would demand a state and wouldn’t demand the NAP? What do you think about Curt Doolittle’s Propertarianism?

From, K

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 4:16 PM, Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear K:

Get me the exact passage from Caplan where he says that. Along with the full cite

Best regards,

Walter

From: K

Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2019 8:06 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Hi

Dear Dr. Block,

Hi, this is K, this is my new email. I’m deleting my other ones, this will be my only one from now on. Could you tell others? I don’t know if I should email the Mises Institute about it.

Anyways, I will be responding to our last email. Sorry for the late response, I have been busy with school.

I have a question about Bryan Caplan, he says that Rothbard’s welfare economic analysis prevents him from comparing governmental action in the economy, since you could never know if anyone “consented”, or if anyone didn’t agree or agree on an exchange. I wonder if you could refute that?

From,

K

Critics of Caplan on Austrianism:

Block, 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007; Caplan, undated, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2008; Callahan, 2003; Carilli and Dempster, 2003; Hoppe, 2005; Hulsmann, 1999; Machaj, 2007; Murphy, 2008; Murphy, Wutscher and Block, 2010; Rajsic, 2010; Stringham, 2001, 2008; Stringham and White, 2004

Block, Walter E. 1999. “Austrian Theorizing, Recalling the Foundations: Reply to Caplan,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 2, No. 4, winter, pp. 21-39; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_2.pdf; errata: http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_9.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2003.  “Realism: Austrian vs. Neoclassical Economics, Reply to Caplan,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 6, No. 3, Fall, pp. 63-76; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_3_4.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2005. “Rejoinder to Caplan on Bayesian Economics,” Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 19, No. 1, Winter, pp. 79-95; http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/003654.asp

Block, Walter E. 2007. “Reply to Caplan on Austrian Economic Methodology” Corporate Ownership & Control, Vol. 4, No. 2, November, pp. 312-zz.

http://www.virtusinterpress.org/additional_files/journ_coc/issues/COC_(Volume_4_Issue_3_Spring_2007_Continued2).pdf

Caplan, Bryan. Undated. “Why I am not an Austrian Economist.”

http://www.gmu.edu/depts/economics/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

Caplan, Bryan. 1999. “The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations,” Southern Economic Journal, April, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 823-838; http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/ausfin2.doc

Caplan, Bryan. 2001. “Probability, Common Sense, and Realism: A Reply to Huelsmann and Block,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 2, No. 4, summer, pp. 69-86;http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae4_2_6.pdf

Caplan, Bryan. 2003. “Probability and the Synthetic A Priori:  A Reply to Block.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 6, No. 3, Fall, pp. 77-83; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_3_5.pdf

Caplan, Bryan. 2008. “The Trojan Horse Example” June 16;

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/06/the_trojan_hors.html

Callahan, Gene. 2003. “Choice and Preference,” February 10; http://mises.org/story/1163

Carilli, Anthony M., and Dempster, Gregory M. 2003. “A note on the treatment of uncertainty in economics and finance” Journal of Education for Business 79.2 Nov. 1, pp. 99-103.

Hoppe, Hans Hermann. 2005. “A Note on Preference and Indifference in Economic Analysis.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 8, No. 4, Winter, pp. 87-91;http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae8_4_6.pdf

Hülsmann, Jörg Guido. 1999. “Economic Science and Neoclassicism.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 2, Num. 4, pp. 1-20; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_1.pdf

Machaj, Mateusz. 2007. “A Praxeological Case for Homogeneity and Indifference.” New Perspectives on Political Economy, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 231 – 238; http://pcpe.libinst.cz/nppe/3_2/nppe3_2_5.pdf

Murphy, Robert P. 2008. “Austrian Realists.” July 17; http://mises.org/story/3028

Murphy, Robert P., Robert Wutscher and Walter E. Block. 2010. “Mathematics in Economics: An Austrian Methodological Critique.” Philosophical Investigations, January, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 44-66;http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123209256/PDFSTART;http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9205.2009.01397.x/full

Rajsic, Predrag. 2010. “Did Rothbard ‘Borrow’ the Income and Substitution Effects?” April 8;http://mises.org/daily/4223

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

Stringham, Edward. 2008. “Economic Value and Cost Are Subjective” in The Handbook of Austrian Economics, Peter Boettke (editor), Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing,http://mises.org/journals/scholar/stringham4.pdf

Stringham, Edward, and White, Mark. 2004. “Economic Analysis of Tort Law: Austrian and Kantian Perspectives” in Law and Economics: Alternative Economic Approaches to Legal and Regulatory Issues, Margaret Oppenheimer and Nicholas Mercuro (editors) New York: M.E. Sharpe, 374-92;http://www.sjsu.edu/stringham/docs/Stringham.and.White2005.pdf

Share

8:58 pm on August 29, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Was The Lincoln Brigade That Fought In The Spanish Civil War in 1936 Justified? Yes.

From: J
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 2:38 PM
To:
Subject: Lincoln Brigade

Wasn’t it (the Lincoln Brigade) founded, supported, at least partly, by the USSR? And that complicates matters even further in the scenario of your debate. Can a volunteer from a state,  funded by a different state financed by expropriation of THEIR populace, go fight in a 3rd state? If yes, how is that any different from any other war of aggression? Regards, J

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2019 6:56 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Lincoln Brigade

Dear J:

Good point. I think that if a different government instigates this, then all bets are off. It is now an act of war on the part of that government. It is no longer in the category of the Lincoln Brigade, which I think is compatible with libertarianism (abstracting the fact that they fought for communism)

Best regards,

Walter

Share

7:39 am on August 28, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Are Pre-emptive Strikes Compatible With Libertarianism? No

From: R
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:27 AM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Are Restraining Orders Compatible With Libertarian Law? Yes. – LRC Blog

In my view, the non-aggression principle (NAP) proscribes not only the actual initiation of violence, but, also, the threat thereof.

so you have no problem with Nozick’s view that it is okay (not a violation of natural rights) to proactively prevent certain activities as long as you make ‘adequate’ compensation (this is the basis for his claim that a system of competing defense agencies will yield the minimum, watchman state)? who determines what is adequate?

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 1:08 PM

To: R

Subject: RE: Are Restraining Orders Compatible With Libertarian Law? Yes. – LRC Blog

Dear Richard:

There’s all the world of difference between “proactively preventing” on the one hand, and reacting to a threat, on the other. I do not at all support Nozick on this matter. Yes, someone engaging in a preemptive strike, in the absence of a threat, should pay damages afterward, but, he shouldn’t do that in the first place. A restraining order is issued, hopefully, only after a threat of violence is made.

How much of a threat must there be in order to take defensive action? That’s a toughie. But I’ve written about that here:

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

Here are some critical readings on Nozick:

Barnett, 1977; Block, 2002; Block and Gordon, 1985; Childs, 1977; Evers, 1977; Rothbard, 1977; Sanders, 1977

Barnett, Randy. 1977. “Whither anarchy?  Has Robert Nozick justified the state?,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter, pp. 15-22; http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_3.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2002. “The Libertarian Minimal State?” A critique of the views of Nozick, Levin and Rand, Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 141-160; reprinted in Younkins, Ed, ed., 2004. Philosophers of Capitalism: Menger, Mises, Rand and Beyond; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/minimal_state.pdf

Block, Walter and David Gordon. 1985. “Blackmail, Extortion and Free Speech: A Reply to Posner, Epstein, Nozick and Lindgren,” Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, November, pp. 37-54;http://141.164.133.3/faculty/Block/Blockarticles/blackmail.htm

Childs, Roy A. Jr. 1977. “The invisible hand strikes back,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter, pp. 23-34; http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_4.pdf

Evers, Williamson M. 1977. “Toward a reformulation of the law of contracts,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter, pp. 3-14; http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_2.pdf

Rothbard, Murray N. 1977. “Robert Nozick and the immaculate conception of the state, The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter, pp. 45-58; http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_6.pdf

Sanders, John T. 1977. “The free market model versus Government: a reply to Nozick,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, Winter, pp. 35-44; http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_5.pdf

Share

7:35 am on August 28, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Land Reparations For Grandchildren of Slaves, From Government

From: B
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 12:11 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Reparations

Dear Professor Block, thanks again for all your great work and for sharing your valuable time.

Should the ancestors of slaves be able to sue the government, in the same way that you suggest they sue the original slave owner’s estate? Breach of contract for the 40 acres, maybe?

One last question if I may and I promise no follow ups.  What do you think of the idea of actually giving them land now?  If the FED’s gave each of the 35 million eligible decedents 5 acres, that’s still only a fraction of what the FEDS and States “Own”. Decedents could get first crack at the land and then the rest could be given out to everyone else.   (5 acres per extended family member is of course far more than 40 acres per estate.)

Your friend in liberty, B

Dear B:

Sure, the ancestors of slaves should be able to sue the present government. But so should a lot of other people. Pretty much all tax payers, apart from members of the ruling class.

But, in the ideal anarcho-capitalist world, there would be no government. In the ideal minarchist world, the government would be extremely small. It would not have any land to give away to anyone. All of its functions would be legitimate, and occupy very little land. No one, in this view, progeny of slaves or anyone else, would be able to sue such a limited government since it would be legitimate, at least under minarchism. So, I think the case for the grandchildren of black slaves against the present owners of plantations, on which their grandparents worked, is much stronger than their case against government.

I’ve written a bit about this latter point:

Alston and Block, 2007; Block, 1993, 2001, 2002; Block and Yeatts, 1999-2000; Crepelle and Block, 2017

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=922087http://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/1https://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

Crepelle, Adam and Walter E. Block. 2017. “Property Rights and Freedom:  The Keys to Improving Life in Indian Country.” Washington & Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice; Vol. 23, Issue 2, Article, 3, pp. 314-342; http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1435&context=crsj;http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/crsj/vol23/iss2/3/

Houma Indian

Best regards,

Walter

Share

8:49 pm on August 24, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }
RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook
Google+
http://walterblock.com/page/3/
Twitter