≡ Menu

Donald Trump and Libertarianism

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 7:09 PM

To: ‘David Chávez Salazar’

Subject: RE: Hello Professor Block

Dear David:

Thanks for your kind words. I really appreciate them.

Trump is very good on reducing regulations, taxes and creating peace in the Middle East; he is bad on protectionism, deficits. I vastly prefer him to Biden who is a socialist.

If populism helps promote liberty I favor it to that extent. If Biden wins in 2020, this is still a question, I hope Rand Paul becomes president in 2024.

Best regards,

Walter

From: David Chávez Salazar

Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2020 5:18 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Hello Professor Block

Dear Professor Block:

1. I hope you are well. I am pleased to announce that the webinar we organized a few months ago on the wage gap has been the cornerstone for a “Blockean” movement in Chile. From the bottom of my heart I want to express my gratitude to you for the friendship that we have established in these years.

2. I would like to talk a little about politics. It is outrageous what has happened in the United States with this very fraudulent election. I have a slightly crazy idea: I would like to try the possibility of interviewing President Trump for an editorial project I have in mind. However, professor, I would like to ask you a couple of questions: what is your opinion about Trump? And what is your opinion regarding populism as a means of struggle for libertarianism?

Thank you.

Best regards,

David

David Chávez Salazar

CEO

Libertas Phyle

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

Share

6:07 am on April 13, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

International Trade

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 6:33 PM

To: ‘Jon Trollston’

Subject: RE: Private law and international trade.

Dear Jon:

That’s quite a few good questions.

All voluntary trade is mutually beneficial in the ex ante sense, intra national or international. It would bring costs down since there’d be more goods and services, thanks to a greater specialization and division of labor. Under anarcho capitalism transactions and all other costs would be lower than under statism and central planning. I presume payment could be made in whatever the free enterprise money is: gold, crypto currency, or something else.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Jon Trollston

Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 9:35 AM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Private law and international trade.

Hello mister block, i am looking for sources on how costs would be distributed concerning international trade in a private law society.

My question is would we expect to see higher costs at say the post office? Given that the government would no longer produce law and police? Would it be the case that whatever firm protects me would communicate with whatever firm protects the seller or buyer in the case of a dispute? Would this even be feasible in terms of transaction costs? What are the costs that all participants are bearing here for this transaction to happen? Am i correct in assuming the issue of payment is a non issue? Given that we can bring in a website like paypal or some other form of escrow like it’s done with crypto payments.

Thank you in advance.

Share

6:03 am on April 13, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

The Use of Violence, and Libertarianism

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 5:11 PM

To: ‘Sebastian Ortiz’

Subject: RE:

Dear Sebastian:

Thanks for sharing with me your important thoughts.

I’m a firm believer in specialization and comparative advantage. I’m into peaceful protest not violence, except when it comes to shaking that last bit of ketchup out of the bottle. Then, watch out!

Best regards,

Walter

From: Sebastian Ortiz

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 12:28 AM

Subject:

Juan Sebastian Ortiz Madriz

From the standpoint of human psychology and political science:

The extreme naivety and stupid, neophyte intellectual arrogance of libertarians comes from thinking that statism is the result of bad ideas and not of violent action, and that the sheeplike compliance of statist joes with violent people is essentially different from the reason why they, the libertarians try to counter violent action with peaceful argument: cowardice.

If anything the difference at any given time is that the violent in power are the most intelligent among the violent and that the violent in jail are the least intelligent among violent and that the majority inside and outside of jail (which under statism isn’t much different) are simply those who are either less intelligent or equally intelligent and less violent.  To have the arrogance of saying “I, innocent, condemn your injustice.” is worthy of a ten year old who has watched too many fairy tale movies.  Whoever wants to implement a “more just” system to their own whim will first have to prove to be more violent and intelligent than those who he aims to overthrow.  That is how it’s always been and there are serious doubts cast on whether it’ll be different in the future, it certainly isn’t these days.

Share

6:03 am on April 13, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Morality and Libertarianism

From: Klaus Schmidt

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:16 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: “Morality” with regard to the initial of force

Dr. Block,

My name is Klaus Schmidt and I’m an Ancap who is a great fan of your work. You’ve always stated that capitalism is an amoral system and is not concerned with moral beliefs. My question is, would determining when it’s acceptable to aggress against another individual be included in the realm of “morality”? I’ve read so much of your work but have yet to come across an explanation and my guess is that the conduct of how we deal with aggression has more to do with ethics as opposed to morality. It seems that other writers may have gotten this confused? I know Michael Huemer made a comment about that in an article regarding your view on animal rights. Clarification on this would be greatly appreciated.

All the best,

Klaus

Dear Klaus:

Thanks for your kind words. They mean a lot to me.

My view is not that that capitalism is an amoral system. Rather, it is that Austrian economics is. In contrast, libertarianism deals with aggression. I am an Austro libertarian, but the two strands are very different. I also love Mozart and chess, and, again the two are very different.

Best regards,

Walter

Dear :

Best regards,

Walter

Share

4:00 am on April 9, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Blackmail

From: igorwysocki

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 2:22 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: a kind request?

Dear Walter,

how are you doing? Are you safe and healthy?

Incidentally, Łukasz Dominiak and I are preparing a paper on blackmail. Would you be so kind to send me your output on blackmail? And possibly fraud too?

We would appreciate it.

With best wishes

Igor

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 3:25 PM

To: ‘igorwysocki

Subject: RE: a kind request?

Dear Igor:

I wrote an entire book on that subject:

Block, Walter. 2013. Legalize Blackmail. New Orleans: Straylight Publishing, LLC; http://www.straylightpublishing.comhttps://gumroad.com/l/SzSd; ISBN 978-0-9910433-0-9 (hardcover), 978-0-9910433-1-6 (e-book). My publisher, bless his heart, is a bit weird. Well, more than a bit weird. He is willing to sell you this new book of mine for whatever price YOU decide upon at Amazon.com. If this isn’t weird, I don’t know what is. Of course, legalizing blackmail, rescinding all laws outlawing blackmail, it cannot be denied, is also a bit weird. Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Legalize-Blackmail-Walter-Block/dp/0991043308. Barnes and Noble: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/legalize-blackmail-walter-block/1117524839. Direct from the publisher: Legalize Blackmail is now available in all eBook formats for $9.99 across the board. The book may be obtained digitally in these formats: DRM-Free PDF, ePub, and MOBI — https://gumroad.com/l/SzSd; Kindle — http://amzn.to/1jkO5bE; Nook — http://bit.ly/1bDSNMJhttps://gumroad.com/l/SzSdgwrome@straylightpublishing.com;

Spanish translation: https://www.editorialinnisfree.com/product-page/defendiendo-el-chantaje-walter-block

Best regards,

Walter

Share

3:59 am on April 9, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Letter 1

From: The NAPster

Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2020 7:59 AM

To: Kenn Williamson ; Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Typhoid Mary

Walter and Kenn:

Interesting discussion that you two are having.

I agree with Kenn in principle: libertarianism does not allow for punishing pre-crime (to use the term made popular in the movie, The Minority Report).  Pre-crime is how most state regulation works: the state posits that action A might lead to damage, and thus prohibits action A, but that unnecessarily and immorally constrains all of those using their own property engaging in action A who don’t cause the theoretical damage.  Only when damage is actually caused, or is imminent, is responsive force justified.

However, I would raise a slight issue with one thing Kenn said, namely, “Any person has the right to regulate who is coming into their property but they do not have the right to regulate the activity of others on their own property.” I think that it would be compatible with libertarianism to “regulate” (by which I assume Kenn means “use force against”) the activity of others on their own property if that activity were itself causing an invasion of one’s own property.  So, to use Kenn’s example, if A had a fan that was blowing VINE-19 seeds onto B’s property, then B could use reasonable force to try to stop this.  It would be no different than if A were firing bullets at B from A’s property.

Applied to Typhoid Mary, private-property owners could always exclude her from coming onto their property, but could only enter her property if she were somehow spewing forth her infectious disease from there.

Zack Rofer

Check out my book: Busting Myths About the State and the Libertarian Alternative

Kenn Williamson

Kenngineering LLC

Letter 2

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2020 9:26 PM

To: ‘The NAPster’ ; ‘Kenn Williamson’

Subject: RE: Typhoid Mary

Dear Fellow Libertarians:

I don’t advocate punishing pre crimes. I suggest that violence is justified against threats.

Best regards,

Walter

Letter 3

From: Kenn Williamson

Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 9:39 AM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>; The NAPster

Subject: Re: Typhoid Mary

Dear Walter,

Are you wanting to discuss this more?  I don’t disagree with the point that the NAP proscribes threats as well as violence.

I see how it would be legitimate to quarantine people who are “definitively” diagnosed as an asymptomatic carrier of the disease.  However, my issue is with how such a determination could be made.  It seems like it would be rife with well-intentioned mistakes as well as the possibility for serious abuse.  So I would agree that it is legitimate to forcibly quarantine if we add the caveat that Rothbard has for pre-emptive law enforcement in general, namely that the enforcers would be open to false imprisonment, kidnapping, assault, and possibly murder (if the person died as a result of quarantine) charges if it was shown that the diagnosis of asymptomatic spread of the virus was false.

Best regards,

Kenn

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 9:03 AM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/threats-too-are-proscribed-by-the-nap/

Letter 4

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 9:42 AM

To: ‘Kenn Williamson’ ; ‘The NAPster’

Subject: RE: Typhoid Mary

Dear Kenn:

I try to deal with this issue 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

Best regards,

Walter

Share

3:58 am on April 9, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Dear Folks:

In Tommy’s mother, Sarah’s very eloquent eulogy for her son, she mentions me at the 40 minute mark. Note the name and job title of Tommy’s dad.  What a strange world. Who’d have thought that a Democratic Congressman would be “me.”

Read from the bottom up

Best regards,

Walter

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2021 1:51 PM
To: ‘Nancy Anderson’
Subject: RE: A voice from Loyola past, about Tommy Raskin

Dear Nancy:

Thanks.

Dear Sarah:

Thanks for your kind words about me at your lovely eulogy.

I am delighted that Tommy’s and my life touched, even to a small degree, here:

August 21, 2017. Lucy Steigerwald; Tommy Raskin , animal rights; https://hangouts.google.com/hangouts/_/vjvl355yxjdhzmvrxba7do7wseehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEtbzIKPKQIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEtbzIKPKQI&app=desktop

I didn’t really think too heavily about Tommy when we had this debate. I engage in many, many debates, literally dozens, maybe scores, per year. If I thought at all about him at all, it was that he had just earned his phd in philosophy, and was now an assistant professor somewhere; age? Maybe 32? And that he was very bright, articulate, well prepared. I hate to admit that a 25 year old kid could give me a run for my money, but he did. I thought he did an excellent job of taking the side of a debate that was just plain wrong. Animal rights, indeed.

Dear Jamie:

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when you “became” Walter Block!

Dear Sarah and Jamie:

Please accept my condolences on the passing of this very remarkable and gifted young man.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Nancy Anderson
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2021 9:42 AM
To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>
Subject: Re: A voice from Loyola past, about Tommy Raskin

Jamie still uses his American University email address: .  He also has:  but I’m sure he gets hundreds of emails there daily especially after he was so prominent in the news as lead impeachment manager in the second Trump trial.  I don’t know Sarah’s email address.  Their home mailing address is:   7209 Holly Ave.  Takoma Park, MD 20912-4223.  I know it will be meaningful for them to hear from you.

The memorial service last Saturday was very long – it is on YouTube in 5 parts. Sarah’s eulogy, in which she talks about you, is in the first part:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh6izvFfwbM.  (Part 1 of 5 parts)

You might also be interested in the tribute to Tommy that Sarah and Jamie released several days after his death.

https://repraskin.medium.com/statement-of-congressman-jamie-raskin-and-sarah-bloom-raskin-on-the-remarkable-life-of-tommy-raskin-f93b0bb5d184

(And then 2 days later, Jamie was caught in the Congressional insurrection. He had taken his youngest daughter to be with him that day, which made it all the more stressful for him.  Prompting his determination to impeach Trump.)

With best wishes, Nancy

On Apr 7, 2021, at 10:03 PM, Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear Nancy:

I too just watched this:

August 21, 2017. Lucy Steigerwald ; Tommy Raskin , animal rights; https://hangouts.google.com/hangouts/_/vjvl355yxjdhzmvrxba7do7wseehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEtbzIKPKQIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEtbzIKPKQI&app=desktop

I am greatly saddened that this young man committed suicide. I hope and trust that I contributed positively to his all too shortened life. What a bright kid. So energetic. So well-spoken. With such great moral fiber.

Yes, I used to play handball quite a bit.

My best wishes to you for a happy retirement.

Could you please give me the e mail addresses of Sarah and Jamie Raskin. I would like to offer them my condolences for the passing of their precious son.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Nancy Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2021 9:26 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: A voice from Loyola past, about Tommy Raskin

You may not remember me- we rarely intersected since I was in College of Arts and Sciences at Loyola.  I was also chair of the Women’s Studies Committee.  I think you played handball at the JCC with my husband Cliff Anderson.

A longtime very dear friend of mine, Jamie Raskin, had the tragic experience last new year’s eve of the suicide of his wonderful son Tommy Raskin.  Tommy’s memorial service in DC was last Saturday.  My son – Jamie’s lifelong friend and with whom Tommy lived most of his first year at Harvard Law – spoke at the service.  Tommy’s mother Sarah in her moving eulogy talked affectionately about you.  Perhaps you have already heard about this. She described how she was driving Tommy home to Maryland from Amherst College, and he read an article you wrote that he disagreed with.  He immediately emailed you to challenge you to a debate.  Sarah, very familiar with academia, was shocked that you answered right away (and signing your email “Walter”  – she cautioned Tommy to call you “Professor Block”) and you agreed to the debate, if Tommy would submit and article on the subject to a peer-reviewed journal. Tommy didn’t know what that meant.  Sarah explained, so Tommy wrote an article on his phone while they were still driving, and submitted it.  He then emailed you, and you agreed to the debate.  I just watched the 2017 debate on YouTube.  How gracious you were to this young college student!  I was proud to tell Jamie and Sarah that you were my colleague at Loyola.

I retired from Loyola the year after Katrina, and my husband Cliff and I moved to San Antonio, where my daughter and grandchildren live.  Sadly Cliff died in 2012.  I so miss New Orleans, and Loyola, but life is easier now in retirement, and away from hurricanes and paper grading.  I hope you also are enjoying your retirement.

With best wishes, Nancy

Share

3:52 am on April 9, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Letter from a Chinese Student (In Response to a Webinar I Gave in China)

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 9:23 AM

To: ‘Jacqualine Li’

Subject: RE: On the webinar of An Austrian Critique of Mainstream Economics

Dear Jacqualine:

See below for my responses to your lovely letter for which I am very grateful.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Jacqualine Li

Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2020 9:08 AM

To: wblock@LOYNO.edu

Subject: On the webinar of An Austrian Critique of Mainstream Economics

Good morning Professor Block! I’m Jacqualine, who earlier had the honor to be able to join your webinar meeting on the brief introduction of Austrian Economics and some of its differences from the mainstream on Zoom. I’m hoping this email doesn’t come by surprising, cause I was originally planning to conduct this email right after the online meeting till I found out that it should have been around bedtime there in the United States, so I feel it’s best to send this email during daytime for some reason 😀

First I’d really like to say that I very much enjoyed this webinar! It was really instructive and inspiring, so thank you so much for taking the time to talk to everyone about the Austrian economics methodologies and analyses. I actually came across this accidentally, when last night (Beijing time 🙂 ) one of my fellow friends who studied Economics texted me about this webinar. So I’d like to say I’m really fortunate to be able to learn a whole lot of knowledge, especially regarding the comparison with the mainstream economics, which is covered basically all inside the textbook. I find that really fascinating, because I’m not typically a scientific or logical person, nor am I good at learning such brands of knowledge, and I learn theories largely by attaching them to the things happened in real life. I’m not good at thinking “in the air”, which means I’m really slow in understanding pure figures and numbers and equations and stuff, but I pick up conversations around our real life really quickly. Because to me they’re more familiar and graspable, solid tangible things that have a philosophical basis. Or in other words, I will never get praised for my ability in positive analysis, I’m more of a normative, valuing person.

Sorry I was being overly talkative! But I’m getting there. One of the main reasons I love today’s webinar so much is that, because I can only understand stuff through a common-sense approach, when I was studying Microeconomics last semester, I sometimes found those theories a bit confusing, not quite convincible, this semester even worse, cause we entered Macroeconomics. However, those thoughts were more like foggy gut feelings that I know somehow but I don’t know exactly why. I wasn’t able to come out with something to convince my professor either, though. It doesn’t necessarily mean that he solely clings to what’s said in the textbook, he was just cunning enough to come up with defense to bring down my questions. He and I are quite close after class, so I guess maybe he’s happy to see some students “challenge” what’s regarded as laws,

especially in such environment in China, that we are all jammed with knowledge from elementary all the way up to pre-college, scarcely given the opportunity or enough time to speak up about our own voices so he doesn’t want to reveal the truth too early, giving us more space to figure ourselves out. Now, after today’s webinar, I am utterly thrilled to have something solider to defend for myself, and that my gut feelings are true in some way, because things don’t usually go as in theories, and that gap is real. But then of course, besides from my sneaky little intensions that a new way was found to challenge my professor friend, it’s always happy to learn a bit more, to acknowledge new incoming opinions, to share thoughts. I’m a huge sucker for ideas. I don’t ever believe in downgrading any kinds of ideas or ranking them with regard to practicality or level. They are just knowledge and information, the more the merrier. Just to get a grasp on them makes me happy, it doesn’t even need to mean something or meant for something.

<<< I always encourage my students to challenge my views, and I’m glad you have done this.

Beyond above, I was also hoping if you don’t mind further clarifying some points on some specific points or issues mentioned in the webinar please. One reason that I mentioned I wasn’t originally majored in Finance is that I don’t possibly hold as much knowledgebase as those extinguished schoolmates do, so there were actually quite a few terms I found a bit difficult to catch up. The first is about the ICU, i.e.  interpersonal comparison utility. I didn’t really get a hold of what it explains. If a unified unit in utility analysis doesn’t make sense, which is the first figure you drew during screenshare where both the rich and the poor man fall onto the same MU line, how can two persons with individual MU lines comparable then? Although they have different marginal utility on the same thing, it still doesn’t necessarily mean that they can be put into one mold to compare with each other.

<<< The two ICU diagrams I drew are equally invalid. Both are predicated upon cardinal utility, since the vertical axis purports to measure utils. I only drew the second curve to demonstrate the EVEN IF you subscribe to the neoclassical view of this matter, it STILL does not logically follow that taking money from the rich man and giving to the poor man increases total utility. I was trying for a reductio ad absurdum here.

Another question is on the drawback of cost-benefit methodology. I wonder why Austrian economists typically are in no favor of it, in whatever reason, but more economically theoretically would be nice 😉. Although basically I don’t do well in any form of analytical problems, I do notice that people love that. By love, I may need to stress more on that, I can say people are crazy about it. I guess we all have to agree on how convenient it is in problem solving, because it really helps see through a messy question in whole by breaking it down into different sections or segments, even making some key factors more prominent. It’s so useful yet not many know about it until they enter college. It became their best choice when writing an academic paper. Thus, there must be some reason that some are against of a nearly universal method.

<<<All individuals do a cost benefit analysis every day, practically every minute. Should I respond to this lovely letter of yours, I implicitly asked myself? The costs are the time it took me to read it, and respond to it. I could have been doing other things. The benefits were the sheer pleasure I obtained in doing so. Obviously, for me, the benefits outweighed the costs. I only objected, as an Austrian economists, to one person doing this for another, and, as a libertarian, the first person ordering the second person to act contrary to his own views. For example, the government did a cost benefit analysis of free trade. Then, they imposed tariffs. They thought the benefits of tariffs outweighed their costs (invalid from an Austrian point of view), and them imposed protectionism on the public (unjust from a libertarian point of view).

Lastly, I am really interested in how people may not behave according to what they preach. Though we’ve covered that during the normative and positive economics clarification, I’d really love if there’re a more down-to-earth view of point or behavioral and/or psychological reason. My thoughts are mostly concerning how reality can go sideways from theories, and that people don’t really need to strand themselves on a single branch of knowledge or method. I don’t believe there’s a universal approach to the universe, so whatever that makes sense should be treated equally. Actually this tapped me really much because I remember doing a consecutive interpreting exercise the other day in which Henry Paulson was visiting China and doing an interview with one of the host from Beijing, recalling back the days when he was Secretary Treasury, that he insisted his idea of government doing more job to stable the economy although even to this day, rarely Americans and many economists buy that. I don’t know much about how the suppression was like back in 2008 and how well or bad he actually did, but I do remember so clearly that he said he was a big free-market believer. He was doing the opposite thing in most of his time on post, and “you will never get credit for preventing a catastrophe that the people don’t see”, he said. I was so much touched and astonished by how he was able to put through that phase and made the leap of faith from his personal beliefs. For that I hold my full respect. And I’m so grateful that I am able to hear similar sayings again from you, that we don’t actually need to buy everything from something, we are individuals that have our own thoughts and thinking. I believe it’s even more significant for people in China to see that.

<<< Yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy going in. My favorite example in the US is that politicians want to ban guns, but not for their own bodyguards.

Oof, that was a really long email. I’m sorry for being too wordy on almost everything… but I just like to say that it’s been really, really nice talking to you and I do appreciate your kindness so much. Thank you again for taking the time to read this and possibly, if you have some words to say, I’d be really, really glad to hear from you! I don’t really consider this academic, but rather just a simple share of words, that would be enough happy for me. Therefore, thank you so much again, professor!

Have a nice day!

<<I am very grateful to you not only for this very thoughtful letter, but, also, for speaking up during the seminar. So few participants had anything to say!

Kind regards,

Walter

Share

2:17 am on April 7, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Me Versus Milton Friedman

From: Josh San Miguel

Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 5:21 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Milton Friedman

I was watching your lecture “The errors of Friedman, Coase, and Buchanan” and was interested in your email exchange with Milton Friedman.

Dear Josh:

Thanks.

Here ‘tis:

Block, Walter E. and Milton Friedman. 2006. “Fanatical, Not Reasonable: A Short Correspondence Between Walter Block and Milton Friedman (on Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom).” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3, Summer, pp. 61-80; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/20_3/20_3_4.pdfhttps://mises.org/system/tdf/20_3_4.pdf?file=1&type=document

Best regards,

Walter

From: Josh San Miguel

Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 9:41 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Re: Milton Friedman

This was the lecture

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad21XtXAsFY&t=1468s

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 4:32 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear Josh:

Thanks for your kind words. Do me a big favor? Send me the url for that lecture.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

2:16 am on April 7, 2021

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Defending, Part 2

From: Rodney Hide

Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 3:04 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Re: Goodbye Cruel World (short and funny)

Oh it was No 1.  Until just now, I was unaware of II.

In looking up II, I read of the many distinguished scholars who like me were shocked and enriched by your book.

I am in good company.

Rodney

Dear Rodney:

Thanks. I’m now working on Defending III.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

2:14 am on April 7, 2021

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