≡ Menu

From: J
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 1:44 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Morality of “slavery”

Dear Prof. Block,

I was thinking about the morality of “voluntary slavery”, and also of forced labor as compensation for crimes, and came up with this situation:

Suppose Country B invades Country A. After a long war, where the infrastructure of country A is destroyed , the invaders are finally repelled, but many B soldiers are captured in A.

Would it be moral to force the captured soldiers to work to repair the damage done at war? If yes, does this forced work covers just the damages (or maybe double damages), or should it cover as well both the human and the economic costs of the dead soldiers of country A (i.e, should the B soldiers be forced to work not only to repair the destroyed infrastructure, but also everything that the dead As would have produced in a normal life?)

Finally, does it make a difference whether the B army is a voluntary or a conscript one?

Regards, J

Dear J:

Good question. Good challenge. Thanks. The way I see matters, it matters not one whit whether the B criminals are a gang in the same country as A, or individual criminals, or members of an army. The same punishment should be meted out to them whether or not they wear a military uniform. It seems to me that the B’s have done lot’s worse than destroyed some infrastructure; they are actually murderers.

What should be the libertarian punishment for murder? To summarize: they stole a life from their victim, they owe their own life to the heirs of the victims. These heirs may do whatever they wish with the murderers, including execution, life imprisonment at hard labor (akin to justified slavery), and, also, forgiveness.

Here is some literature on that:

https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html

Block, 1999, 2002-2003, 2003A, 2003B, 2004A, 2004B, 2006, 2009A, 2009B, 2011; Block, Barnett and Callahan, 2005; Gregory and Block, 2007; Kinsella, 1996; Morris, 1968; Nozick, 1981, pp. 363-373; Olson, 1979; Rothbard, 1998, 88; Whitehead and Block, 2003

Block, Walter E. 1999. “Market Inalienability Once Again: Reply to Radin,” Thomas Jefferson Law Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, Fall, pp. 37-88; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/market_inalienability.pdf;

Block, Walter E. 2002-2003. “Berman on Blackmail: Taking Motives Fervently,” Florida State University Business Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 57-114

Block, Walter E. 2003A. “Libertarianism vs. Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz,” Reason Papers, Vol. 26, Summer, pp. 39-62

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

(15th floor flagpole)

Block, Walter E. 2004a. Austrian Law and Economics: The Contributions of Adolf Reinach and Murray Rothbard, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 7, No. 4, Winter, pp. 69-85

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

Block, Walter E. 2006. “Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Part II” Reason Papers, Vol. 28, Spring, pp.  85-109; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf;

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

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

Block, Walter E. 2011. “Rejoinder to Kinsella and Tinsley on Incitement, Causation, Aggression and Praxeology” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, pp. 641–664; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_32.pdf

http://www.constitution.org/cb/crim_pun.htm. Beccaria’s _Of  Crimes and Punishments_

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

Kinsella, Stephen. 1996. “Punishment and Proportionality: the Estoppel Approach,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring, pp. 51-74; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf

Morris, Herbert. 1968. “Persons and Punishment.” The Monist. Volume 52, Issue 4: October, pp. 475 – 501; http://www.law-lib.utoronto.ca/bclc/crimweb/bboard/personsandpunishment.pdf

Nozick, Robert. 1981. Philosophical Explanations, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Olson, Charles B. 1979. “Law in Anarchy.” Libertarian Forum. Vol. XII, No. 6, November-December, p. 4; http://64.233.167.104/u/Mises?q=cache:gFT18_ZusWoJ:www.mises.org/journals/lf/1979/1979_11-12.pdf+two+teeth+for+a+tooth&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

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

In the view of Rothbard (1998, p. 88, ft. 6): “It should be evident that our theory of proportional punishment—that people may be punished by losing their rights to the extent that they have invaded the rights of others—is frankly a retributive theory of punishment, a ‘tooth (or two teeth) for a tooth’ theory. Retribution is in bad repute among philosophers, who generally dismiss the concept quickly as ‘primitive’ or ‘barbaric’ and then race on to a discussion of the two other major theories of punishment: deterrence and rehabilitation. But simply to dismiss a concept as ‘barbaric’ can hardly suffice; after all, it is possible that in this case, the ‘barbarians’ hit on a concept that was superior to the more modern creeds.”

Whitehead, Roy and Walter E. Block. 2003. “Taking the assets of the criminal to compensate victims of violence: a legal and philosophical approach,” Wayne State University Law School Journal of Law in Society Vol. 5, No. 1, Fall, pp.229-254

Share

3:21 am on May 2, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

School Vouchers

From: Y
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 2:18 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: School Vouchers

Hi Professor Block, if a government provides school vouchers is it reasonable for it to prohibit the recipient schools from discriminating on the basis of race and other irrelevant factors. The same concern arises on whether the government can prohibit colleges from using affirmative action if they receive tax dollars. Would such rules be unconstitutional conditions which punish the right of free association if an entity receives government money. How would a libertarian analyze such imperfect scenarios ignoring that libertarians would be against taxes in general. Thanks

Dear Y: I’m not sure about “reasonable” nor “can.” I’m more into, what’s compatible with libertarian law, and what’s not.

In my view, government is a robber gang. Therefore, no one should feel constrained to do whatever it requires, even when taking their money.

See on this:

Spooner, Lysander. 1966[1870]. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority and A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard, Larkspur, Colorado: Rampart College; http://jim.com/treason.htm

Best regards,

Walter

Share

1:48 am on April 30, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

A Border Wall Will Not Suffice To Keep Out Trespassers

My answer to your query is balloons, zeppelins, helicopters, digging, boats

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

read from the bottom up

From: J

Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 7:16 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Re: Immigration, GoFundMe, and the Blockian Position

Hi Prof. Block,

Why must all US land be privatized? If only southern states were privatized, borders could be erected on that land. If only a thin sliver of land was privatized between Mexico and the US, borders could be erected on that land. My contention is that even if the land under it is unowned, a private border could be erected anywhere (using, say, privately-owned cement), and it would be illegitimate to violate this property by climbing over it.

That is the extent of what I am saying. I may write an article for the Mises Wire on it. But I could very well be wrong on what I’m saying. If any good counterarguments come to mind, I’d be happy to address them in that article, if I do write it.

Wishing you all the best,

J

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019, 7:43 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu wrote:

Dear J:

We don’t agree. I’m for open borders, until and unless we privatize all US land. Then, all uninvited immigrants are trespassers, and can be ejected on that ground, compatibly with libertarianism. Otherwise, not.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

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

Loyola University New Orleans

6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

Skype: Walter.Block4

tel: (504) 864-7934

From: J

Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 8:34 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Re: Immigration, GoFundMe, and the Blockian Position

Hi Prof. Block,

Yes, I have read many of your works on immigration. Thank you for sending that more complete list – it is all very interesting material.

I have also checked out Hoppe’s work on the subject. As far as I can tell, having considered both sides, I think that I largely agree with you on it.

However, I do think certain immigration restrictions (e.g. a wall) can be justified within the context of your libertarian theory of immigration, as I outlined in my prior email. What do you think about it?

Best,

J

On Sat, Jan 12, 2019, 7:57 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu wrote:

Dear J:

Here are my pubs on immigration. How do they square with your views?

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-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;

http://direitasja.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/labor-economics-from-a-free-market-perspective-walter-block.pdf

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;

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/12/walter-block-on-immigration.html

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/;

http://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=lmulrev

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;

https://mises.org/library/immigration-roundtable-walter-block

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.pdfhttp://www.academia.edu/1360109/On_Immigration_Reply_to_Hoppe;

https://mises.org/system/tdf/21_3_2.pdf?file=1&type=document

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

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

Loyola University New Orleans

6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

Skype: Walter.Block4

tel: (504) 864-7934

From: J

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 8:01 PM

To: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: Immigration, GoFundMe, and the Blockian Position

Hi Prof. Block,

I had a question about your stance on immigration. I think recent developments regarding America’s proposed border wall could allow for libertarians to advocate for such a wall without abandoning any fundamental principles. It may even be cause for Hoppeans and Blockians to find common ground on the issue.

One of your central claims is that “government-owned” borderlands are akin to unowned property. If a plot of land is unowned, there is no titleholder whose rights can be violated; for that reason, traversing such land is entirely legitimate, as you claim (you and Hoppe disagree here).

The specifics, of course, are unimportant. According to your argument, Mexicans can freely enter Texas, Texans can freely enter Mexico, and Hondurans can freely travel up to Tijuana and enter San Diego. The general principles you lay out apply no matter who is involved, or where the border-crossings are taking place.

To the same point, though, the principles apply no matter what actions are taking place (as long as no aggression is involved, of course). Individuals have the right not only to travel across the supposed “border”, but to do whatever they like upon the land: meditate, play tag, plant trees, etc. I think that you will agree with me that they would also have the right to build on the border. Indeed, they would have the right to build a wall.

Applying your arguments, though, the wall would simply be public property if built with the public funds of the tax pool (this is another point on which you and Hoppe disagree). It would not be wrong to try to deface, damage, or destroy it, as this, like all other uses of the unowned “public property”, would be morally legitimate. ICE agents would also have no justifiable recourse to defend against such attacks on the border wall, as using force against people who are doing no wrong is immoral.

Even still, building such a wall may save taxpayer money in the long term (by decreasing the number of net tax consumers, which illegal immigrants often end up being), thus resulting in lower expenditures, lower taxes, and ultimately less government aggression against taxpayers. I am unsure as to what degree this would save money, but Republicans often argue that it would save quite a lot, and it is an interesting thought, which libertarians should consider. I think you will agree with me that short-term increases in spending should be encouraged if they seriously promise an ultimate decrease in spending in the long term.

Imagine something else, though. The wall need not be funded through taxpayer money. In under a month, a GoFundMe campaign called “We The People Will Fund The Wall” has yielded $20 million. While this is nowhere near the $5.7 billion requested by Republicans for the border wall, it is hard to say just how much money the crowdfunding campaign will actually turn up. As far as I know, the money flow shows no sign of stopping. Plus, it is clear that the private market could get the job done for much cheaper than the government could.

The people may be willing and able to fund the border wall themselves, and if so, it would belong to them as their private, collective property – the use of which they morally have the final say over. There would be no problem with using force to defend this border, as it would be no different from defending any other private property.

Admittedly, the land around and below the wall, as well as all of the space above it, would still be “public” and thus unowned. However, digging under the wall could be perceived as weakening its structure, and thus be regarded as a form of aggression against it (similar to if I dug a large tunnel five feet below your cellar). In addition putting a ladder up against the wall would result in an unwarranted use of the it, making going over it (in this manner, at least) also morally illegitimate.

In reality, though, it is unlikely that private citizens will be the sole funders of a border wall. If the GoFundMe money does eventually go toward building a wall, much taxpayer money will also be used. What then? This is a difficult question. It is hard to say whether the wall would be entirely privately owned, or whether it would be partially privately owned (to the degree that it was funded privately) and partially unowned (to the degree that it was publicly funded), if the latter conception even makes any sense.

At any rate, it is clear that the GoFundMe crowdfunders would have some sort of rightful property title to the wall. Even if private donations make for a mere fraction of the total funds expended on the wall, there will be a private ownership claim to it by some people, and thus unwanted would-be immigrants may legitimately be prevented from crossing it.

Since these points are so relevant at the moment, I think it is important to evaluate the immigration situation in ever more depth. I hope you consider what I have written, and I am excited to hear your thoughts in response.

All the best, J

Share

3:58 pm on April 25, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Dear S:

Thanks for your kind words.

I assume the poison would work. Please do so. Then, do you agree with me that both are murderers, and that there was no attempted murder?

Best regards,

Walter

From: S

Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 2:00 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Murder, Attempted Murder?

Thanks for the interesting puzzle. I always read your postings.  This is my opinion. Seems very simple.

Person died from dehydration, and not from poisoning.

If the water was still available – we do not know 100% what would have happened.

Person may have not died instantly.

He could have gotten very sick, but survived

He could have made it to the hospital, and be saved by doctors

He could have discovered the poison, and then take some actions, i.e. filtered the water, use some medication, etc

He could have died from poison too, but he did not.

And to make things even less convincing about X’s guilt  – water and poison are gone now. There is no proof that the poison was there, or that concentration was lethal.

X could make a mistake or miscalculation

X attempted to kill, and failed. Attempted murder.

Y attempted to kill and succeeded. Murder

Let’s take a similar scenario:

X takes an aim and shoots several rounds at the person

Little he knows that at the same time Y is speeding his car to hit and kill the victim.

Several rounds hit Y’s car, and do not hurt the victim.

Y succeeds with his assassination attempt, hits and kills the victim.

Now Y tries to convince the judge that the victim would have died from bullets anyway. So X deserves to go to prison, and Y should get a probation.

Judge rightfully disagrees. Bullets could have killed the victim, or not. They could miss him completely. Or just injure him. Y’s car killed the victim.

X – attempted murder.

Y – murder.

S

Share

1:27 am on April 25, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Dear B:

Thanks for your kind words.

I don’t think that having sexual intercourse logically implies an invitation to a baby, to keep him inside your body for 9 months. At the time of coitus, there is no invitee; he doesn’t come into existence until some time after ejaculation…

I’ve written a lot about this. See below.

Best regards,

Walter

From: B

Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 1:32 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Evictionism theory/challenge?

Dear Professor Block,

I though of your airplane example but couldn’t wrap my head around the contract theory. Where was the “meeting of the minds”? Where was the offer and the acceptance? And who made the offer and who accepted?

This was what I came up with and I  think it’s an OK solution as well.

I propose that the act of sex was an invitation, which should be considered a legal offer. She is literally inviting pregnancy when she has sex.

A span of time does pass before she knows if her offer has been accepted. But at some point she will become aware that her dinner guest has shown up.

Under my theory, she could not continue to feed the guest without at that point making it doubly clear that the contract is now going to be legally enforceable. Feeding the child would be the same as sitting down and putting your signature on the contract making it “fully binding”. Any woman who willingly and knowingly entered into the contract would have to evict their guest as soon as physically possible after rejecting the final terms of the contract.  (The guest showed up and wasn’t who she expected)

I also suggest she wrote the contract (The child didn’t make the offer, so it must have been the mother) and that should matter because any ambiguity goes against the person who wrote it. Any Grey areas in the contract itself should not be allowed to favor the person who wrote the fuzzy contract.  Furthermore, it’s completely reasonable to assume both parties knew roughly how long this “dinner” was expected to last. The gestation period for humans is fairly consistent and well known, so are the other complications that typically arrive.

So what could the child do to brake the contract? How about threaten the mother’s life or threaten to severely damage her? That would do it for me. I don’t think making her uncomfortable would break the contract because the discomfort is not an unknown result of asking someone to show up for this particular dinner.

In the case of rape or where a woman was incapable of consenting for any of the various reasons, there would be no offer and thus no contract.

Now we can ask; What about birth control? I would say that she is still putting out the invitation and although she might not really have been expecting anyone to show up, she did let them sit down and stay. So again, she would have to evict them immediately after she finds out they showed up to dinner. If she sits them down to dinner then she has signed the contract.  She should have the option to use the day after pill which would effectively send out notice that the dinner party is canceled. If it’s possible to mitigate your damage you have to do it.

Now what if we hit a grey area where having the pregnancy is going to cause more discomfort than could reasonably be expected to happen? I think in this case since she wrote the contract, that she could break the contract, but only in a reasonable manner. If you evict someone from your house you can’t just out of the blue grab them and shoot them, before tossing them out. You would have to first make it clear you were planning on evicting them, which is going to be difficult considering you invited someone into your house who can’t communicate very well. But lets say you do manage to tell your guest to leave? How long do they have to take to get out? I would suggest that they must leave as fast as they physically can, you can’t force them out faster than that considering they haven’t done anything that threatens to do permanent damage beyond what you agreed to risk and since she wrote the contract she must pay a little more of the cost, so to speak. She can’t reasonably expect her guest to leave faster than they physically can under those circumstances, just as she can’t be expected to evict the child faster than she physically can after she finds out her guest isn’t the one she wanted to show up.

If the Child doesn’t leave as soon as it’s physically able then she could use deadly force to evict, but not so long as that child is making an effort to leave. The act of eating, taking in food is the evidence that the child is complying with the request to the best of their ability, they are trying to do everything they can possibly do to get ready to leave without it killing them.

Another thing that goes along with having personally written the contract, is liability. One way to run afoul of liability laws is on the grounds of what is called Detrimental Reliance, which goes roughly like this; You promise to give me your car, I rely on that promise and go out and purchase insurance so I can drive it away from your home. If you change your mind, you owe me the money I’m out because you have committed an act of fraud and I “Relied on your promise to my detriment”.

I would say that the child has definitely relied on the mothers promise to their detriment if that promise ends in their death. That would most certainly be a contract violation under my theory.

Best regards, B

ps, Thanks again for everything you do and I truly enjoyed kicking this around with my Son. It gave me a chance to talk libertarian theory on a whole bunch of different levels with him.

All: Akers, 2012A, 2012B; Block, 1977, 1978, 2001, 2004, 2010A, 2010B, 2011A, 2011B, 2011C, 2011, 2012, 2014A, 2014B, 2014; Block and Whitehead, 2005; Davies, 2012; Dyke and Block, 2011; Parr, 2011, 2013; Rothbard, 1978; Sadowsky, 1978; Shaffer, 2012; Wisniewski, 2010A, 2010B, 2011, 2013.

I. Here are Walter E. Block’s publications and speeches on abortion, pro life, pro choice, evictionism, followed by critiques of his views, followed by his responses to these critiques:

Block, 1977, 1978, 2001, 2004, 2008, 2010A, 2011, 2012, 2014A, 2014B; Block and Whitehead, 2005; Dyke and Block, 2011

Block, Walter E. 1977. “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Abortion.” The Libertarian Forum. Vol. 10, No. 9, September, pp. 6-8; http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1977/1977_09.pdf

Block, Walter E. Undated (1997?).  “L’Aborto:  Una Legittima Difesa,” Claustrofobia, anno 1, n. 3, pp. 16-22.

Block, Walter E. 1978. “Abortion, Woman and Fetus: Rights in Conflict?” Reason, Vol. 9, No. 12, April, pp. 18-25.

Block, Walter E. 2001. “Stem Cell Research: The Libertarian Compromise.” September 3; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block5.html

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.pdfhttps://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/03068290410518256https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03068290410518256?fullSc=1&journalCode=ijse

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

http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jhu012?ijkey=3n1zc8zcBRnT586&keytype=ref

Block, Walter E. 2010B. “A libertarian perspective on the stem cell debate: compromising the uncompromisible,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy.  Vol. 35: 429-448;

http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/jhq033?

ijkey=oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref; http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jhq033?ijkey=oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref ; http://wipimd.com/?&sttflpg=78eaf87fd81ebaaa7a245cca600b15bba8497c2cfbf1284c08a0260ba068d4ad&cmpgp0811Ueh016=ICD20811TEH0PkRLpL1IFhttp://wipimd.com/?&sttflpg=4b842f7f4697bce38422e0bfe03e6ccad53070377a9303d5#JAL1

Block, Walter E. 2011A. “Terri Schiavo: A Libertarian Analysis” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, pp. 527–536; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_26.pdfhttp://libertycrier.com/walter-block-terri-schiavo/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LibertyCrier+%28Liberty+Crier%29

Block, Walter E. 2012. “A Not So Funny Thing Happened to Me in Tampa.” August 30; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block208.html

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

Block, Walter E. 2014E. “Toward a libertarian theory of evictionism,” Journal of Family and Economic Issues. June; Volume 35, Issue 2, pp. 290-294; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10834-013-9361-4;

http://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.1007/s10834-013-9361-4http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/463/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10834-013-9361-4.pdf?auth66=1385583057_5dd1e3442d2db3f98c91dcf5a5d5fa43&ext=.pdfhttp://www.springer.com/home?SGWID=0-0-1003-0-0&aqId=2507833&download=1&checkval=feff928fe5dfc72bc210032f220ca40a.

Block, Walter E. and Roy Whitehead. 2005. “Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy,” Appalachian Law Review, 4 (2) 1-45; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdfhttp://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/228125532_Compromising_the_Uncompromisable_A_Private_Property_Rights_Approach_to_Resolving_the_Abortion_Controversy?ev=prf_pubhttp://www.walterblock.com/publications/compromising-the-uncompromisable-a-private-property-rights-approach-to-resolving-the-abortion-controversy/

Dyke, Jeremiah and Walter E. Block. 2011. “Explorations in Property Rights: Conjoined Twins.” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 3, Art. 38; http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/38-dyke-block-conjoined-twins/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTAmwUHcLM

http://conza.tumblr.com/tagged/evictionism

http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/jhq033?

ijkey=oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref; http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jhq033?ijkey=oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref

https://hangouts.google.com/call/rubwfb4uhrdbdpstpiik5niljie

II. Critics of evictionism::

Akers, 2012A, 2012B; Davies, 2012; Feser, 2004; Goodwin, 2014; Parr, 2011, 2013; Mosquito, 2014, 2015; Rothbard, ; Sadowsky, 1978; Shaffer, 2012;  Rothbard, 1978; Vance, 2008, 2012; Wisniewski, 2010A, 2010B, 2011, 2013.

Akers, Becky. 2012A. “Not My Definition — or Webster’s Either — of ‘Trespassing’” September 6; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/120226.html

Akers, Becky. 2012B. “What if the ‘Fetus’ Could Shoot Back?” September 12; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/120728.html

Davies, Jim. 2012. “Abortion.” September 24;

http://strike-the-root.com/abortion

Feser, Edward. 2004. “Self-ownership, abortion, and the rights of children: toward a more conservative libertarianism.” Journal of Libertarian Studies. Volume 18, no. 3 (Summer), pp. 91-114; http://www.indytruth.org/library/journals/libertarianstudies/18/18_3_5.pdf

Goodwin, Jonathan. 2014. “Libertarians and Abortion.” December 23;

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2014/12/libertarians-and-abortion.html

Mosquito, Bionic. 2014. “Libertarians and Abortion.” December 23;

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2014/12/libertarians-and-abortion.html

Mosquito, Bionic. 2015. “Walter Block, Specific Performance Contracts, and Abortion.” July 12; http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2015/07/walter-block-specific-performance.html

Parr, Sean. 2011. “Departurism and the Libertarian Axiom of Gentleness.” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 3, No. 34, http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-34.doc

Parr, Sean. 2013. “Departurism Redeemed – A Response to Walter Block’s ‘Evictionism is Libertarian; Departurism is Not: Critical Comment on Parr.’” Journal of Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom, Vol. 2, pp. 109-123; http://jppfaustralia.weebly.com/home/departurism-redeemed-a-response-to-walter-blocks-evictionism-is-libertarian-departurism-is-not-critical-comment-on-parr

Presley, Sharon and Robert Cooke (aka Morgan Edwards). 1979. “The right to abortion: a libertarian defense.” Association of libertarian feminists discussion paper

http://www.alf.org/abortion.php

Rothbard, Murray N. 1978.  “The editor replies.” Libertarian Forum. July-August, p. 3; http://mises.org/journals/lf/1978/1978_07-08.pdf

Sadowsky, S.J., James. 1978. “Abortion and Rights of the Child.” Libertarian Forum. July-August, pp. 2-3; http://mises.org/journals/lf/1978/1978_07-08.pdf

Shaffer, Butler. 2012. “Of Children and Fetuses.” September 17;

https://archive.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer259.html

Vance, Laurence. 2008. “Is Ron Paul Wrong on Abortion?” January 29; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance133.html

Vance, Laurence. 2012. “Libertarianism and Abortion.” July 17;

https://archive.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance297.html

Wisniewski, Jakub Bozydar. 2010A. “A Critique of Block on Abortion and Child Abandonment.” Libertarian Papers Vol. 2, No. 16; http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/16-wisniewski-block-on-abortion/

Wisniewski, Jakub Bozydar. 2010B. “Rejoinder to Block’s Defense of Evictionism.” Libertarian Papers. Vol. 2, Art No. 27; http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-37.pdf

Wisniewski, Jakub Bozydar. 2011. “Response to Block on Abortion, Round Three.” Libertarian Papers. Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 1-6;

http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/6-winiewski-response-to-block-on-abortion-round-three/http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-6.pdf

Wisniewski, Jakub Bozydar. 2013. “Abortion, Libertarianism and Evictionism: A Last Word.” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 153-162; http://libertarianpapers.org/2013/6-wisniewski-abortion-libertarianism-and-evictionism/

III. Block responds to critics:

Block, 2010A, 2010B, 2011A, 2011B, 2011C, 2014; forthcoming

Block, Walter E. 2010A. “Objections to the Libertarian Stem Cell Compromise,” Libertarian Papers 2, 34; http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/34-block-objections-to-the-libertarian-stem-cell-compromise/

Block, Walter E. 2010B. “Rejoinder to Wisniewski on Abortion.” Libertarian Papers; Vol. 32, No. 2; http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/32-block-rejoinder-to-wisniewski-on-abortion/http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2010/lp-2-32.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2011A. “Response to Wisniewski on Abortion, Round Two.” Libertarian Papers; Vol. 3, Article No. 4; http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/4-block-response-to-wisniewski-on-abortion-round-two/

Block, Walter E. 2011B. “Response to Wisniewski on Abortion, Round Three.” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 3, No. 6; http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/37-block-response-to-wisniewski-on-abortion/

Block, Walter E. 2011C. “Evictionism is libertarian; departurism is not: critical comment on Parr.” Vol. 3, Article 36, Libertarian Papers;

http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/36-evictionism-is-libertarian-departurism-is-not-critical-comment-on-parr/

Block, Walter E. 2014D. “Response to Wisniewski on Abortion, Round Four.” Management Education Science Technology Journal (MEST); Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 1-14;

http://www.fbim.meste.org/FBIM_2_2014/Sadrzaj_eng.html;

http://www.fbim.meste.org/FBIM_2_2014/4_01.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2013. “Rejoinder to Parr on Evictionism and Departurism” Journal of Peace, Prosperity & Freedom, Vol. 2, pp. 125-138; http://jppfaustralia.weebly.com/current-issue.htmlhttp://jppfaustralia.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/5/5/14558572/journalpeaceprosperityfreedom_single.pdf

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

Block, Walter E. 2017. “Abortion Once Again; a response to Feser, Goodwin, Mosquito, Sadowsky, Vance and Watkins.” Journal of Constitutional Research (Brazil); Vol 4, No. 1, pp. 11-41; http://revistas.ufpr.br/rinc/article/view/50328http://revistas.ufpr.br/rinc/issue/view/2292/showToc

http://revistas.ufpr.br/rinc/article/view/50328/31673

Forestalling: forestall: bagel: donut: forestalling

thought about your point about bringing the baby to the sidewalk

1.if it’s a private sidewalk, the owner would object

2.if it’s a public sidewalk, my bagel theory still applies, I think. The parent is still guilty of precluding others from homesteading the guardianship rights to the baby. the parent might as well leave the baby in a publicly owned forest; same objection

Block, 1977, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010A, 2010B, 2011, 2016; Block and Whitehead, 2005; Epstein vs Block, 2005

Block, Walter E. 1977. “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Abortion.” The Libertarian Forum. Vol. 10, No. 9, September, pp. 6-8; http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1977/1977_09.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2001. “Stem Cell Research: The Libertarian Compromise.” September 3; https://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block5.html

Block, Walter E. 2003.  “Libertarianism vs. Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz,” Reason Papers, Vol. 26, Summer, pp. 39-62; http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf Nambla, child sexuality, child abuse

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.pdfhttps://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/03068290410518256https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/03068290410518256?fullSc=1&journalCode=ijse

Block, Walter E. 2008. “Homesteading, ad coelum, owning views and forestalling.” The Social Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 96-103; http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1890872

Block, Walter E. 2010A. “A libertarian perspective on the stem cell debate: compromising the uncompromisible,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy.  Vol. 2

http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/jhq033?

ijkey=oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref; http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jhq033?ijkey=oczT7ytzmoAD1cz&keytype=ref

Block, Walter E. 2010B. “Van Dun on Freedom and Property: A Critique” Libertarian Papers; Vol. 2, No. 4; http://libertarianpapers.org/2010/4-block-van-dun-on-freedom-and-property/

Block, Walter E. 2011. “Terri Schiavo: A Libertarian Analysis” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, pp. 527–536; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_26.pdfhttp://libertycrier.com/walter-block-terri-schiavo/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LibertyCrier+%28Liberty+Crier%29

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. and Roy Whitehead. 2005. “Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy,” Appalachian Law Review, 4 (2) 1-45; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdfhttp://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-whitehead_abortion-2005.pdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/228125532_Compromising_the_Uncompromisable_A_Private_Property_Rights_Approach_to_Resolving_the_Abortion_Controversy?ev=prf_pubhttp://www.walterblock.com/publications/compromising-the-uncompromisable-a-private-property-rights-approach-to-resolving-the-abortion-controversy/

Epstein, Richard vs. Walter E. Block, 2005. “Debate on Eminent Domain.” NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1144-1169

http://www.nyujll.org/articles/Vol.%201%20No.%203/Vol.%201%20No.%203%20-%20Block%20and%20Epstein.pdf

Share

5:21 pm on April 23, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

(read from the bottom up)

Dear S:

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t see a good analogy between your  “Speech with which I don’t agree is violence” argument and the claim that attempted physical violence against a person doesn’t constitute a threat to his neighbors.

I’ll bet you live in a relatively safe neighborhood, or, at least, as safe as you can afford. Why? You fear violence in unsafe areas.

While we’re on the subject of attempts, let me mention the famous Milgram experiment, the one where the “teachers” were told to administer electric shocks to the “learner” for giving a wrong answer to difficult questions. The shocks were faked. But the teachers didn’t know this. No one was hurt. Are the “teachers” still culpable? I say yes, they were guilty of in effect attempted assault and battery.

Best regards,

Walter

From: S

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 8:21 PM

To: ‘Walter Block’ <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: RE: Attempted Murder Question

Walter:

Yes, I agree that the NAP covers credible threats.  My original question was not about liability, but about appropriate punishment; the two are separate questions (e.g., one can be found liable for breach of contract, but the damages may be nominal if no actual loss is suffered).

The perpetrator has never actually threatened the neighbors’ properties; their concerns are manufactured in their minds.  It seems analogous to the “Speech with which I don’t agree is violence” argument; too much weight is accorded to the alleged victim’s mental state, and not enough to the actual actions of the alleged perpetrator.

S

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 8:38 PM

To:

Subject: RE: Attempted Murder Question

Dear S:

The key is threat. Don’t you agree that the NAP prohibits not only actual invasive violence, but, also, the threat thereof? If so, then, certainly, the target of the attempted has been threatened when he finds out about the attempt. No question there, I think.

But, consider the neighbors now. What’s wrong with saying that they, too, feel threatened? Wouldn’t you feel threatened if someone broke into your neighbor’s house?

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

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

Loyola University New Orleans

6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

Skype: Walter.Block4

tel: (504) 864-7934

From: S

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 7:28 PM

To: ‘Walter Block’ <wblock@loyno.edu>

Subject: RE: Attempted Murder Question

Walter:

Your response suggests that libertarian punishment theory is not based on proportionality or restitution.  On what principles do you contend that it is based?

I don’t find persuasive your argument that other people who were not the subject of the attempt have been harmed because they know of the attempt.  That seems like the “snowflake theory” of punishment.  So if A breaks into B’s house and steals from B, not only is A required to provide restitution to B and suffer a proportional punishment, but all of B’s neighbors can seek compensation because now they’re worried that their houses will be broken into?

S

From: Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 6:13 PM

To:

Subject: RE: Attempted Murder Question

Dear S:

I think the law should treat the attempted murderer of whom the victim is unaware, far more harshly. After all, he did threaten his target. True, his target was, is, unaware of this, but I think that is irrelevant. Other people are aware of this threat, and are also harmed by it (they might think that if the attempted murder of whom the victim is unware can get away with this threat of his, then I’m in more danger than I otherwise thought). Of course, if no on is aware of the attempted murder, then and only then does the perpetrator get away with his evil deed.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

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

Loyola University New Orleans

6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

Skype: Walter.Block4

tel: (504) 864-7934

From: S

Sent: Friday, January 04, 2019 8:07 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Attempted Murder Question

Walter:

Regarding your LRC postings on attempted murder, I think the more interesting point to think through is what should be the punishment for a failed attempted murder, assuming the crime is proven.

If libertarian punishment policy is based on proportionality and restitution, then should there be any punishment levied on an attempted murderer with whom the proposed victim has never interacted?  Since the attempt failed, and the proposed victim never even knew about the attempt, and thus did not suffer emotionally, why should the perpetrator be punished?  There is no loss, and thus nothing to compensate, and a proportional response would mean the proposed victim could make a failed attempt on the perpetrator without the latter knowing (obviously absurd).  (Of course, the bigger question in this whole scenario is how such an attempt would have been uncovered in the first place…)

Modifying the facts slightly, if there is a failed attempt, but the proposed victim did interact with the perpetrator, and thus did suffer emotionally, then I can see how the punishment could be that the proposed victim has the right to cause a similar emotional suffering in the perpetrator.  However, this would be quite ineffective, since the perpetrator would expect that the proposed victim is not going to “go all the way,” and thus it might be tough to “pay back” the emotional suffering.  Thus the proposed victim’s main form of punishment would be compensation for mental suffering.

In either case, the punishments would be quite different from those for actual murder.

S

Share

1:44 am on April 23, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Can Voting Be Justified Along Self-Defense Lines? Yes

Dear S:

In my view, voting can be justified along self-defense lines; here are some readings on this:

Pro: Block, 2012; Block and Fryzek, 2015; Rothbard, 1972A, 1972B; Spooner, 1870; con: McElroy, 2013; Watner, 2000

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

http://libertycrier.com/education/walter-blocks-new-book-on-ron-paul/;

http://libertyunbound.com/node/862

Block, Walter and Nathan Fryzek. 2015. “Was It Immoral to Vote for Ron Paul? And other libertarian questions and answers.” November 26;  http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/11/was-it-immoral-to-vote-for-ron-paul.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TargetLiberty+%28Target+Liberty%29

Rothbard, Murray N. 1972A. “Should Libertarians Vote?”  Outlook, April, p. 6.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1972B. “Interview.” February 25;

https://mises.org/blog/voting-immoral; https://mises.org/library/new-banner-interview-murray-n-rothbard-0

Spooner, Lysander. 1966[1870]. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority and A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard, Larkspur, Colorado: Rampart College; http://jim.com/treason.htm

McElroy, Wendy. 2013. “The Faux Slavery Analogy to Voting.” July 31;

http://dailyanarchist.com/2013/07/31/the-faux-slavery-analogy-to-voting/

criticizes Walter E. Block

Watner, Carl. 2000. “Is Voting an Act of Violence?” April, The Voluntaryist. No. 103

http://voluntaryist.com/articles/103.html#.VzDxM0n2Y5s

Vegetarian, anti https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63NNuG-6-hQ

Best regards,

Walter

(read from the bottom up)

From: S

Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 10:30 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Re: Libertarian Theory

Dear Professor Block,

Interesting question. And thank you very much on that evidence you sent, that is an interesting study and I’m glad you agree on that premise of the argument.

To your question: I suppose what I am getting at in this argument is that it is limiting to think of Libertarianism and the conclusions of the NAP as a strictly political/legal ideology. I am not sure the conundrum can be solved, both options “cutting taxes” and “raising government deficit” is anti-Libertarian and therefore we have no way of answering this question in an economically efficient manner.  I see the conclusions of Libertarianism as a philosophy guiding personal choice, almost an ethical ideology as much as a political one. My argument being, if States loose hold of their nation as it grows more wealthy, and if people acting in a non-aggressive way moves the economy forward, then acting in a non-aggressive way in life can be seen as a political act. All people who act peacefully in society are contributing to the eventuality of anarchy. People who vote, either to lower taxes and increase the deficit, or raise taxes to the lower deficit are only contributing to the violent nature of statehood and therefore are really only furthering non-NAP actions.  I know in Mises’s “Human Action” he states Praxeology is a non-ethical philosophy, that it only concludes what the nature of human action is, not what it should do. But I feel that the further conclusions that lead to the NAP being the fundamental rule and guiding structure of Libertarianism show that this is a rule base that if followed progresses society, and the contrary if not followed. That is to say, the angry anarchistic kid shouldn’t go around breaking windows, as he is only making the society poorer and prolonging the existence of the state.

Does that make sense?

S

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:01 AM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear S:

An excellent start of an important paper.

You say this:

“The wealthier societies are, the weaker a State’s hold on the society is.”

I think this is correct. Here is some empirical evidence to support that:

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

But, how does this solve the conundrum of favoring lower taxes even though it will increase the govt budget deficit?

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

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

Loyola University New Orleans

6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

Skype: Walter.Block4

tel: (504) 864-7934

From: S

Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 1:07 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Re: Libertarian Theory

Dear Professor Block,

Here is a document outlining my idea. I am sure you are busy with the new school year, and so even though my idea is large and complicated I tried to keep this argument short and compact. I am certainty not as good as a writer as you, so I hope it makes sense given the complexity of the subject. If you have any questions, clarifications, or disagreements please let me know. Thank you very much for taking the time to hear out my argument.

S

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 3:40 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear S:

Sure, please send me your idea via return e mail. I’ll take a peek at it.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

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

Loyola University New Orleans

6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

Skype: Walter.Block4

tel: (504) 864-7934

From: S

Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 11:45 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Libertarian Theory

Dear Professor Block,

I am unsure if you remember me, but four years ago when I was in High School we spoke a couple times over skype with my friend M, my teacher Mr. L and D. Though going to college for Human Physiology at the University of XYZ, I have stayed very active in thinking about Austrian economic theory, and Libertarian conclusions. I mostly have been attempting to solve what I find to be the limitations of current Libertarian literature. More specifically, the disconnect between how efficient a free market or anarchy would be, and the fact that it seems impossible to ever achieve such a system. If I recall correctly, you feel strongly about that conclusion. Even though not all believe it is impossible, I feel there is little to no conclusions to date, that outline a concrete logical understanding of how anarchy could/would be achieved. I believe I have something of a remedy for this hole in Libertarian literature and would be delighted to bounce my ideas off of you if you were at all interested. I also feel my idea may be beneficial in aiding the discussion Austrian economist have with the outside intellectual community. I would be willing to do talk over Skype like we did before or simply correspond over email. I extremely enjoyed our talks back then, and hope for more in the future. Please let me know if this topic interests you, and if you would wish to discuss it some more.

S

Share

2:35 am on April 21, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Immigration, Overpopulation, Libertarianism, Wages for the Poor

(read from the bottom up)

Why do I share correspondences like this on the LRC blog? I do so, because in so many things, I like to emulate my friend and mentor, Murray Rothbard. Murray had a voluminous correspondence. Pretty much anyone who wrote him a non-impolite letter, would get a response from Murray. It is the same with me. Murray was unable to share this correspondence widely, given the technology under which he labored; I’ve got the advantage over him in that regard. However, it is my understanding that the Mises Institute will start published this correspondence. When this occurs, we will all be the better for it. Lookit, I’m not trying to compare myself with Murray, in any way other than we both write a published a lot. But he’s somewhere up there, looking down upon us, and, I think, cheering those of us on who are trying to bring honor to him, to promote liberty, as he has done. My thought is that if there is one person who was interested in my thoughts on Austro-libertarianism, there might well be others. Hence, these blogs.

Dear Chris:

Worried about over population? Read these:

Bauer, 1981; Boudreaux, 2008; Desrochers, 2015;  Friedman, 1972, 1977; Gaylor and Weil, 2000; Robbins, 1928, 1966; Rothbard, 2011; Say, 1821; Simon, 1981, 1990, 1996; Sowell, 1983; Williams, 1999; Wittman, 2000

Bauer, Peter. 1981. “The Population Explosion: Myths and Realities,” in Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Boudreaux, Don. 2008. “Optimal Population?” April 8;

Optimal Population?

Desrochers, Pierre. 2015. “The Simon-Ehrlich Wager 25 years on; As the famous environmentalist bet showed, Malthusians are always wrong.”

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-simonehrlich-wager-25-years-on/17482#.Vm4zL09Ig5s

Friedman, David. 1972. Laissez Faire in Population: the Least Bad Solution, New York: Population Council

Friedman, David. 1977. “A theory of the size and shape of nations.” Journal of Political Economy, 85:59-77.

Gaylor, Oded, and David N. Weil. 2000. “Population, Technology, and Growth: From Malthusian Stagnation to the Demographic Transition and Beyond,” American Economic Review  90 (September): 806-828

Robbins, Lionel. 1928. “The Optimum Theory of Population” in London Essays in Economics: in Honour of Edwin Cannan, eds. T. Gregory and H. Dalton. Routledge: Abingdon, UK.

According to google books (link- https://books.google.com/books/about/London_Essays_in_Economics.html?id=HydBAAAAIAAJ ) the publisher is Routledge.

According to their Historical Resource website (link- https://www.routledgehistoricalresources.com/economic-thought/books/london-essays-in-economics), they are located in Abingdon, UK. If you follow this link and click the “cite” button in the middle right of the page, several versions of the full citation appear however these are dated in 2013.

Robbins, Lionel. 1966.  The theory of economic development in the history of economic thought. “Lecture two: population and returns.” pp. 22-33; London: Macmillan, St Martin’s; http://library.mises.org/books/Lionel%20Robbins/The%20Theory%20of%20Economic%20Development.pdf

Rothbard, Murray N. 2011. “Malthus and the Assault on Population.” August 2;  http://mises.org/daily/5501/

Say, Jean-Baptiste. 1821. Letters to Mr. Malthus. https://mises.org/library/letters-mr-malthus

Simon, Julian. 1981. The Ultimate Resource, Princeton: Princeton University Press

Simon, Julian, 1990. “The Unreported Revolution in Population in Population Economics.” The Public Interest.  Fall:89-100.

Simon, Julian. 1996. The Ultimate Resource II. Princeton University Press

Simon, Julian. 1996. The Ultimate Resource II. Princeton University Press

Sowell, Thomas. 1983. The Economics and Politics of Race: An International Perspective. New York: Morrow.

Williams, Walter E. 1999. “Population control nonsense.” Jewish World Review; Feb. 24

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams022499.asp

Wittman, Donald. 2000. “The Wealth and Size of Nations.” Journal of Conflict Resolution.Vol. 44, No. 6, pp. 868-884

According to Sowell (1983): “Every human being on the face of the Earth could be housed in the state of Texas in one-story, single-family homes, each with a front and a back yard. A family of four would thus have 6,800 square feet- about the size of the typical middle-class American home with front and backyards.”

The bet:: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager

Best regards,

Walter

From: C

Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 10:17 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Re: Wages for Poor and Immigration

Dear Walter,

Re: “Immigration and Homesteading”

How to handle disputes? Two homesteaders want the same piece of land?

“For us to attain a libertarian society, not only would Ron Paul have

to be president, but he would have to have the support of both houses of congress and

numerous state legislatures to boot. This will not bloody likely happen. Therefore, open

borders, it cannot be denied, will result in the domestic population being overcome.”

“From a utilitarian point of view, we do greater harm to them by

being unclear about what libertarianism is all about, than by seizing temporary relief. From

a realpolitik point of view, we libertarians can afford to take am unadulterated position.

We are not in charge of immigration policy. Our views will be little noted,[nor long remembered] and certainly not implemented, by the powers that be.”

Although I have labeled myself an anti-war bleeding heart Ron Paul Libertarian, I confess that I have not studied Libertarianism or NAP. I believe in live and let live, being neighborly, smaller government, less “unjust enrichment”, and birth control so our 7 billion does not become 10 billion.  I am not too concerned about immigrant criminals. Most all immigrants I know are fine people. I fear the horde and I support anything to stop it. Even a violation of Libertarian principles and NAP.

By the way, I cannot find:  Block, Walter E. 1988. Dollars and Sense: “Migration patterns tell real story.” January 12.  I only find references to it.

Best C

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:21 PM wrote:

Dear Walter,

I am reading your pubs one a day and I comment upon them as I go.

Best, C

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:15 AM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear C:

I take it you have not read my pubs on this subject.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

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

Loyola University New Orleans

6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

Skype: Walter.Block4

tel: (504) 864-7934

From: C

Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 10:46 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Re: Wages for Poor and Immigration

Dear Walter,

Re: HOPPE, KINSELLA AND ROTHBARD II ON IMMIGRATION: A CRITIQUE 2011

A thought experiment: Open our borders. The Chinese government wishes to takeover the USA. They just send over 300 million Chinese. China conquers the U.S. without guns, just some money.

A thought: Our family may not wish to take any immigrants into our home. Could our neighborhood decide collectively not to accept immigrants, could our city, our state, our nation?

Even if open borders is consistent with Libertarianism, are the consequences desirable?

Another thought: We own our home on a 1/3 acre lot. I think the Libertarian view is that I can decide unilaterally who is invited in and who is not. Say I purchase a 1/3 acre lot on the California/Mexican border. I think I would have the same right of who is invited in and who is not. Take that to the extreme: I buy a 100ft strip of land from the Pacific to the Gulf Coast. Could I still decide who is invited in and who is not?

Best, C

On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 9:14 AM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear C:

My pleasure.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

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

Loyola University New Orleans

6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

Skype: Walter.Block4

tel: (504) 864-7934

From: C

Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 8:49 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Re: Wages for Poor and Immigration

Dear Walter,

Re: “The Libertarian Case for Free Immigration”

I benefit economically from immigration due to low prices, yet do not suffer because I am not in the labor pool. I have quipped, “I share the gain, but not the pain”. Seems like “unjust enrichment”.

You even validate my concern: “it is true that under some circumstances, workers in

the receiving country (and capital and land in the country or origin), will lose out. Conversely, capitalists and land owners in the receiving country gain from the cooperation of a larger supply of labor,”

Which workers have lost out and by how much? I have not been able to find the data, but there are a lot of unhappy workers out there that know what is in their pay checks. They look around and (in California) a quarter of their coworkers are foreign born. Their desire to reduce immigration is understandable even without PhDs in economics.

Walter, Thanks for sharing decades of your work,

C

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 5:11 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear C:

Good luck to you on this.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

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

Loyola University New Orleans

6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

Skype: Walter.Block4

tel: (504) 864-7934

From: C

Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2018 2:44 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Re: Wages for Poor and Immigration

Dear Walter,

I am starting at the top of your list of documents: “The Illogical Fear of Automation, Falling Wages, and Falling Prices.”

Your argument for automation makes sense to me. I do not, however, see that “The same reasoning applies to immigration”. Immigration does increase the GDP. It does lower labor costs. It does lower prices. BUT, it does not improve productivity. It benefits people, such as myself, who are not in the labor market. My guess is that the reduction in prices does not make up for the reduction in wages for our laboring folks.

Perhaps the next article in your list will enlighten me.

Best,

C

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 8:51 AM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear C:

I look forward to seeing your reaction to my solution to this problem: privatize everything.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

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

Loyola University New Orleans

6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

Skype: Walter.Block4

tel: (504) 864-7934

From: C

Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2018 1:31 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Re: Wages for Poor and Immigration

Dear Old Man,

You have really researched and thought about the immigration issue. I agree that I have no legal or moral right to the value of my properties. In our situation, 100% of the recent sales in our neighborhood have been to Asian and Indian buyers for cash at prices 100 times the original (mid 1960’s) prices of the homes. It is legal, but I am not obligated to like it. I would like to see our laws changed.

I read your “A response to the libertarian critics of open-borders libertarianism” I intend to read more of your articles.

I have described myself as a “bleeding heart anti-war libertarian” I believe in “live and let live” while being neighborly. I also believe that we, the United States, have a good thing going. Our land, resources, our culture, our Constitution, our common language, our economy. My sense is that permanent immigration in the last few years has made things worse for the majority of our citizens. It benefits the immigrants and benefits our richer citizens. Communication and establishing a rapport are much easier between people who are native American English speakers. Example our Blue Cross statement is in 19 different languages. I submit that the first priority of our government is the welfare of our citizens above the welfare of the rest of world. Our government has the right to decide who is allowed to come into our country. I advocate that we enact laws to stop all permanent immigration. If citizens feel a moral obligation to help the rest of the world, and I do, then we citizens should support massive birth control programs for the rest of the world.

I oppose open borders because I have spent time in India and I would not like to see the population of the U.S. approach a billion. I feel that 320 million is more than enough. And we have enough of our own problems, we do not need to import more.

Thanks for listening to my rant,

C

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 6:27 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear Young Pup (I’m 77, so I think I’ve got you beat in this dimension):

Yes, if most immigrants are computer nerds, other things equal, this will tend to drive down the wages of our local computer nerds. On the other hand, if most immigrants are unskilled, other things equal, this will tend to drive down the wages of our local unskilled people. It all depends upon what types of immigrants we get, and that keeps changing.

I personally, am more worried about rape-fugees, and truck bombing-fugees than I am about changing neighborhoods, but, I feel for your plight. It is indeed a serious one. Clint Eastwood was recently in a movie about this sort of thing. I think the only way to protect yourself from that is to purchase a house in the middle of a 100 acre plot. No changing local neighborhoods, then.

This article of mine demonstrates that property owners own, only, their physical property, not its value:

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann and Walter E. Block. 2002. “Property and Exploitation,” International Journal of Value-Based Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 225-236; http://www.mises.org/etexts/propertyexploitation.pdf

I think we can extrapolate from that to say that the property owners’ rights are not violated if a new group of people move in. Consider gentrification. Very rich people move into a neighborhood. There are now different kinds of stores. The older inhabitants resent this. But, have their rights been violated? I think not.

I hope this is helpful to you.

If you are interested, here are all my pubs on immigration:

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-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;

http://direitasja.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/labor-economics-from-a-free-market-perspective-walter-block.pdf

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;

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/12/walter-block-on-immigration.html

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/;

http://digitalcommons.lmunet.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1071&context=lmulrev

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;

https://mises.org/library/immigration-roundtable-walter-block

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;

https://mises.org/system/tdf/21_3_2.pdf?file=1&type=document

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

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

Loyola University New Orleans

6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

Skype: Walter.Block4

tel: (504) 864-7934

From: C

Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 8:08 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Re: Wages for Poor and Immigration

Dear Walter,

Thank you so much for your response. Please help me to understand.

I am an old retired engineer/business owner born a few miles from here. In the past 70+ years I have been witness to a six fold increase in this area’s population. Open fields and orchards turning into houses and businesses, overcrowding and congestion. I do not like it. Immigration is an obvious and very visible part of the increase. We have lived in our house for 40 years. About 1000 of these houses were built in the mid sixties. I am now a stranger in in my own land. When I walk 90% of the people I see are from a different culture and language. Nice people, I am sure, but If I want to be with an interesting culture I can hop on a plane. Net result, I oppose anymore immigration.

I am looking for a good political argument to support ending permanent immigration. In the process I have to avoid the danger my decision theory professor warned, “Believing is seeing”.

I see in our neighborhood there are no kids cutting grass. 100% of the grass cutters are foreign born. Kids do not have summer jobs doing manual labor. They go to summer school or have “internships” or travel. I did manual labor during my summers and was well paid. I suspect that is no longer true.

You say that “Immigration boosts domestic wages of some parts of the labor market, and reduce the of others, it all depends upon the skills of the immigrants.” Let us focus on “wages for the poor”. Is there solid data that shows that immigration depresses wages of the poor? I took Economics 1. It would seem that increasing the supply of unskilled laborers when the demand is constant would result in a reduction in wages.

Thanks again for your response,

C

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 3:16 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear C:

Thanks for your very thoughtful response to my essay.

We need not wait two years to find this out. There is already a wealth of empirical findings on these sorts of questions. The only trouble with them is that they contradict one another.

In my reading of this literature, immigration boosts domestic wages of some parts of the labor market, and reduces that of others; it all depends upon the skills of the immigrants. And this is continually changing.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

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

Loyola University New Orleans

6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

Skype: Walter.Block4

tel: (504) 864-7934

From: C

Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2018 4:36 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Wages for Poor and Immigration

Dear Professor Block,

I read your article “How to raise Wages for the Poor” in The November 8 issue of The Epoch Times.

Yes, “All to many people still aren’t participating in the labor force.”

Yes, “We have more job openings than job seekers.” But, but I sense that these potential “seekers” just do not want to work for crappy wages.

Some economists have opined that the very recent increase in wages was due a tightening of the labor market. Supply and demand?

In California 27% of the population is foreign born, at least according to our Governor Jerry Brown. I would think that there is a similar percentage in the labor supply and that this increase in the labor pool would depress wages, especially for the poor.  A thought experiment on a micro scale: In Silicon Valley, Vietnamese women are the vast majority of manicurists. Send them all home with a generous stipend. What is going to happen to the price of manicures? Affluent people will pay more for manicures.

Now let’s do a real experiment on macro scale: Institute a 2 year moratorium on all immigration and see what happens to wages for the poor.

Respectfully yours,

C

Share

2:38 am on April 20, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Costs of Clinical Trials for the FDA Are Substantial

From: C
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 9:41 AM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Publication correspondence

Dr. Block,

I am an instructor at the University of XYZ. I teach our ethics and law class on health care (the school doesn’t know that they’ve let a libertarian teach about health care). I am working on writing up some lecture content regarding the costs of health care and came across your published work on the economics of pharmaceuticals:

Romanach, John and Walter E. Block. 2017. “Medical Economics: End the FDA.” The Winners; Binus University Journal. Vol 18, No 1, pp. 43-48;

http://journal.binus.ac.id/index.php/winners/issue/view/222/showToc; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21512/tw.v18i1.4052

http://journal.binus.ac.id/index.php/winners/issue/view/222/showToc

I noted this statement, “Studies indicate that the need to conduct these various stages of clinical trials adds almost 40% to the cost of R&D for a new drug. Such a dramatic increase in the cost to supply drugs will undoubtedly raise the price paid by consumers.” Could you possibly point me in the direction of these studies?

Thank you for your assistance, C

Fidem – Caritas – Fortitudo

Dear C:

I’m glad you benefitted from your perusal of that article of mine. See below some estimates of such costs. It is a sad day when you have to stay in the “closet” but I honor you for so doing.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C2CHBF_enUS724US724&source=hp&ei=mAm6XPndEoe50PEPyvWa0Ag&q=clinical+trials+costs+for+fda+approval&oq=clinical+trials+costs+for+fda&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.33i22i29i30l7.2318.10093..17157…0.0..0.333.1342.10j3j0j1……0….2j1..gws-wiz…..0..0j0i22i30j0i22i10i30.tbauIXeG_lw

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C2CHBF_enUS724US724&ei=qQm6XNz8Np2-0PEPk_6w2Ak&q=clinical+trials+costs+for+fda&oq=clinical+trials+costs+for+fda&gs_l=psy-ab.3…7848.7848..9118…0.0..0.90.90.1……0….1..gws-wiz…….0i71.lUovzBh9qTw

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C2CHBF_enUS724US724&ei=qQm6XNz8Np2-0PEPk_6w2Ak&q=clinical+trials+costs+for+fda+&oq=clinical+trials+costs+for+fda+&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30l6.5916.5916..11845…0.0..0.92.92.1……0….1..gws-wiz…….0i71.sHdhM1E3KI8

Share

2:39 pm on April 19, 2019

Please follow and like us:
{ 0 comments }

Do We Really Want Three Billion Immigrants, Even If None of Them Are Criminals? No. Not I.

From: M

Sent: Friday, March 08, 2019 6:15 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Re: Open Borders and Strict Libertarian Theory

Dr. Block,

Pete, Pierre, and Pedro contract with an airline (outside the lines on a map known as the continental united States) for a trip from THAT airport to an airport in Anywhere, Continental united States. [note that the SAME thing is possible by automobile, bus, railroad, and ship — or some combination thereof.] They arrive at Anywhere airport, deplane, grab a sandwich, and exit. On the curb they hail a taxi or an uber or a bus or have a friend/acquaintance/party pick them up (contracting accordingly) … they drive to a hotel where they (again) contract with the proprietor for a room. The next day, they again hail a taxi or an uber or a bus or have a friend/acquaintance/party pick them up (contracting accordingly) and travel to a business. At the business, they contract with the owner and execute said contract accordingly. Where did *any* of these gentlemen enter/attempt to enter anyone’s property without permission? Sincerely, M

Dear M:

But, one of these three is a rape-fugee! Is that not a problem? Also, suppose instead of only 3, there are 3 billion of them, all innocent. Ok, they all get permission to land in a big empty private area in the middle of Nevada. Ok, so far. But, now, they want to get out onto the highways to go elsewhere. Right now, there are no private highways. Isn’t it a problem that 3 billion people, even innocent ones, will soon be intermingling with us? I think it is a devastating problem.

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.pdf; http://mises.org/daily/3416; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/radical_privatization.pdf; audio: http://store.mises.org/Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Audiobook-P11005.aspx; http://www.audible.com/pd/Business/The-Privatization-of-Roads-and-Highways-Audiobook/B0167IT18K?tag=misesinsti-20; http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=bf16b152ccc444bdbbcc229e4&id=6cbc90577b&e=54244ea97d

http://www.sanfranciscoreviewofbooks.com/2017/09/book-review-privatization-of-roads-and.html

Best regards,

Walter

Share

2:01 am on April 19, 2019

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