WalterBlock.com

Here is Randy Barnett, Part I:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/randy-barnett-mis-assesses-murray-rothbard/

Randy Barnett Mis-assesses Murray Rothbard – LRC Blog LewRockwell.com

From: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 11:58 AM

To: ‘Mike

Subject: RE: your LRC Blog item about Murray/Barnett

Dear Mike:

What a lovely letter. Thanks.

Yes, Murray and a lot of his early followers and friends of his fell apart from each other. But, in my experience, he never broke with them. Rather, they broke with him.

Several of my own former students have done off to the dark side. Became beltway, as opposed to Rothbardian libertarians. Some broke with me, to my great unhappiness. But I follow Murray on this as on most things: I never broke with them, nor have any intention of ever doing so.

I’m a big tent kind of guy. Even the beltway libertarians are on the same side as us, at least compared to the Bidens of the world.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Mike

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 10:54 AM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: your LRC Blog item about Murray/Barnett

Walter,

You are absolutely correct in your response to Randy Barnett’s claim (in 2004!) that Murray demanded complete agreement with him or would somehow reject further contact.

One of the guiding aspects of libertarians is that we all sometimes disagree on various points.

While in some academic debates or strings of argumentation one might finally decide to abandon a forum or reply, just to focus on other things, Murray certainly didn’t require agreement to be in his circle or be considered worthy of debate.

I personally had several disagreements with him (mainly over political direction -*- of libertarians) yet we remained cordial and in contact to his very end.

He could be very sharp in argumentation and didn’t suffer fools lightly (at times, other times he delighted in spotlighting them) so some who were thin skinned didn’t take to his contrary opinions with much grace.

I am not sure why Barnett’s nearly two decade old view is worth rebuttal at this point. There was and is no “Rothbard cult” and he would have been the first to reject such a silly notion.

(-* -) – The two which stand out to me are 1) whether or not the LP was a good idea, I was pro and he was initially con, and 2) the idea of an organized Republican Party political caucus; he was initially negative, I was working on it. Subsequently Murray became an LP member and served on the LNC. He never formally endorsed the Republican Liberty Caucus but was the main speaker at the initial 1992 RLC convention in Houston. Also a huge supporter of Ron Paul’s return to politics.

PS – I recall him telling me the story of the time in Las Vegas when a student was arguing about some issue and claiming that the student’s view was the “Rothbardian” one. Murray cackled when he told me, “But I am Rothbard!”

Best regards,

Mike

Katy TX

5:42 am on January 28, 2022

The Best of Walter E. Block

Here is Flagpole, Part IV:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-flagpole-part-iv/

Please, no mas on the flagpole. I’m getting tired of this one!

From: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 8:28 AM

To: ‘Daniel

Subject: RE: The Flagpole

Dear Daniel:

Proportionality is the proper criterion for punishment. But we are not now talking about punishment. We are talking about self-defense, where it does not apply.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Daniel

Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 1:19 AM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject: The Flagpole

Isn’t there a matter of proportionality at issue here?  Given the flagpole holder is trespassing shouldn’t the owner’s response be proportionate to the threat?  It is difficult to see how one holding onto a flagpole for dear life poses any threat to the owner that would warrant their being shot, which may itself kill the flagpole holder or cause him to fall to his death. Practically, if the owner didn’t want to allow the flagpole holder to enter the owner’s window wouldn’t it be reasonable for the owner to call the fire department to rescue the holder with a crane truck?  This rule of reasonableness should apply else one is driven to accept that a property owner could shoot any kid that crossed a corner of his property walking to school. It would be quite a stretch to claim the kid crossing a corner of some guy’s front yard is such a NAP violation that killing kids is an acceptable response.

Marlow

Dear Chris:

Thanks for sharing these important points with me. However, they are a bit, to my way of thinking, off the main point. Which is, this is an attack on the Rothbardian viewpoint on the importance of the NAP. Does that woman have the right to shoot the flagpole holder for trespass?

Best regards,

Walter

From: Chris

Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 5:56 PM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject: Fw: Flagpole Challenges; Wisdom Applied (Preventatively, at Occurrences, and so Forth)?

*find fight

From: Chris

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022, 08:02:14 PM EST

Subject: Fw: Flagpole Challenges; Wisdom Applied (Preventatively, at Occurrences, and so Forth)?

*Imago Dei reference

From: Chris

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022, 07:57:11 PM EST

Subject: Flagpole Challenges; Wisdom Applied (Preventatively, at Occurrences, and so Forth)?

Greetings Walter,

I am forwarding some notes in case something useful/profitable- at least in part- may be among thoughts recorded here:

Of course, the matter in reference (and such variables and variations) would/could be bad for business for the apartment complex owner (+ any insurance company/companies which may [be obligated to] cover the fall, the reputation (and further consequences) of the one who prevented safe escape (means of rescue), the community in uproar, etc.)- maybe good for business for media sensationalism.

I suppose if everyone in a community hated the person (or was unknown/”a nobody” to others, an enemy, etc.), this may influence the perceptions of- at least- some (i.e., got what he deserved, even if not related in occurrence to evil doing/heinous activity; “caught up with him”; perceived “karma”/reap the whirlwind/so-called “Kennedy curse”, etc.).

One might expect the owner (or owners) would like to prevent such costly events (financially and otherwise)- as well as most old ladies may not be “froggy”/jumpy for opportunities to shoot men down (e.g., “Cocaine Blues”). Apartment renters/owners may also be (at least generally) inclined toward having secure and danger-preventative balcony guard rails (if balconies are present/used).

There is a [referenced] saying, “The best way to win a fight (generally speaking) is to prevent it from ever taking place.”

And another: “Every bullet  (” ”’; my insert here) you fire will have a lawyer attached to it.”

Various wise means (including precepts, plans, means and modes, etc.) could prevent such escalated occurrences from ever taking place.

If a once in a decade, century, or millennium (for examples) event is wisely planned for preventatively, such events may not occur at all (out of proper minds, hands, and provision), or at least less often. Astute observers (not only actuaries calculating odds with varying parameters) may recognize, without experiences of deaths, that lives were [potentially] saved/protected.

Clear communication could also be a pervading element throughout- situational awareness and chameleon adaption to “rules of the game” as well.

Deuteronomy 22:8 [NKJV]: “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.”

There is a way of thinking about the “spirit of the law,” when building and finding buyers, so as to prevent (or minimize to virtually zero probability) business fiascos, deaths, etc. in the first place- not that all will recognize or accept such (without leader/community acceptance, underpinnings may not be utilized to a large degree).

I want reference such spirit in reference to “the Rothbardian tradition” in case it may be taken as blasphemous, but I think you may get my point regarding your proposing and evangelism toward libertarianism (“one true faith” reference, whether tongue-in-cheek)- the spirit of the law in reference to intention. Those who don’t understanding the communication of Rothbard may also misinterpret his positions/intentions, to their own degrees of not understanding (i.e., “Read Rothbard”).

I reference/frame under the underpinnings/umbrella of the spirit of the law (new covenant context), as previously referenced in regards to the series on “Caveat Emptor”. I will leave my framework position there for clarification purposes, as you already are aware.

If the apartment complex owner fixes the balconies of the higher floors in such ways as to make the probability of persons falling by accident virtually zero, this may come up as often as zero times to once every ten years, 100 years, (1000 years [?]) etc. within a community (even among high-population cities, yet maybe a bit more frequent in occurrence).

Other means, he/she may still fall (e.g., attempted suicide (another, + here), mafia/gang/hitman/activity, intelligence/state/military/mercenary operation/activity, nagging spouse thrown over, drug use frenzy/stupor, idiotic rail climbing/jumping, building on fire (no ladder/escape [?]), etc.

If the complex owner(s) find(s) that the area has/have many suicide jumpers, nets could be used, or/along with more extensive guard rails, etc.

Ways to reduce suicidal ideations/suicide/suicide attempts may also be considered (why so many in some places [?]; e.g., Apple in China, numbers in lock-down, post-war, hopelessness [mindset], etc.).

Discussions (conventions, golf course dialogue, etc.) could be made with other complex owners, engineers, insurance agents/agencies, actuaries, etc., regarding wise practices (although not all (yet some may be both- and some further targets) may be intending wisdom (the wisest plan)- rather cost efficiency (which does not always mean/surrender to cutting corners), laziness, bad hiring choices/selections, etc. may be considered and implemented.

wise strategies (even long-term success (considered) strategies; not cutting corners to temporarily pull “fast ones”) may/would decrease scenarios down to super rare (to zero occurring) events (parachuting in high wind (hanging from balcony), tornado picked up and through person onto a balcony, launched from parade cannon onto a balcony, sleep walking, extreme phobia inside threats, etc.).

Preparation meets (shut-down prevention) opportunity.

A hotel complex owner may not even risk building high structures individuals could fall from if previous owners lose too much revenue (+ reputation, heartache, etc.) from such events. Who wants to be the/a business owner known for “death apartments” or “death” hotel?

A number of such rare/unplanned occurrences may not have been adequately prepared beforehand via preventive measures.

Some countries (via communism et al.) have killed off those capable of strategic planning to prevent catastrophes/deaths.

The person kicked out in negative degree weather would be expected (as practice) to have self-preserving preventive aids in such an environment where people were known/suspected to not be “good Samaritans, rather ones who may plausibly cause harm/abandonment and/or lead to its end effects.

No provisions for innocent/helpless/(genuinely; non-lazy) mentally and/or physically deficient/lacking (unable to help one’s own self; Father/grandfather drops toddler (rescue/save or kick/cut [hands]/stab/shoot/force off rail, etc.), wittingly or otherwise? Cf. previous email regarding voluntary [free] actions of the virtuous woman (Proverbs 31) as opposed to gov’t force, welfarism, etc.

By this, I mean especially in areas were danger is a plausible scenario. I wouldn’t expect someone’s own grandparents/relatives/genuine friend(s) to (commonly) off ’em in a [winter] storm intentionally/non-accidentally (unless persons were attempting to kill/severely harm a relative/friend or such/do away with, or were acting without discernment (neurotic, etc.[?]) of circumstances).

Who knows [?], maybe at minimum a few earn/reap their own kick out (e.g., committed grievous harm to a property owner/dweller, etc.) before rather than after the storm (even if previously invited).

Mercy vs immediate danger/threat.

Maybe someone who invites a neighbor onto/into his property voluntarily, knowing weather conditions were changing negative, might have different outcome expectations, judicially speak (e.g., setting up someone/plotting for someone’s demise, to be stranded/offed/abandoned in dire circumstances).

But we could hear seemingly infinite variations (e.g., three year old fail from balcony, infant left in the storm, old lady stepped on/cut/shot/forced off fingers of person (adult or child)- or potentially an animal/pet- gripping onto a balcony/flag pole for dear life, The Lion King/Mufasa’s demise (by the hands and plotting of his own brother Scar), etc.). In a society toward concerns for and goodwill toward (especially innocent) others, utilizing fitting discernment and wise measures of prevention, we may expect zero to very few occurrences. Iron sharpening Iron (and learning from unfortunate errors, events, harms, etc.), and wise persons (engineers, business owners, developers, elders, planners, etc.) devising and implementing such measures (including precepts, plans, means and modes, etc.), even in private (non-state apparatus) agreements- an anarchist town/community/island- to make situations better than before/more desirable/more sound/more profitable/more efficient (etc.).

In dangerous areas (areas with plausible/expectant scenarios of such; c.f. The Rifleman, The Wild West/Tombstone (etc.)), potential bearing and actuarially speaking, we may carry big sticks (gun, knives, other armaments, bear spray, all the above or some, +/etc.), as deterrents, for defense (if such defense need be for protection, ward off takeovers, etc.), etc.- otherwise we may carry because we so choose (as free men, preparedness, tools, defense-ready, hunting, all the above, etc.).

I would prefer to live around others with views toward preventing such (Scar vs Mufasa activity; enemies in the gates; danger/dangerous/evil ones abounding) from ever occurring (or giving the opportunity or foothold) while maintaining attitudes toward freedom, anti-tyranny, care for neighbors, rightness, etc.

I think wise persons rightly focused could provide some reasonable (even wise and prudent) solutions and parameters in advance of such occurrences. Men discussing as men and such, what may be wise, profitable, etc.

Or build where people believe in the spirit [of] such as this (at least in spirit, not [necessarily/particularly] in reinstituting means of being sold, but in restitution measures (family-wise, etc.)):

Exo 22:2

“If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.

Exo 22:3

“If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

…and let other places “go to hell”- so to speak- at least until minds, hearts, etc. change and act in good “Samaritan” ways (or at least don’t kill one another so easily)- i.e., why build in Sodom and/or Gomorrah (places where green grass [and businesses] are ruined/turned into salt?). Caveat emptor for one building or buying in such [dangerous] places/communities; otherwise, much work may be futile in chaos until cleared out/ended..

And for the $100: The lady (example in reference) may be like Buffett wanting a million USD (a life’s worth of income for many; potentially some would fall into lifetime servitude) for a fill of water in the desert. If we can reduce scenarios to zero/virtually zero, (applying wise practices) all the better. Such scenarios-types have happened in areas of Africa not too many years back (exploitation traps: promised better lives, given travel, unable to pay at middle of trip [unexpected] location stops, immediate slavery/serfdom), cf. Hillary Clinton et al.

Even if owners (even communities) of such do not [personally] adhere/uphold to underpinnings from the Scriptures, we might find one/some who at least act(s) amicably toward those within the confines of his/their apartment complex- at least to keep those supporting (and potential supporters) his income (+ lifestyle, etc.) to continue to be able to do so.

Peace.

Onward!

5:40 am on January 28, 2022

The Best of Walter E. Block

Dear Randy:

In this 2004 essay of yours, Barnett, Randy E. 2004. “The Moral Foundations of Modern Libertarianism.” https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/848, you state the following:

“But even before his death in 1995, Rothbard’s insistence on complete agreement from his admirers, and his willingness to shuck any deviationists,”

I think this is a mis-assessment of Murray on your part.

Murray never “shucked” me. Nor did I ever voluntarily leave his ambit. Yet, I disagreed with him, both privately and publicly (see below) on numerous occasions.

Do you think I’m “the exception that proves the rule,” or do you think you were mistaken in this contention of yours?

Hans Hoppe, too, “deviated” from Murray’s Natural Law with his argument ethics, and also on immigration (Murray initially favored open borders, then changed his mine), yet the two of them were always close friends, as close if not more so as were me and Murray. Two exceptions that prove the rule?

Best regards,

Walter

Barnett II, William and Walter E. Block. 2012. “The Optimum Quantity of Money, Once Again.” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets; Vol. 7, No. 1, March, pp. 9-24; http://www.addletonacademicpublishers.com/component/option,com_sectionex/Itemid,103/id,23/view,category/#catid145; Password: AddletonAP2009. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Optimum-Quantity-of-Money%2C-Once-Again-Barnett-Block/2d43f6dbc3bebfcd9790ed67a35b2fd211374779

Block, Walter E. 2011A. “Hoppe, Kinsella and Rothbard II on Immigration: A Critique.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22, No. 1, 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, No. 1, pp. 771–792; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_38.pdf

Barnett, William II, and Walter E. Block. 2009. “Investment and Consumption: A critique of Rothbard’s claim that there can be no such thing as governmental ‘investment’” Journal of Public Finance and Public Choice. 27 (2-3): 183-188; https://walterblocks.com/wp-content/uploads/InvestmentConsumption.pdf

Barnett, William II and Walter E. Block. 2007. “Saving and Investment: A Praxeological Approach.” New Perspectives on Political Economy, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 129 – 138;

http://pcpe.libinst.cz/nppe/3_2/nppe3_2_1.pdf; http://141.164.133.3/exchange/walterblock/Inbox/Re%20query.EML/nppe3_2_block.pdf/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/nppe3_2_block.pdf?attach=1; http://www.academia.edu/1359832/Saving_and_Investment_A_Praxeological_Approach

Block, Walter E., Peter Klein and Per Henrik Hansen. 2007. “The Division of Labor under Homogeneity: A Critique of Mises and Rothbard” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, April Vol. 66 Issue 2, pp. 457-464; http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/ajes/66/2; http://141.164.133.3/exchange/walterblock/Inbox/Re:%20link_x003F_-2.EML/1_multipart_xF8FF_2_j.1536-7150.2007.00520.pdf/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/j.1536-7150.2007.00520.pdf?attach=1

Block, Walter E., William Barnett II and Joseph Salerno. 2006. “Relationship between wealth or income and time preference is empirical, not apodictic: critique of Rothbard and Hoppe,” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 69-80; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11138-006-6094-8

Barnett, William II, and Walter E. Block. 2005-2006. “Mises, Rothbard and Salerno on Costs.” Corporate Ownership & Control, Winter, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 204-206

Barnett, William II, and Walter E. Block.  2005. “Money: Capital Good, Consumers’ Good, or (Media of) Exchange Good?” Review of Austrian Economics. 18 (2): 179-194; http://www.gmu.edu/rae/archives/VOL18_2_2005/4_Barnett.pdf

Barnett, William II and Walter E. Block. 2004. “On the Optimum Quantity of Money,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 39-52; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae7_1_4.pdf; https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Optimum-Quantity-of-Money%2C-Once-Again-Barnett-Block/2d43f6dbc3bebfcd9790ed67a35b2fd211374779

Block, Walter E. 2004. “Are Alienability and the Apriori of Argument Logically Incompatible?” Dialogue, Vol. 1, No. 1. http://www.uni-svishtov.bg/dialog/2004/256gord6.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2003. “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Gordon, Smith, Kinsella and Epstein,” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol.17, No. 2, Spring, pp. 39-85; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/17_2/17_2_3.pdf

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

1:12 pm on January 26, 2022

The Best of Walter E. Block

Here is part III in the flagpole series: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-flagpole-part-iii/

Here is the next installment:

From: T

Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 12:18 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Flagpole

Well Walter if I was the guy on the flagpole I would just say “sorry for the trespass ma’am, but thank God your pole saved my life. Here’s a hundred bucks for your inconvenience.”

T

Dear T:

I see you and I raise you. I’d pay lots more than that to save my life. But, that’s not a question a libertarian can answer. As I see things, our philosophy can only answer questions concerning the use of violence. We can’t, at least not qua libertarians, tell the flagpole hanger what to do. We an only answer the question, if the homeowner shoots him, did she violate his rights. I say no.

From: Roderick

Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 6:08 AM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject: Flagpole issue

Dear Walter,

Thank you for posting your flagpole articles. Your comment about taking the perspective of the property owner rather than the trespasser is enlightening.

On a bit of a tangent, in your 2003 post you said that those who attack the non-aggression axiom on emergency grounds should logically give up any wealth they have to those who have less.

Would it also follow that they should give up a kidney, eye, lung, etc. to those who are in greater need of these?

Is this what Ayn Rand meant (I think it was she) when she said the logical conclusion of altruism is that its adherents could only “shut up and die”?

Regards,

Rod

From: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 8:50 AM

To: ‘Roderick

Subject: RE: Flagpole issue

Dear Rod:

Yes, yes, yes! There are always emergencies, somewhere on this planet of ours. Why be compelled, only, to give up money without the NAP. Body parts too. ALL of them!

Best regards,

Walter

From: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 1:45 PM

To: ‘Tom Dilorenzo’

Subject: RE: Flagpole

Dear Tom:

I see you and I raise you. I’d offer $1000. Heck, $10,000. Way more. My life is worth more than that to me. Way more. But suppose the woman declines that offer?

However, that is not the question that a libertarian can answer. The only question a libertarian can answer is, If the woman shoots him, is she guilty of a crime?

I’m gonna post this on LRC. May I use your name, or should I keep you anonymous?

Best regards,

Walter

From: Jason

Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 8:32 AM

To: [email protected]

Subject: The Flagpole

Dear Professor Block,

I have to quibble a bit with your stance on the right of a flagpole owner to order a falling person to release the flagpole. It is not equivalent to the example of selling your property in order to feed other people who are starving. In that case, you are not preventing them from eating by not sending food. But in the example of the flagpole, the owner is ordering the falling soul to let go of the only thing between him and near certain death. At that point, in my mind at least, the exercise of property rights has become an aggression and the NAP has been violated. Does anyone have the absolute right to condemn another to death for property rights if there is no self defense or defense of property involved?  Isn’t there an obligation to at least wait until the Fire Department sends a crew to erect a net under the falling man before ordering him off the pole?

It’s a tricky question. Thanks for sharing.

Jason

El Paso

Dear Jason:

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to this thread. I agree with you that the flagpole lady should be legally required to safeguard herself in the gentlest manner possible, compatible with her safety. Yes, indeed, if there is time for the fire department to set up a net, and the flagpole hanger can just hang there without moving toward her, then, she may not legally shoot him (I’m really being “woke” here; I’m such a wuss!; this will take her extra time to keep an eye on the flagpole holder for a few minutes).

However, take the more realistic case. It will take 5 minute for the fire department to get there. The flagpole hanger can’t hang on for that long. His only choice is to drop to his certain death (not near certain) or to move hand over hand toward to flagpole lady. Note, I do not address myself to the issue of what should he do. That is NOT a proper question to ask of a libertarian. That is the way critics of the NAP tug at our heartstrings. Remember, libertarianism is ONLY a theory of the proper use of violence. The ONLY question we may properly ask is, Is the flagpole lady guilty of a crime if she plugs this trespasser.

When we look at the matter in this way, her shooting him is a justified use of self defense, given that this is the only way she can protect herself (she doesn’t have armed guards in her apartment, ready to protect her; she fears that her pistol may be grabbed by the flagpole holder, if she allows him into her apartment, etc.)

Best regards,

Walter

From: mike

Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 7:24 AM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Flagpoles

Dr. Block-

I missed ‘Flagpole, parts I and II’, so my apologies if I’m asking you to clarify something already plainly explored.

You state in a response to Zack, “Yes, if the flagpole woman could fully protect herself using gentler means she would be required to do so.” Whaaaaattt??

I’m at a loss to that response. Just what entity would a libertarian society have that would choose for the woman? Have we arrived at some kind of woke-libertarianism? If so, the philosophy is in a sad state.

In my libertarian mind, the choice belongs solely to the woman. Who is the ‘we’ that would require her to opt for rubber bullets? That sounds like libertarianism has woken up in Sweden or Denmark.

Please, enough of taking philosophical hypotheticals to absurd conclusions! When one fears for his/her life, there can be no limit to the choice of protection used, nor to the severity of its use.

Thanks for the ear,

Mike

Dear Mike:

You didn’t get the message that my word on libertarianism is definitive? That Murray Rothbard appointed me to be in charge of libertarian theory?

On a more serious note, in my humble opinion, I speak for no one on any issue such as this but me, the victim has only the right to 100% or as close as she can get protection, not anything more. Suppose that the woman is about to be raped. If she hits the rapist with her weak off hand, he will be rendered helpless with 100% certainty, and the police will be able to scoop him up and arrest him and he will never not only bother her again, but never again will threaten anyone at all. On the other hand, she’s very powerful, and if she hits the rapist with her strong hand, he will die.

I, wokester that I am, think that if she kills him under these circumstances, she will be violating his rights.

Take another case. A shoplifter is walking out of the store with stolen items. The proprietor has a net that will stop him, also, a bazooka that will kill him. All other things are exactly equal. In your view, the store owner has a right to kill the thief; I think otherwise. Here is a bibliography of libertarian punishment theory (note, we are now off the flagpole case, and onto general libertarian punishment theory):

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

Block, 2009A, 2009B, 2016, 2018; Gordon, 2020; Kinsella, 1996, 1997; Loo and Block, 2017-2018; Olson, 1979; Rothbard, 1977, 1998; Whitehead and Block, 2003

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

http://mises.org/books/property_freedom_society_kinsella.pdf; festschrift

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

Block, Walter E. 2016. “Russian Roulette: Rejoinder to Robins.” Acta Economica et Turistica. Vol. 1, No. 2, May, pp.  197-205; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309300488_Russian_Roulette_Rejoinder_to_Robins; file:///C:/Users/walterblock/Downloads/AET_2_Block_6.pdf

Block, Walter E. 2018. “The case for punishing those responsible for minimum wage laws, rent control and protectionist tariffs.”  Revista Jurídica Cesumar – Mestrado, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 235-263; http://periodicos.unicesumar.edu.br/index.php/revjuridica/article/view/6392; http://periodicos.unicesumar.edu.br/index.php/revjuridica/article/view/6392/3190

Gordon, David. 2020. “Rothbard and Double Restitution.” September 4;

https://mises.org/wire/rothbard-and-double-restitution?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=ccce2acf8d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-ccce2acf8d-227976965

Loo, Andy and Walter E. Block. 2017-2018. “Threats against third parties: a libertarian analysis.” Baku State University Law Review; Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 52-64; http://lr.bsulawss.org/archive/volume4/issue1/; http://lr.bsulawss.org/archive/volume4/issue1/block/; http://lr.bsulawss.org/files/archive/volume4/issue1/4BSULawRev13.pdf?

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

Kinsella, Stephan. 1997. “A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights,” 30 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 607-45

Olson, Charles B. 1979. “Law in Anarchy.” Libertarian Forum. Vol. XII, No. 6, November-December, p. 4; 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. 1977. “Punishment and Proportionality.”  R. E. Barnett and J. Hagel, III (eds.), Assessing the Criminal: Restitution, Retribution, and the Legal Process.  Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co., pp. 259 270.

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

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

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

Best regards,

Walter

5:49 am on January 26, 2022

The Best of Walter E. Block

Here is part II in this series: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-flagpole-part-ii/

From: Abhirath MS 12 C

Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 5:33 AM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Your views on marital rape

Greetings  Mr  Block .  At the very outset let me declare that I do not consider you as  the appointed  spokesman for all    libertarians  both dead and living . So with  that  out of the way, I must ask you   ,what do you  think of the criminalization of marital  rape, ?  Marital Rape Poll Results for Libertarians (isidewith.com) I  recognize that isdewith isn’t  perfect and that being espoused by a majority lends no moral weight to a claim  but is it libertarian to criminalize it?

From: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 10:13 AM

To: ‘Abhirath MS 12 C’

Subject: RE: Your views on marital rape

Dear Abhirath:

Hadn’t you heard: Murray Rothbard appointed me the spokesman for all libertarians  both dead and living! A big ceremony at the Mises Institute took place confirming my appointment!

I think that all rape should be considered a very serious crime, certainly including within a marriage.

Best regards,

Walter

From: The NAPster

Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 5:40 AM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject: Flagpole Example

Walter:

Two comments on your correspondence on this topic.

First, you note to Bob that you are taking a deontological perspective, not a utilitarian view as he is taking.  Yet in your next paragraphs, you justify your view on utilitarian grounds (your view is necessary to protect lives and the baking of bread).

Second, I couldn’t follow your logic with Mike.  You say:

No one is talking punishment here. Obviously, the punishment for virtually any trespass, certainly this emergency kind of trespass, would be far less than the death penalty.

We’re only talking, here, whether if the woman shoots the flagpole trespasser, she’s a criminal. I say she is not.

In shooting the flagpole trespasser, isn’t the woman levying a punishment on him for his trespass?  Wouldn’t you say that libertarianism requires some proportionality in punishment for NAP violations?  And if you “over-punish,” then you yourself would be liable for violating the NAP?

Zack Rofer

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

From: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2022 1:30 PM

To: ‘The NAPster’

Subject: RE: Flagpole Example

Dear Zack:

I commonly employ both deontological and utilitarian arguments. The one does not preclude the other.

I think it is important to distinguish between punishment for a crime, which takes place typically long after the crime itself, and violence used in self defense which occurs at the moment of the crime. Yes, indeed, the former needs to be proportional to the seriousness of the crime. But the latter does not. Yes, if the flagpole woman could fully protect herself using gentler means she would be required to do so. I don’t see how that would work in this case. But, in the ordinary trespass case, if she had two guns, one with lead bullets in it the other with rubber bullets in it, and, we stipulate that both would do the job equally well, then she should be required to stop the criminal in the gentlest manner possible.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Steve

Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:58 AM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Subject:

Dear Walter,

A flagpole sticking out from the side of a building could be a species of what’s known as attractive nuisance.

Just as a homeowner should know that a kid could fall into his unfenced swimming pool and drown, the apartment owner should have known that her flagpole would be “attractive” to a falling man. If she has to shoot him because she fears for her own safety, or, heck, if he impales himself on the pole, she bears some responsibility for putting the thing there in the first place.

Sure, if the flagpole wasn’t there, he would certainly die, but the apartment owner would have clean hands. Instead she chose to install and maintain the attractive nuisance that led to unpleasant consequences for all involved.

I’m being facetious. I know these libertarian angels-on-a-pin arguments are important, but sometimes I can’t help finding them funny as well.

Most sincerely,

Steve

—

I look forward to the day when the people of the world achieve herd immunity to political fear-mongering and tyranny.

~ Steve

From: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 10:14 AM

To: ‘Steve

Subject: RE:

Dear Steve:

I have a pretty good sense of humor, but, I don’t see this attack on Rothbardian libertarianism as funny.

This flagpole challenge is a very powerful one against Rothbardian libertarianism. Many, many people have been taken in by it.

Nonetheless, having said that, I changed my mind. I think your point is indeed very funny. I lost my funny-bone for a minute.

Best regards,

Walter

2:41 am on January 25, 2022

The Best of Walter E. Block

Here is Part I of the flagpole challenge to libertarian (NAP) theory: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/im-sick-and-tired-of-the-flagpole-example/

Here are some of my reactions to several responses regarding Part I.

From: Nate

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 5:06 AM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]

Subject: I’m Sick And Tired of the Flagpole Example

Your 2003 article was a superb and brilliant answer to the flagpole question.  Someone, somewhere, always has an emergency, so if you only have property rights when nobody is having an emergency, or needs your property more than you, then you don’t have property rights at all, and you never will.  Perfect!

While I personally would help out a person in such a situation, and yield my property rights gladly. It’s also possible that I could reserve that help, for people that would do the same.  So if someone forced someone off their flagpole, then when they are in a similar situation, I could do the same to them, on the grounds that I only help people that are helpful.  There would still be consequences for being so unreasonable, just not legal. If you are unreasonable, then people will be unreasonable with you.

Dear Nate:

Yes, yes, yes. There are ALWAYS emergencies. If they can repeal property rights, we’ll never have any property rights. Most of us will die due to their absence.

It would be NICE if the woman allowed him to enter her apartment; after all, she has a gun and protect herself. If she shot him anyway, I would join a boycott against her. But that’s not the libertarian question, as you see so clearly.

Ditto with the baker. It would be NICE if the baker didn’t press charges against the thief. Supererogatory.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Mike

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 11:46 AM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]

Subject: Good reminder on “emergency” status of NAP in today’s LRC

Walter,

A nice timely reminder of that, linking to your reply in the 2003 LRC article (oh, that seems so old now.)

Some points I like to consider:

•            NAP is a necessary but not sufficient moral philosophy. It doesn’t exclusively cover all ethical/moral questions

•             NAP isn’t an isolated self-administering system of moral behavior (the input of others is usually required to apply NAP in real world situation). NAP doesn’t justify one-person application as to judging right/wrong and punishments, if any

•             Libertarians can violate NAP if they are willing to accept the libertarian consequences of that choice. People aren’t perfect nor are libertarians so. To accept the consequences of NAP violation (required/demanded/requested) by others (fines, punishments, etc.) in order to remain in an NAP governed society is acceptable. E.g. I will accept the penalty for trespass for holding the flagpole but still remain an upholder of NAP in general.

People aren’t perfect nor will they ever be so. The religious concept of “sinner” or the legal concept of “law breaker” leads to further issues of how to respond to this inherent human behavior. While in the short run NAP allows you to react if “necessary” it does not allow you (in most cases) to unilaterally judge what is or is not a specific “violation” of NAP and apply the consequences of such a violation.

NAP doesn’t reduce to “one person rule” or existence is a society.

Anyway, good to remind us that many objections to libertarianism writ large embed assumptions having nothing to do with NAP. Most objections are some form of “straw man” argument.

Mike

Katy TX

From: Walter Block [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 2:20 PM

To: Mike

Subject: RE: Good reminder on “emergency” status of NAP in today’s LRC

Dear Mike:

The issue here, the only issue here, is when the woman on the 15th floor shoots the flag pole holder soon to be home invader, is she guilty of a crime or not?

I say not.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Mike

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 3:38 PM

To: ‘Walter Block’ <[email protected]

Subject: RE: Good reminder on “emergency” status of NAP in today’s LRC

Walter,

I agree under NAP there is a presumption that permission is required to use someone else’s property. That may or may not count as aggression however.

But capital punishment isn’t the penalty for every violation of NAP is it?

NAP doesn’t imply or require that every victim of a possible NAP violation can be their own judge, jury and executioner. I don’t think that was Murray’s view.

I believe a functional NAP ethic requires clearly stated rules or laws and when possible, a neutral adjudication of the facts and circumstances. NAP doesn’t allow you to shoot someone who parks in your private parking space. One might even argue that absent permanent removal of your access/use of your own property, you don’t commit aggression. Only theft (of use.) A temporary user of someone else’s property has defenses against NAP charges and harm-free “use” could be categorized as only a potential violation of your right to property (because you the owner don’t know how long this “use” may last, and eventually could deprive you of it totally.)

There are many scenarios where intent and actual harm are major factors, even in a NAP type of world.

The problem with “emergency” scenarios is that they are structured in argumentation to ignore those. But there is always in the NAP background of functionality, the existence of “libertarian law” and judges/courts.

There is a good reason that there is a very old legal maxim that states, “hard cases make bad law.”

There is in the flagpole case the suggestion that capital punishment is sanctioned for a violation of usufruct with respect to the flagpole. No.

I would agree that the pole user is trespassing but that the punishment must fit the crime. Intent is a big part of application of NAP.

So a flagpole grasper might be found liable for any damages and a reasonable market based charge for use for a limited time.

Most libertarians would not define emergency use of someone’s property as aggression. Post facto, a neutral party/parties would decide that question and what should be done, if anything, if it is defined as aggression.

As you know, there is in common law (Roman, British, American) a presumption that property must be “posted” against trespassing before any criminal sanction is levied. You might however be able to post facto levy a cost to an unknowing trespasser.

I find that common law principles (some now codified) take care of most emergency NAP scenarios.

MH

From: Walter Block <[email protected]

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 4:11 PM

To: ‘Mike

Subject: RE: Good reminder on “emergency” status of NAP in today’s LRC

Dear Mike:

No one is talking punishment here. Obviously, the punishment for virtually any trespass, certainly this emergency kind of trespass, would be far less than the death penalty.

We’re only talking, here, whether if the woman shoots the flagpole trespasser, she’s a criminal. I say she is not.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Darin

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 6:48 AM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Flagpole getting longer like pinocchio’s nose

Walter,

Re: your flagpole example, the scenario not only invites you to enter

the mind of the lawbreaker, but it also lends itself to the

annihilation of all criminal law.  Thus, the falling pole-catcher had

this accident happen to him (why aren’t we asking how in the world he

fell out of a 25th floor window?  is he irresponsible? shouldn’t he

bear the cost of his own irresponsibility?  these questions seem

suited to a laissez faire debate.) rather than acted in a reckless way

that resulted in his fall.  Same goes for the robber, burglar,

rapist…  Their poor upbringing and unfavored racial status left them

at a permanent disadvantage, as they never learned in oppressive

schools, never rubbed elbows with honest business persons, never got

jobs because of the oppressive minimum wage, etc, and are simply

living out their perception of reality as a state of war.  They have

to eat and screw, too, you know.  What legitimate law doesn’t recognize the reality of their situation?

Darin

On 1/21/22 15:49, Walter Block wrote:

Dear Darin:

You make an EXCELLENT point about the min wage law.

As for the rest of what you say, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

In my view, the only purpose of just law is to stop invasions against

persons and their property.

The flagpole hand walker, for whatever reason, is a trespasser. If the

woman on the 15th floor shoots him, that’s an act of self defense.

Best regards,

Walter

From: Darin

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 3:59 PM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]

Subject: Re: Flagpole getting longer like pinocchio’s nose

Walter,

I’m agreeing with you though.  My email was partly sarcasm, taking the argument further than you did in your reference to it.  Hence the parenthetical.

The point is the argument can go to the extreme of purporting to invalidate any law, even those against rape, robbery, and burglary.

It purports to invalidate a law based on the circumstances of one person.  Generally speaking, i would think such an argument could always invalidate all law because one can always construct a class of one for whom the application of a given law is unfair or seemingly unjust.  In this case, if we apply the same argument we do to the poor investor who lost his shirt investing in xyz and needs a bailout (that is, the idiot shouldn’t have spent all his cash on xyz), then we say the idiot shouldn’t have been so close to the window that he fell, or he shouldn’t have gone out in the woods without a compass and supplies. Alternatively, he is free to violate the property rights of others, but as you say, he’s putting his life at risk.  Incidentally he already did so when he got near the window / wandered aimlessly into the woods.

Darin

Dear Darin:

I’m glad we’re together on this now.

Best regards,

Walter

From: ROBERT

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 12:24 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Quick comment RE Rockwell post on Flagpole Example

Dear Dr. Block,

Thanks for your years of posts and essays at Lew Rockwell.com.

Regarding the infamous flagpole and lost hiker examples, I would only say that the NAP may be expressed incompletely. In my opinion, it should be “Thou shall not initiate aggression against your fellow human — but if you DO, you risk getting your butt kicked!”

The sad fact is, we may all find ourselves in situations which have NO good solution, only a choice of various bad ones. Being a good person does not negate that possibility. Both the flagpole hanger and the hiker have, through fate or poor choice, found themselves in a bad situation with three potential solutions. Let’s look at the flagpole guy.

1) The apartment owner might (potentially) allow the guy to climb in and leave peacefully.

2) The guy might climb in anyway and risk being shot, pepper sprayed, or arrested and charged.

3) The guy can fall to his death.

Number one has been ruled out by the apartment owner, who has every right to do so.

Number two is distasteful, and worst of all, involves some danger including possible death.

Number three is a choice of certain death.

Unless someone places purity of principle over the value of life, number two is the only reasonable choice but there are still negative consequences. There simply IS NO happy ending for this. The moment he starts to climb into the apartment he is in the “you risk getting your butt kicked!” unspoken clause of the NAP. Just because he has no evil intentions does nothing to give him a free ticket to aggress against the apartment owner. Flagpole guy is in a situation where he must choose to either aggress or die — but that does not make his aggression acceptable. He can expect “to get his butt kicked” either a lot or a little as fate will have it.

The reason, in my opinion that so many people see the flagpole example as convincing evidence that the NAP is not adequate for emergency situations is that they have a deep-seated conviction that because flagpole guy does not intend to do harm, that should (first) relieve him from any implications for his aggression, and should (second) simultaneously impose a duty on the owner to give up his rights. Neither of those two are correct. Sorry, life is not that kind. He should climb into the apartment, yes — but he can expect to be faced with all the implications of having violated the rights of the owner.

Just my take on it. Thanks again for all you do.

Bob

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their true name.

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody, ought not to be trusted by anybody.”  — Thomas Paine

Dear Bob:

You and I have a different conception of what libertarianism is all about. In your (utilitarian) view, it is about which of the 3 in this case choices are best, in that they will create the least harm, the most benefits.

In my (deontological) perspective, it is all about the justification of initiatory violence. Is act X a crime or not? There are two Xs here. First, the flagpole hand walker. Is he a criminal? Is he a rights violator? Yes, if the owner objects, no, if she welcomes him into her home. Second, she shoots the hand walker, after she tells him to drop to his death, and he refuses. Is she a criminal? No.

Now, I admit, this sounds a bit callous. Ok, ok, more than just a bit callous, at least to the utilitarian. But, I guarantee you that more lives will be saved, more utility garnered, if we protect private property rights, by not finding the shooter a criminal, than if we do.

Henry Hazlitt, in his magnificent book Econ in One Lesson, warned us not to just look at one event, at present, but at all implications. The implications of considering her guilty of a crime are very non utilitarian. Very callous. Lots of people will die if private property rights are not protected.

Consider the case of Jean Val Jean who steals a loaf of bread to feed a starving child. Lots of utilitarians won’t consider him a criminal, because all our hearts go out to this starving child. But, if he is not found guilty, bakers won’t bake bread, and LOTS of children, and adults too, will starve to death.

Best regards,

Walter

From: ROBERT S

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 2:31 PM

To: Walter Block <[email protected]

Subject: Any even shorter reply to your reply. Yes, you are right!

Dear Dr. Block.

I think I must have done a bad job of expressing myself.

You say: “In your (utilitarian) view, it is about which of the 3 in this case choices are best, in that they will create the least harm, the most benefits. In my (deontological) perspective, it is all about the justification of initiatory violence. Is act X a crime or not? There are two Xs here. First, the flagpole hand walker. Is he a criminal? Is he a rights violator? Yes, if the owner objects, no, if she welcomes him into her home. Second, she shoots the hand walker, after she tells him to drop to his death, and he refuses. Is she a criminal? No.”

Yes, absolutely. My point was NOT that the hand walker has a right which supersedes her property rights, but rather that his best choice is to violate her rights and then take all the risks and punishment which might proceed from that. Her rights are absolute, but his observance (or non-observance) of those rights is a choice he will have to make, and no matter what he chooses, the outcome will not be pretty.

So, why is it that people disagree with you? I think that people disagree with your analysis because they think that the hand walker’s predicament somehow gives him priority over her rights. They (wrongly) believe deep down that because he means no harm, and it would cost so little to her, that there MUST be some principle which will exonerate him from blame — thus their need to give up the NAP for emergencies. It is true that choosing to climb in will most likely produce the least harm, but that DOES NOT justify it. He must still suffer the consequences and needs to realize that as he starts to climb in. I think any normal person would look at the consequences and take a chance on climbing in; but that does not make it justifiable, but rather merely prudent.

Thanks so much, Dr. Block. I realize your time is limited and I am honored by your previous response. No further reply needed unless you feel it is appropriate!

Bob

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their true name.

“A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody, ought not to be trusted by anybody.”  — Thomas Paine

On 01/21/2022 2:33 PM Walter Block <[email protected] wrote:

Dear Bob:

Sorry for my misunderstanding of your viewpoint. We are on the same wavelength.

Best regards,

Walter

8:58 am on January 22, 2022

The Best of Walter E. Block

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/im-sick-and-tired-of-the-flagpole-example/

Murray Rothbard, Anarchist

31. Block, Walter E. Forthcoming, 2021. Evictionism: the libertarian solution to the seemingly unresolvable pro-life and the pro-choice debate. Springer Publishing Company

30. Block, Walter E. 2021. Free Enterprise Environmentalism. Lexington books
https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498586856/Free-Enterprise-Environmentalism
978-1-4985-8685-6 • Hardback • $105.00 • (£81.00)
978-1-4985-8686-3 • eBook • $45.00 • (£35.00)

WALTER E. BLOCK – CONTRIBUTIONS BY DANIEL COFFEY; DREDA CULPEPPER; PATRICK ENGLISH; JACOB HUEBERT; JAY JOHNSON; CHRISTIE LAPORTE; JOHN LEVENDIS; JOSEPH MORREL; AMY MOTICHEK; LEW ROCKWELL; ANDREA SANTORIELLO AND EMILY SCHAEFFER
In Free Enterprise Environmentalism, Walter E. Block argues that laissez-faire capitalism can address climate change more effectively than socialism and government regulation. Block advocates for the role of markets, free enterprise, limited government, and private property rights in service of environmental protections. Covering topics such as extinction, overpopulation, pollution, and resources exhaustion, this volume offers alternate solutions to environmental degradation than have been proposed by the political left.

Loyola students, Loyola ex professor, preseent Loyola professor, students of mine from when I taught at Holy Cross

29. Block, Walter E. 2021.  Defending the Undefendable III. Springer Publishing Company; https://www.amazon.com/Defending-Undefendable-III-Walter-Block/dp/9811639566/ref=sr_1_24?dchild=1&keywords=libertarianism&qid=1623439836&s=books&sr=1-24; https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-16-3957-9; ISBN: 978-981-16-3957-9; for book reviewers: https://www.springer.com/gp/reviewers 

To purchase: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-16-3957-9

28. Block, Walter E. and Alan Futerman. Forthcoming, 2021.  The Classical Liberal Case for Israel. Springer Publishing Company

https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9789811639524; https://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-16-3953-1;

for book reviewers: https://www.springer.com/gp/reviewers 

To purchase: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-16-3953-1

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=lang_en&id=wvBLEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&ots=M14c2Hef1I&sig=hLBfrDNdKXs7wBStCSq4277sG_w#v=onepage&q&f=false

27. Block, Walter E. and Alan Futerman. 2021. The Austro-Libertarian Point of View. Springer Publishing Company.

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-16-4691-1

for book reviewers: https://www.springer.com/gp/reviewers 

To purchase: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-16-4691-1

2:52 am on November 11, 2021 Email Walter E. Block

The Best of Walter E. Block