Freedom to smoke is part and parcel of overall freedom. The former cannot be abrogated without violating the latter. The present paper applies this insight to the regulations placed on the tobacco industry and smoking in general. We find that government interventions into people’s lives regarding smoking are highly incompatible with libertarian principles. We examine many regulations such as prohibiting youths from smoking, preventing second hand smoke, restrictions on advertising, taxing the industry, and liability issues.

This article examines some of the reasons why banks and insurance companies have been accused of discrimination, and shows that this is by and large a false accusation. Economic analysis demonstrates that racial discrimination is not a profit‐maximizing strategy. Actually, unwise public policies are actually precluding many consumers from the market.

The debate over gun control has taken place in complete isolation from geographical considerations. It focuses on, for the most part, whether legalization would bring about more or fewer accidental deaths, and murders of innocents, than prohibition, and in the USA on the precise meaning of the second amendment to the Constitution. However, these deliberations, argue the authors of the present paper, can be enriched by incorporating into them a spatial context. When this is done, and they are combined with (...) the property rights philosophy of libertarianism, some very different conclusions are drawn. (shrink)

This paper attempts to answer the question of whether or not government is needed to build walkways near bodies of water such as rivers and lakes, or whether private enterprise can supply such needs. In it we argue that the market is indeed capable of instituting such amenities, despite the fact that there are either none such or at most very precious few in existence at the present time. This occurrence is explained on the grounds that government has preempted the (...) market that would otherwise have taken place in this regard. We also claim that the likelihood of private walkways being built is proportional to the population density of the surrounding habitat, on the grounds that privacy in densely populated regions is already compromised, and thus the costs of such walkways is lowered. (shrink)

Walter Block leaned on 82 of the world's most prominent libertarian thinkers and asked them to tell their life stories with an eye to intellectual development. The result is the most comprehensive collection of libertarian autobiographies ever published. Their stories are thrilling and fascinating. They reveal their main influences, their experiences, their choices, and their ambitions. There are some very interesting lessons here for everyone. We learn what gives rise to serious thought about liberty and what causes a (...) person to dedicate a professional career or vocation to the cause. We also discover some interesting empirical information about the most influential libertarian writers. How people come to believe what they believe is a mysterious issue, but an important one to examine. The results have profound strategic implications for the future. If there is a theme that emerges here, it is that it is that the most powerful and effective message of liberty is the one that is both smart and truth telling, not the one that is evasive or consciously dumbed down. The two most influential libertarians that emerge from the contest here are Rothbard and Rand, and this is for a reason. This volume bears close study by anyone who is considering strategic issues. So far as we know, it is the first book of its kind, one sure to play a larger role in the future crafting of the message and scholarship of human liberty. (shrink)

In Block I offered a compromise between the pro choice position that fervently supports stem cell research, and the pro life philosophy which bitterly opposes it. The compromise was a contest: allow would be researchers to create as many fertilized eggs as they wished. But, also, these should be offered up to would be parents to adopt all of these “children” as they wanted. If and only if there were any unadopted fetuses remaining in the laboratories of the nation (...) would it be licit, on libertarian grounds, for research on them to take place. In the present paper I respond to several objections to this “modest proposal.”. (shrink)

Huemer [33] argues against the killing of animals. I offer a critical libertarian analysis of his claim.

David Friedman attacks deontological or principled libertarianism from a utilitarian point of view. The present essay is an attempt to refute his critique of this philosophy, and to cast aspersions on the utilitarian version of libertarianism he favors.

It all started in 2021 when we sparked a rather specific debate within Austrian economics in _Philosophical Problems in Science_ (_Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce_) – traditionally abbreviated as _ZFN_. The story unfolded as follows. First, Wysocki submitted a paper on the concept of indifference, as it is normally understood in the Austrian school of economics. To his astonishment and great relief, this then rising journal (now the one with well-established reputation, its Scopus ranking being as high as Q2 under the (...) rubric of philosophy) accepted the submission in question and published it promptly in ZFN 71 as (Wysocki, 2021). It was an honour and a privilege, especially given the fact that Austrian economics – with all due respect to its scientific achievements – is nowadays not a mainstream economic current, to say the least. Hence, being published in _ZFN_ only added to the strength of Wysocki’s belief that the journal is clearly unbiased towards any sort of philosophy of science. The very fact that Wysocki published a paper on indifference in Austrian economics and the fact that he spread the news about _ZFN_ being also open to publishing maverick (after all, as already observed, Austrian economics is not a branch of mainstream economics) papers related to philosophy of science prompted Walter Block (a prominent Austrian economist) to submit to _ZFN_ his rejoinder to Wysocki’s original paper on indifference, with the said response being ultimately published in ZFN 72 as (Block, 2022). (shrink)

Walter Block discusses publications by Robert Nozick, the unjustifiably ignored Michael Levin, and Ayn Rand, each of whom has criticized anarcho-capitalism, the system that takes laissez-faire capitalism to its logical extension: here, all goods and services, particularly including courts, police, and armies would be provided by competing private firms and individuals. This paper considers their arguments and rejects them.

Wollen (2022) is a critique of deontological libertarianism, the version of this philosophy predicated upon private property rights and the non-aggression principle. The launching pad for this article of his is the difficulty faced by conjoined twins, who diverge sharply in their view of their desirable future. The present rejoinder maintains that this author’s critique fails; further, that it really has little or nothing to do with conjoined twins per se, but, rather, aims at an entirely different challenge, that of (...) the tie or the dead heat. This latter is a critique that all political economic philosophies face, without exception, and libertarianism does no worse on this challenge than any other, the critique of Wollen to the contrary notwithstanding. (shrink)

What is the proper punishment from the perspective of the libertarian philosophy? More specifically, in what way, if at all, may a thief benefit from his robbery? The present essay attempts to wrestle with these challenging questions.

Often, new technology brings in its train unprecedented problems. As far as computers, e-mail and the internet are concerned, this certainly holds true in many arenas. But there is one aspect of this new technology which does not present additional difficulties: cyber-slacking. The managerial challenges posed by employees using these amenities for job search, shopping sprees, personal relationships, in a word, general goofing off, have long ago already been overcome by employers. There is 'nothing new under the sun' in at (...) least this one dimension of the computer age. (shrink)

There are continuum problems in political economy. There are no objective non-debatable solutions to any of them. All answers to them are arbitrary. Responding to these challenges are, ideally, the responsibility of courts, juries, etc.

Heumer and I debate animal rights, utilitarianism, libertarianism, morality and philosophy. We agree that suffering is a problem, and diverge, widely, on how to deal with it. I maintain that this author’s reputation as a libertarian, let alone an intellectual leader of this movement, is problematic. Why? That is because libertarianism, properly understood, is a theory of intra-human rights; this philosophy says nothing about right from an extra-human perspective, Heumer to the contrary notwithstanding. That is to say, he is improperly (...) importing into the freedom philosophy considerations extraneous to it. (shrink)

(2002). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. Ethics, Place & Environment: Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 282-285.

Matt Mortellaro’s “Causation and Responsibility: A New Direction” is a brilliant Rothbardian analysis that makes numerous new and important points. It also critiques some of my own previous publications. In this piece I focus on Mortellaro’s rejoinders to me, and set forth a defense of my own positions.

Freedom to smoke is part and parcel of overall freedom. The former cannot be abrogated without violating the latter. The present paper applies this insight to the regulations placed on the tobacco industry and smoking in general. We find that government interventions into people’s lives regarding smoking are highly incompatible with libertarian principles. We examine many regulations such as prohibiting youths from smoking, preventing second hand smoke, restrictions on advertising, taxing the industry, and liability issues.

We provide a survey of significant libertarian contributions to the discussion surrounding ethics and taxation. By significant contributions, we mean those which have exerted a strong influence both on libertarianism, popular and academic, and on political and ethical discourse more broadly. Our discussion centers on the work of three prominent libertarians: Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard. For each, we present his or her position concerning some ethical aspect of taxation and evaluate objections to it. Section 4.2 discusses Nozick’s (...) analogy between taxation of labor from earnings and forced labor and applies his argument against the fairness principle to fairness-based justifications of such taxation. Section 4.3 focuses on Rand’s view that compulsory taxation as such is unjust and considers her proposed scheme of voluntarily-funded minimal government. We argue that she failed to convincingly argue for either the feasibility or desirability of the latter. Section 4.4 addresses Rothbard’s similar position concerning the injustice of taxation per se and defends his view against possible justifications of that institution. (shrink)

In this timely book, Walter E. Block uses classical liberal theory to defend private property rights. Looking at how free enterprise, capitalism and libertarianism are cornerstones of economically prosperous civilizations, Block highlights why private property rights are crucial. Discussing philosophy, libertarian property rights theory, reparations and other property rights issues, this volume is of interest to academics, students, journalists and all those interested in this integral aspect of political economic philosophy.

Rent control is an economic abomination. It diverts investments away from residential rent units, it leads to their deterioration, it is responsible for urban decay such as in the South Bronx, it does not help poor tenants, it is a horrendous means of income redistribution. Yet this economic regulation is beloved of intellectuals (hot beds of pro rent control sentiment are Berkeley, Ann Arbor and Cambridge) particularly in the legal and philosophical communities. The present article is dedicated to an exploration (...) and rejection of the arguments in behalf of rent control which emanate from this source. (shrink)

Libertarian punishment theory was initially articulated by Murray N. Rothbard and Walter E. Block. It was broken down into four separate stages. To a great degree, this theory was accepted by Eduardo Blasco and Davie Marcos. However, they maintain it is in need of some slight adjustments and improvements, mainly dealing with the interest rate. The present paper claims their suggestion while valid, is unnecessary, since this theory already incorporates that element, at least implicitly.

HOLCOMBE (2004) ARGUED THAT government was inevitable. In Block (2005) I maintained that this institution was not unavoidable. Holcombe (2007) takes issue with that response of mine to his earlier paper, and the present essay is, in turn, a response to his latest missive in this conversation.1 In section I, I deal with what I can consider an anomaly in Holcombe’s argument. Section II is devoted to a consideration of his dismissal of my paper on grounds of “fallacy of (...) composition.” The burden of section III is to consider Holcombe’s supposed refutation of my views on the basis of his comments about the price ceiling; in section IV, I comment on the examples offered by this author, and in section V, I examine his claim that he is not actually supporting government. I conclude in section VI. (shrink)

Nozick (1977) was a critique of the view of Austrian economics which rejected the notion of indifference in human action. This author claimed that this stance was incompatible with the notion of the supply of a good, and, also, with diminishing marginal utility, both of which were strongly supported by this praxeological school of thought. Block (1980) was an attempt to rescue the Austrian school from this brilliant intellectual challenge. Hoppe (2005; 2009) rejected Nozick’s challenge, and, also, Block’s (...) (1980) response. Block (2009a) and Block and Barnett (2010), defended Block’s (1980) analysis of indifference. The latest contribution to this ongoing discussion is Wysocki (2021) who maintains that Hoppe was correct in his rejection of Nozick, while Block was not. The present paper is a rejoinder to Wysocki (2021). (shrink)

Borer launches a spirited attack on my own promulgation and defense of the non aggression principle as the lynchpin of libertarianism, as adumbrated in several of my published papers . The two of us, Borer and me, in my opinion, achieve real disagreement, a goal not always reached in the libertarian debates. That is, Borer is succinct, on point, and offers a real challenge to those of us in the Rothbardian tradition, who see the NAP as the very basis of (...) the libertarian philosophy. The present paper is an attempt to refute each and every one of the challenges offered by Borer. (shrink)

Looking at discrimination, education, environment, health and crime, this volume analyses United States Supreme Court rulings on several legal issues and proposed libertarian solutions to each problem. Setting their own liberal theory of law, each chapter discusses the law at hand, what it should be, and what it would be if their political economic philosophy were the justification of the legal practice. Covering issues such as sexual harassment, religion, markets in human organs, drug prohibition and abortion, this book is a (...) timely contribution to classical liberal debate on law and economics. (shrink)