Walter Block Research Articles

Mixing Labor, Taking Possession, and Libertarianism: Response to Walter Block

In his recent rejoinder to my paper Walter Block argues that only the Lockean labor-mixing theory of first acquisition is compatible with libertarianism. Block’s claim is in turn directed against a position held by me in the said paper that it is the first possession theory of original appropriation that is a better fit for libertarianism. Upon reading Block’s rejoinder and thinking intensely about this issue, in the present paper I agree with Block and disagree with my former self, accepting the view that it isindeed the Lockean labor-mixing theory that should be embraced by libertarians. This verdict is mainly motivated by the following arguments that I develop in detail in the paper: (1) no libertarian arguments against the labor-mixing theory seem to work, (2) the first possession theory is unable (contrary to the labor-mixing theory) to accommodate the idea of original appropriation tracking objective links between actors andthings; (3) the labor-mixing theory better fits our intuitions about justice in property acquisition. However, in order not to make things too easy for Block, I also argue that there are some surprising and problematic consequences of adopting the labor-mixing account. I am fully prepared to accept them. The question is whether so is Block.

Evictionism, Libertarianism, and Duties of the Fetus.

In "Evictionism and Libertarianism," published in this journal, Walter Block defends the view that, although the fetus is a human being with all the rights to its body, it may nonetheless be evicted from the woman's body as a trespasser, provided the pregnancy is unwanted. We argue that this view is untenable: the statement that the unwanted fetus is a trespasser does not follow from the premises that the fetus uninvitedly resides in the woman's body and that the woman is a full self-owner. For this statement to follow, one more statement would have to be true; namely, the woman would have to hold her self-ownership rights specifically against the fetus, and for this to be the case, the fetus would have to have a correlative duty to the woman to abstain from interfering with her body. This statement, however, is false.

Walter Block on Externality, Public Goods, and Voluntary Government

Walter Block on Externality, Public Goods, and Voluntary Government

Libertarianism, Defense of Property, and Absolute Rights

The present paper argues that libertarians (e.g. Murray Rothbard, Stephan Kinsella) who subscribe the proportionality principle while embracing the view that to have a right to property is to have a right to defend it run into what we call the Property Defense Dilemma. For if the only way to defend property is to defend it disproportionately, then a private property right – contrary to what these thinkers claim – is not accompanied by a right to defend it. The most plausible way out of the dilemma – the present paper argues – is to conceive of private property rights as only weakly absolute, to use Matthew H. Kramer’s illuminating distinction. On the other hand, libertarians who as Walter Block would like to escape the dilemma by replacing the proportionality standard with the gentleness principle run into other sorts of problems (moral implausibility, incoherence) which also shows that it is the libertarian view on rights as infinitely stringent side constraints that calls for revision and attenuation.

How does Walter Block’s defense of the undefendable relate to John Paul Sartre’s recognition that hell is other people?

How does Walter Block’s defense of the undefendable relate to John Paul Sartre’s recognition that hell is other people?

Proceeds of Crime, Punishment, and Libertarianism

In his recent publication, Walter Block claims that disgorgement of indirect proceeds of crime is incompatible with libertarianism. The present paper argues that Block’s claim is incorrect. In support of this position two general arguments are offered. The first one builds on the distinction between restitution and punishment, showing that forfeiture of assets derived indirectly from crime would not – contra Block – result in unequal punishment under retributive justice. The second one refers to libertarian principles of distributive justice and demonstrates that indirect proceeds of crime are owned by the aggrieved parties. Put together, these arguments conclusively show that the idea that indirect proceeds of crime should be forfeited is compatible with libertarianism.

Unjust Enrichment And Libertarianism

Abstract The present paper takes on the question of whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is compatible with libertarianism. Despite Walter Block’s recent arguments to the contrary, the paper argues that unless a gain is received in accordance with the libertarian principles of justice, it is without a basis and thus unjust. This fact alone proves that the concept of unjust enrichment is compatible with libertarianism. Besides, even though it is true — as Block claims — that forcing the recipient of an unjust gain to return it or pay for it involves positive duties and is therefore incompatible with libertarianism, the present paper argues that the practical consequences of this fact would be negligible, for compensatory schemes would develop on the free market anyway in justice-preserving steps.

Rape and Sexual Misconduct at Universities

Sexual harassment is a serious offense with unique characteristics that make the determination of guilt especially difficult. Economist Walter Block asks why, then, on college campuses “is this crucially important task undertaken by university faculty members,” few of whom have any experience in civic and criminal investigation?

On Liberty and Cruelty: A Reply to Walter Block

Abstract A standard argument for ethical vegetarianism contends that factory farming – the source of nearly all animal products – is morally wrong due to its extreme cruelty, and that it is wrong to buy products produced in an extremely immoral manner. This article defends this argument against objections based on appeal to libertarian political philosophy, the supposed benefit to animals of being raised for food, and nonhuman animals’ supposed lack of rights.

WALTER BLOCK vs JAKUB BOZYDAR WISNIEWSKI DEBATING ABORTION: A SUMMARY

Without a doubt, one of the most controversial issues currently being debated is abortion. Several decades ago, philosopher and economist Walter Block offered a compromise of the seemingly uncompromisable problem based on libertarian principles, which he called evictionism. Evictionism is based on the theory of self-ownership and the implications that follow, which are the non-aggression principle and private property rights. It is a principled compromise between the traditional pro-life and pro-choice positions. According to evictionism, it would not be illegal for a pregnant woman to evict a fetus at any time for any reason because she is the one who owns her womb, but it would be illegal for her to kill the fetus unnecessarily once it’s viable. This means that before viability, an eviction that necessarily results in the death of the fetus would be legal. After viability, however, an eviction that unnecessarily results in the death of a fetus would be considered murder and consequently illegal. Unfortunately, though, very few people have heard of this compromise. What’s worse of those who have heard of it, even fewer have been convinced by it. Consequently, there have been several written debates between Block and his critics about their perceived problems with his proposed compromise. The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed summary of one of the first main debates that Block has had on the topic.

Libertarian easements revisited

In the present paper, I develop further my original argument for extending the Blockian Proviso to landlocked property. I use Walter Block’s newest rejoinder as an opportunity to generalize my case for necessity easements. I argue that in order to attenuate various conflicts of rights, libertarianism should interpret its thesis that property rights are absolute in a less demanding way.

Proportionality trumps gentleness: reforming Block’s evictionism (part I)

This paper argues against the most important theoretical foundations which Walter Block uses to defend his thesis that Evictionism legitimizes indirectly deadly evictions of a progeny while simultaneously forbidding abortion. It begins by presenting Block’s Gentleness principle and Rothbard’s principle Proportionality separately. Then, it compares both principles to analyze how satisfactorily each of them deals with some important general problems of libertarian legal theory. The ‘bubble gum theft’ scenario is the main tool for this comparison because both authors uses ‘petty theft’ examples to illustrate their respective principles. This paper’s conclusions are as follows: First, every moment of crime is interconnected. Second, proportionality applies to every moment of crime. Third, that Block’s so-called ‘gentleness principle’ is not only redundant to proportionality, but also cannot be a libertarian principle for two reasons: (1) it implies positive rights and obligations; (2) it presupposes a deterrence penology. This paper is the first in a series of three in an attempt to reform the standard libertarian stance on abortion.

Reply to Walter Block on Ethical Vegetarianism

Abstract I address Walter Block’s recent criticisms of my book, Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism. Methodologically, Block relies too much on appeals to contentious and extreme assumptions. Substantively, most of his objections are irrelevant to the central issue of the book. Those that are relevant turn on false assumptions or lead to absurd consequences. In the end, Block’s claim to oppose suffering cannot be reconciled with his indifference to a practice that probably causes, every few years, more suffering than all the suffering in human history.

A Rational Theory of the Rights of Children

Abstract Libertarianism has often found itself under attack from those with misplaced maternal instincts, who champion the state as the honorable protector of the vulnerable – and there is no one more in need of protection than a helpless infant. Consequently, much of the vitriol aimed at libertarianism and its laissez-faire attitude has included morbid references to child abuse and exploitation which would supposedly result from its implementation. It is therefore imperative that more work be done on the topic of children’s rights in order to reinforce the philosophical framework developed by Murray Rothbard [9] and expanded on by Walter Block and others [2], [3], [5], [6]. The purpose of this paper is to provide an independent rational foundation for the conclusions drawn by Block and co-authors [2], [5] and to expand on parts that are insufficient.

An Interpretative Model of the Evolution of Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics

Abstract This article intends to be a simple guide to understand how Hoppe built the Argumentation Ethics. In my early studies of libertarian ideas, and of Argumentation Ethics in particular, I could not find a unique text that would explain how Hoppe put the necessary bricks together to build the Ethics. As I was curious about this issue, I assumed others would also like to know it. To write this article, I reviewed the main literature on Argumentation Ethics, starting with Kinsella’s Concise Guide [9]. Then, I interviewed Stephan Kinsella and Prof. Walter Block. Finally, I synthesized the main ideas from the literature and the interviews elaborating an interpretative model, presented in this article.

En defensa de la libertad de expresión

La libertad de expresión en el siglo XXI se ve de nuevo amenazada, no tanto por parte del Estado (que también lo hace) sino más bien por parte de la sociedad civil. Identifico a John Stuart Mill como uno de los que se dio cuenta de este problema. Analizo este problema junto con dos que van unidos a él. El primero es la censura, tanto del Estado como de la sociedad civil. El segundo, la corrección política. Analizo este fenómeno e ilustro el caso concreto de las universidades americanas y de James Flynn. Por último, hago consideraciones sobre la difamación partiendo de las ideas del célebre profesor Walter Block.

The Fatal Deceit of Public Policy: Can Austrian and Public Choice Economics Complement each other?

The Fatal Deceit of Public Policy: Can Austrian and Public Choice Economics Complement each other?

Testing Economic Theory

Two years ago, Bob Mulligan and I empirically tested whether the Bank of Amsterdam, a prototypical central bank, had caused a boom-bust cycle in the Amsterdam commodities markets in the 1780s owing to the bank’s sudden initiation of low-fractional-re-serve banking (Guzelian & Mulligan 2015).1 Widespread criticism came quickly after we presented our data findings at that year’s Austrian Economic Research Conference. Walter Block representa-tively responded: «as an Austrian, I maintain you cannot «test» apodictic theories, you can only illustrate them».2
 Non-Austrian, so-called «empirical» economists typically have no problem with data-driven, inductive research. But Austrians have always objected strenuously on ontological and epistemolog-ical grounds that such studies do not produce real knowledge (Mises 1998, 113-115; Mises 2007). Camps of economists are talking past each other in respective uses of the words «testing» and «eco-nomic theory». There is a vital distinction between «testing» (1) an economic proposition, praxeologically derived, and (2) the rele-vance of an economic proposition, praxeologically derived. The former is nonsensical; the latter may be necessary to acquire eco-nomic theory and knowledge. Clearing up this confusion is this note’s goal.
 Rothbard (1951) represents praxeology as the indispensible method for gaining economic knowledge. Starting with a Aristote-lian/Misesian axiom «humans act» or a Hayekian axiom of «humans think», a voluminous collection of logico-deductive eco-nomic propositions («theorems») follows, including theorems as sophisticated and perhaps unintuitive as the one Mulligan and I examined: low-fractional-reserve banking causes economic cycles.
 There is an ontological and epistemological analog between Austrian praxeology and mathematics. Much like praxeology, we «know» mathematics to be «true» because it is axiomatic and deductive. By starting with Peano Axioms, mathematicians are able by a long process of creative deduction, to establish the real number system, or that for the equation an + bn = cn, there are no integers a, b, c that satisfy the equation for any integer value of n greater than 2 (Fermat’s Last Theorem).
 But what do mathematicians mean when they then say they have mathematical knowledge, or that they have proven some-thing «true»? Is there an infinite set of rational numbers floating somewhere in the physical universe? Naturally no. Mathemati-cians mean that they have discovered an apodictic truth — some-thing unchangeably true without reference to physical reality because that truth is a priori.

Problem przestępstw bez ofiar w filozofii politycznej Waltera Blocka

Walter Block, an American economist and political philosopher, is a special case among libertarians, including anarcho‑capitalist ones. His defence of certain behaviours that are considered to be immoral and often unlawful, such as prostitution, drug trafficking, blackmail and voluntary slavery, makes a typical libertarian anti‑state rhetoric quite moderate. In his work entitled Defending the Undefendable, Block defends those whom society has made scapegoats by assigning all the worst behaviours to them. He re‑evaluates the traditional way of perceiving ‘villains’ who turn out to be the heroes of the free market in libertarian ideology. This article analyses two cases defended by Block and explains their grounding in the doctrine of libertarianism. These are prostitution and the distribution of drugs. The concept of victimless crime is used to explain the essence of the problem, which is radically different from the dominant images of some unlawful acts.

: (Revisiting Story of Self-Invented Moral Values: Rothbard vs. Armed Jew)

Russian Abstract: Дискуссия Мюррея Ротбарда и Вальтера Блока по моральному обоснованию самообороны продолжается сюжетом о моральном обосновании существования государства Израиль. Показано, что выбор аксиоматики, а не логика полностью определяют позиции сторон. Выбор сводим к опции понравиться самопровозглашенному моральному авторитету или варианту следовать универсальной морали. При первом права на самооборону не существует как только агрессор догадывается задействовать живой щит, а евреи не должны жить свободно в стране Сиона и Иерусалима. При втором самооборона священна как право на жизнь, ответственность за жизнь живого щита лежит на агрессоре его использующем. Право евреев на страну Израиля может обосновываться, но не может всерьез дискутироваться. English Abstract: Walter Block challenged Murray Rothbard's beliefs on self-defense right (case of assailant utilizing human shield) and on moral foundation of the state Israel restoration. The choice of axiomatic predetermine the choice of the both discussants. The choice of artificially (self) invented moral values causes effective denial of self defense and cursing the Israel restoration as immoral act. Implicit choice of universal moral values causes the choice for self defense right and for Israel.