Help Bernie Sanders Learn Sound Economics From Walter Block

A group is trying to raise $3,096. to pay for Bernie Sanders to take an economics course with Walter Block at Loyola University New Orleans.

 -RW

Walter Block Delivers a Speech on Economic Development to University Students in Uganda

Walter Block on the Minimum Wage

Walter Block recently spoke to the PanAm Post about those who demand a $15 per hour minimum wage and  falsely believe salaries are based on employer generosity:

“This is incorrect. The correct theory of wage determination is based upon productivity of the worker,” said Block. “Why is it that a lawyer can earn $500 per hour, an accountant $200 per hour, a plumber $50 per hour, [and] a person who pushes a broom $10 per hour? Is it because of the different amounts of generosity of their employers? No, it involves productivity.”

Block claims increasing the minimum wage will lead to greater unemployment, because employers will not hire workers who are less productive than they are federally mandated to earn.

“Suppose the productivity of a worker is $10 per hour, and the minimum wage is $15 per hour. Any employer who hires him will lose money. The firm will not hire such a person. He will become unemployed. Who gains from the unemployment of relatively low skilled, low productive people? Unions who compete with them. The minimum wage is an unemployment law.”

The Intellectual Property Protection Debate Rages On

I have responded to Walter Block here.

Part 4: Walter Block Responds to Wenzel on Rand Paul

Part 4

By Walter Block

Bob makes some very important and telling points. Let me try to respond to them.

1. Bob cites the crazed warmonger John McCain saying some nice things about Rand Paul. Certainly, I agree with Bob’s highly critical assessment of the Senator from Arizona. But is this Rand’s fault? I think not. In my view, Rand is responsible not for what Bob Wenzel says, not for what Walter Block says, not for what Ron Paul says, not even for what John McCain says. Rather, he is responsible, wait for it … for what only one man on the face of the earth says. And guess who that is? Yes, Rand Paul; Rand Paul himself. The Senator from Kentucky did not say those things. McCain did. How is this Rand’s fault?

2. Bob mentions what a great disappointment Ronald Reagan was. He quotes Murray Rothbard who

Edelstein and Block versus Wenzel, on IP

Michael Edelstein and Walter Block disagree with me on Intellectual Property and Rand Paul (and perhaps other things).

Recently ,the three of us, at Michael's urging, agreed to have a series of telephone conversations on these topics. At the last minute, Michael proposed that he record the conversations. Walter and I both agreed. Below is the first conversation in the series. Because the decision to record was made at the last minute, the quality of the recording is poor at times.

For the next conversation, I will record from my end, hopefully resulting in a little better quality.

Here's Round 1:

A Wannabe Worm Grunter Attacks Austrian Economics

By Robert Wenzel

Noah Smith has proclaimed at Bloomberg thus about Austrian economics:

The Austrian worldview is like a brain worm that has infected large swathes of our financial industry, commentariat and general public. Even you, dear reader, may carry one or two of its wriggling larva inside your gray matter.

Over the last couple of days, several EPJ readers sent me links to this story, but I chose not to respond. If Smith wants to understand what worms are really about, the venue for him should be the  Sopchoppy Worm Gruntin’ Festival. Once he gets earthworms down, he can move onto brain worms. This, though, won't provide him with an ounce of knowledge about Austrian economics or Austrian school business cycle theory, and it wouldn't come close to Smith being able to compete with Austrian economist and Noble prize winner Friedrich Hayek when it comes to brain worms, never mind economics. One of Hayek's grandfathers was a biologist. And when it comes to the brain and brain worms, I would like to see Smith top Hayek's credentials in this field. Hayek studied in Constantin von Monakow's Institute of Brain Anatomy, where Hayek spent much of his time staining brain cells.

Who was Constantin von Monakow? According to Wikipedia:

Monakow made numerous contributions in his analysis of the sensory and motor pathways of the brain. He was interested in the functional relationships amongst the different regions of the brain, and conceptualized that in faculties such as intellect, coordination was needed among its many diverse parts. From his brain research, he introduced the terms "chronogenic localization" and "diaschisis".

In 1914 Monakow coined the term "diaschisis" to describe how an injury to the brain can create behavioral deficiencies that may be followed by eventual recovery. The word is derived from Greek, meaning "shocked throughout". He believed the brain to exist as a delicate balance between its different components, and if a component became disturbed through injury it could affect other parts of the brain not seemingly associated with the site of injury. Therefore, if the damage wasn't too severe, functional behaviour would recover once the period of diaschisis wore off.

His name is lent to "Monakow's nucleus" (lateral cuneate nucleus) and to the "bundle of Monakow" (rubrospinal fasciculus). In addition, "Monakow's syndrome" bears his name, defined as contralateral hemiplegia, hemianaesthesia and homonomous hemianopsia due to occlusion of the anterior choroidal artery.

He was responsible for identifying the arcuate fasciculus as the fibre tract that connected the Broca's and Wernicke's speech areas. This anatomical link (which is now questioned)[ “soon became a dogma in neurology and still today provides the backbone of anatomical models of language.”

Got that? Hayek seemed to have studied with  Monakow as sort of a curiosity, a hobby if you will. What can Noah tell us about the brain that matches this, other than a poorly constructed analogy that brain worms somehow impact the cognitive part of the brain, specifically with regard to economics? What part of the brain would you stain to show us this going on, Noah?

As for Noah's discussion about Austrian theory, it appears to match his surface understanding about brain worms and nothing more. There is no discussion of the regression theorem, the process of imputation, time preference, Hayek's triangles, or any other Austrian insights. What do you think about Fritz Machlup's book on the stock market from an Austrian perspective, Noah?

 I really feel no need to deal any further with Noah, he is a drive-by Keynesian gang banger that couldn't grunt a worm out of the ground, much less rattle a serious Austrian scholar. Dr. Block probably feels much the same way. His letter, reproduced below in full, states that he will only respond if Smith's criticism appears in a refereed journal. Not going to happen.-RW

Dear Noah (if I may):

Even though I’m an Austrian economist, I loved your piece on Austrian brain worms:http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/

Please allow me to introduce you to a friend of mine, Brian Caplan (Biran, I hope and trust this statement of mine is true). He is the author of this:

Caplan, Brian. 1996. “Why I Am Not An Austrian Economist” http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

Brian originally published this in a blog, I think. Then, when he got it into a journal,

Caplan, Bryan. 1999. "The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations," Southern Economic Journal,April, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 823-838; http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/ausfin2.doc

A whole bunch of us jumped on him:

Caplan debate

Block, 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007; Caplan, undated, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2008; Callahan, 2003; Carilli and Dempster, 2003; Hoppe, 2005; Hulsmann, 1999; Machaj, 2007; Murphy, 2008; Murphy, Wutscher and Block, 2010; Rajsic, 2010; Stringham, 2001, 2008; Stringham and White, 2004

Block, Walter. 1999. “Austrian Theorizing, Recalling the Foundations: Reply to Caplan,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 2, No. 4, winter, pp. 21-39; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_2.pdf; errata: http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_9.pdf

                 

Block, Walter. 2003.  “Realism: Austrian vs. Neoclassical Economics, Reply to Caplan,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 6, No. 3, Fall, pp. 63-76; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_3_4.pdf

Block, Walter. 2005. “Rejoinder to Caplan on Bayesian Economics,” Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 19, No. 1, Winter, pp. 79-95; http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/003654.asp

Block, Walter. 2007. "Reply to Caplan on Austrian Economic Methodology" Corporate Ownership & Control, Vol. 4, No. 2, November, pp. 312-zz.

http://www.virtusinterpress.org/additional_files/journ_coc/issues/COC_(Volume_4_Issue_3_Spring_2007_Continued2).pdf

Caplan, Bryan. Undated. “Why I am not an Austrian Economist.”

http://www.gmu.edu/depts/economics/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

Caplan, Bryan. 1999. "The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations," Southern Economic Journal,April, Vol. 65, No. 4, pp. 823-838; http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/ausfin2.doc

Caplan, Bryan. 2001. “Probability, Common Sense, and Realism: A Reply to Huelsmann and Block,”Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 2, No. 4, summer, pp. 69-86;http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae4_2_6.pdf

Caplan, Bryan. 2003. “Probability and the Synthetic A Priori:  A Reply to Block.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 6, No. 3, Fall, pp. 77-83; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_3_5.pdf

Caplan, Bryan. 2008. “The Trojan Horse Example” June 16;

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/06/the_trojan_hors.html

Callahan, Gene. 2003. “Choice and Preference,” February 10; http://mises.org/story/1163

Carilli, Anthony M., and Dempster, Gregory M. 2003. "A note on the treatment of uncertainty in economics and finance" Journal of Education for Business 79.2 Nov. 1, pp. 99-103.

Hoppe, Hans Hermann. 2005. “A Note on Preference and Indifference in Economic Analysis.”Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 8, No. 4, Winter, pp. 87-91;http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae8_4_6.pdf

Hülsmann, Jörg Guido. 1999. “Economic Science and Neoclassicism.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 2, Num. 4, pp. 1-20; http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae2_4_1.pdf

Machaj, Mateusz. 2007. “A Praxeological Case for Homogeneity and Indifference.” New Perspectives on Political Economy, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 231 – 238; http://pcpe.libinst.cz/nppe/3_2/nppe3_2_5.pdf

Murphy, Robert P. 2008. “Austrian Realists.” July 17; http://mises.org/story/3028

Murphy, Robert P., Robert Wutscher and Walter E. Block. 2010. “Mathematics in Economics: An Austrian Methodological Critique.” Philosophical Investigations, January, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 44-66;http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123209256/PDFSTART;http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9205.2009.01397.x/full

Rajsic, Predrag. 2010. “Did Rothbard ‘Borrow’ the Income and Substitution Effects?” April 8;http://mises.org/daily/4223

Stringham, Edward. 2001. "Kaldor-Hicks Efficiency and the Problem of Central Planning" Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Summer) 41-50.

http://www.mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae4_2_3.pdf

Stringham, Edward. 2008. "Economic Value and Cost Are Subjective" in The Handbook of Austrian Economics, Peter Boettke (editor), Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing,http://mises.org/journals/scholar/stringham4.pdf

Stringham, Edward, and White, Mark. 2004. "Economic Analysis of Tort Law: Austrian and Kantian Perspectives" in Law and Economics: Alternative Economic Approaches to Legal and Regulatory Issues, Margaret Oppenheimer and Nicholas Mercuro (editors) New York: M.E. Sharpe, 374-92;http://www.sjsu.edu/stringham/docs/Stringham.and.White2005.pdf

We can do so for you too.

So the two of you, you and Brian, will have something in common.

By the way, I once taught at Stony Brook early in my career, so you and I also have something in common.

If ever you scholarize your brain worm piece and get it published in a refereed journal, I promise to write and publish a rejoinder. I’m sure others will, too.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

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

Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business                   

Loyola University New Orleans

Walter Block on Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard and Thick Libertarianism

(Via David Henderson --HT Michael Edelstein)

Hey, @cmkshama Watch This: Walter Block Says Eliminate the Minimum Wage

Dr. Walter Block, economics professor at Loyola University New Orleans,  tells New Orleans CBS affiliate WUPL why he thinks the minimum wage should be eliminated all together.

Dr. Block is absolutely brilliant during this interview.



-RW

Advice for Graduate Students Seeking a PhD in Economics

By Walter Block

Advice for grad students (some of this advice is personal to me; take what makes sense to you and ignore the rest):

1.Your goal is to get that phd, asap. Don’t let anything interfere with that, if at all possible. If you need money, take out loans, don’t work and let that interfere with your studies.

2.Don’t take any part time jobs; don’t be anyone’s research assistant. Don’t be a teaching assistant. Don’t teach any courses. Just study to pass your courses with the best marks possible, and pass your oral or comprehensive exams.

3.Don’t argue with your professors, certainly not on basic issues. Your job is not to convert them to laissez faire capitalism, to Austrianism, to libertarianism or anything else. It is only to get that phd, asap.

4.Pick a relatively non controversial dissertation topic. Pick a professor to guide you who has prestige within the department (if your committee rejects your dissertation, it is a slap at your advisor too; so pick one who will not likely get slapped).

5.I found the most difficult part of getting my phd was writing the dissertation (although the oral exam was tough). I was accustomed to classes, but never to a long protracted period of research and writing. Grit your teeth and write that material! After a while, I found working on that dissertation to be boring (it was mostly gathering of statistics, and running econometric studies). So, to perk myself up, I gave myself a reward system. If I did thus and such on my dissertation, I would reward myself with a day or two when I could do anything I wanted. On these days off, I would write things in defense of the pimp, or blackmail, or counterfeiting counterfeit money. By the time I finished my phd I had about 30 of these essays, which I later published as Defending I.

6.Make sure you “pack” your dissertation committee to the best of your ability. At Columbia, where I got my phd, Gary Becker was my dissertation advisor, my topic was rent control, certainly not controversial within the econ dept; when Gary left for Chicago, Bill Landes took over this role. At Columbia, a student needed 5 people on his dissertation committee; 3 from the econ dept, one from Columbia but not in econ, and a fifth from outside of Columbia. As my fourth person I picked someone from the business school, Eli Ginzberg. He said to me, he knew someone interested in rent control, would I like that person to be the fifth member of my dissertation committee. Like an idiot I agreed. This guy was a rent control commissioner! The entire defense, practically, was me arguing with this guy. The exam took 2 hours. Right afterward, the committee met to decide whether or not I would pass. They deliberated for 3 hours! I later learned this guy wanted to fail me. To pass I needed a unanimous vote on the part of all five members. Finally, I passed. The argument that finally convinced this guy, as told to me by a friend of mine on the committee was this: “Yes, sure, Block’s dissertation had a lot of errors in it. You were very right in pointing them out (this was bs, to mollify this guy). But we’ve sat in on, oh, hundreds of dissertation defenses, and we say this one is as good as many others that we’ve passed. As for you, Mr. Rent Control Commissioner, this is your first experience with this sort of thing. If thanks to you Block fails, this would be very unfair.” Had that argument not convinced this guy, I would have had to take two more years to write an entirely different dissertation. When Ginzberg asked me if I wanted this guy on my committee, I should have said “no.” I could have picked any fifth member for this committee I wanted (who had a phd and wasn’t associated with Columbia as a professor). Heck, I could have chosen Murray Rothbard, Israel Kirzner or even Ludwig von Mises himself. What an idiot I was. Do not make this same mistake! Now, you may not be able to choose the members of your committee. But, usually, you will have a least some say in its make up.

7.I emphasize the dissertation stage so much because a lot of people leave grad school with an ABD (all but dissertation). They don’t get the phd. Sometimes, they can leave with a masters degree if they don’t pass their dissertation stage, but not always.

Walter Block earned his PhD in Economics at Columbia University. He is an author, editor, and co-editor of many books which include Defending the Undefendable; Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms; The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors; The Case for Discrimination.

The above originally appeared at LewRockwell.com.

Was Murray Rothbard a Thick Libertarian? Part 2

The exchange that started here: Was Murray Rothbard a Thick Libertarian?, continues.

Response to Walter Block:

Thank you, this is helpful.

For what it's worth, I gather that Rothbard is a borderline case. His guiding star was unequivocally the NAP, but he had episodes of thickness.

Much of the issue depends on our definition of thickness. If Rothbard's class theory is thin, then so is much of self-described thick libertarianism (e.g., on the FDA/contraception issue). And if Rothbard's Austrian economics is to be separated from his libertarianism, then so should Roderick Long's feminism be separated from his libertarianism. Likewise, if the Friedman episode is not evidence of Rothbard's thickness because his tangential disagreement with Friedman did not cause him to question Friedman's libertarianism, then the same can be said for all thick-v-thin debates, wherein no thick libertarian (to my knowledge) expunges thin libertarians from libertarianism.

We are faced, I think, with a continuum: how interlaced must non-libertarian commitments be with libertarianism before thinness turns into thickness?

Egalitarianism is illustrative. I am sure you're right that Rothbard would say noncoercive egalitarianism is no problem. But Rothbard did not make that distinction in the essay. His point was that egalitarianism was impossible, anti-human, and evil. At the time, therefore, he was defending the ideal of inequality, and he did so in the context of combating radical leftism, including communism. Like Hoppe defends conservatism, this is a thick position because his stance on inequality and on libertarianism are intimately connected. Yet if you had noted the possibility of noncoercive egalitarianism (like you might challenge his position on copyright or on licensure), I am sure Rothbard would have changed his mind in accordance with a more consistent NAP, and would likely have added a clarifying paragraph, separating his libertarianism from his non-egalitarianism. This would be a thin position.

If you grant that thin-v-thick is a continuum, then it is not really our place to decide whether Rothbard was thin or thick on these issues. It is his place. But since he is not around to settle the issue for us, the best we can do is to describe him as we do on IP: though he favored copyright, he did so before Kinsella was around to change his mind. Thus: though Rothbard had episodes of thickness, he would likely distinguish them all with a thin commitment to the NAP, had this debate been around to clarify his position.

And Prof. Block responds:

Here’s my substantive reply:

You may well be right. If we comb through everything Murray ever wrote or spoke about, publicly or privately, we might come up with some few cases of thickness in his libertarianism. Who knows? He wrote so much, he might conceivably have erred in this regard a few times; hey, no one is perfect. However, the burden of proof rests with those, such as you, who claim he was a thick libertarian, and so far you have not laid a single glove on him.

Lookit, Roderick Long’s support of feminism, anti bossism, anti racism, etc., is problematic, thickish, because he claimed these were part of libertarianism, and they are not. Certainly, feminism, for example, stands for principles incompatible with pure or correct libertarianism. In very sharp contrast, Murray Rothbard’s support for Austrianism has nothing whatever to do with libertarianism. The former lies in the positive realm the latter within the normative, and these are very different.  See this as a clarification of that point:

Block, Walter E. and Peter Cappelli. 2013. “Debate over the normative positive distinction in economics.” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 8(1), pp. 11-19; http://addletonacademicpublishers.com/abstracts/economics-management-and-financial-markets/volume-8-1-2013/debate-over-the-normative-positive-distinction-in-economics.html

Of course Murray didn’t discuss the wild-eyed idea that full free enterprise could lead to perfect egalitarianism. The entire idea is silly, given human beings as we know them. Lookit, his point there made the not so heroic assumption of human heterogeneity. Is he to be allowed no implicit assumptions upon pain of being characterized as a thick libertarian.

I appreciate your point about continuums. I make that same point here:

Block, Walter and William Barnett II. 2008. “Continuums” Journal Etica e Politica / Ethics & Politics, Vol. 1, pp. 151-166, June; http://www2.units.it/~etica/ ; http://www2.units.it/~etica/2008_1/BLOCKBARNETT.pdf

Let me concede, arguendo, that Murray wrote in a way that could be interpreted as thick libertarian, oh, 3 times in his entire professional life; remember, this is arguendo, since not one case in point has so far been shown.  Given our agreed upon point of continuums, we could not fairly characterize Murray as a thickster. In contrast, Roderick Long is a very thick libertarian. He positively revels in this fallacy.

I agree with you that Hoppe, in his defense of conservatism, takes on a thick position. I made that point here:

Block, Walter E. 2010. “Libertarianism is unique; it belongs neither to the right nor the left: a critique of the views of Long, Holcombe, and Baden on the left, Hoppe, Feser and Paul on the right.” Journal of Libertarian Studies; Vol. 22: 127–70; http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_8.pdf;http://141.164.133.3/exchange/walterblock/Inbox/JLS%20article.EML/1_multipart_xF8FF_2_block%20libertarianism%20is%20unique%20one.pdf/C58EA28C-18C0-4a97-9AF2-036E93DDAFB3/block%20libertarianism%20is%20unique%20one.pdf?attach=1

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdf; http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdf

However, he does so very rarely. He is not at all in the same camp as Long who does this a lot, given our agreement on continuums.

  

An Inside Story on Gabriel Kolko, and His Relationship with Libertarians

Walter Block emails:

Here is an inside story on Gabriel Kolko, and his relationship with libertarians. I forget what years this occurred, and also with which libertarian organizations (late 1970s? Center for Libertarian Studies? Libertarian Party?), but several of them invited Kolko to speak for them, based on his books, particularly The Triumph of Conservatism, given that his views were great attacks on crony capitalism. And, to the best of my recollection, Kolko did attend these gatherings as a speaker. But, Kolko was a Marxist. When he figured out what these libertarian groups were all about, he refused to speak for us any more, since he didn’t want to promote our agenda (even though we certainly overlapped on the subject he wrote about). I personally find this highly problematic. I would speak to any group, commie, socialist, Nazi, whatever, in an attempt to promote liberty and sound (Austrian) economics. Was Kolko afraid we would convert him to libertarianism? Why did he fear promoting libertarianism, at least those aspects of it that agreed with his analysis.

I heard all of this second hand, so cannot verify its truth. I never spoke to Kolko about this.

For more on Kolko, see:

Gabriel Kolko, RIP by Butler Shaffer

Gabriel Kolko (1932-2014) by Peter Klein

Was Murray Rothbard a Thick Libertarian?

Below is an email exchange Walter Block recently had. Professor Block's comments are in blue:

I received this important challenge to libertarianism:

A position opposed to initiatory aggression was not enough for Rothbard when he wrote that David Friedman's anarchism was not good enough because he did not "hate" the State. This is an extra-libertarian preference.

A position opposed to initiatory aggression was not enough for Rothbard when he supported diversity in human relations. He went so far as to call egalitarianism "evil" as against human nature. The same can be said for his stance on hermeneutics.

A position opposed to initiatory aggression was not enough for Rothbard when he split society into the ruling class and the subject class. I don't have to tell you that he drew heavily on Leftist historians for this material and this sort of class theory is exactly something you would find among left thick libertarians today 

This is not to say Rothbard was good or bad for any of this. I just recognize that his intellectual project was not just the NAP, and that all of his commitments were of a greater worldview -- a Rothbardian worldview.

Here are my responsese (<<)

But Murray was far more than merely a libertarian. He was also an Austrian economist, a philosopher, an ethicist, a historian, a strategist for libertarianism (this is different than being a libertarian; the former asks how liberty can best most efficaciously be promoted, the latter is limited to deductions from the non aggression principle) and much more.  If Murray said any of these things QUA libertarian, I would agree with you. Murray would then be a thickster libertarian. But I don’t agree that Murray spoke as a libertarian on any of the points you make. Let me consider each of these points:

A position opposed to initiatory aggression was not enough for Rothbard when he wrote that David Friedman's anarchism was not good enough because he did not "hate" the State. This is an extra-libertarian preference.

<<Yes, this is “an extra-libertarian preference.” But note, Murray didn’t say that David was not a libertarian. Only that he didn’t like that viewpoint, in effect. So, Murray is not speaking here as a libertarian. He would have been had he said that since David didn’t hate the state, David wasn’t a libertarian. But Murray didn’t say this.

A position opposed to initiatory aggression was not enough for Rothbard when he supported diversity in human relations. He went so far as to call egalitarianism "evil" as against human nature.

<< Hey, Murray was also “Mr. First Nighter.” That is, Murray gave movie reviews. Did he do so as a libertarian? Of course not. He did so as a movie critic. Libertarians are allowed to take stands on non libertarian issues. They just do not do so qua libertarian; rather, they should not do so from that perspective. Suppose the following scenario: we have laissez faire capitalism, full free enterprise, and somehow everyone ends up with precisely the same amount of wealth and income. This is not a logical contradiction. What would Murray’s view on that scenario have been? Of course I cannot speak for him, but it seems to me he would have said something of the order of, “well, that’s the way the cookie crumbles. I do not at all oppose voluntary egalitarianism, or egalitarianism that arises from economic freedom. I think it extremely unlikely, given what I know of the heterogeneity of the human race, but this would not violate the NAP. I only oppose coercive egalitarianism, since it violates the NAP.” Here, the Murray of my imagination would be speaking as a libertarian, but this would hardly be thick.

The same can be said for his stance on hermeneutics.

<< Here, Murray spoke as an Austrian economist, not as a libertarian.

A position opposed to initiatory aggression was not enough for Rothbard when he split society into the ruling class and the subject class. I don't have to tell you that he drew heavily on Leftist historians for this material and this sort of class theory is exactly something you would find among left thick libertarians today.

<<Yes, thick libertarians buy into this too, and why not? It is an accurate portrayal of economic history. But what is the distinction between rulers and ruled. It is certainly not the Marxist one between employers and employees. Rather, it is based on NAP violations. The rulers do this, and the victims suffer from it. So this is also thin libertarianism.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

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

Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business                   

Loyola University New Orleans

Walter Block earned his PhD in Economics at Columbia University. He is an author, editor, and co-editor of many books which include Defending the Undefendable; Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms; The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors; The Case for Discrimination.

On Pure Libertarianism

By Walter Block

This is my attempt to help temper the rancor I currently see in the liberty community. I am a staunch thin or pure libertarian. For me, the correct (Rothbardian) libertarianism is firmly predicated on the non aggression principle (NAP): the law should prohibit the initiation of violence against innocent people and their property. That is it. That is entirely it. There is no more to thin libertarianism, other than implications of this basic axiom; well, that’s quite a lot.

Of late however, many leftists have been attempting to

Walter Block Comments on the Latest Victor Ward Essay

Dr. Block emails:

Dear Victor:

This is just about the most magnificent essay I have ever read about racism. Imagine, truth as a defense against that charge. Go figure.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business                
Loyola University New Orleans

Be sure to read Ward's essay here.

UPDATE

Lew Rockwell writes in an email:

I love Victor Ward!

The Valuable Lesson I Learned from Gary Becker

By Walter Block

Gary Becker passed away on May 4, 2014 at age 83. There will be many obituaries written about this Nobel Prize winning economist, focusing on his numerous and important contributions to the dismal science. Here, instead, I will tell a more personal story, my own private interactions with my first mentor, Gary Becker.

I entered the Columbia University graduate program in economics in 1965. There were about 100 of us, so they assigned the new entrants to three different sections. The top one was taught by Becker, the middle one by William Vickery who also later won the Nobel Prize in economics, and the section for the least prepared of the students was taught by Roger Alcaly. I lucked out and

Walter Block Reacts to a Column by One of His Former Students

Walter Block emails:

 Lionel Beehner is now a columnist for USA today, and a phd candidate at Yale. He was a student of mine when we were both at Holy Cross, me as a prof, him as a student.

 From: Walter Block 

Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:05 PM
To: 'xxxx@gmail.com'
Subject: reaction to column from old prof at Holy Cross

  

Dear Lionel:

In your USA Today column of 3/26/14, “Putin just the nemesis we need” (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/03/25/putin-obama-united-states-russia-ukraine-crimea-column/6880951/), you call Putin “a playground bully.”

This characterization it seems to me, far better fits the US rather than Russia. The military budget of the former is bigger than that of the next 14 countries, all put together. The US has some 1000 military bases in about 160 foreign countries. Russia isn’t even close in this sweepstakes. Russia, at least, has the (illicit) excuse that it was invaded by Germany 3 times in the last century, and wants to establish a cordon sanitaire around itself. The US has no such excuse for its imperialistic ventures all over the globe.

You characterize Obama as “weak and unsure.” With him, the US military is still in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and scores of other countries. If we had McCain as president, he likely would have bombed Syria and Russia too, plus a few other countries no one has ever heard of. Mitt Romney was working up a head of steam against of all places, China.  If Ron Paul were president, all the US troops would be home long ago, and no droning would have been launched by our country. If Obama is “weak and unsure” what is Ron Paul?  A sissy? He wants a powerful DEFENSIVE force, not an offensive one.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

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

Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business                   

Loyola University New Orleans

Walter Block on Bitcoin, Seasteading and "Bleeding Heart" Libertarians

Walter Block recently conducted an AMA (Ask Me Anything) session on Reddit. Below is a transcript of the entire session.

Q: What's your opinion of the prospects for

Walter Block: "Jeffrey Tucker Went Off the Deep End"

Walter Blocks slaps down libwaps, plus much more.

FFF Economic Liberty Lecture Series: Walter Block

ECONOMIC LIBERTY LECTURE SERIES

DATE:

Monday, April 28, 2014

PLACE:

George Mason University -

Johnson Center Room Cinema

TIME:

5:30 pm – Pizza

6:00 pm – Talk via Skype with Q&A

8:00 pm - Social at Brion's Grille 

ADMISSION: FREE

           

 SPEAKER: Walter Block (via Skype)

"The Inextricable Link between Economic Freedom and Individual Liberty:

Government Reduces Liberty through Economic Assault" 

Walter Block earned his PhD in Economics at Columbia University. He is an author, editor, and co-editor of many books which include Defending the Undefendable; Defending the Undefendable II: Freedom in All Realms;The Privatization of Roads and Highways: Human and Economic Factors;The Case for Discrimination.

(ht Michael Edelstein)