A correspondent recently wrote me with a few libertarian puzzles/conundra. An edited version is below: When are threats of aggression punishable by law? Just how immediate, credible and serious must a threat be if it is to be considered a law violation under the libertarian legal code? [Note: In The Ethics of Liberty , Rothbard said: “It is
Richard Epstein’s Cato-endorsed article The Problem With Presidential Signing Statements rightly warns of some troubling executive branch power-grabs by the Bush administration. As Epstein writes: Since he took office, Bush has used this device to object to more than 500 provisions in more than 100 pieces of legislation--nearly as many as the 575
It is often the case that the great intellects advance ideas so rich and prescient that they anticipate, in however embryonic form, ideas that are more fully developed later on. One of my favorite examples is Hans Hoppe’s monumental argumentation ethics defense of libertarian rights, where Hoppe gives credit to Rothbard for recognizing, in a brief
On a patent practitioner email list I posted the following: It seems to me that many small/medium companies live in fear of a big patent lawsuit. Even if they had their own IP, I suspect many companies would gladly give up forever their right to sue for patent infringement, in exchange for some kind of immunity from patent liability--at least, if
I’ve long been fascinated by C.P. Snow’ s “ The Two Cultures “ ( excerpts ) thesis, which concerns misunderstandings between the sciences, and the humanities. But it always seemed ... incomplete. To be missing something. In part, this was its triteness: engineers don’t read Dickens; humanities and artsy types don’t understand math and science .
Update: My article, The Greatest Libertarian Books , appeared on LewRockwell.com on Monday, August 7, 2006. See discussion here . *** In my article, I mentioned: Something about Friedman’s Machinery always bugged me - maybe it was the way he noted that Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson is “reputed” to be a good introductory book on economics, but
I’ve scanned and uploaded Tibor Machan The Moral Case for the Free Market Economy (Edwin Mellen Press, 1988) (with the author’s permission; it was informally published on regular sized paper, not hard-bound). From the preface: This book grew out of my AB Timbro Summer Seminar lectures in Stockholm, Sweden, during August 1986. I try to place on
Walter Block’s latest article is Coase and Kelo : Ominous Parallels And Reply to Lott on Rothbard on Coase , from Vol. 27, no. 4 (2006) of the Whittier Law Review . The lead article in the same issue is also one of Block’s (with coauthors Kinsella and Roy Whitehead): The Duty to Defend Advertising Injuries Caused by Junk Faxes: An Analysis of
Or: We’re from the government—and we’re here to help. In Perspective: Let global online freedom ring? , my former partner, e-commerce law expert Eric Sinrod critiques the proposed Global Online Freedom Act of 2006 . Like the hideous Foreign Corrupt Practices Act , which outlaws US companies or citizens paying bribes to foreign officials even if
When George Koether passed ( 2 , 3 ), I noted “He once sent me a copy of his abridgment of Human Action “. Several people asked me about that, but I could not find it. This weekend I stumbled across it when rearranging my (paper) library. Turns out it was a special issue (Sept. 1981) of The Freeman , published on the centenery of Mises’ birth in
What is the Mises Institute?
The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote teaching and research in the Austrian School of economics, individual freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard.
Non-political, non-partisan, and non-PC, we advocate a radical shift in the intellectual climate, away from statism and toward a private property order. We believe that our foundational ideas are of permanent value, and oppose all efforts at compromise, sellout, and amalgamation of these ideas with fashionable political, cultural, and social doctrines inimical to their spirit.