Skip to main content

Law

The Constitution and the Supreme Court: The Judicial Road to Big Government

  • 96 Accesses

Abstract

We attempt to analyze the U.S. Constitution from a libertarian point of view. Also, to show how certain Supreme Court rulings and constitutional interpretations progressively allowed for excessive growth in government, particularly in the areas of denial and denigration of private property rights, intervention in trade, production, consumption, and individual freedoms. Hence, we analyze the complex and slow institutional path to increasing interventionism.

Keywords

  • Constitution
  • Supreme Court
  • Liberty
  • Government

JEL Code

  • K10

Classical liberalism regarded those laws best that afforded the least discretionary power to executive authorities, thus avoiding arbitrariness and abuse. The modern state seeks to expand its discretionary power—everything is to be left to the discretion of officials.

Ludwig Von Mises (2011).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-981-16-4691-1_7
  • Chapter length: 25 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-981-16-4691-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Notes

  1. 1.

    THE CONSTITUTION, Justia, https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/constitution-text-only.html (last visited Sep. 7, 2019); AMENDMENTS, Justia, Available at https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendments-text-only.html (last visited Sep. 7, 2019).

  2. 2.

    Of course, apart from allowing slavery.

  3. 3.

    At least according to the Conservative tradition.

  4. 4.

    Much of which is predicated upon the existence of market failures. For a libertarian critique of this approach see Cowen (1988), DiLorenzo (2011), Hoppe (2003), Rothbard (1985), and Simpson (2005). For a critique of the public goods approach see Block (2003a), de Jasay (1989), Futerman (2014), Hoppe (1989a), Hummel (1990), Pasour Jr. (1981), Rothbard (1997), Schmidtz (1991), and Sechrest (2003, 2004a, b, 2007).

  5. 5.

    Although lower federal and state courts of course did their part.

  6. 6.

    Stalin once asked, “How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?”, see Higgs (2005). Of course, the same could be queried about the nine judges. They have no military might at their disposal either, apart from a few court police.

  7. 7.

    In saying this we risk committing the fallacy of the diamonds – water paradox. Menger, Walras and Jevons in their marginal revolution taught the economics profession to look at matters from a marginal point of view. See on this Jevons (1871), Menger (1950), and Walras (1874). To buttress this point, we note that it is the president who nominates candidates for the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, and congressional approval is necessary for their appointments. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the courts, but they are only one of the three branches of government.

  8. 8.

    See on this: Nozick (1974). See also Long and Machan (2008), Machan (2002), and Machan et al. (2012).

  9. 9.

    There is a debate about the subject of inalienability. Of course, involuntary servitude is beyond any debate, it is evil. But what about voluntary slavery? Can there be such a thing? In the view of Boldrin and Levine (2008) at 254: “Take the case of slavery. Why should people not be allowed to sign private contracts binding them to slavery? In fact economists have consistently argued against slavery – during the nineteenth century David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill engaged in a heated public debate with literary luminaries such as Charles Dickens, with the economists opposing slavery, and the literary giants arguing in favor.” For more on this libertarian rejection of inalienablity see Andersson (2007), Block (1969, 1979, 1988, 1999, 2001a, 2002a, 2003b, 2004, 2005, 2006a, 2007a, b, 2009a, b), Frederick (2014), Kershnar (2003), Lester (2000), Mosquito (2015), ROBERT NOZICK, supra note 406, at 58, 283, 331; Steiner (1994), and Thomson (1994).

  10. 10.

    The NAP means the following: [t]he fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (‘aggress’) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory. Rothbard (2003). See also Rothbard (1998).

  11. 11.

    Also referred to as fundamental rights, or pre-political rights, which are euphemisms to refer to natural rights, but they are devoid of any religious connotation. Hence, they sound secular, since natural rights appear religious or mystical (due to the metaphysical meaning attached to the concept of the natural).

  12. 12.

    Spooner (1966).

  13. 13.

    As Thomas Jefferson claimed, “Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years” In Jefferson (1958). Observe that if consent does not exist, it does not imply that the government will disappear, although this should be the logical conclusion. After all, the Boston Tea Party took place because of a 3% tax on Tea by British authorities, but much later (in 1794), Hamilton and Washington had to stop another rebellion arising also due to taxation (the “Whiskey Rebellion”). See Whiskey Rebellion, ENCYCLOPEDIA.COM, https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/united-states-and-canada/us-history/whiskey-rebellion (last visited Sept. 7, 2019).

  14. 14.

    See on secession, Von Mises (2002). At the same time, secession opens the gate to full self-governance or anarchy: Brilmayer (1991) (“Proponents of secession therefore face a very slippery slope in formulating a right to secede that does not open the door to complete anarchy.”). See also Chap. 6.

  15. 15.

    Of course, many of these problems were later fixed, through the 13th amendment.

  16. 16.

    For the libertarian rejection of a per se right of privacy, as opposed to being free of unwarranted government invasions of privacy, see Murray N. Rothbard, supra note 408, The Ethics… at Ch. 16, who avers “But is there really such a right to privacy? How can there be? How can there be a right to prevent Smith by force from disseminating knowledge which he possesses? Surely there can be no such right. Smith owns his own body and therefore has the property right to own the knowledge he has inside his head, including his knowledge about Jones. And therefore he has the corollary right to print and disseminate that knowledge. In short, as in the case of the ‘human right’ to free speech, there is no such thing as a right to privacy except the right to protect one’s property from invasion. The only right ‘to privacy’ is the right to protect one’s property from being invaded by someone else. In brief, no one has the right to burgle someone else’s home, or to wiretap someone’s phone lines. Wiretapping is properly a crime not because of some vague and woolly ‘invasion of a ‘right to privacy’,’ but because it is an invasion of the property right of the person being wiretapped.” See also Block (2016a, 2017) and Block et al. (2006).

  17. 17.

    Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-556/ (last visited Sep. 8, 2019). The Supreme Court ruled here that same sex marriage is included in the right to marry, and as a fundamental right it is protected and guaranteed by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  18. 18.

    The exact founding of the US is currently a controversial issue. For instance, we note that the New York Times dates this at 1619: The 1619 Project, THE NEW YORK TIMES, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/1619-america-slavery.html (last visited Sep. 9, 2019). Of course, this project comes with a specific political agenda. Most historians date this more than a century and a half later, in 1776.

  19. 19.

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  20. 20.

    “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”

  21. 21.

    Paradoxically, it was Marshall himself who did not give Marbury his commission. But he did not have to recuse himself because he was at the Supreme Court (there is no court superior to the Supreme Court).

  22. 22.

    It was not in the Constitution. In this respect, many institutional developments exist today as a tradition, but not as the result of any fundamental legislation. For instance, Texas has two Supreme Courts.

  23. 23.

    Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 1 Wheat. 304 304 (1816), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/14/304/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  24. 24.

    On the application of homesteading principles to several areas, see Block (1990, 2002b, c), Block and Edelstein (2012), Block and Nelson (2015), Block and Yeatts (1999–2000), Block and Epstein (2005), Bylund (2005, 2012), Grotius (1814), Hoppe (1993, 2011), Kinsella (2003, 2009a, b), Locke (1948), Paul (1987), Pufendorf (1673), Rothbard (1969, 1973a); MURRAY N. ROTHBARD, supra note 408, THE ETHICS OF; Watner (1982).

  25. 25.

    Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 386 386 (1798), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/3/386/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  26. 26.

    For a libertarian critique of such legislation see Alston and Block (2007), Block (1993, 2001b); Walter E. Block, On Reparations to..., supra note 422; Walter E. Block and Guillermo Yeatts, The Economics and Ethics..., supra note 422; Crepelle and Block (2017); Block (2016b).

  27. 27.

    For an alternative view, see Walter E. Block, Ex post…, supra note 424.

  28. 28.

    Crimes against humanity are an exception, such as with the Nuremburg Trials imposed on Nazi leaders.

  29. 29.

    “Latin for ‘that you have the body.’ In the US system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state’s detention of a prisoner is valid. A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person’s imprisonment or detention is lawful. A habeas petition proceeds as a civil action against the State agent (usually a warden) who holds the defendant in custody. It can also be used to examine any extradition processes used, the amount of bail, and the jurisdiction of the court” in Habeas Corpus (2017).

  30. 30.

    McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 4 Wheat. 316 316 (1819), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  31. 31.

    Since the constitution did not textually state that the government could create one.

  32. 32.

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

  33. 33.

    Interpretation and its methodology. However, for a criticism of the movement which bears this name, especially in economics, see Gordon (1986), Hoppe (1989b), and Rothbard (1989, 1996).

  34. 34.

    17, U.S. 421.

  35. 35.

    Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 1 1 (1824), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/22/1/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  36. 36.

    For more on this, see DiLorenzo (1996), O’Driscoll Jr. (1982), McChesney (1991), and Pasour Jr. (1982).

  37. 37.

    22 U.S. 196–197.

  38. 38.

    Lottery Case, 188 U.S. 321 (1903), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/188/321/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  39. 39.

    For another relevant case where the Supreme Court again approved of Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, this time through the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), concerning railroad rates (Shreveport Rate Cases) see Houston E. & W. Tex. Ry. Co. v. United States, 234 U.S. 342 (1914), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/234/342/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  40. 40.

    Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/247/251/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  41. 41.

    Ibid.

  42. 42.

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

  43. 43.

    Boycotting products produced with child labor.

  44. 44.

    See on this Block (2008a), DiLorenzo (2004), Kauffman (1992), McElroy (2001), Nardinelli (1990), Rojas (2010), Rose (1998), and Tucker (2008).

  45. 45.

    Mill (1870).

  46. 46.

    National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 83 F.2d 998 (fifth Cir. 1936), Justia, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/83/998/1479028/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  47. 47.

    For a libertarian analysis of labor strikes see Baird (1990, 2000, 2013), Block (2008b, 2010a), Evans and Block (2002), Heldman (1977), Heldman et al. (1981), Hutt (1973, 1989), Petro (1957), Reynolds (1984, 1987, 2009), Rothbard (1991a), Schmidt (1973), and Shea (2010).

  48. 48.

    See National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 83 F.2d 998 (5th Cir. 1936), Justia, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/83/998/1479028/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/198/45/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  51. 51.

    A very desirable goal, according to libertarian law.

  52. 52.

    United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/304/144/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  53. 53.

    This refers to milk or cream, which has been combined with fats, vegetable oils, and other such additives not produced from dairy cows.

  54. 54.

    Although “irrational” is often understood as hatred, false statements, etc.

  55. 55.

    United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/100/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  56. 56.

    Joke: Luckily the court was not formed by praxeologists, because otherwise they would have ruled that even autistic exchange (Mises, 1949), is part of interstate commerce and therefore it could regulate all human action.

  57. 57.

    As an example, see Martino v. Michigan Window Cleaning Co., 327 U.S. 173 (1946).

  58. 58.

    West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/300/379/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  59. 59.

    Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  60. 60.

    See Block (1998, 2008c, 2014a) and Block and Block (1996). But see this for an alternative viewpoint. Tullock (1996).

  61. 61.

    For other issues pertaining to property rights, see Barnett II and Block (2007, 2009), Block (1977, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2003c, 2006b, 2010b, c, d), Block et al. (2005), Cordato (1992a, b, 1997, 1998, 2000), Fox (2007), Krecke (1996), Krauss (1999), Rothbard (1982), Stringham and White (2004), and Terrell (1999).

  62. 62.

    United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/297/1/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  63. 63.

    See fn. 434, supra.

  64. 64.

    Home Building & Loan Ass’n. v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/290/398/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  65. 65.

    P. 290, U.S. 483.

  66. 66.

    Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus, 438 U.S. 234 (1978), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/234/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  67. 67.

    That is a polite way of referring to contradictory judicial findings.

  68. 68.

    South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/483/203/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  69. 69.

    United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/549/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  70. 70.

    National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/519/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  71. 71.

    Hayek (1944); was prescient.

  72. 72.

    On the issue of eminent domain, see Block and Epstein (2004); Walter E. Block and Richard Epstein, supra note 422, Debate on Eminent…; Block (2006a). For zoning laws, see Goldberg et al. (1980), Siegan (1970, 1972), and Block (2014b).

  73. 73.

    Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), Justia, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/469/ (last visited Aug. 28, 2019).

  74. 74.

    As in the fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation” (emphasis added).

  75. 75.

    14 U.S. 1 Wheat. 304 304 (1816).

  76. 76.

    17 U.S. 4 Wheat. 316 316 (1819).

  77. 77.

    22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 1 1 (1824).

  78. 78.

    188 U.S. 321 (1903).

  79. 79.

    234 US 342 (1914).

  80. 80.

    247 U.S. 251 (1918).

  81. 81.

    83 F.2d 998 (5th Cir. 1936).

  82. 82.

    304 U.S. 144 (1938).

  83. 83.

    312 U.S. 100 (1941).

  84. 84.

    300 U.S. 379 (1937).

  85. 85.

    317 U.S. 111 (1942).

  86. 86.

    290 U.S. 398 (1934).

  87. 87.

    438 U.S. 234 (1978).

  88. 88.

    483 U.S. 203 (1987).

  89. 89.

    567 U.S. 519 (2012).

  90. 90.

    For private, alternative law systems, see Benson (1990, 2002, 2018), Berman and Dasser (1990), Friedman (1979, 1989), Osterfeld (1989), Peden (1977), Rothbard (1973b, 1991b), Stringham (1998–1999), Tannehill and Tannehill (1984, 2001), Thierer (1992), and Woolridge (1970).

  91. 91.

    For more on this, see Napolitano (2004, 2006, 2014a, b).

Bibliography

  • Alston, Wilton D., and Walter E. Block. 2007. Reparations, Once Again. Human Rights Review 9: 379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, Anna-Karin. 2007. An Alleged Contradiction in Nozick’s Entitlement Theory. Journal of Libertarian Studies 21: 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, Charles. 1990. American Union Law: Sources of Conflict. Journal of Labor Research 11: 269.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. Unions and Antitrust. Journal of Labor Research 21: 585.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. American Unionism and Freedom of Association. Journal of Private Enterprise 28: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett II, William, and Walter E. Block. 2007. Coase and Van Zandt on Lighthouses. Public Finance Review 35: 710.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Coase and Bertrand on Lighthouses. Public Choice 140: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, Bruce L. 1990. The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without The State. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002. Justice without Government: The Merchant Courts of Medieval Europe and Their Modern Counterparts. In The Voluntary City: Choice, Community and Civil Society, ed. Beito, Gordon, and Tabarrok, 127–150. Oakland: The Independent Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. The Enterprise of Customary Law. Mises Daily. https://mises.org/library/enterprise-customary-law.

  • Berman, Harold J., and Felix J. Dasser. 1990. The ‘New’ Law Merchant and the ‘Old’: Sources, Content and Legitimacy. In Lex Mercatoria and Arbitration: A Discussion of the Law Merchant, ed. Thomas E. Carbonneau. Dobbs Ferry: Transnational Juris Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter E. 1969. Voluntary Slavery. The Libertarian Connection 1: 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1977. Coase and Demsetz on Private Property Rights. Journal of Libertarian Studies 1: 111.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1979. Book Review of Nancy C. Baker, Baby Selling: the Scandal of Black Market Adoptions, New York: The Vanguard Press, 1978. Libertarian Review 7: 44.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1988. Rent-a-womb market. Thunder Bay Ontario Daily.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990. Earning Happiness Through Homesteading Unowned Land: a comment on ‘Buying Misery with Federal Land’ by Richard Stroup. Journal of Social Political and Economic Studies 15: 237.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993. Malcolm X. Fraser Forum 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995. Ethics, Efficiency, Coasean Property Rights and Psychic Income: A Reply to Demsetz. The Review of Austrian Economics 8: 61.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996. O.J.’s Defense: A Reductio Ad Absurdum of the Economics of Ronald Coase and Richard Posner. European Journal of Law and Economics 3 (265).

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. Roads, Bridges, Sunlight and Private Property: Reply to Gordon Tullock. Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines 8: 315.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1999. Market Inalienability Once Again: Reply to Radin. Thomas Jefferson Law Review 22: 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. Private Property Rights, Erroneous Interpretations, Morality and Economics: Reply to Demsetz. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 3: 63.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001a. Alienability, Inalienability, Paternalism and the Law: Reply to Kronman. The American Journal of Criminal Law 28: 351.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001b. The Moral Dimensions of Poverty, Entitlements and Theft. The Journal of Markets and Morality 4: 83.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002a. A Libertarian Theory of Secession and Slavery. Lew Rockwell. http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block15.html.

  • ———. 2002b. Homesteading City Streets; An Exercise in Managerial Theory. Planning and Markets 5: 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002c. On Reparations to Blacks for Slavery. Human Rights Review 3: 53.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003a. National Defense and the Theory of Externalities, Public Goods and Clubs. In The Myth of National Defense: Essays on The Theory and History of Security Production, ed. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, 301–334. Mises Institute: Auburn.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003b. Toward a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Gordon, Smith, Kinsella and Epstein. The Journal of Libertarian Studies 17: 39.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003c. Private Property Rights, Economic Freedom, and Professor Coase: A Critique of Friedman, McCloskey, Medema and Zorn. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 26: 923.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Are Alienability and the Apriori of Argument Logically Incompatible? Dialogue 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. Ayn Rand and Austrian Economics: Two Peas in a Pod. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 6: 259.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006a. Epstein on Alienation: A Rejoinder. International Journal of Social Economics 33: 241.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006b. Coase and Kelo: Ominous Parallels and Reply to Lott on Rothbard on Coase. Whittier Law Review 27: 997.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007a. Secession. Dialogue 4: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007b. Alienability: Reply to Kuflik. Humanomics 23: 117.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008a [1976]. Defending the Undefendable. Auburn: The Mises Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008b. Labor Economics from a Free Market Perspective: Employing the Unemployable.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008c. Homesteading, Ad Coelum, Owning Views and forestalling. The Social Sciences 3: 96.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009a. Yes, Sell Rivers! And Make Legal Some Slave Contracts. The Tyee. http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2009/07/24/SellRivers/.

  • ———. 2009b. Privatizing Rivers and Voluntary Slave Contracts. Lew Rockwell. http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html.

  • ———. 2010a. Are Unions Criminal Gangs? Global Virtue Ethics Review 6: –28.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010b. A Response to Brooks’ Support of Demsetz on the Coase Theorem. Dialogue 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010c. Rejoinder to Brooks on Coase and Demsetz. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 13: 56.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010d. Rejoinder to Boettke on Coasean Economics and Communism. Romanian Economic Business Review 5: 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014a. A Collection of Essays on Libertarian Jurisprudence: Sunshine and Property Rights. Saint Louis University Law Journal 58: 541.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014b. Private Urban Planning and Free Enterprise. In Cities and Private Planning: Property Rights, Entrepreneurship and Transaction Costs, eds. David Emanuel Andersson and Stefano Moroni, 93, 96–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016a. So-called Privacy Rights Are Incompatible with our Libertarian Philosophy. Lew Rockwell. https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/called-privacy-rights-incompatible-libertarian-philosophy/.

  • ———. 2016b. Ex post facto law and slavery. Lew Rockwell. https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/ex-post-facto-law/.

  • ———. 2017. Privacy Rights? No. Lew Rockwell. https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/privacy-rights-no/.

  • Block, Walter E., and Matthew A. Block. 1996. Roads, Bridges, Sunlight and Private Property Rights. Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines 7: 351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter E., and Michael R. Edelstein. 2012. Popsicle Sticks and Homesteading Land for Nature Preserves. Romanian Economic and Business Review 7: 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter E., and Richard Epstein. 2004. Block-Epstein Debate on Eminent Domain. Mises.Org. https://mises.org/library/block-epstein-debate-eminent-domain.

  • ———. 2005. Debate on Eminent Domain. NYU Journal of Law and Liberty 1: 1144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter E., and Peter Lothian Nelson. 2015. Water Capitalism: The Case for Privatizing Oceans, Rivers, Lakes, and Acquifers. New York City: Lexington Books, Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter E., and Guillermo Yeatts. 1999–2000. The Economics and Ethics of Land Reform: A Critique of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace’s ‘Toward a Better Distribution of Land: The Challenge of Agrarian Reform. Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Law 15: 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter E., William Barnett II, and Gene Callahan. 2005. The Paradox of Coase as a Defender of Free Markets. NYU Journal of Law & Liberty 1: 1075.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, Walter E., Stephan Kinsella, and Roy Whitehead. 2006. The Duty to Defend Advertising Injuries Caused by Junk Faxes: An Analysis of Privacy, Spam, Detection and Blackmail. Whittier Law Review 27: 925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boldrin, Michele, and David K. Levine. 2008. Against Intellectual Monopoly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brilmayer, Lea. 1991. Secession and Self-Determination: A Territorial Interpretation, 16 Yale J. Intl L. 177, 181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bylund, Per. 2005. Man and Matter: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Justification of Ownership in Land from the Basis of Self-Ownership. Master thesis, Lund University.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Man and Matter: How the Former Gains Ownership of the Latter. Libertarian Papers 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordato, Roy E. 1992a. Knowledge Problems and the Problem of Social Cost. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 14: 209.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992b. Welfare Economics and Externalities in an Open-Ended Universe: A Modern Austrian Perspective. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. Market-Based Environmentalism and the Free Market: They’re Not the Same. The Independent Review 1: 371.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998. Time Passage and the Economics of Coming to the Nuisance: Reassessing the Coasean Perspective. Campbell Law Review 20: 273.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. Chasing Phantoms in a Hollow Defense of Coase. The Review of Austrian Economics 13: 193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, Tyler, ed. 1988. The Theory of Market Failure: A Critical Examination. Fairfax: George Mason University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crepelle, Adam, and Walter E. Block. 2017. Property Rights and Freedom: The Keys to Improving Life in Indian Country. Washington & Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice 23: 314.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Jasay, Anthony. 1989. Social Contract, Free Ride: A Study of the Public Goods Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiLorenzo, Thomas J. 1996. The Myth of Natural Monopoly. The Review of Austrian Economics 9: 43.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. The Union Myth. The Free Market 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiLorenzo, Thomas. 2011. A Note on the Canard of ‘Asymmetric Information’ as a Source of Market Failure. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 14: 249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Jason, and Walter E. Block. 2002. Labor Union Policies: Gains or Pains. Cross Cultural Management 9: 71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, Glenn. 2007. The Real Coase Theorems. The Cato Journal 27: 373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, Danny. 2014. Voluntary Slavery. Las Torres de Luca 4: 115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, David. 1979. Private Creation and Enforcement of Law – A Historical Case. The Journal of Legal Studies 8: 399.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1989. The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to Radical Capitalism. 2nd ed. La Salle: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futerman, Alan G. 2014. Hacia una Teoría de los Bienes Públicos como Bienes Políticos y el Rol Estatal. Revista Procesos de Mercado 11: 221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, Michael, et al. 1980. In Zoning: Its Costs and Relevance for the 1980s, ed. Walter Block, 40–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, David. 1986. Hermeneutics vs. Austrian Economics. Auburn: The Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grotius, Hugo. 1814. Law of War and Peace (De Jure Belli Ac Pacis). Trans. A.C. Campbell, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habeas Corpus. 2017. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus. Last visited September 10, 2019.

  • Hayek, Friedrich. 1944. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heldman, Daniel C. 1977. American Labor Unions: Political Values and Financial Structure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heldman, Daniel C. et al. 1981. Deregulating Labor Relations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgs, Robert. 2005. How Many Divisions Does the Pope Have? The Independent Institute. http://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=1492.

  • Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1989a. Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security. Journal of Libertarian Studies 9: 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1989b. In Defense of Extreme Rationalism: Thoughts on Donald McCloskey’s The Rhetoric of Economics. The Review of Austrian Economics 3: 179.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993. The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, ed. 2003. The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production. Auburn: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Of Private, Common, and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization. Libertarian Papers 3: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummel, Jeffrey. 1990. National Goods vs. Public Goods: Defense, Disarmament and Free Riders. The Review of Austrian Economics 4: 88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutt, W.H. 1973. The Strike Threat System: The Economic Consequences of Collective Bargaining.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1989. Trade Unions: The Private Use of Coercive Power. The Review of Austrian Economics 3: 109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, Thomas. 1958. Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 15: 392–398 (27 March 1789 to 30 November 1789). Princeton University Press. https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison#notes28b. Last visited September 8, 2019.

  • Jevons, William Stanley. 1871 [1965]. The Theory of Political Economy. 3d ed. London/New York: Macmillan and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, Bill. 1992. The Child Labor Amendment Debate of the 1920’s; or, Catholics and Mugwumps and Farmers. Journal of Libertarian Studies 139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kershnar, Stephen. 2003. A Liberal Argument for Slavery. Journal of Social Philosophy 34: 510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsella, Stephan N. 2003. A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability. Journal of Libertarian Studies 17: 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009a. What Libertarianism Is. In Property, Freedom and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, ed. Jörg Guido Hülsmann and Stephan Kinsella. Auburn: Mises Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009b. Homesteading, Abandonment, and Unowned Land in the Civil Law. Mises Wire. https://mises.org/wire/homesteading-abandonment-and-unowned-land-civil-law.

  • Krauss, Michael. 1999. Tort Law, Moral Accountability, and Efficiency: Reflections on the Current Crisis. Markets and Morality 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krecke, Elisabeth. 1996. Law and the Market Order: An Austrian Critique of the Economic Analysis of Law. Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines 7: 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, Jan Clifford. 2000. Escape from Leviathan. St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, John. 1948. An Essay Concerning the True Origin, Extent and End of Civil Government. In Social Contract, ed. E. Baker, 17–19. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, Roderick T., and Tibor R. Machan, eds. 2008. Anarchism/Minarchism: Is Government Part of a Free Country? Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machan, Tibor R. 2002. Anarchism and Minarchism: A Rapprochment. Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines 12: 569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machan, Tibor R., Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard. 2012. Diverse Champions of Liberty. The Daily Bell. http://www.thedailybell.com/3435/Tibor-Machan-Ayn-Rand-Murray-Rothbard-Diverse-Champions-of-Liberty.

  • McChesney, Fred. 1991. Antitrust and Regulation: Chicago’s Contradictory Views. Cato Journal 10: 775.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, Wendy. 2001. Legal Child Abuse. The Free Market 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menger, Carl. 1950 [1871]. Principles of Economics, editors and translators, James Dingwall and Bert F. Hoselitz. Glencoe: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill, John Stuart. 1870 [1909]. In Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy, ed. William James Ashley. London: Longmans, Green and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosquito, Bionic. 2015. Walter Block, Specific Performance Contracts, and Abortion. Bionic Mosquito. http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2015/07/walter-block-specific-performance.html.

  • Napolitano, Andrew P. 2004. Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws. Nashville: Nelson Current.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014a. Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and The Lethal Threat To American Liberty. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014b. A Legal History of National Security Law and Individual Rights in the United States. New York University Journal of Law & Liberty 8: 396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardinelli, Clark. 1990. Child Labor and the Industrial Revolution. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, state, and Utopia, 162. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Driscoll Jr., Gerald P. 1982 [1983]. Monopoly in Theory and Practice. In Method, Process, and Austrian Economics, Essays in Honor of Ludwig Von Mises, 189–213. Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterfeld, David. 1989. Anarchism and the Public Goods Issue: Law, Courts and the Police. Journal of Libertarian Studies 9: 47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasour Jr., Ernest C. 1981. The Free Rider as a Basis for Government Intervention. Journal of Libertarian Studies 5: 453.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1982 [1983]. Monopoly Theory and Practice – Some Subjectivist Implications: Comment on O’Driscoll. In Method, Process, and Austrian Economics, Essays in Honor of Ludwig Von Mises, 215–223. Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, Ellen Frankel. 1987. Property Rights and Eminent Domain. Livingston: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peden, Joseph R. 1977. Property rights in Celtic Irish law. Journal of Libertarian Studies 1: 81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petro, Sylvester. 1957. The Labor Policy of the Free Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pufendorf, Samuel. 1673. Natural Law and the Law of Nations, de Officio Hominis et Civis Juxta Legem Naturalem Libri Duo. Buffalo: Hein; reprint of New York, Oxford University Press, 1927.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, Morgan O. 1984. Power and Privilege: Labor Unions in America.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987. Making America Poorer: The Cost of Labor Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. A History of Labor Unions from Colonial Times to 2009. http://mises.org/daily/3553.

  • Rojas, Rod. 2010. The Fallacy of ‘Child-Labor-Free’. Mises Daily. https://mises.org/library/fallacy-child-labor-free.

  • Rose, Jim. 1998. Child Labor, Family Income, and the Uruguay Round. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 1: 75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothbard, Murray N. 1969. Confiscation and the Homestead Principle. The Libertarian Forum 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray N. Rothbard. 1973a. For a New Liberty. New York: Macmillan. http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp.

  • Rothbard, Murray N. 1973b. Free Market, Police, Courts, and Law. Reason: 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1982. Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution. Cato Journal 2. In Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation, ed. Walter E. Block, 233–279. Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1985. Airport Congestion: A Case of Market Failure? The Free Market.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1989. The Hermeneutical Invasion of Philosophy and Economics. The Review of Austrian Economics 3: 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1991a. The Union Problem. Free Market 9: 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1991b. On Denationalizing the Courts. In Rothbard-Rockwell Report, vol. 2. Burlingame: Center for Libertarian Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1996. Intimidation by Rhetoric. The Review of Austrian Economics 9: 173.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1997. The Logic of Action: Applications and Criticism from the Austrian School. Vol. II. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1998 (1982). The Ethics of Liberty, 51–52. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. War, Peace, and the State. In The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production, ed. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, 65, 66. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, Emerson P. 1973. Union Power and the Public Interest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidtz, David. 1991. The Limits of Government: An Essay on the Public Goods Argument. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sechrest, Larry. 2003. Privateering and National Defense: Naval Warfare for Private Profit. In The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production, ed. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, 239–274. Mises Institute: Auburn.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004a. Public Goods and Private Solutions in Maritime History. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 7: 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004b. Private Provision of Public Goods: Theoretical Issues and Some Examples from Maritime History. The ICFAI Journal of Public Finance 2: 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Privately Funded and Built U.S. Warships in the Quasi-War of 1797–1801. The Independent Review 12: 101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, Brian. 2010. Solidarity Forever: The power invested in worker collectives under United States law. Journal of Libertarian Studies 22: 219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegan, Bernard H. 1970. Non-Zoning in Houston. The Journal of Law and Economics 13: 71–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1972. Land Use Without Zoning, 95–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, Brian. 2005. Markets Don’t Fail. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spooner, Lysander. 1966 (1870). No Treason: the Constitution of no Authority and a Letter to Thomas F. Bayard. Larkspur: Rampart College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, Hillel. 1994. An Essay on Rights, 232. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stringham, Edward. 1998–1999. Justice Without Government. Journal of Libertarian Studies 14: 53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stringham, Edward Peter, and Mark White. 2004. Economic Analysis of Tort Law: Austrian and Kantian Perspectives. In Law and Economics: Alternative Approaches to Legal and Regulatory Issues, ed. Margaret Oppenheimer and Nicholas Mercuro, 374–392. New York: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tannehill, Morris, and Linda Tannehill. 1984. The Market for Liberty. New York: Laissez Faire Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001. Arbitration of Disputes. Mises Daily. https://mises.org/library/arbitration-disputes.

  • Terrell, Timothy D. 1999. Property Rights and Externality: The Ethics of the Austrian School. Journal of Markets and Morality 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thierer, Adam. 1992. Judgement Day: The Case for Alternative Dispute Resolution. London: Adam Smith Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1994. The Realm of Rights, 283–284. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, Jeffrey. 2008. The Trouble with Child Labor Laws. Mises Daily. https://mises.org/library/trouble-child-labor-laws.

  • Tullock, Gordon. 1996. Comment on ‘Roads, Bridges, Sunlight and Private Property’, by Walter E. Block and Matthew A. Block. Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines 7: 589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Mises, Ludwig. 2002 (1927). Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition, 109. Auburn: The Ludwig Von Mises Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— 2011 (1976). A Critique of Interventionism 13. Auburn: The Ludwig Von Mises.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walras, Leon. 1874. Principe d’une ‘Théorie Mathématique de L’Échange. Mémoire lu a l’Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques (Seances des 16 et 23 aout 1873). Paris: Guillaumin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watner, Carl. 1982. The Proprietary Theory of Justice in the Libertarian Tradition. Journal of Libertarian Studies 6: 289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolridge, William C. 1970. Uncle Sam the Monopoly Man. New Rochelle: Arlington House.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Futerman, A.G., Block, W.E. (2021). Law. In: The Austro-Libertarian Point of View. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4691-1_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4691-1_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-4690-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-4691-1

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)