I was invited to this Federalist Society event in Houston, which is to be held at South Texas College of Law Houston (the private law school in Houston had statist squabbles with U.Houston law school years ago when it tried to merge with Texas A&M to become its law school; University of Houston, higher reputation and state-funded so it’s cheaper, didn’t want the competition so finally got the merger blocked; STCL in a fit of pique tacked on “Houston” to its name a few years back): [continue reading…]
A friend asked whether “interest makes sense only so long as the economy is expanding due to a handful of economic expanders: technological advances, more efficient trade, a low cost of dispute resolution, and an increasing population, but whether a shrinking population will end…
interest makes sense only so long as the economy is expanding due to a handful of economic expanders: technological advances, more efficient trade, a low cost of dispute resolution, and an increasing population, but whether a shrinking population will end up causing so many defaults that lending just is no longer a profitable business, even with state money being nearly free.
My somewhat tangential reply:
I don’t think this is right. Something about it seems wrong
Some have a said that with a fixed money supply lending is also impossible, which I also think wrong. [continue reading…]
I asked ChatGPT to compare the views of Stephen Smith, compared to mine/Rothbard/Evers, and that of Randy Barnett. (not reviewed closely yet) [continue reading…]
As you know, earlier this month we published, on Murray Rothbard’s 100th Birthday, March 2, 2026, Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment online in digital format, and we are working on kindle, paperback, and deluxe hardcover/cloth editions which will be released well before our upcoming 20th Anniversary PFS meeting in September.
Appreciative of our efforts at the PFS to prepare and publish this book, and aware that such books are usually produced at a loss, some PFS members and friends have expressed an interest in helping to defray PFS costs associated with this and other projects. Accordingly, we will list Patrons in the published version of the book and provide a signed copy of the hardback to each Patron (after the 2026 PFS Annual Meeting, when many of the contributors will be available for signing). [continue reading…]
I ended up offering him some comments to improve his chapter. I repeat them below. Afterwards, he asked me how I became so interested in libertarianism. I gave a long answer, so repost some of that here. [continue reading…]
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to reconstruct Hoppean argumentation ethics by making explicit its fundamental elements and presenting a more refined and cogent formulation of it—particularly through the introduction of the concepts of monstration and decision—and to show how it proves property rights without committing the naturalistic fallacy or assuming value judgments. The article consists of three parts. In the first, we present the key concepts of the thesis and the sense in which they must be understood. In the second part, we show that there are norms inherent to every discursive act and show the existence of one of these norms in particular—the self-ownership axiom. In the third part, we demonstrate property rights based on the self-ownership axiom in conjunction with the concept of action.
Maybe Yeager was good on some things. I never read his fluttering veil stuff. But I always thought he was a confused bitter lightweight and dilettante, and a dishonest asshole. Here’s why:
· He was apparently wrong about fractional reserve banking and bought into the stupid…
I met him skulking around Mises Institute conferences in the old days when I used to attend. Had a few online interactions, and read some of his commentary. I eventually developed a negative assessment of this guy. Quick summary as to why, elaborating on the tweet above. [continue reading…]
I did look into Zionism a little bit when researching my controversial 2001 LewRockwell.com article “New Israel: A Win-Win-Win Proposal.” 3 But as a general matter, my eyes have always glazed over at people going on about “Zionism,” things such as “postmillennial pietism,” “eschatology,” and so on. My mind always preferred hard sciences, philosophy, and seems to be annoyed by all this fluffy, weird, silly religious, mystical and slippery type talk. (See my Appendix below.)
This is no doubt my personal defect; we can’t all do everything and I prefer to stick to what I know and am good at and interested in, to avoid falling prey to Rothbard’s Law: “People tend to specialize in what they’re worst at.” 4
In any case, the Zionist stuff is just not my area, not my interest, and certainly not my strength. This is an issue I mostly listen to others on. I don’t pipe up. I’m fine with letting others have passionate views on this and staying mostly out of it. Division of intellectual labor and all that. (I wish ignoramuses with an opinion about IP would have the same hesitation. As Rothbard said, “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a “dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”) 5[continue reading…]
Murray N. Rothbard, “Anarcho-Communism,” in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays, R.A. Childs, Jr., ed., 2d. ed. (Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 2000), p. 202, originally published in Libertarian Forum, vol. 2, no. 1 (January 1, 1970), in The Complete Libertarian Forum, Murray N. Rothbard, ed., Volume 1: 1969–1975 (Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 2006). [↩]
I regard you as an expert in libertarian legal theory and I gladly follow your work as it has helped me get a better understanding of liberty.
This document is an attempt at refuting the Non-aggression principle that was sent in a forum I am a part of. This is not my writing, so I don’t claim any grammatical errors. I have read it and I think it doesn’t really hold up, but I would be very thankful for your insights. If you would be so kind as to review it and give me your thoughts on it, it would help me examine if my thought process of thinking was correct.
Thank you in advance and kindest regards.
In liberty,
In this rejoinder, we return to the question of the ownership status of public property by criticizing Dominiak, Israel, and Fegley (2025). According to these authors, the public domain is legitimately owned collectively by domestic taxpayers in virtue of the so-called accession principle. The present paper demonstrates that the use Dominiak, Israel, and Fegley make of the accession principle is untenable since it (a) runs counter to the very purpose of introducing accession to libertarian theory as another mode of title acquisition, and (b) predicts conflict-generating property claims. We also argue that even if the approach under criticism were correct, it would fail to offer what DIF believe it does: a non-ideal theory comprising policy recommendations for politicians in power. In addition, the paper challenges the second pillar of the approach of these three scholars: their ideas for public property management. As we show, those nostrums are at odds with some elementary insights of Austrian economics.
Pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers all seem to be going apeshit about this, from various angles. I’m no expert, I don’t follow all this nonsense closely, I’m just a caveman lawyer.
Recent Comments