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.
Faith Seeking Freedom: Libertarian Christian Answers to Tough Questions (Libertarian Christian Institute Press, 1010; Amazon) is an important book written several of my Christian libertarian friends. 1 All four of the authors are intelligent, well-read, articulate, and principled libertarians. As my endorsement my notes:
Achieving liberty will require enlightening our fellow men about its eternal truths. The contributors to this volume, Christians who are also principled and articulate libertarians, argue for a more libertarian interpretation of Christian teachings, and seek to explain to fellow Christians and other people of faith the glory and morality of liberty in terms they will already relate to. Liberty is ultimately about peace, love, and cooperation, which is a message that can appeal to the 2.4 billion Christians on the planet. This is a big potential audience. This is an important book and undertaking.
A second, expanded edition is forthcoming. I look forward to it. My blurb:
Achieving liberty will require enlightening our fellow men about its eternal truths. Building on the success of the first edition, this updated and expanded second edition of Faith Seeking Freedom features additional authors and new insights from Christians who are also principled and articulate libertarians. They argue for a more libertarian interpretation of Christian teachings, explaining to fellow Christians and other people of faith the glory and morality of liberty in relatable terms. While remaining accessible and not overburdened with scholarly jargon, it still manages to show that libertarian principles are supported by Biblical teachings—such as the explanation, in Sections 12, 14, and 15, of the connection between the libertarian principles of non-aggression, self-ownership, homesteading, and production, on the one hand, and the Biblical teachings about treatment of neighbors, stewardship of the gifts God has bestowed, and the admonition to be productive—to “be fruitful and multiply”—on the other. These insights and principles support and complement each other.
Liberty is ultimately about peace, love, and cooperation—a message that can appeal to the billions of Christians worldwide. This remains a big potential audience, and this enhanced book is an even more important undertaking. In addition, while the book is aimed at Christians, its linkage of principles of freedom to deeper moral truths is valuable to nonreligious libertarians as well. Liberty is not an isolated value; connecting related but different areas of thought is important. I am delighted that this book exists.
Stephan Kinsella joins the Bitcoin Infinity Show to talk about why praxeology is the hardest science in economics, how Austrian theory explains Bitcoin’s unique monetary properties, and whether you can truly own a Bitcoin or merely act as if you do. The conversation covers the foundations of property rights and natural law, the subjective nature of fungibility, and what a hyperbitcoinized future might actually look like. Kinsella and Knut also explore why intellectual property restrictions threaten the very knowledge accumulation that makes humanity richer over time.
I delivered the following lecture yesterday: “The Economics and Ethics of Intellectual Property,” Loyola Economics Club and Louisiana Mu chapter of Omicron Delta Epsilon, Loyola University—New Orleans, Miller Hall (12:30 pm–1:45 pm, Feb. 24, 2026). Hosts were the aforementioned Econ club and econ honor society, as well as Walter Block and Leo Krasnozhon. 1 Audio for the Q&A portion was poor due to some technical mishaps, but has been boosted as much as possible.
Slides streamed below. Pictures, transcript and shownotes below.
From the Property and Freedom Blog:
Recent Comments