Reinterpreting Libertarianism: New Directions in Libertarian Studies, Edited by Łukasz Dominiak, Igor Wysocki, Stanisław Wójtowicz, and Dawid Megger (2026, Routledge). I was just alerted to this book and have not read it yet, but it looks very interesting, from the excerpt and table of contents available here. It is focused on Polish libertarian scholarship and seems to be influenced by the Rothbardian-Austro-libertarian tradition (Dominiak and Wysocki, two of the volume’s editors, have been published previously in my journal Libertarian Papers, 1 as has another Polish libertarian, and a member of the journal’s Editorial Board, Jakub Bozydar Wisniewski (not a contributor to this volume), 2 and Dominiak and Slenzok, another contributor, have also published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, revived in the wake of Libertarian Papers.
From the publisher:
This volume provides a thorough reconsideration of libertarian theory, offering novel perspectives that challenge established assumptions and initiate new directions for philosophical, legal and economic investigation.
By tackling such topics as voluntariness, dignity and inalienability of rights, game theory, healthcare, and the political relevance of monarchy, the chapters provide readers with novel analytical instruments for delving more deeply into libertarianism. Through detailed examinations of such issues as fraud, blackmail, slavery, liability, and technological disruption, contributors reconsider the foundations of libertarian principles while demonstrating how they apply to pressing contemporary practical problems. The book offers critical reassessments of established doctrines and constructive proposals for reformulating libertarianism, while trying to remedy its theoretical weaknesses. In doing so, it furnishes its readers with a framework that helps to understand both the theoretical coherence and the practical adaptability of libertarian ideas, ensuring its relevance for philosophers, legal theorists, economists, and policymakers alike.
The book will be of great interest to political economists, political philosophers, political scientists, ethicists, and everyone in libertarianism in all its forms.
The table of contents and the text of the introductory chapter is appended below:
Introduction: Polish libertarian scholarship and new directions in the libertarian research 1
ŁUKASZ DOMINIAK, STANISŁAW WÓJTOWICZ, AND IGOR WYSOCKI
1 Principle of voluntariness and its surprising consequences for the libertarian theory of justice 8
ŁUKASZ DOMINIAK
2 An economic analysis of the libertarian legal system 21
IGOR WYSOCKI
3 Libertarianism, Thomism, and atomism: Social ontology, legal institutions, and economic outcomes 38
DAWID MEGGER
4 Weakly absolute rights, minimising infringements, and the minimal state 63
STANISŁAW WÓJTOWICZ
5 Towards libertarian dignitarianism 79
PAWEŁ NOWAKOWSKI
6 Strict liability, fault principle, and libertarianism: Towards a reformulation of the Rothbardian theory of legal liability 95
HALINA ŠIMO
7 Against libertarian slavery 113
PATRYK TRZCIONKA
8 Non-aggression, freedom, and argumentation ethics: Avoiding circularity 134
NORBERT SLENZOK
9 Should Big Tech be regulated? Arguments from social harms and a commonsense rebuttal 157
BARTŁOMIEJ CHOMAŃSKI
10 Anarcho-capitalism, monarchy and the problem of libertarian political strategy 176
ŁUKASZ ŚWIĘCICKI
11 Methods of recognising private law societies in diplomatic relations 187
JAKUB JUSZCZAK
12 Evolutionary game theory, the social contract, and libertarianism 201
MIŁOSZ ŚLEPOWROŃSKI
13 Fully private medical care – an attempt at an overview 217
STANISŁAW WÓJTOWICZ AND KAMIL ROZYNEK
***
Introduction
Polish libertarian scholarship and new directions in the libertarian research
Łukasz Dominiak, Stanisław Wójtowicz, and Igor Wysocki
It is with pride and pleasure that we present to the reader the volume Reinterpreting Libertarianism. New Directions in Libertarian Studies, which is the result of the work of 13 Polish scholars interested in libertarianism.
In September 2023, an academic conference titled New Directions in Libertar-ian Studies was held at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń. Twenty-seven Polish researchers specialising in libertarianism or working within the framework of the Austrian School of Economics spoke at the event. This was not the first Pol-ish academic conference on libertarianism, but it was by far the largest. Moreover, it had a distinctly different character from previous events of its kind: what dis-tinguished it from so many previous ones, we believe, was its less presentational-critical and more creative character. This conference – and this volume of chapters resulting from it – is, we believe, a manifestation of changes in Polish research on libertarianism.
There seem to be four phases in the history of Polish research on libertarian-ism. The first was the period before 1989, that is, the period of the Polish Peo-ple’s Republic, when Poland, under communist rule and under the influence of the USSR, was separated from the Western world by an Iron Curtain. The Iron Curtain was not only a political and economic barrier but also (and perhaps especially, at least in the context of science) an information barrier. As a result, knowledge of libertarianism – the quintessential individualist and anti-authoritarian philoso-phy and thus a threat to the existing communist regime – reached Poland only to a very limited extent. Nevertheless, even then, some Polish researchers followed the development of libertarian philosophy with interest. One example is Ryszard Legutko’s book Dylematy kapitalizmu (Dilemmas of Capitalism) (1986), in which the author analyses the thought of Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, among others. After the collapse of communism, Polish science began to catch up at an accel-erated pace after years of being cut off from the Western world – particularly in the social sciences and humanities, which had previously been heavily controlled by the communist regime. Freed from the ideological corset, Polish social sciences and humanities began to look around the world for inspiration. Thus began, from about 1990 to about 2005, the second period of the Polish reception of libertarian-ism. At that time there were many publications devoted to this political philoso-phy. Most of them were studies aimed at introducing libertarian thought to Polish academia and explaining its foundations (cf. Miklaszewska, 1994). Back then, the language barrier, a legacy of the communist period, as well as the lack of access to materials, played a significant role in delaying the internationalisation of Polish scholarship. Works on libertarianism from this period are full of definitions, refer-ences to the origins of libertarianism, and explanations of the specific cultural and historical context of its formation and development.
In the third period (from around 2006 to around 2015), a number of works intro-ducing libertarianism to Polish academia continued to appear. Monographs and collective studies were published (Modrzejewska, 2010; Bulira & Gogłoza, 2010; Michalczenia & Sobiela, 2012; Juruś, 2012; Sepczyńska, 2013), as well as transla-tions of the most important libertarian texts, including Anarchy, State and Utopia, For New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, and The Ethics of Liberty. However, in addition to works familiarising Polish academics with libertarianism, works are also beginning to appear whose authors critically analyse libertarian thought. At that time, Polish researchers began to publish more and more in English-language journals and tried to join the global discourse. The key role here, of course, has been played by the Internet, which has greatly intensified the flow of information not only at the academic level (wide access to English-language literature) but also among the broader masses of society. Libertarianism is also entering Polish politi-cal discourse. Some politicians are beginning to refer directly to libertarian ideas and thinkers, and libertarianism is also becoming a reference point for columnists and political commentators. Libertarianism began to gain support among the gen-eral public, especially among younger people who were becoming more fluent in foreign languages and interested in international politics. This gave an additional impetus to the study of libertarianism, which was no longer an “American political philosophy” studied by Polish academics but became part of the Polish political and scientific discourse.
In the fourth period (from about 2016 to the present), we have witnessed not only a deepening of critical and analytical reflection on libertarian philosophy (especially thanks to a more self-conscious and confident use of the analytical apparatus) but also an increasing number of Polish libertarian scholars who have begun to actively contribute to libertarian theory. In recent years, we have seen a growing number of publications by Polish researchers who are beginning to speak “from within libertarianism.” Polish researchers publish not only in inter-national philosophical and political science journals, in libertarian-friendly jour-nals (such as the Journal of Libertarian Studies, Libertarian Papers, or the free market-oriented Review of Austrian Economics or the Quarterly Journal of Aus-trian Economics”), but also in Polish journals. They debate not only among each other – to mention the recent polemic between Slenzok and Dominiak (Slenzok, 2021; Dominiak et al., 2025) and between Wójtowicz and Dominiak and Wysocki (Dominiak & Wysocki, 2022; Wójtowicz, 2025; Dominiak & Wysocki, 2025) – but also with American libertarian thinkers, to mention only Wiśniewski’s exten-sive polemic with Block in “Libertarian Papers” (initiated by Wiśniewski, 2010), and Dominiak’s numerous polemics with Block (cf. Dominiak, 2017, 2019, 2021; Block, 2021, 2022).
Do Polish studies of libertarianism from the recent period have a common theme or character? On the one hand, Polish researchers of libertarianism are very diverse. They follow different research programmes and look at libertarianism from differ-ent perspectives. The internal diversity of libertarianism is reflected in the diversity of Polish researchers. Nevertheless, we can identify a number of characteristic fea-tures of Polish libertarian scholarship. First, the subject matter. Polish libertarian scholarship focuses predominantly on what can be called the Rothbardian branch of libertarianism. Rothbardianism is the most radical version of right-libertarian-ism (understood not as the political or cultural right but in terms of its approach to land ownership which according to this variety of libertarianism can be full and virtually unlimited), which finds its original expression in the works of Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, David Gordon, Stephan Kinsella, and many others (we purposefully concentrate on thinkers whose work centres on libertarianism rather than Austrian economics, although there are many great Aus-trian economists who also contribute to Rothbardianism). Thus, the fourth wave of Polish libertarian scholarship critically builds on these foundations and develops the Rothbardian theory of justice in new directions, both in depth and in breadth.
Second, the research program. The fourth wave of Polish libertarian scholar-ship investigates which specific legal and social institutions (not only the general institution of the state) are consistent with the Rothbardian theory of justice and which of them would develop both in just steps and due to their economic effi-ciency. Research questions that are explored within this programme pertain to such problems as absoluteness of libertarian rights, infringement/violation distinction, accession, legal status of public domain, threats, offers, fraud, blackmail, voluntary slavery, unjust enrichment, proceeds of crime, official immunity, argumentation duties, theory of liability, theory of punishment, theories of original appropriation, and inalienability of libertarian rights. At the same time, all these research ques-tions are approached from within the Rothbardian theory. That is, the theoretical ambition of the said research programme is to solve these problems by demonstrat-ing how their solutions are in fact implicit in the core Rothbardian principles. As a result, Polish libertarian scholarship quite often takes up the form of a theoreti-cal reconstruction of, on the one hand, specific legal and social institutions and, on the other, specific elements of the Rothbardian theory. It’s worth noting that these developments and reinterpretations of Rothbardian theory tend to bring it closer to common moral intuitions without diluting its radical social and political conclusions.
Third, the method. The fourth wave of Polish libertarian scholarship implements the methods, tools, conceptual innovations, and theoretical perspectives specific to the contemporary analytic philosophy. At the forefront of this programme is the Neo-Hohfeldian analysis of rights, which allows Polish scholars to unearth a deep logical structure of many familiar libertarian arguments that traditionally have been taken for granted simply due to the lack of sufficiently fine-grained methodology. The Neo-Hohfeldian analysis remedies this situation and thus pushes the Roth-bardian scholarship forward by eliminating some equivocations and tightening up the reasoning. However, the Neo-Hohfeldian analysis is hardly the only modern method employed by Polish scholars. Worth mentioning are also more and more common forays into economic analysis of the libertarian legal order as well as arguments striving for reflective equilibrium or even stronger intuitive adjustments of the Rothbardian doctrine. An interesting and original twist in the Polish research on Rothbardianism is also afforded by implementing some methodological nuggets of the continental philosophy, such as historical and hermeneutical inquiries, into the roots of more specific libertarian theories and movements.
Fourth, the publication culture. Polish libertarian scholars cooperate very closely with one another, work in more and less formal research teams, and often focus on the very same narrow problems, which results in a dominance of a rather particular – as for the philosophical scholarship, especially in the continental tra-dition where a book written by a single author clearly rules the day – form of communication, namely a co-authored problem-solving research paper. Although this form of knowledge dissemination might not be the most effective within the philosophical circles (the more we are happy to present you this book), it allows for pooling intellectual resources and thus generating synergistic effects normally difficult to obtain within the more traditional publication culture. Being the fruit of a real, flesh-and-blood discussion amongst scholars – and the fruit that ripens frequently, as co-authored chapters are quicker to publish than books – this form of communication is also a fecund source of spin-off rejoinders and polemics, foster-ing an amazingly vibrant intellectual environment.
This volume proceeds as follows. We kick off with the article contributed by Łukasz Dominiak. His piece scrutinises the notion of voluntariness, with com-prehensive ramifications arising. Thus far, the Polish libertarian scholarship has mainly reduced to criticising the moralised notion of voluntariness, as employed by libertarians. For example, Wysocki (2021, 2023) illuminated how this normatively charged concept gave rise to circularity and begged the question of free-market efficiency. On the other hand, Dominiak’s fine-grained analysis of voluntariness sheds new light on such phenomena as, for instance, fraud, blackmail, or unjust enrichment. The libertarian connoisseurs are in for a treat, as Dominiak does not shy away from original and surprising conclusions stemming from his theory.
Igor Wysocki produces a maverick piece on economic analysis of the libertarian legal system. He argues for the employment of Marshall efficiency as an allegedly neutral way of assessing the efficiency of the institutions favoured by libertarians, quite a shift from a more usual Paretian analysis practised by numerous Austro-lib-ertarians. Since the Marshallian tool leaves the question of the free-market efficiency an open question, this allows Wysocki to draw some non-obvious conclusions.
Dawid Megger, in turn, probes the relation between Thomism and libertarian-ism. In his most erudite chapter, the author considers the social ontologies implied by these two doctrines, respectively. He takes pains to explain why libertarianism might be viewed as atomistic. Moreover, he elucidates how the said doctrines would fare economically. In conclusion, he disinterestedly notes the economic shortcom-ings of both libertarianism and Thomism, an impartial attitude worthy of a great scholar. As such, Megger’s chapter opens up new avenues for economic analysis of law (and of the libertarian legal order, in particular), a rather burgeoning field.
In his chapter, Stanisław Wójtowicz compellingly argues that libertarian rights are best construed as only weakly rather than strongly absolute. In other words, some libertarian rights might well be overtopped either due to the calling of external moral-ity or because some other and usually more numerous libertarian rights are at stake. Next, the author argues for so-called minimising infringements, whereby the rights of all individuals subject to such infringements are violated to a lesser extent than they would be in the absence of such infringements. The author then claims that libertar-ians should accept the existence of a minimal state if it turns out that the stateless order advocated by libertarians (anarcho-capitalism) would be unstable (externally or internally), leading to a dramatic increase in violations of individual rights. As far as Polish libertarian scholarship goes, the chapter contributed by Wójtowicz brings the debate between anarchists and minarchists (see Dominiak & Wysocki, 2022) to a higher level by making subtle use of the idea of weakly absolute rights.
Paweł Nowakowski argues that the category of human dignity might well be squared with libertarianism. Even more, Nowakowski attempts to render dignity a central liber-tarian tenet, nothing short of a cutting-edge proposal. Nowakowski’s chapter stands out as a worthy attempt of bringing libertarianism closer to the independent requirements of external morality. After all, libertarianism is notorious for its strongly deductive lean-ings. That is, it willingly draws logical consequences from its fundamental principles (such as, say, self-ownership or voluntary transfer) and is thus often forced to bite the bullet when the consequences turn out to be independently unwelcome. To Nowakows-ki’s merit, his chapter is also an exercise in a gentle reversal of this trend.
Halina Šimo makes an important contribution in that she challenges the strict liability standard, the view on legal liability adhered to by Rothbard himself. In her chapter, Šimo first and foremost notes that the standard in question, as it stands, is morally untenable. On a positive note, she develops a more nuanced version of it while drawing on Matthew Kramer’s remedy principle. We cannot fail to notice that strict liability is incessantly discussed within libertarianism. The dissenting view on this standard was eloquently aired by Hoppe (2004). Strict liability also critically figures in Block’s (2014) case for evictionism (also see its recent criticism by Dominiak and Wysocki (2023)).
Patryk Trzcionka makes a novel argument against the institution of voluntary slavery, the institution a couple of prominent libertarians hold dearly to, by evoking external moral considerations. These in turn prompt the understanding of at least some libertarian rights as inalienable. Trzcionka’s analytic apparatus coupled with a controversial topic will definitely make for an interesting read. As a corollary, this chapter also contributes a couple of nuances to an already vast literature on voluntariness, as it is understood by libertarians.
Norbert Slenzok produces an excellent chapter on argumentation ethics. Granted, the author draws on seminal works on the topic (see Hoppe, 1989, 2006). Yet, he takes argumentation ethics well beyond the Hoppean paradigm. As a corol-lary, Slenzok convincingly shows how libertarians can overcome the circularity between freedom and property rights, the circularity haunting libertarian theory.
Bartłomiej Chomański kicks off by painstakingly noting the ambivalence of attitudes among libertarians to Big Tech. However, Chomański’s main point is argumentative. Having identified the ethical issues stemming from Big Tech regardless of whether they are recognised or not, this author suggests some ways to meet Big-Tech-generated challenges on libertarian, non-interventionist grounds. Chomański’s arguments are illuminating because he arrives at the same radical pro-free-speech conclusions as libertarians but does so by appealing to empirical evidence and commonsense moral principles rather than to libertarian axioms.
The focal point of Łukasz Święcicki’s chapter is Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s (2001) view on monarchy. Święcicki notes that the majority of research scrutinising this issue takes the Hoppean take on monarchy to be a function of his repudiation of democracy. Instead, rather interestingly, Święcicki argues for a positive stance towards monarchy. That is to say, he considers monarchy from the point of view of its political applicability. And then again, this takes the Hoppean research on monarchy further, as Święcicki seriously considers the ways monarchy might be implemented in practice rather than merely arguing, as Hoppe does, for its being allegedly economically superior to democracy.
Miłosz Ślepowroński probes libertarianism vis-à-vis game theory. This author suggests that libertarianism might benefit from employing the models characteristic of evolutionary game theory in particular. Given the scarcity of work investigating the libertarian theory of justice from such a trendy vantage point, Ślepowroński’s chapter clearly paves the way for future research. Moreover, game theory seems to hold a special promise for libertarians, who, after all, would like to demonstrate that the free market, which they advocate on primarily moral grounds, also happens to be the most efficient economic system out there.
Jakub Juszczak, on the other hand, writes an exquisite chapter trying to imagine how stateless societies could operate while being bound up by some form of emer-gent international law. The chapter stands out in that it envisages how libertarian-ism on a large scale might play out in practice.
The present volume is concluded by a co-authored chapter. Stanisław Wójtow-icz and Kamil Rozynek consider what contour healthcare services would assume in a free society. The authors compare different insurance models and discuss their relative merits. They show how a system of medical licenses would emerge from the ground up. They also show how medical care could be provided to people who might not be able to afford it. Crucially, these authors submit that private health care would provide people with a strong incentive to take good care of their health. And it is raising the problem of incentives which a libertarian order engenders that renders the present chapter such a formidable contribution. For, as mentioned above, libertarians would be happy to discover that a libertarian legal order does indeed encourage a socially desirable behaviour.
References
Block, W. E. (2014). Evictionism and libertarianism. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 39(3), 248–257.
Block, W. E. (2021). Rejoinder to Dominiak on the necessity of easements. Ekonomia: Wro-claw Economic Review, 27, 9–25.
Block, W. E. (2022). Rejoinder to Dominiak on bagels and donuts. Ekonomia: Wroclaw Economic Review, 28, 97–109.
Bulira, W., & Gogłoza, W. (Eds.). (2010). Libertarianizm: Teoria, praktyka, interpretacje. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
Dominiak, Ł. (2017). The blockian proviso and rationality of property rights. Libertarian Papers, 9(1), 114–128.
Dominiak, Ł. (2019). Must right-libertarians embrace easements by necessity? Diametros: An Online Journal of Philosophy, 16(60), 34–51.
Dominiak, Ł. (2021). Libertarian easements revisited. Ekonomia – Wroclaw Economic Review, 27(1), 27–35.
Dominiak, Ł., Fegley, T., & Israel, K.-F. (2025). Pandemic policies, public domain, and lib-ertarianism: Response to Slenzok. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 29(1), 29–48.
Dominiak, Ł., & Wysocki, I. (2022). The anarcho-capitalist case against the state as a chal-lenge to the minarchist libertarians. Roczniki Filozoficzne, 70(2), 53–70.
Dominiak, Ł., & Wysocki, I. (2023). Evictionism, libertarianism, and duties of the fetus. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 48(6), 527–540.
Dominiak, Ł., & Wysocki, I. (2025). Anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, and the paradox of deontology: Response to Wójtowicz. Roczniki Filozoficzne, 73(1), 189–206.
Hoppe, H.-H. (1989). A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Eth-ics. Boston, Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2001). Democracy – the God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2004). Property, causality, and liability. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 7, 87–95.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2006). The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Juruś, D. (2012). W poszukiwaniu podstaw libertarianizmu. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka.
Legutko, R. (1986). Dylematy kapitalizmu. Paryż: Editions Spotkania.
Michalczenia, J., & Sobiela, A. (Eds.). (2012). Oblicza anarchizmu i libertarianizmu w filozofii i polityce. Olsztyn: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego w Olsztynie.
Miklaszewska, J. (1994). Libertariańskie koncepcje wolności i własności. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Modrzejewska, M. (2010). Libertariańskie koncepcje jednostki i państwa we współczesnej amerykańskiej myśli politycznej. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Sepczyńska, D. (2013). Libertarianizm. Mało znane dzieje pojęcia zakończone próbą definicji. Olsztyn: Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski.
Slenzok, N. (2021). Libertarianism, property rights, and the COVID-19 pandemic policies. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 25(1), 272–299.
Wiśniewski, J. B. (2010). A critique of block on abortion and child abandonment. Libertarian Papers, 2(16).
Wójtowicz, S. (2025). Libertarianism, individual rights, and the paradox of deontology: Rejoinder to Dominiak and Wysocki on minarchism. Roczniki Filozoficzne, 73(1), 171–188.
Wysocki, I. (2021). An Austro-Libertarian Theory of Voluntariness: A Critique. Uni-wersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu. Wydawnictwo Wydziału Nauk o Polityce i Bezpieczeństwie.
Wysocki, I. (2023). Justice vis à vis welfare: How Austrian welfare economics should fit in the Austro-libertarian framework. Economia Politica, 40, 445–467.
Introduction
Block, W. E. (2014). Evictionism and libertarianism. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 39(3), 248–257.
Block, W. E. (2021). Rejoinder to Dominiak on the necessity of easements. Ekonomia: Wroclaw Economic Review, 27, 9–25.
Block, W. E. (2022). Rejoinder to Dominiak on bagels and donuts. Ekonomia: Wroclaw Economic Review, 28, 97–109.
Bulira, W. , & Gogłoza, W. (Eds.). (2010). Libertarianizm: Teoria, praktyka, interpretacje. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
Dominiak, Ł. (2017). The blockian proviso and rationality of property rights. Libertarian Papers, 9(1), 114–128.
Dominiak, Ł. (2019). Must right-libertarians embrace easements by necessity? Diametros: An Online Journal of Philosophy, 16(60), 34–51.
Dominiak, Ł. (2021). Libertarian easements revisited. Ekonomia – Wroclaw Economic Review, 27(1), 27–35.
Dominiak, Ł. , Fegley, T. , & Israel, K.-F. (2025). Pandemic policies, public domain, and libertarianism: Response to Slenzok. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 29(1), 29–48.
Dominiak, Ł. , & Wysocki, I. (2022). The anarcho-capitalist case against the state as a challenge to the minarchist libertarians. Roczniki Filozoficzne, 70(2), 53–70.
Dominiak, Ł. , & Wysocki, I. (2023). Evictionism, libertarianism, and duties of the fetus. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 48(6), 527–540.
Dominiak, Ł. , & Wysocki, I. (2025). Anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, and the paradox of deontology: Response to Wójtowicz. Roczniki Filozoficzne, 73(1), 189–206.
Hoppe, H.-H. (1989). A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics. Boston, Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2001). Democracy – the God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2004). Property, causality, and liability. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 7, 87–95.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2006). The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Juruś, D. (2012). W poszukiwaniu podstaw libertarianizmu. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka. Legutko, R. (1986). Dylematy kapitalizmu. Paryż: Editions Spotkania.
Michalczenia, J. , & Sobiela, A. (Eds.). (2012). Oblicza anarchizmu i libertarianizmu w filozofii i polityce. Olsztyn: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego w Olsztynie.
Miklaszewska, J. (1994). Libertariańskie koncepcje wolności i własności. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Modrzejewska, M. (2010). Libertariańskie koncepcje jednostki i państwa we współczesnej amerykańskiej myśli politycznej. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Sepczyńska, D. (2013). Libertarianizm. Mało znane dzieje pojęcia zakończone próbą definicji. Olsztyn: Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski.
Slenzok, N. (2021). Libertarianism, property rights, and the COVID-19 pandemic policies. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 25(1), 272–299.
Wiśniewski, J. B. (2010). A critique of block on abortion and child abandonment. Libertarian Papers, 2(16).
Wójtowicz, S. (2025). Libertarianism, individual rights, and the paradox of deontology: Rejoinder to Dominiak and Wysocki on minarchism. Roczniki Filozoficzne, 73(1), 171–188.
Wysocki, I. (2021). An Austro-Libertarian Theory of Voluntariness: A Critique. Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu. Wydawnictwo Wydziału Nauk o Polityce i Bezpieczeństwie. Wysocki, I. (2023). Justice vis à vis welfare: How Austrian welfare economics should fit in the Austro-libertarian framework. Economia Politica, 40, 445–467.
Principle of voluntariness and its surprising consequences for the libertarian theory of justice
Aristotle . (1955). The Ethics. Translated by J. A. K. Thomson . London: Penguin Books. Block, W. E. (2019). Libertarian punishment theory and unjust enrichment. Journal of Business Ethics, 154, 103–108.
Block, W. E. (2020). A libertarian analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 24(1), 206–237.
Block, W. E. (2022). Rejoinder to slenzok on COVID. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 25(1), 264–268.
The Digest of Justinian. (1985). Watson, A. , Mommsen, T.H. , & Kruger, P. (Eds.). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Dominiak, Ł. (2022). Unjust enrichment and libertarianism. Polish Political Science Review, 10(2), 1–13.
Dominiak, Ł. (2023a). Mixing labor, taking possession, and libertarianism. Studia z Historii Filozofii, 14(3), 169–195.
Dominiak, Ł. (2023b). Proceeds of crime, punishment, and libertarianism. Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, 2(35), 20–33.
Dominiak, Ł. (2024a). Accession, property acquisition, and libertarianism. Diametros: A Journal of Philosophy, 1–25.
Dominiak, Ł. (2024b). Free market, blackmail, and Austro-libertarianism. Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce, 76, 85–106.
Dominiak, Ł. , & Fegley, T. (2022). Contract theory, title transfer, and libertarianism. Diametros: A Journal of Philosophy, 19(72), 1–25.
Dominiak, Ł. , Israel, K.-F. , & Fegley, T. (2025). Pandemic policies, public domain, and libertarianism: Response to slenzok. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 29(1), 17–36.
Dominiak, Ł. , & Wysocki, I. (2024). Libertarianism and the Paradox of Blackmail. unpublished manuscript.
Fegley, T. , & Dominiak, Ł. , (2021). Property rights and gun control: A reply to block and block. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 25(1), 272–280.
Fletcher, G. (2000). Rethinking Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press. Hoppe, H.-H. (2012). Property, causality, and liability. In H.-H. Hoppe (Ed.), The Great Fiction: Property, Economy, Society, and the Politics of Decline (pp. 327–336). Baltimore: Laissez Faire Books.
Kinsella, N. S. (2009). What libertarianism is. In J. G. Hülsmann & N. S. Kinsella (Eds.), Property, Freedom & Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Locke, J. (2003). Two Treatises of Government. Edited by Peter Laslett . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, M. S. (1993). Act and Crime: The Philosophy of Action and Its Implications for Criminal Law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Moore, M. S. (2020). Mechanical Choices: The Responsibility of the Human Machine. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Rothbard, M. N. (1998). The Ethics of Liberty. New York: New York University Press.
Rothbard, M. N. (2011). Law, property rights, and air pollution. In M. N. Rothbard (Ed.), Economic Controversies (pp. 367–418). Auburn: Mises Institute.
Silsbury v. McCoon, 3 N.Y. 379 (N.Y. 1850).
Slenzok, N. (2021). Libertarianism, property rights, and the COVID-19 pandemic policies. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 25(1), 272–299.
Slenzok, N. (2023). Rejoinder to block on COVID. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 27(1), 296–306.
Steiner, H. (1994). An Essay on Rights. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Steiner, H. (2019). Asymmetric information, libertarianism, and fraud. Review of Social Economy, 77(2), 94–107.
An economic analysis of the libertarian legal system
Akerlof, G. (1970). The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.
Barnett, R. (1986). Contract remedies and inalienable rights. Social Philosophy & Policy, 4(1), 179–202.
Block, W. (2003). Toward a libertarian theory of inalienability: A critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Smith, Kinsella, Gordon, and Epstein. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 17(2), 39–85.
Block, W. (2013). Legalize Blackmail. Straylight Publishing, LLC.
Boldrin, M. , & Levine, D. (2008). Against Intellectual Monopoly. Cambridge University Press. Calabresi, G. , & Melamed, D. (1972). Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: One view of the cathedral. Harvard Law Review, 85(6), 1089–1128.
Coase, R. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44. Dominiak, Ł. (2017). Libertarianism and original appropriation. Historia i Polityka, 22(29), 43–56. Dominiak, Ł. (2024). Free market, blackmail, and Austro-libertarianism. Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce, 76, 85–106.
Friedman, D. (2000). Law’s Order: What Economics Has to do with Law and Why It Matters. Princeton University Press.
Hausman, D. (2012). Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare. Cambridge University Press. Hausman, D. , & McPherson, M. (2006). Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy, and Public Policy. Cambridge University Press.
Huerta de Soto, J. (2009). The Theory of Dynamic Efficiency. Routledge. Kinsella, S. (2008). Against Intellectual Property. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Kirzner, I. (1988). Welfare economics: A modern Austrian perspective. In W. Block & L. H. Rockwell Jr. (Eds.), Man, Economy and Liberty, Essays in Honor of Murray N. Rothbard (pp. 77–88). Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Pareto, V. (1971). Manual of Political Economy. A. M. Kelley.
Rothbard, M. N. (2006). For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Rothbard, M. N. ([1956] 2011). Toward a reconstruction of utility and welfare economics. In Economic Controversies (pp. 289–333). Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Steiner, H. (2019). Asymmetric information, libertarianism, and fraud. Review of Social Economy, 77(2), 94–107.
Wysocki, I. (2023). Justice vis à vis welfare: How Austrian welfare economics should fit in the Austro-libertarian framework. Economia Politica, 40, 445–467.
Libertarianism, Thomism, and atomism
Block, W. (2021). Rejoinder to Dominiak on the necessity of easements. Ekonomia – Wrocław Economic Review, 27(1), 9–25.
Block, W. , & Gordon, D. (1985). Blackmail, extortion and free speech: A reply to Posner, Epstein, Nozick and Lindgren. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 19(37), 37–54.
Buchanan, J. M. (1979). What Should Economists Do? Liberty Fund.
Buchanan, J. M. ([1975] 2000). The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Liberty Fund.
Dominiak, Ł. , & Wysocki, I. (2023). Libertarianism, defense of property, and absolute rights. Analiza i Egzystencja, 61(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.18276/aie.2023.61-01.
Epstein, B. (2024). Social ontology. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/social-ontology/.
Feser, E. (2014). Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction. Editiones scholasticae. Finnis, J. (1998). Aquinas: Moral, Political, and Legal Theory. Oxford University Press.
Hallebeek, J. (1987). Thomas Aquinas’ theory of property. Irish Jurist, 22(1), 99–111. Harris, J. (2021). Collective action and social ontology in Thomas Aquinas. Journal of Social Ontology, 7(1), 119–141.
Hayek, F. A. (1948). Individualism and Economic Order. The University of Chicago Press. Huerta de Soto, J. (2010). The Theory of Dynamic Efficiency. Routledge.
Hülsmann, J. G. (2024). Abundance, Generosity, and the State: An Inquiry into Economic Principles. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Kinsella, S. (1996). New rationalist directions in libertarian rights theory. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 12(2), 313–326.
Kirk, R. ([1953] 1985). The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot (7th ed.). Regnery Publishing.
Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press. Lachmann, L. (1971). The Legacy of Max Weber. The Glendessary Press.
Lawson, T. (1997). Economics and Reality. Routledge.
Lewis, P. A. (2004). Transforming economics? On heterodox economics and the ontological turn in economic methodology. In P. A. Lewis (Ed.), Transforming Economics. Perspectives on the Critical Realist Project (pp. 1–32). Routledge.
Lisska, A. J. (2013). Human rights theory rooted in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Diametros, 38, 134–152. https://doi.org/10.13153/diam.38.2013.542.
Long, R. T. (2006). Realism and abstraction in economics: Aristotle and Mises versus Friedman. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 9(3), 3–23.
Machan, T. (2000). Liberalism and atomistic individualism. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 34, 227–247.
Mäki, U. (1990). Scientific realism and Austrian explanation. Review of Political Economy, 2(3), 310–344.
Megger, D. , & Wysocki, I. (2023). Coercion, voluntary exchange, and the Austrian school of economics. Synthese, 201(8). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-04005-1.
Moore, M. S. (2009). Causation and Responsibility: An Essay in Law, Morals, and Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.
Rajagopalan, S. , & Rizzo, M. J. (2019). Austrian perspectives in law and economics. In A. Marciano & G. B. Ramello (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Law and Economics (pp. 92–99). Springer. Rasmussen, D. B. (2020). Rothbard’s account of the axiom of human action: A neo-Aristotelian-Thomistic defense. Advances in Austrian Economics, 25, 103–120.
Rota, M. (2004). Substance and artifact in Thomas Aquinas. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 21(3), 241–259.
Rota, M. (2012). Causation. In B. Davies & E. Stump (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas (pp. 104–114). Oxford University Press.
Rothbard, M. N. (2011a). Economic Controversies. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Rothbard, M. N. (2011b). Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Rothbard, M. N. ([1973] 2006). For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Rothbard, M. N. ([1982] 2016). The Ethics of Liberty. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Slenzok, N. , & Turowski, K. (2024). Non-Aristotelian elements in Carl Menger’s methodology. History of Political Economy, 11540278.
Smith, B. (1990). Aristotle, Menger, Mises: An essay in the metaphysics of economics. History of Political Economy, 22, 263–288.
Stump, E. (2005). Aquinas. Routledge.
Stump, E. (2006). Substance and artifact in Aquinas’s metaphysics. In T. M. Crisp , M. Davidson , & D. Vander Laan (Eds.), Knowledge and Reality: Essays in Honor of Alvin Plantinga (pp. 63–80). Routledge.
Taylor, C. (1979). Atomism. In A. Kontos (Ed.), Powers, Possessions and Freedom: Essays in Honour of C.B. Macpherson (pp. 39–61). University of Toronto Press.
von Mises, L. ([1920] 1990). Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth (Transl. S. Adler ). Ludwig von Mises Institute.
von Mises, L. ([1949] 1998). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Wiśniewski, J. B. (2018). The Economics of Law, Order, and Action: The Logic of Public Goods. Routledge.
Wójtowicz, S. , Dominiak, Ł. , & Wysocki, I. (2024). A duty to rescue and its costs. Analiza i Egzystencja, 65, 91–124.
Wysocki, I. , & Dominiak, Ł. (2023). How does justice relate to economic welfare? A case against Austro-libertarian welfare economics. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 23(67), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.52685/cjp.23.67.3.
Weakly absolute rights, minimising infringements, and the minimal state
Block, W. (2021). Rejoinder to Dominiak on the necessity of easements. Ekonomia – Wrocław Economic Review, 27(1), 9–25.
Cowen, T. (1992). Law as a public good: The economics of anarchy. Economics and Philosophy, 8(2), 249–267.
Cowen, T. , & Sutter, D. (1999). The costs of cooperation. The Review of Austrian Economics, 12, 161–173.
Cowen, T. , & Sutter, D. (2005). Conflict, cooperation and competition in anarchy. Review of Austrian Economics, 18(1), 109–115.
Dominiak, Ł. (2024). Accession, property acquisition, and libertarianism. Diametros, (February), 1–25.
Dominiak, Ł. , & Wysocki, I. (2022). The anarcho-capitalist case against the state as a challenge to the minarchist libertarians. Roczniki Filozoficzne, 70(2), 53–70.
Dominiak, Ł. , & Wysocki, I. (2023). Libertarianism, defense of property, and absolute rights. Analiza i Egzystencja, 61, 5–26.
Feinberg, J. (1978). Voluntary euthanasia and the inalienable right to life. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 7, 93–123.
Godefridi, D. (2005). The anarcho-libertarian utopia – a critique. Ordo – Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 56, 123–139.
Holcombe, R. (2004). Government – unnecessary but inevitable. The Independent Review, 8(3), 325–342.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2009). Private Production of Defense. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute. Hoppe, H.-H. (2021). The Great Fiction: Property, Economy, Society, and the Politics of Decline. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.
Kelley, D. (1974). The necessity of government. Freeman, 24, 243–248. Kramer, M. (2014). Torture and Moral Integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mack, E. (1999). In defense of individualism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2(2), 87–115. Mack, E. (2006). Non-absolute rights and libertarian taxation. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23, 109–141.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. John Wiley & Sons.
Rothbard, M. (1982). The Ethics of Liberty. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.
Shiffrin, S. (1999). Wrongful life, procreative responsibility, and the significance of harm. Legal Theory, 5(2), 117–148.
Sutter, D. (1995). Asymmetric power relations and cooperation in anarchy. Southern Economic Journal, 61, 602–613.
Thomson, J. J. (1986). Rights, Restitution, and Risk: Essays, in Moral Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wiśniewski, J. B. (2016). Libertarian Quandaries. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Wójtowicz, S. (2017). Anarchokapitalizm, czyli czy możemy obyć się bez państwa. Nauka, 4, 141–166.
Wójtowicz, S. (2025). Libertarianism, individual rights, and the paradox of deontology: Rejoinder to Dominiak and Wysocki on minarchism. Roczniki Filozoficzne, 73(1), 171–188.
Wójtowicz, S. , Dominiak, Ł. , & Wysocki, I. (2024). A duty to rescue and its costs. Analiza i Egzystencja, 65, 91–124.
Towards libertarian dignitarianism
Arendt, H. (2018). The Human Condition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Bartosik, Ł. (2018). Dignity as autonomy – conceptual framework of human dignity as an attribute of an individual in the American libertarian philosophy of law. In M. Urbańczyk , Ł. Bartosik , & M. Tomczak (Eds.), American Legal, Political & Economic Thought: Selected Problems (Vol. 1, pp. 195–205). ArchaeGraph Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Block, W. (2004). Libertarianism, positive obligations, and property abandonment: Children’s rights. International Journal of Social Economics, 31(3), 245–268.
Boaz, D. (1997). Libertarianism: A Primer. Free Press.
Brennan, J. , van der Vossen, B. , & Schmidtz, D. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge Handbook of Libertarianism. Routledge.
Debes, R. (2023). Dignity. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/dignity/.
Dominiak, Ł. (2015). Libertarianism and obligatory child support. Athenaeum: Polskie Studia Politologiczne, 48, 90–106. https://doi.org/10.15804/athena.2015.48.07.
Dominiak, Ł. (2024a). Free market, blackmail, and Austro-libertarianism. Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne W Nauce), (76), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.59203/zfn.76.660.
Dominiak, Ł. (2024b). Accession, property acquisition, and libertarianism. Diametros. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1853.
Gniadek, J. (2023). The Pope and the Economist: Human Action in the Thought of John Paul II and Ludwig von Mises. Acton Institute.
Harsanyi, J. C. (1985). Rule utilitarianism, equality, and justice. Social Philosophy and Policy, 2(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505250000323X.
Hoppe, H. H. (2010). Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (2nd ed.). Ludwig von Mises Institute. Huemer, M. (2015). America’s unjust drug war. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems (3rd ed., pp. 154–168). Oxford University Press.
Kant, I. ([1785] 1997). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by M. Gregor . Cambridge University Press.
Kinsella, S. (2006, September 7). How we come to own ourselves. Mises Daily. http://mises.org/library/how-we-come-own-ourselves.
Lowe, D. (2020). The deep error of political libertarianism: Self-ownership, choice, and what’s really valuable in life. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 23(6), 683–705. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2020.1741177.
Megger, D. , & Wysocki, I. (2023). Coercion, voluntary exchange, and the Austrian school of economics. Synthese, 201(8), 2541–2562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-04005-1.
Narveson, J. (2001). The Libertarian Idea (2nd ed.). Broadview Press.
Nowakowski, P. (2016). Contractarian libertarianism of Jan Narveson: Is it still libertarianism? Res Publica: Revista de Historia de las Ideas Políticas, 19(2), 561–582.
Nowakowski, P. (2024a). Colin bird on libertarianism: A critique. Politeja, 3(90), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.21.2024.90.05.
Nowakowski, P. (2024b). A praxeology of the value of life: A critique of Rothbard’s argument. Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne W Nauce), (76), 425–456. https://doi.org/10.59203/zfn.76.671.
Nowakowski, P. , Slenzok, N. , & Wójtowicz, S. (2024). Libertarianism for conjoined twins: A reply to wollen. Philosophia, 52, 1523–1539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-024-00803-8. Nozick, R. (2013). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Blackwell Publishing.
Rothbard, M. N. (1998). The Ethics of Liberty (2nd ed.). New York University Press.
Rothbard, M. N. (2000). Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature, and Other Essays (2nd ed.). Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Rothbard, M. N. (2006). For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (2nd ed.). Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Slenzok, P. (2022). The libertarian argumentation ethics, the transcendental pragmatics of language, and the conflict-freedom principle. Analiza i Egzystencja. Czasopismo Filozoficzne, 58, 35–64. http://doi.org/10.18276/aie.2022.58-03.
Slenzok, P. (2024). Libertarians against the American world: A critical analysis. Athenaeum: Polskie Studia Politologiczne, 84, 7–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.15804/athena.2024.84.01.
Szutta, N. (2007). Utylitaryzm wobec krytyki etyków cnót. Diametros, 11, 40–60.
Wójtowicz, S. (2025). Libertarianism, individual rights, and the paradox of deontology: Rejoinder to Dominiak and Wysocki on monarchism. Roczniki Filozoficzne, 73(1).
Wozinski, J. (2012). A priori sprawiedliwości. Libertariańska teoria prawa [E-book]. Self-Publishing.
Wysocki, I. (2024). Blackmail, unproductive exchanges, fraud, and the libertarian theory of voluntariness. Polish Political Science Review, 12(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.2478/ppsr-2024-0005.
Strict liability, fault principle, and libertarianism
Barnett, R. E. (1977). Restitution: A new paradigm of criminal justice. In R. Barnett & J. Hagel (Eds.), Assessing the Criminal: Restitution, Retribution, and the Legal Process (pp. 33–61). Ballinger Publishing Co.
Block, W. E. (2022). Some prospects of libertarian punishment theory: Rejoinder to Blasco and Marcos. Studia Humana, 11(2), 20–24.
Dominiak, Ł. (2023). Is the Rothbardian theory of punishment retributive? Roczniki Filozoficzne, 71(3), 5–23.
Dominiak, Ł. , & Wysocki, I. (2023). Libertarianism, defense of property, and absolute rights. Analiza i Egzystencja, 61(1), 5–26.
Epstein, R. A. (1980). A Theory of Strict Liability: Toward a Reformulation of Tort Law. Cato Institute.
Ferzan, K. K. (2005). Justifying self-defense. Law and Philosophy, 24(6), 711–749. Hart, H. L. A. (1968). Punishment and Responsibility. Oxford University Press.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2004). Property, causality, and liability. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 7(4), 87–95.
Kinsella, S. (2005). Legal Foundations of a Free Society. Papinian Press.
Kinsella, S. (2020, November 11). The libertarian approach to negligence, tort, and strict liability: Wergeld and partial wergeld. Mises Institute. https://mises.org/mises-wire/libertarian-approach-negligence-tort-and-strict-liability-wergeld-and-partial-wergeld.
Kołakowski, L. (2006). Mała etyka. In Czy diabeł może być zbawiony i 27 innych kazań (pp. 115–170). Znak.
Kramer, M. H. (2004). Where Law and Morality Meet. Oxford University Press. Kramer, M. H. (2014). Torture and Moral Integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McMahan, J. (2005). The basis of moral liability to defensive killing. Philosophical Issues, 15(1), 386–405.
Moore, M. S. (2009). Causation and Responsibility: An Essay in Law, Morals, and Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
Moore, M. S. (2018). The strictness of strict liability. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 12(3), 513–529.
Nozick, R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Harvard University Press.
Patterson, E. W. (1953). Jurisprudence: Men and Ideas of the Law. The Foundation Press. Rothbard, M. N. (1982). Property rights and air pollution. Cato Journal, 2(1), 1–16.
Rothbard, M. N. (1998). The Ethics of Liberty. New York University Press.
Thorson, T. L. (1961). Political values and analytic philosophy. Journal of Politics, 23(4), 711–722.
Woleński, J. (2020). Pozytywizm prawniczy a prawo natury. In J. Hołówka & B. Dziobkowski (Eds.), Filozofia prawa. Normy i fakty (pp. 435–447). PWN.
Against libertarian slavery
Arneson, R. J. (1991). Lockean self-ownership: Towards a demolition. Political Studies, 39(1), 36–54.
Barnett, R. E. (1986). Contract remedies and inalienable rights. Social Philosophy and Policy, 4(1), 179–202.
Biasetti, P. (2015). Infinite regress and Hohfeld: A comment on Hillel Steiner’s ‘directed duties and inalienable rights’. Ethics, 126(1), 139–152.
Block, W. E. (2000). Alienability, inalienability, paternalism and the law: Reply to Kronman. American Journal of Criminal Law, 28, 351.
Block, W. E. (2003). Toward a libertarian theory of inalienability: A critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Gordon, Smith, Kinsella and Epstein. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 17(2), 39–86.
Block, W. E. (2015). On slavery and libertarianism. Journal of Economic and Social Thought, 2(3), 161–174.
Block, W. E. (2022). Thick and thin libertarianism and the non-aggression principle. Etica & Politica/Ethics & Politics, 24, 31–54.
Block, W. E. , Hoppe, H. H. , & Hülsmann, J. G. (1998). Against fiduciary media. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 1(1), 19.
Block, W. E. , & Williamson, K. (2017). Is libertariansim thick or thin: Thin. The Italian Law Journal, 3(1), 1–17.
Calabresi, G. , & Melamed, A. D. (1972). Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: One view of the cathedral. Harvard Law Review, 85(6), 1089–1128.
Christmas, B. (2016). The possibility of thick libertarianism. Libertarian Papers, 8(1), 1–21. Christmas, B. (2018). Rescuing the libertarian non-aggression principle. Moral Philosophy and Politics, 5(2), 305–325.
Cohen, G. A. (1986). Self-ownership, world-ownership, and equality. In F. Lucash (Ed.), Justice and Equality Here and Now (pp. 108–135). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Cohen, G. A. (1995). Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality. Cambridge University Press. Diaz-Granados, J. (2023). ‘Standard jural relations of ownership’: A novel theoretical framework informed by Wesley Hohfeld and Tony Honore. Monash University Law Review, 49(2), 134–160.
Dominiak, Ł. (2017). Problem dobrowolnego niewolnictwa w filozofii politycznej libertarianizmu. Athenaeum. Polskie Studia Politologiczne, 54, 61–84.
Dominiak, Ł. , & Fegley, T. (2019). Should libertarians reject the title transfer theory of contracts?. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 22(2), 300.
Dominiak, Ł. , & Fegley, T. (2023). Contract theory, title transfer, and libertarianism. Diametros, 19(72), 1–25.
Dominiak, Ł. , & Wysocki, I. (2023). Libertarianism, defense of property, and absolute rights. Analiza i Egzystencja, 61, 5–26.
Dominiak, Ł. , Wysocki, I. , & Wójtowicz, S. (2023). Dialogical estoppel, erga omnes rights, and the libertarian theory of punishment and self-defense. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 27(1), 1–24.
Dworkin, R. (1967). The model of rules. University of Chicago Law Review, 35(1), 14–46. Epstein, R. A. (1985). Why restrain alienation? Columbia Law Review, 85(5), 970–990. Fabre, C. (2006). Whose Body Is It Anyway?: Justice and the Integrity of the Person. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hohfeld, W. N. (1913). Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal, 23(1), 16–59.
Hohfeld, W. N. (1917). Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal, 26(8), 710–770.
Honore, A. M. (1961). Ownership. In A. G. Guest (Ed.), Oxford Essays of Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press.
Hoppe, H. H. (2006). Economics and Ethics of Private Property. Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kinsella, N. S. (1999). Inalienability and punishment: A reply to George Smith. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 14(1; SEAS WIN), 79–94.
Kinsella, N. S. (2001). Against intellectual property. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 15(2; SEAS SPR), 1–54.
Kinsella, N. S. (2003). A libertarian theory of contract: Title transfer, binding promises, and inalienability. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 17(2), 11–38.
Kramer, M. H. (1998). Rights without trimmings. In M. H. Kramer , N. E. Simmonds , & H. Steiner (Eds.), A Debate over Rights – Philosophical Enquiries (pp.7–59). Oxford University Press.
Kramer, M. H. (2009). Consistency is hardly ever enough: Reflections on Hillel Steiner’s methodology. In S. De Wijze , M. H. Kramer , & I. Carter (Eds.), Hillel Steiner and the Anatomy of Justice – Themes and Challenges (pp. 227–239). New York and London: Routledge.
Kurki, V. A. (2017). Hohfeldian infinities: Why not to worry. Res Publica, 23(1), 137–146. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Book.
Rothbard, M. N. (1973). For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. New York: Libertarian Review Foundation.
Rothbard, M. N. (1998). Ethics of Liberty. New York and London. New York University Press. Sobel, D. (2012). Backing away from libertarian self-ownership. Ethics, 123(1), 32–60.
Steiner, H. (1994). An Essay on Rights. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Steiner, H. (2013). Directed duties and inalienable rights. Ethics, 123(2), 230–244.
Taylor, R. S. (2005). Self-ownership and the limits of libertarianism. Social Theory and Practice, 31(4), 465–482.
Thrasher, J. (2019). Self-ownership as personal sovereignty. Social Philosophy and Policy, 36(2), 116–133.
Wójtowicz, S. (2021). Libertariańska teoria kary i samoobrony. Dialogi Polityczne, (30), 165–186.
Non-aggression, freedom, and argumentation ethics
Alchian, A. A. (1965). Some economics of property rights. Il Politico, 30(4), 816–829. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43206327.
Apel, K.-O. (1996). The question of grounding: Philosophy and transcendental pragmatics of language. In Selected Essays (Vol. 2, pp. 68–102). New Jersey: Humanity Press.
Apel, K.-O. (1998). Towards a Transformation of Philosophy. Translated by G. Adey & D. Frisby. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
Bader, R. (2018). Moralized conceptions of liberty. In D. Schmidtz & C. Pavel (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Freedom (pp. 59–75). New York: Oxford University Press.
Barnett, R. E. (2014). The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Berlin, I. (2002). Two concepts of liberty. In Liberty (pp. 166–217). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brennan, J. (2013, December 12). Hoppe’s argumentation ethics refuted in under 60 seconds. Bleeding Heart Libertarians (blog).
Calabresi, G. , & Melamed, D. (1972). Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: One view of the cathedral. Harvard Law Review, 85(6) (April), 1089–1128.
Christmas, B. (2018). Rescuing the libertarian non-aggression principle. Moral Philosophy and Politics, 5(2), 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2017-0007.
Christmas, B. (2021). Against Kantian statism. The Journal of Politics, 83(4), 1721–1733. Cohen, G. A. (1995). Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dominiak, Ł. (2017). Libertarianism and original appropriation. Historia i Polityka, 22(29), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.12775/HiP.2017.026.
Dominiak, Ł. (2018a). Libertarianism, freedom, and the problem of circularity. Athenaeum. Polskie Studia Politologiczne, 59, 7–17.
Dominiak, Ł. (2018b). Libertarianizm i teoria praw podmiotowych. Athenaeum. Polskie Studia Politologiczne, 58, 41–59.
Dominiak, Ł. (2019). Must right-libertarians embrace easements by necessity? Diametros, 16(60), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1241.
Dominiak, Ł. (2022). Unjust enrichment and libertarianism. Polish Political Science Review, 10(2), 1–13.
Dominiak, Ł. (2023). Argumentation ethics, self-ownership, and Hohfeldian analysis of rights. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 27(1), 19–37.
Dominiak, Ł. , & Igor, W. (2023). Libertarianism, defense of property, and absolute rights. Analiza i Egzystencja, 61, 5–26.
Eabrasu, M. (2012). Rothbard’s and Hoppe’s justifications of libertarianism. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 12(3), 288–307.
Epstein, R. (1979). Possession as the root of title. Georgia Law Review, 13.
Frederick, D. (2013). Hoppe’s derivation of self-ownership from argumentation: Analysis and critique. Reason Papers, 35, 92–106.
Friedman, D. (1988). The trouble with Hoppe. Liberty, 2, 44.
Gordon, D. (2020). From intuitions to anarchism? Journal des Economistes Et des Etudes Humaines, 26(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/jeeh-2020-0008.
Gray, J. (1980). On negative and positive liberty. Political Studies, 28(4) (December), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1980.tb01256.x.
Habermas, J. (1979). What is universal pragmatics? In Communication and the Evolution of Society (pp. 1–68, Translated by T. McCarthy ). Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Translated by T. McCarthy . Boston: Beacon Press.
Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point. Clarendon.
Hayek, F. A. (2011). The Constitution of Liberty: The Definite Edition. Chicago and London: Chicago University Press.
Hobbes, T. (1997). Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclestiasticall and Civill. New York: Touchstone.
Hohfeld, W. N. (1913). Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. The Yale Law Journal, 23(1), 16–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/785533.
Hoppe, H.-H. (1987). Eigentum, Anarchie und Staat: Studien zur Theorie des Kapitalismus. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Hoppe, H.-H. (1989). A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics. Boston, Dordrecht and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2006). The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy (2nd ed.). Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute. https://mises.org/library/economics-and-ethics-private-property-0.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2016). On the Ethics of Argumentation. http://propertyandfreedom.org/2016/10/hans-hermann-hoppe-on-the-ethics-of-argumentation-pfs-2016/.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2018). Getting libertarianism right. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute. Hoppe, H.-H. (2021). The Great Fiction: Property, Economy, Society, and the Politics of Decline (2nd ed.). Auburn, AL: Mises Institute. https://mises.org/library/great-fiction.
Huemer, M. (2013). The Problem of Political Authority. An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Judycki, S. (2020). Epistemologia. Tom 1. Poznań and Warszawa: Wydawnictwo W Drodze/Instytut Tomistyczny.
Kant, I. (1991). The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by. M. Gregor . Cambridge University Press.
Kinsella, N. S. (1994). The undeniable morality of capitalism. St. Mary’s Law Journal, 25, 1420–1447.
Kinsella, N. S. (2002). Defending Argumentation Ethics. http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/defending-argumentation-ethics/.
Kinsella, N. S. (2008). Against Intellectual Property. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Kinsella, N. S. (2009). What libertarianism is. In J. G. Hülsmann & S. Kinsella (Eds.), Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (pp. 179–196). Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Kuhlmann, W. (1981). Reflexive Letzbegründung. Zur These von der Unhintergehbarkeit der Argumentationssituation. Zeitschrift für Philosophische Forschung, 35, 3–26.
Locke, J. (1988). Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacCallum, G. C. (1967). Negative and positive freedom. The Philosophical Review, 76(3), https://doi.org/10.2307/2183622.
Machan, T. (1988). Ethics without philosophy. Liberty, 2, 52–53.
Mack, E. (2000). In defense of the jurisdiction theory of rights. The Journal of Ethics, 4, 71–98. Megger, D. , & Wysocki, I. (2023). Coercion, voluntary exchange, and the Austrian school of economics. Synthese, 201, 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-04005-1.
Murphy, R. P. , & Callahan, G. (2006). Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s argumentation ethics: A critique. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 20, 53–62.
Nozick, R. (2001). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell.
Olsaretti, S. (1998). Freedom, force, and choice: Against the rights-based definition of voluntariness. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(1) (March), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00046.
Petit, P. (2007). Analytical philosophy. In R. E. Goodin , P. Petit , & T. Pogge (Eds.), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (2nd ed., pp. 5–35). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Rand, A. (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness. New York: Signet.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1988). The priority of right and ideas of the good. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 17, 251–276.
Rothbard, M. N. (1998). The Ethics of Liberty. New York: New York University Press. Rothbard, M. N. (2006). For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (2nd ed.). Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute. https://mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto.
Rothbard, M. N. (2009). Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Skinner, Q. (2002). A third concept of liberty: Isaiah Berlin lecture. Proceedings of the British Academy, 117.
Slenzok, N. (2022). The libertarian argumentation ethics, the transcendental pragmatics of language, and the conflict-freedom principle. Analiza i Egzystencja, 58(2), 35–64. https://doi.org/10.18276/aie.2022.58-03.
Slenzok, N. (2024). Filozofia polityczna Hansa-Hermanna Hoppego. Studium krytyczne. Zielona Góra: Oficyna Wydawnicza Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego. https://doi.org/10.59444/2024MONaSle.
Steiner, H. (1994). An Essay on Rights. Oxford: Blackwell.
Szubka, T. (2009). Filozofia analityczna. Koncepcje, metody, ograniczenia. Wrocław: Fundacja na Rzecz Nauki Polskiej.
Szymanek, K. , & Wieczorek, K. (2021). Sztuka argumentacji: rozszerzone ćwiczenia w badaniu argumentów. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo PWN.
Trzcionka, P. (2025). Against libertarian slavery. In Ł. Dominiak , D. Megger , S. Wójtowicz , & I. Wysocki (Eds.), Reinterpreting Libertarianism: New Directions in Libertarian Studies. Routledge. Tugendhat, E. (1993). Vorlesungen über Ethik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Van Dun, F. (2009a). Argumentation ethics and the philosophy of freedom. Libertarian Papers, 1(19), 1–32.
Van Dun, F. (2009b). Freedom and property: Where they conflict. In S. Kinsella & J. G. Hülsmann (Eds.), Property, Freedom, Society. Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (pp. 223–236). Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.
van Eemeren, F. H. (2024). Why argumentation theory? Realizing the practical objectives of argumentation theory as the study of effectiveness through reasonableness. Argumentation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-024-09650-z.
Wertheimer, A. (1989). Coercion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Ansombe . Oxford: Blackwell.
Wysocki, I. (2021). An Austro-Libertarian Theory of Voluntariness: A Critique. Toruń: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika.
Zwolinski, M. (2016). The libertarian nonaggression principle. Social Philosophy and Policy, 32(2) (Spring), 62–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505251600011X.
Should Big Tech be regulated? Arguments from social harms and a commonsense rebuttal
Abdalla, M. , & Abdalla, M. (2021, May 19–21). The Grey Hoodie project: Big tobacco, big tech, and the threat on academic integrity. Poster Paper presented at AIES ‘21, Virtual Event, USA. https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~msa/pdf/grey_hoodie.pdf.
Allcott, H. , & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236.
Alshamy, Y. , Coyne, C. J. , Hall, A. R. , & Owens, M. A. (2024). Surveillance capitalism and the surveillance state: A comparative institutional analysis. Constitutional Political Economy, 1–23. Altay, S. , Berriche, M. , & Acerbi, A. (2023). Misinformation on misinformation: Conceptual and methodological challenges. Social Media + Society, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221150412.
Atlas, S. (2021). A Plague upon Our House. New York: Bombardier Books.
Barbera, P. (2015). How social media reduces mass political polarization: Evidence from Germany, Spain, and the U.S. Paper prepared for the 2015 APSA Conference.
Boudreaux, D. (2021). COVID tyranny. Cafe Hayek. https://cafehayek.com/2021/04/covid-tyranny.html.
Brennan, J. (2016). Against Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Byrne, P. (2012). Star wars fan killed his wife after ‘she smashed his toy collection’. Daily Mirror. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/star-wars-fan-killed-his-wife-89260.
Castro, C. , & Pham, A. K. (2020). Is the attention economy noxious? Philosophers’ Imprint, 20(17), 1–13.
Chomanski, B. (2021). The missing ingredient in the case for regulating big tech. Minds and Machines, 31(2), 257–275.
Chomanski, B. (2024). Regulating misinformation: Political irrationality as a feasibility constraint. Topoi. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-024-10083-2.
Cohen, A. , & Cohen, A. (2022). The possibility and defensibility of nonstate ‘Censorship’. In J. P. Messina (Ed.), New Directions in the Ethics and Politics of Speech (pp. 13–31). Routledge. Cowen, T. (2019). Big Business: A Love Letter to an American Anti-hero. St. Martin’s Press. Deist, J. (2019, September 28). A tort law approach to fighting big tech? [Conference presentation]. Presented during the session on “Law and Economics” at the Libertarian Scholars Conference, The King’s College, New York City, NY, United States. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCf-GXrKB7E.
Dominiak, Ł. (2015). Libertarianism and obligatory child support. Athenaeum. Polish Political Science Studies, 48, 90–106. https://doi.org/10.15804/athena.2015.48.07.
Fernandez, M. , Pérez-Peña, R. , & Bromwich, J. E. (2016). Five Dallas officers were killed as payback, police chief says. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/dallas-police-shooting.html.
Frissen, T. (2021). Internet, the great radicalizer? Exploring relationships between seeking for online extremist materials and cognitive radicalization in young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106549.
Fritts, M. , & Cabrera, F. (2022). Fake news and epistemic vice: Combating a uniquely noxious market. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 8(3), 454–475. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2021.11.
Gibbons, A. F. (2024). Bullshit in politics pays. Episteme, 21(3), 1002–1022.
Gutmann, M. (2008). Notable literature on Germany’s Red Army Faction within the context of Die RAF und der linke Terrorismus. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 31(4), 371–375.
Haidt, J. (2024). The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. Random House.
Hancock, J. , Liu, S. X. , Luo, M. , & Mieczkowski, H. (2022, March 9). Psychological well-being and social media use: A meta-analysis of associations between social media use and depression, anxiety, loneliness, eudaimonic, hedonic and social well-being. Anxiety, Loneliness, Eudaimonic, Hedonic and Social Well-Being.
Handley, P. (2017). Gunman who shot republicans was Sanders fan, had run-ins with law. Yahoo!News. https://news.yahoo.com/shooter-republicans-sanders-fan-had-run-ins-law-184220528.html.
Harvey, O. (2018). Violent hate campaign of militant vegans are targeting terrified farmers and butchers across the country. The Sun. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5499147/violent-vegan-hate-campaigns/.
Henderson, D. , & Hooper, C. (2021). Coercion made the pandemic worse. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/coercion-made-the-pandemic-worse-lockdowns-response-testing-vaccination-government-11640617739?mod=opinion_lead_pos5.
Ingraham, C. (2024, December 12). A man radicalized by statistics. Minnesota Reformer. https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/12/12/a-man-radicalized-by-statistics/.
Ivie, E. J. , Pettitt, A. , Moses, L. J. , & Allen, N. B. (2020). A meta-analysis of the association between adolescent social media use and depressive symptoms. Journal of Affective Disorders, 275, 165–174.
Jefferson, T. , Dooley, L. , Ferroni, E. (2023). Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses? Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2023, 1CD006207. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6. Kapuściński, R. (2013). The Soccer War. London: Vintage.
Königs, P. (2024). In defense of ‘surveillance capitalism’. Philosophy & Technology, 37(4), 1–33.
Kulldorff, M. , Gupta, S. , & Bhattacharya, J. (2020). The Great Barrington Declaration. https://gbdeclaration.org/.
Lord Sumption . (2020). Locking up the elderly until coronavirus is defeated is a cruel mockery of basic human values. The Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8281007/Former-Supreme-Court-judge-LORD-SUMPTION-gives-withering-critique-Governments-lockdown.html.
Magness, P. , & Earle, P. (2021). The fickle ‘science’ of lockdowns. Independent Institute. https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13923.
Mamak, K. (2021). Do we need the criminalization of medical fake news? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 24(2), 235–245.
McNamee, M. (2015). What drove this child prodigy to bomb universities and airports? The Journal. https://www.thejournal.ie/una-bomber-ted-harvard-universities-airports-2339427-Sep2015/.
Mercier, H. (2020). Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe. Princeton University Press.
Messina, J. P. (2020). Freedom of expression and the liberalism of fear: A defense of the darker Mill. Philosophers’ Imprint, 20(34), 1–17.
Messina, J. P. (2023). Private Censorship. Oxford University Press.
Metzinger, T. (2019, April 8). EU guidelines: Ethics washing made in Europe. Tagesspiegel. https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/ethics-washing-made-in-europe-5937028.html.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics . (2022). Analysis of federal funding for research and development in 2022: Basic research. National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf24332.
NBC . (2021). Ex-weather underground member David Gilbert describes path to radicalization. NBC Philadelphia. https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/david-gilbert-describes-journey-from-activist-to-brinks-robbery-role-at-parole-hearing/3093155/.
O’Hara, K. , & Stevens, D. (2015). Echo chambers and online radicalism: Assessing the internet’s complicity in violent extremism. Policy & Internet, 7, 401–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.88.
Orben, A. (2020). Teenagers, screens and social media: A narrative review of reviews and key studies. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 55(4), 407–414.
Orsini, A. (2011). Anatomy of the Red Brigades: The Religious Mind-Set of Modern Terrorists. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Panayiotou, M. , Black, L. , Carmichael-Murphy, P. , Qualter, P. , & Humphrey, N. (2023). Time spent on social media among the least influential factors in adolescent mental health: Preliminary results from a panel network analysis. Nature Mental Health, 1(5), 316–326.
Rectenwald, M. (2019). Google Archipelago: The Digital Gulag and the Simulation of Freedom. World Encounter Institute/New English Review Press.
Rothwell, J. , & Witters, D. (2021). U.S. adults’ estimates of COVID-19 hospitalization risk. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimates-covid-hospitalization-risk.aspx.
Sakalle, A. (2017). 15 Books/movies that inspired people to commit violent crimes. The Clever. https://www.theclever.com/15-booksmovies-that-inspired-people-to-commit-violent-crimes/.
Satz, D. (2010). Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schwitzgebel, E. , & Rust, J. (2013). The moral behavior of ethics professors: Relationships among self-reported behavior, expressed normative attitude, and directly observed behavior. Philosophical Psychology, 27(3), 293–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2012.727135. Soave, R. (2024). Tech Panic: Why We Shouldn’t Fear Facebook and the Future. Simon and Schuster.
Sunstein, C. R. (2005). The precautionary principle as a basis for decision making. The Economists’ Voice, 2(2).
Travae, M. (2015). Religious intolerance leads to death of 90-year old priestess and stoning in head of 11-year old girl. Black Brazil Today. https://blackbraziltoday.com/religious-intolerance-leads-to-death-of-90-year-old/.
Tucker, J. (2011). It’s a Jetson’s World: Private Miracles and Public Crimes. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Tucker, J. (2020). Liberty or Lockdown. American Institute for Economic Research. Twenge, J. M. (2017). IGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy – and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood – and What That Means for the Rest of Us. Simon and Schuster.
Valkenburg, P. M. , van Driel, I. I. , & Beyens, I. (2022). The associations of active and passive social media use with well-being: A critical scoping review. New Media & Society, 24(2), 530–549.
Williams, D. (2023, June 7). The fake news about fake news. Boston Review. https://bostonreview.net/articles/the-fake-news-about-fake-news/.
Wilson, C. (2024, December 12). Jonathan Haidt lobbied politicians by accusing teen social media ban critics of ‘burying’ evidence. Crikey. https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/12/12/anxious-generation-jonathan-haidt-politician-researchers-teen-social-media-harm-crikey/.
Wójtowicz, S. (2023, March). Libertarianizm a dzieci. Libertarianizm. https://stanislawwojtowicz.pl/2023/03/libertarianizm-a-dzieci/.
Woods, T. (2020). The fact-free Covid dystopia. Mises Institute. https://mises.org/library/fact-free-covid-dystopia.
Zwolinski, M. (2024, November 15). Two cheers for Lina Khan: Rethinking the libertarian position on antitrust. The Bleeding Heart Libertarian. https://bleedingheartlibertarian.substack.com/p/two-cheers-for-lina-khan.
Anarcho-capitalism, monarchy and the problem of libertarian political strategy
de la Boétie, É. . (2015). The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude. Auburn: The Mises Institute.
Dominiak, Ł. (2023). From growing up under socialism to becoming libertarian. In J. A. Cavallo & W. E. Block (Eds.), Libertarian Autobiographies: Moving toward Freedom in Today’s World (pp. 93–96). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29608-6_17.
Hankus, P. (2016). ‘Europa Tysiąca Liechtensteinów’ Hansa-Hermanna Hoppego. Krytyczna analiza. Dialogi Polityczne/Political Dialogues: Journal of Political Theory, 20, 23–38.
Hankus, P. (2017). Libertarianizm nie jest utopizmem. Dlaczego twierdzenia o utopijności libertarianizmu są fałszywe? Dialogi Polityczne/Political Dialogues: Journal of Political Theory, 22, 11–22.
Hawley, G. (2019). The Alt-Right: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoppe, H.-H. (1994). Time preference, government, and the process of de-civilization – from monarchy to democracy. Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, 5(2–3), 319–351. Hoppe, H.-H. (1995). The political economy of monarchy and democracy, and the idea of a natural order. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 11(2), 94–121.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2001). Democracy – the God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2009). What must be done. The Lecture Given at ‘the Bankruptcy of American Politics’ Conference, Sponsored by the Mises Institute and Held in Newport Beach, California, January 24–25, 1997. https://mises.org/library/book/what-must-be-done.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2014). From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy: A Tale of Moral and Economic Folly and Decay. Auburn: The Mises Institute.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2021). Economy, Society, and History. Auburn: The Mises Institute.
Newman, S. L. (2023). Nietzsche as muse to the extreme right. In M. McManus (Ed.), Nietzsche and the Politics of Reaction: Essays on Liberalism, Socialism, and Aristocratic Radicalism. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rothbard, M. N. (1973). For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. New York: Macmillan. Rothbard, M. N. (1974). Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature and Other Essays. Washington: Libertarian Review Press.
Rothbard, M. N. (1998). The Ethics of Liberty. New York and London: New York University Press.
Rothbard, M. N. (2009). Rothbard’s confidential memorandum to the Volker fund, ‘what is to be done?’ (July 1961). Libertarian Papers, 1(3), 1–14.
Schmitt, C. (2002). Der Begriff des Politischen. Text von 1932 mit einem Vorwort und drei Corollarien. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Schmitt, C. (2006). Diktatur. Von den Anfängen des modernen Souveranitätsgedankens bis zum proletarischen Klassenkampf. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Sierpiński, J. (2016). A critique of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s thesis on lesser harmfulness of monarchy than democracy. Res Publica. Revista de Historia de las Ideas Políticas, 19(2), 521–559.
Slenzok, N. (2016). Hansa-Hermanna Hoppego libertariańska rehabilitacja monarchii. Analiza metodologiczna. Societas et Ius, (5), 111–132.
Slenzok, N. (2024). Filozofia polityczna Hansa-Hermanna Hoppego. Studium krytyczne. Zielona Góra: Oficyna Wydawnicza Uniwersytetu Zielonogórskiego.
Święcicki, Ł. (2023). Samorząd i decentralizacja w myśli politycznej Hansa-Hermanna Hoppego. Athenaeum. Polskie Studia Politologiczne, 78(2), 61–78.
Święcicki, Ł. (2024). Libertarianism, monarchism, and the problem of their (in)compatibility. Studia Polityczne, 52(3), 201–225.
Yeager, L. (2014). A libertarian case for monarchy. Procesos de Mercado: Revista Europea de Economía Política, 11(2), 237–251.
Zwolinski, M. , & Tomasi, J. (2023). The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Methods of recognising private law societies in diplomatic relations
Bell, T. W. (2018). Your Next Government: From the Nation States to the Stateless Nations. Oxford University Press.
Crawford, J. R. (2006). The Creation of States in International Law. Oxford University Press. Davidson, J. D. , & Rees-Mogg, W. (2020). The Sovereign Individual. Touchstone (Simon and Schuster).
Friedman, D. D. (1989). Machinery of Freedom. Open Court. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf.
Gebel, T. (2018). Free Private Cities: Making Governments Compete for You. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Hayek, F. A. (1982). Law, Legislation and Liberty. Routledge.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2001). Democracy: The God That Failed. Transaction Publishers. Hoppe, H.-H. (2009). The Private Production of Defense. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Hoppe, H.-H. (2015). A Short History of Man: Progress and Decline. Ludwig von Mises Institute. Huemer, M. (2013). The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey. University of Colorado.
Juszczak, J. (2023). Społeczeństwo Prawa Prywatnego – Doktryna Polityczno-Prawna Hansa-Hermanna Hoppego (doctoral dissertation). University of Wrocław.
MacCallum, S. H. (1970). The Art of Community. Institute of Humane Studies. Rothbard, M. N. (1982). The Ethics of Liberty. Humanities Press.
Rothbard, M. N. (1994). Nations by consent: Decomposing the nation-state. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 11(1), 1–10.
Tannehill, M. , & Tannehill, L. (2006). The Market for Liberty. The Ludwig von Mises Institute. Foldvary, F. E. (2005). The economic case for private residential government. In G. Glasze , C. Webster , & K. Frantz (Eds.), Private Cities: Global and Local Perspectives (pp. 29–42). Routledge.
Hankus, P. (2013). Libertarianizm wobec prawa dyplomatycznego i konsularnego. https://www.academia.edu/22263921/Libertarianizm_wobec_prawa_dyplomatycznego_i_konsul arnego.
Hoffa, D. J. (2021). Statism’s catch-22: An Austro-libertarian analysis of ‘self-determination of peoples’ under International law. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3821745 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3821745.
Juszczak, J. (2018). Za czy przeciw? Stosunek libertarian i obiektywistów do państwa Izrael. Studia Erasmiana Wratislaviensia, 12, 93–111.
MacCallum, S. H. (2003). The enterprise of community: Market competition, land, and community. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 17(4), 1–15.
Newhard, J. M. (2017a). Minimum deterrence as a vulnerability in the market provision of national defense. Libertarian Papers, 9(1), 56–77.
Newhard, J. M. (2017b). On the conspicuous absence of private defense. Libertarian Papers, 8, 10–30.
Newhard, J. M. (2018). A strategic doctrine of disproportionate force for decentralized asymmetric warfare. Libertarian Papers, 10, 207–232.
Rossman, G. (2016). Extremely loud and incredibly close (but still so far): Assessing Liberland’s claim of statehood. Chicago Journal of International Law, 17(1), Article 10.
Żbikowski, W. (2015). Samostanowienie Narodów w Prawie Międzynarodowym. Zeszyt Studencki Kół Naukowych Wydziału Prawa i Administracji UAM, 5, 237–256.
Palencia, G. (2024, September 20). Honduras top court declares self-governing ZEDE zones unconstitutional. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/honduras-top-court-declares-self-governing-zede-zones-unconstitutional-2024-09-20/.
Agreement between the Taipei Representative Office in Poland and the Polish Office in Taipei on the Legal Cooperation in Criminal Matters. (2019). https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=Y0030178.
Montevideo Convention on the Duties and Rights of States . (1933). https://www.ilsa.org/Jessup/Jessup15/Montevideo%20Convention.pdf.
General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV) . (1970). The Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-Operation among States. https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/docs/A_RES_2625-Eng.pdf.
Evolutionary game theory, the social contract, and libertarianism
Alexander, J. M. (2019). Evolutionary game theory. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2019 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/game-evolutionary. Baumard, N. (2011). Punishment is not a group adaptation: Humans punish to restore fairness rather than to support group cooperation. Mind and Society, 10(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11299-010-0080-3.
Baumard, N. , André, J. B. , & Sperber, D. (2013). A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002202.
Binmore, K. (1998). Game Theory and the Social Contract. Volume 2: Just Playing. MIT Press. Binmore, K. (2005). Natural Justice. Oxford University Press.
Binmore, K. (2010). Social norms or social preferences? Mind and Society, 9(2), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11299-010-0073-2/FIGURES/3.
Blackburn, S. (1996). The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Philosophy-Paperback-Reference-Blackburn/dp/B011DA8F2K.
Bourget, D. , & Chalmers, D. J. (2023). Philosophers on philosophy: The 2020 Phil papers survey. Philosophers’ Imprint, 23(11). https://survey2020.philpeople.org/.
Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Russell Sage Foundation.
Dean, T. (2012). Evolution and moral diversity. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication Communication, 7, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.4148/biyclc.v7i0.1775.
Fehr, E. , Gachter, S. , & Kirchsteiger, G. (1997). Reciprocity as a contract enforcement device: Experimental evidence. Econometrica, 65(4), 833. https://doi.org/10.2307/2171941.
Gaus, G. (2010). The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom and Morality in a Diverse and Bounded World. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511780844. Gintis, H. (2000). Strong reciprocity and human sociality. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 206(2), 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1006/JTBI.2000.2111.
Gintis, H. (2006). Behavioral ethics meets natural justice. Politics, Philosophy, Economics, 5(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X06060617.
Gintis, H. , van Schaik, C. , & Boehm, C. (2015). Zoon Politikon. Current Anthropology, 56(3), 327–353. https://doi.org/10.1086/681217.
Güth, W. , Schmittberger, R. , & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7.
Hammerstein, P. (2003). Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation. MIT Press in cooperation with Dahlem University Press.
Hohol, M. (2015). Współczesne projekty naturalizacji moralności. In J. Stelmach , B. Brożek , Ł. Kurek , & K. Eliasz (Eds.), Naturalizm Prawniczy: Interpretacje (pp. 196–208). Wolters Kluwer. Hume, D. (1965). A Treatise on Human Nature. Clarendon Press.
Mascaro, O. , & Sperber, D. (2009). The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children’s vigilance towards deception. Cognition, 112, 367–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012.
Moehler, M. (2015). Orthodox rational choice contractarianism. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 15(2), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X15599102.
Muldoon, R. (2021). Social Contract Theory for a Diverse World: Beyond Tolerance. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Social-Contract-Theory-for-a-Diverse-World-Beyond-Tolerance/Muldoon/p/book/9780367322489.
Narveson, J. (2016). Social contract: The only game in town. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review/Revue Canadienne de Philosophie, 55(4), 695–711. https://doi.org/10.1017/S001221731600055X.
Papineau, D. (2023). Naturalism. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/naturalism.
Schaefer, A. (2023). Is justice a fixed point? American Journal of Political Science, 67(2), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/AJPS.12631.
Seabright, P. (2006). The evolution of fairness norms: An essay on Ken Binmore’s natural justice. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 5(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X06060618.
Seabright, P. , Stieglitz, J. , & Van der Straeten, K. (2021). Evaluating social contract theory in the light of evolutionary social science. Evolutionary Human Sciences, 3, e20. https://doi.org/10.1017/EHS.2021.4.
Skyrms, B. (2008). The social contract naturalized. In M. Fleurbaey , M. Salles , & J. A. Weymark (Eds.), Justice, Political Liberalism, and Utilitarianism: Themes from Harsanyi and Rawls (pp. 334–350). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619595.015.
Smith, J. M. (1982). Evolution and the Theory of Games. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806292.
Sugden, R. (2005). Rights, co-operation and welfare. In The Economics of Rights, Co-Operation and Welfare. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230536791_9.
Fully private medical care – an attempt at an overview
Angerer, S. , Glätzle-Rützler, D. , & Waibel, C. (2021). Monitoring institutions in healthcare markets: Experimental evidence. Health Economics, 30(5), 1234–1256.
Arrow, K. (1963). Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care. American Economic Review, 53(5), 941–973.
Ashida, S. , Wilkinson, A. V. , & Koehly, L. M. (2012). Social influence and motivation to change health behaviors among Mexican-origin adults: Implications for diet and physical activity.
American Journal of Health Promotion, 26(3), 176–179.
Cochrane, J. (1995). Time-consistent health insurance. The Journal of Political Economy, 103(3), 445–473.
Cochrane, J. (2009). Health-status insurance: How markets can provide health security. Policy Analysis, 633, 1–23.
Eichner, M. , McClellan, M. , & Wise, D. (1998). Insurance or self-insurance? Variation, persistence, and individual health accounts. In D. Wise (Ed.), Inquiries in the Economics of Aging (pp. 28–55). University of Chicago Press.
Epstein, R. (1986). Medical malpractice, imperfect information, and the contractual foundation for medical services. Law and Contemporary Problems, 49(2), 201–225.
Friedman, D. (1991). Should medicine be a commodity? An economist’s perspective. In T. J. Bole & W. B. Bondeson (Eds.), Rights to Health Care: Philosophy and Medicine (Vol. 38, pp. 121–136). Springer.
Gligorić, K. , White, R. W. , Kiciman, E. , Horvitz, E. , Chiolero, A. , & West, R. (2021). Formation of social ties influences food choice: A campus-wide longitudinal study. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1–25.
Goodman, J. (2007). Malpractice reform: Ten principles of a rational tort system. In J. Goodman (Ed.), Handbook on State Healthcare Reform (pp. 75–92). National Center for Policy Analysis. Goodman, J. (2012). Priceless: Curing Our Healthcare Crisis. Independent Institute.
Handel, B. , Hendel, I. , & Whinston, M. (2017). The welfare effects of long-term health insurance contracts. NBER Working Paper, w23624.
Herring, B. , & Pauly, M. (2006). Incentive-compatible guaranteed renewable health insurance premiums. Journal of Health Economics, 25(5), 995–1010.
Herzlinger, R. (Ed.). (2004). Consumer-Driven Health Care: Implications for Providers, Payers, and Policymakers. Jossey-Bass.
Kini, V. , & Ho, P. M. (2018). Interventions to improve medication adherence: A review. JAMA, 320(18), 2021–2035.
Koijen, R. S. J. , & Van Nieuwerburgh, S. (2020). Combining life and health insurance. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(2), 883–943.
Kunreuther, H. , & Pauly, M. (2005). Insurance decision-making and market behavior. Foundation and Trends in Microeconomics, 1(2), 63–127.
Leeson, P. (2008). Social distance and self-enforcing exchange. The Journal of Legal Studies, 37(1), 161–188.
Matjasko, J. L. , Cawley, J. H. , Baker-Goering, M. M. , & Yokum, D. V. (2016). Applying behavioral economics to public health policy: Illustrative examples and promising directions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(5 Suppl 1), S13–S19.
Musich, S. , Wang, S. , Hawkins, K. , & Klemes, A. (2016). The impact of personalized preventive care on health care quality, utilization, and expenditures. Population Health Management, 19(6), 389–396.
Pauly, M. , Kunreuther, M. , & Hirth, R. (1995). Guaranteed renewability in insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 10(2), 143–156.
Schansberg, E. (2014). The economics of health care and health insurance. The Independent Review, 18(3), 403–420.
Shmanske, S. (1996). Information asymmetries in health services: The market can cope. The Independent Review, 1(2), 249–270.
Stevens, R. (1989). In Sickness and Wealth: American Hospitals in the Twentieth Century. Basic Books.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2000). Economics of the Public Sector (3rd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company. Svorny, S. (1992). Should we reconsider licensing physicians? Contemporary Policy Issues, 10(1), 31–38.
Svorny, S. (2000). The changing role of licensure in promoting incentives for quality in health care. In R. Feldman (Ed.), American Health Care: Government, Market Processes, and the Public Interest (pp. 85–102). Independent Institute.
Svorny, S. (2008). Medical licensing: An obstacle to affordable, quality care. Policy Analysis, 621, 1–18.
Wiśniewska, D. , & Rozynek, K. (2024). Ubezpieczenia prenatalne jako nowa metoda finansowania ryzyka wad wrodzonych, powikłań ciążowych i okołoporodowych – uwarunkowania i perspektywy rozwoju w Polsce. Wiadomości Ubezpieczeniowe/Insurance Review, 4, 15–39.
- Lukasz Dominiak, “The Blockian Proviso and the Rationality of Property Rights,” Libertarian Papers 9 (1) (2017): 114–128. ; [↩]
- “Rejoinder to Block’s Defense of Evictionism”; Wiśniewski, J. B. (2010). A critique of block on abortion and child abandonment. Libertarian Papers, 2(16); etc.[↩]
