A common argument for libertarianism of the sort associated with writers like Nozick and Rothbard is that it follows more or less directly from the thesis of self-ownership, at least given the assumption that external resources start out unowned. I used to endorse this sort of argument myself, though I do not endorse it (or libertarianism itself for that matter) any longer. One problem I now see with it is that the thesis of self-ownership simply isn’t as determinate as its defenders usually take it to be. There are several reasons for this.
Reply to Block on Libertarianism is Unique
![The Journal of Libertarian Studies](https://cdn.mises.org/styles/responsive_4_3_650w/s3/static-page/img/jls_750x517_20230818_4.jpg.webp?itok=vxxtyv15 650w,https://cdn.mises.org/styles/responsive_4_3_870w/s3/static-page/img/jls_750x517_20230818_4.jpg.webp?itok=p-ULv9M7 870w,https://cdn.mises.org/styles/responsive_4_3_1090w/s3/static-page/img/jls_750x517_20230818_4.jpg.webp?itok=O1ijgKVd 1090w,https://cdn.mises.org/styles/responsive_4_3_1310w/s3/static-page/img/jls_750x517_20230818_4.jpg.webp?itok=PpCD2kdg 1310w,https://cdn.mises.org/styles/responsive_4_3_1530w/s3/static-page/img/jls_750x517_20230818_4.jpg.webp?itok=wvZo7bPH 1530w)
CITE THIS ARTICLE
Feser, Edward. “Reply to Block on Libertarianism is Unique.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 22, No. 1 (2010): 261–272.