Libertarianism has been widely misunderstood, and the present essay under review is no exception. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a philosophy of life. It essentially asks but one single solitary question, and gives one single, solitary answer. The question: under what conditions is the use of force or violence legally justified? And the answer: only in response (defense against, retaliation against, punishment of) to the prior use of force or violence against a person or his legitimately owned property.

At one time, the libertarian perspective on immigration could be summed up by the following mantra: “There shall be no interference with the free movement of goods, capital and people.”

Volume 22, Number 1 (2011)

A grabs B to use as a shield; A forces B to stand in front of him, and compels him to walk wherever A wishes. A then hunts C in order to murder the latter by shooting him. C also has a gun. Is it legally permissible for C to shoot at A in self defense under libertarian law? Were C to do so he would have to kill B, the innocent shield, in order to defend himself against the perpetrator, A. Assume that this tableau takes place on unowned property, so that the issue of the owner’s rules does not come into play.

Volume 22, Number 1 (2011)

In this paper, Walter Block considers several of the criticisms leveled at Hoppe (1988, 1989) by Murphy and Callahan (2006).

Volume 22, Number 1 (2011)

Kinsella and Tinsley (2004) is beautifully written, infused with keen insights, in some ways solidly predicated upon libertarianism and praxeology, and yet, and yet, much as I enthusiastically agree with goodly portions of it and am even inspired by them, I cannot see my way clear to accepting all of their insights.

The present paper is devoted to a critique of those parts of the paper with which I cannot agree.

Volume 22, Number 1 (2011)

This paper is an attempt to combine the insights of Van Creveld (1999) concerning statism with libertarian theory in order to forge a theory of justified punishment for the crime of engaging in statist, governmental or other gangster activity.

Volume 22, Number 1 (2011)

In this article, Walter Block reviews Bryan Caplan’s The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies.

Volume 22, Number 1 (2011)

Muetze Hellmer is a former student of mine at Loyola University New Orleans. The first draft of Hellmer (2005) started out as a term paper for a course she took with me. I am very proud of her for having an article she wrote while a mere undergraduate published in a prestigious scholarly journal such as The Journal of Libertarian Studies.

There has been for many years a tension between the anarcho-capitalist or free market anarchist, and the limited government or minarchist wings of the libertarian movement.

The present paper is the continuation of an intra-libertarian debate over immigration. Previous contributions to this dialogue on the open borders side include Block, 1998, 2004A, 2011; Block and Callahan, 2003; Gregory and Block, 2007. The restricted borders argument includes Hoppe 1995, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002.

Volume 22, Number 1 (2011)