“ I support Rothbard, so students may enjoy the conflicts sure to arise between Danny and me.”

In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard proposed a natural-law foundation for libertarianism. In doing so, he rejected as not fully adequate the distinctive brand of utilitarian ethics defended by his teacher Ludwig von Mises. Was he correct in his criticisms of Mises? If you are attracted to both views, must you choose between them?

The question that arises for the state ruler is: How can I free myself of two effective constraints on my power: tax-resistance in the form of falling tax revenue and the need to borrow from and pay interest to banks? It is not too difficult to see what the ultimate solution to the ruler’s problem is.

Let me begin with a quote from an article that my old friend Ralph Raico wrote some 15 years ago:

There was an interesting exchange recently between a left-libertarian (I think that’s what he is) who goes by Divide by Zer0, and anarcho-libertarian Stefan Molyneaux. “dbzer0″ argued against property rights and the non-aggression principle in his post Why the Non-Aggression Principle is useless as a moral guideline.

With many foreclosures producing considerable deficiencies–the amount the home sells for at foreclosure being far less than the amount owed—more lenders are suing the foreclosed upon borrowers seeking money toward those deficiencies.

In recent papers, two pro-intellectual property libertarians, Richard Epstein and Objectivist Adam Mossoff, try to defend IP by arguing that it “can” be treated like property by a legal system.

In Austrian economics program denied at Loyola New Orleans, I noted that an attempt by Austrian professors at Loyola New Orleans to establish an Austrian economics master’s program had been rejected by the “Standing Council for Academic Planning.” The program was proposed by the heroic Bill Barnett and Dan D’Amico;