The issue of whether non-scarce things like thoughts or labor are ownable has arisen in recent debates—see, e.g., Thoughts on Intellectual Property, Scarcity, Labor-ownership, Metaphors, and Lockean Homesteading; Intellectual Property and Think Tank Corruption; and New Working Paper: Machan on IP.
In “Dilemmas of an Economic Theorist” (Econometrica, July 2006) Ariel Rubinstein reflects on the meaning, implications, and relevance of formal economic modeling:
by Walter Block and William Barnett II (Loyola University, New Orleans)
As I pointed out in “The Kelo Backlash Begins,” Alabama was the first state to curb eminent domain abuse after the Supreme Court’s infamous Kelo decision. Now we see that in the election last month voters in seven states (FL, GA, MI, NV, NH, ND, SC) approved constitutional amendments prohibiting the use of eminent domain to transfer land to private parties for “economic development.” It would be ideal, of course, to have no eminent domain at all, but the less the better.
“A government strong enough to give you everything is strong enough to take everything.”
This common phrase among libertarians is often applied to redistribution. However, the political environmentalist movement should adhere to these words perhaps closer than anyone.
Private property and markets are accused of being unable to protect the environment. But how does the government role of caretaker work more efficiently?
Gregg Easterbrook has an excellent piece in Slate tearing apart NASA’s much-heralded plans to put a base on the moon. I especially like that he ridicules the government’s claim that establishing a moon presence will help us create “heritage sites” — i.e., nature preserves of nothing but lunar dust that no one would disturb anyway! Walter Block and I tackle exactly that issue (”space environmentalism”) in a forthcoming law review article.
In recent weeks, the New York City Board of Health has displayed a pattern of profound aggression against the citizens of New York City.
No irredeemable currency has ever claimed a more scientific and practical guarantee for its goodness and for its proper action on public finances. On the one hand, it had what the world recognized as a most practical security,—a mortgage on productive real estate of vastly greater value than the issue.
