As readers of Libertarian Papers know, all LP articles are published free and in PDF and in the original Word source file. We use the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License so people are free to do what they want with our articles–reprint them, incorporate them into new works, include them as chapters in books–just grab the Word file and you’re good to go, with our blessing. (I discuss the origins of the journal in “Fifteen Minutes that Changed Libertarian Publishing.”)

Still, we often get requests for print and kindle/ebook versions. When we started LP in early 2009, we published the first few articles in Kindle format–I simply uploaded the Word files as individual “books,” and priced them at the lowest price Amazon would allow, $0.99. They sold, even though Kindle owners can easily put the Word version of the article on their Kindle for free. People like convenience, it turns out. But I stopped putting up Kindle versions after a while due to lack of manpower and resources. Gil Guillory helped with some early podcast mixing and with two LuLu print-on-demand versions of Vol. 1, but this was a volunteer effort and could not be sustained. I intended to figure it out myself–I bought a book on Kindle formatting–but I just could not find time to do it. It was time to outsource. (The Mises Institute hosts and publishes the journal and generously provided website design and technical resources. I could have asked them to do the print and ebook publishing, but I knew they are swamped with so many publishing and other projects and their resources, plus I wanted to try this on my own to learn more about this type of publishing.)

After some digging, I found Mark Stanley (email: jmark@mises.com), who did a great job for me converting the files into “books” for both print and ebook purposes (PDF files for the former, and epub and .mobi files for the latter). The first two volumes, for 2009 and 2010, were each over 800 pages (each including 44 or so articles). I decided to split each volume up into two parts, Part 1 and Part 2, similar to a conventional journal’s “issues,” each Part having 400+ pages and 20+ articles. And there are corresponding ebooks.

As can be seen on the journal’s Paper and Ebook Versions page (see information pasted below), the first two volumes are now available in print and ebook versions. The print versions are available from Amazon and CreateSpace (the Amazon subsidiary I used for the print-on-demand books; one advantage of CreateSpace over LuLu for print-on-demand is that they automatically list the book on Amazon). And the ebook versions are now available on the Kindle, Nook, and iBookstore platforms (Sony Reader versions should be up before long). I used BookBaby, an ebook aggregator, to publish on all 4 ebook platforms, for convenience. CreateSpace assigns an ISBN for the print version for free, and BookBaby assigns an ebook ISBN for a small fee.

I priced the print versions a bit above cost and the ebooks at $9.99 to make a few bucks per copy. I could price them lower, but I would like to recoup my costs (paying Mark for his formatting work, the CreateSpace “pro” charge and the BookBaby charges, and a few other incidental costs). I figure if I sell maybe 70-100 copies per “issue” I will break even and will be able to continue doing this going forward. If I sell more, I can use the extra funds for a few other little things to improve the journal, and/or lower the price going forward to fine-tune it to break-even.

Links for the various versions of the first two volumes are below. I intend to release Vol. 3, Part 1, shortly, rather than waiting to the end of the year; that means Vol. 3 will probably have 3 or 4 smaller-sized Parts (say, 200-250 pages) instead of two big ones. If anyone orders any of the ebooks or print versions, please feel free to send me any feedback, comments, or suggestions (here in the comments or by email).

Paper and Ebook Versions

[Mises cross-post]

From Mises Daily today:

Teaching an Online Mises Academy Course

January 10, 2011 by Mises Daily

The IP course was a pleasure to teach. I was a bit intimidated at first by how to approach it — Should I wear a suit? What if my dogs bark? How much time should I leave for questions? It turned out that none of this mattered. FULL ARTICLE by Stephan Kinsella

Bookmark/Share

| Comments (0)

From the Mises Blog:

Study Libertarian Legal Theory Online with Stephan Kinsella

December 6, 2010 by J. Grayson Lilburne

Murray Rothbard wrote in the preface of his The Ethics of Liberty:

“While the book establishes the general outlines of a system of libertarian law, however, it is only an outline, a prolegomenon to what I hope will be a fully developed libertarian law code of the future. Hopefully libertarian jurists and legal theorists will arise to hammer out the system of libertarian law in detail, for such a law code will be necessary to the truly successful functioning of what we may hope will be the libertarian society of the future.”

Throughout his career, Stephan Kinsella has been doing just that. And now, after years of researching and developing the subject, he’s offering a 6-week, online course on libertarian legal theory starting January 31 through the Mises Academy. Kinsella’s new course: “will provide detailed discussions of the foundations of libertarian theory and related topics such as individual rights; justice, punishment and restitution; anarchy and minarchy; contract theory; inalienability; property rights and homesteading; intellectual property; legislation versus common law; legal positivism; Austrian economics and libertarianism; and causation and responsibility.”

Click here for an outline of what will be covered each week, and to sign up!

From Libertarian Papers:

I am seeking volunteer referees to review 7 draft articles submitted to Libertarian Papers. I list the titles and Abstracts of a few of them below.

If you are potentially interested in reviewing any of these, or if you have any particular referee suggestions for any of them, please contact me. I’d be happy to send blind drafts to anyone who is interested in considering reviewing any of these.

***

1. “Government Through The Eyes of Emergence”
Abstract: Examining the legitimacy of government by using Reductionist and Emergent principals. The essay addresses issues on morality, the is – ought fallacy, and the misrepresentation of government.

2. “Choice and Language Shift”
Abstract: What is the adequate normative response to a growing trend of language shift in a given small linguistic community, either a minority or a majority community in a given liberal country? This essay attempts to answer this question. I shall analyze carefully whether the members of this small linguistic community choose to continue (or choose not to continue) to use their mother tongue. Carefully examining the ‘choice’ aspect of the decision to shift from language A to B is important for the analysis of a language shift scenario, as a proper understanding of the ‘shifting decision’ is crucial for any attempt to theorize about the proper governmental response to a language-shift scenario.

I shall analyze the decision to shift from one’s mother tongue to a different language, following three different theoretical perspectives: libertarian, left-liberal, and national/identity. Following which I shall analyze three potential governmental responses to a language shift scenario from the same three theoretical perspectives: libertarian, left-liberal and national/identity. The last part of the essay discusses arguments that may assist us in deciding among the potential governmental responses described.

3. “The Current Evidence for Hayek’s Cultural Group Selection Theory”
Abstract: In this article I summarize Friedrich Hayek’s cultural group selection theory and describe the evidence gathered by current cultural group selection theorists within the behavioral and social sciences supporting Hayek’s main assertions. Before concluding with a few comments on Hayek as a libertarian, I also describe three ways in which current cultural group selection theory has superseded Hayek’s views.

4. “Reexamining the Federal Monetary Powers”
Abstract: The present paper challenges today’s consensus that the Constitution plays no role in limiting the federal government’s exercise of its monetary powers. Noting a growing international consensus regarding the need for monetary reform and reviewing the Supreme Court decisions which led to today’s American monetary system, the author argues that unless the Constitution is returned to its proper role in limiting the federal government’s exercise of monetary powers, a legal system may emerge far beyond the control of the American people and absolutely contrary to their best interests.

5. “Praxeological implications for Belief and the case against Value Pluralism”
Abstract: In this brief essay, I outline the implications of Praxeology for a variety of kinds of Value pluralism. I attempt to show how action, logic and even belief itself, results in a self refutation of these doctrines.

6. “Mises’s Defense of Liberty: A Critique”
Abstract: What this paper attempts to demonstrate is that, in his treatise Liberalism, Mises’ defense of liberty is incomplete because his reasoning in favor of liberty for all is – not of a moral, but – exclusively of an economic kind. Without a moral justification, Mises’s defense –- once the aim of productivity has been abandoned–is forced to affirm with cold indifference that a society of slaves is no better or worse than one of free men. There exists a more comprehensive defense.

7. “Contemporary Philosophy Versus the Free Society“
(from introduction): Some would have it that we can have a philosophy of freedom without, well, a philosophy. In other words, they find it rather pointless to dwell on various philosophical topics, such as free will versus determinism, the problem of knowledge, what is the nature of right conduct and so forth. Instead they wish to focus on so called practical issues, such as how much prosperity or science or satisfaction is produced in a relatively free versus planned society. As if these considerations didn’t have some philosophical dimensions.

Without by any means implying that philosophical issues are exclusively central to a defense of a just system of human community life, it would be of some value to see what philosophy can—indeed, needs to—contribute to such a task. Let me take a brief look at some of the most important of these.

Note All subscribers to the Libertarian Papers Facebook GROUP: I have migrated that group to this Facebook PAGE instead. Please become a fan of this instead of the old group.

The O.P. Alford III Prize in Libertarian Scholarship is a $1000 prize awarded by the Mises Institute each year for the the article published in the preceding volume of Libertarian Papers that best advances libertarian scholarship, as chosen by the journal’s Editor and Editorial Board.

There were forty-four articles were published in Libertarian Papers in 2009. The 2009 award was given by Mises Institute President Doug French at the Austrian Scholars Conference 2010 to Gil Guillory and Patrick C. Tinsley, for their article “The Role of Subscription-Based Patrol and Restitution in the Future of Liberty.” This paper is a pioneering effort to advance the theory of the private production of justice. Guillory and Tinsley integrate and blend the theoretical and the practical, and set forth a detailed and practical plan to begin to establish such private institutions. Their article is creative and bold, informed by existing libertarian theory while extending it. As one member of the journal’s Editorial Board noted, “This paper presents a carefully worked out business plan for organisations that would provide an effective, superior alternative for tax-funded monopolies in deterring common types of crime and  providing restitution to victims of such crimes. It is an original and path-breaking effort not only because of its concern with practical matters but also because of its deep understanding of the issues involved in developing a libertarian theory of social organization. While the paper’s primary focus is on the United States of America, a relatively young but highly developed and complex society, it opens up lines of enquiry and suggests methods that are bound to be of interest to libertarians everywhere.” Guillory and Tinsley are to be commended for their careful, meticulous, and systematic study.

The video of the award presentation is in the first 5 minutes of the following:

[Mises; LP]

Libertarian Papers, Vol. 2 (2010), Art. #8: “Voltairine de Cleyre: More of an Anarchist than a Feminist?,” by Steve J. Shone.

Abstract: The recently rediscovered Michigan-born poet, essayist, and political philosopher, Voltairine de Cleyre (1866-1912) has been celebrated by modern scholars as both an anarchist and a feminist. In this paper, however, it is argued that detailed scrutiny of her writings perhaps suggests de Cleyre, who spent much of her life in Philadelphia, was consistently an anarchist thinker, but that her ideas are not nearly so compatible with feminism as they have been portrayed.

[Mises]

5. “Two Concepts of Rationality”, by Danny Frederick

6. “Is There an ‘Anomalous’ Section of the Laffer Curve?”, by Walter E. Block

7. “How Anticommonism ‘Cemented’ the American Conservative Movement in a Liberal Age of Conformity, 1945–64″, by Lee Haddigan

Four new articles published today in Libertarian Papers, vol. 2 (2010):

1. “Moundsville Penitentiary Reconsidered: Second Thoughts on Hyperreality at a Small Town Prison Tour”, by Allen Mendenhall

Abstract: In 2007, I toured Moundsville Penitentiary, a tourist spectacle that was once—and fairly recently—a working prison. I wrote about the experience as would a journalist, except that my working paradigm was the postmodern theory of hyperreality, which Jean Baudrillard used to describe the complex tensions between reality and illusion. A term of semiotics, hyperreality refers to the disappearance of the referent and its subsequent, oft-replicated simulation. It almost always involves strategically controlled images that distort and conceal true meaning. The International Journal of Baudrillard Studies published my essay in January 2009. Shortly thereafter, many of my libertarian friends and colleagues wrote to ask for clarification or to express their disagreements. In what follows, whether I’m describing hyperreality or speculating about the horror-themed attractions at Moundsville Penitentiary, my principal concern is laying the libertarian foundation for my argument. I do not mean to defend my theories so much as explain them; nor do I insist that my cultural criticism is somehow “the” right way. I simply hope to fill a critical vacuum and to generate conversation not only about the condition of the American prison system writ large, but also about state-run tourist attractions that glorify the history of the sovereign at the expense of real knowledge about human suffering.

2. “Austrian Business Cycle Theory: Are 100 Percent Reserves Sufficient to Prevent a Business Cycle?”, by Philipp Bagus

Abstract: Authors in the Austrian tradition have made the credit expansion of a fractional reserve banking system as the prime cause of business cycles. Authors such as Selgin (1988) and White (1999) have argued that a solution to this problem would be a free banking system. They maintain that the competition between banks would limit the credit expansion effectively. Other authors such as Rothbard (1991) and Huerta de Soto (2006) have gone further and advocated a 100 percent reserve banking system ruling out credit expansion altogether. In this article it is argued that a 100 percent reserve system can still bring about business cycles through excessive maturity mismatching between deposits and loans.

3. “Rejoinder to Carnis on Private Roads”, by Walter E. Block

Abstract: Carnis (2009) is a commentary on a debate I (Block and Block, 1976; Block, 1978c) have been having with Tullock (1976) on the privatization of roads. The present paper is a rejoinder to Carnis (2009) who is highly critical of Tullock’s share of the debate, and offers some luke-warm support of my side of this issue, plus some criticisms of it.

4. “Van Dun on Freedom and Property: A Critique”, by Walter E. Block

Abstract: Van Dun rejects private road ownership on the ground that owners will trap homeowners whose property abuts their thoroughfares. The present paper rejects this claim, and demonstrates that a free enterprise system of private ownership will maximize the welfare of householders, not minimize it.

[Mises]

As noted at Libertarian Papers: For those who like paper, Libertarian Papers is offered in a Print Archive version, at cost, via print-on-demand. Our second print archive is Vol. 1 (2009), Part 2: Articles 18-44 (555 pages). It’s available for $16 (our cost), from Lulu. It may be ordered from our Print Archive page.

(Thanks to Gil Guillory for putting this print archive together.)

Latest Libertarian Papers article: “The Definition of Inflation According to Mises: Implications for the Debate on Free Banking,” by Nicolás Cachanosky.

Abstract: The discussion of what is and what is not inflation has become central among the Austrian economists in their debate between free banking with fractional reserves versus banking with 100-percent reserve. Many Austrians also turn to the writings of Mises to find out what the dean of Austrian Economics thought about inflation, but there is no agreement on the interpretation of his writings either. This article tries to contribute to the interpretation of Mises’ concept of inflation.

[Mises blog cross-post]

Two new Libertarian Papers articles published this week:

41. “Why There are No Dilemmas in Widerquist’s ‘A Dilemma for Libertarians’”, by Lamont Rodgers

Abstract: Karl Widerquist has recently argued that libertarians face two dilemmas. The first dilemma arises because, contrary to what Widerquist takes libertarians to suggest, there is no conceptual link between robust property rights and the libertarian state. Private property rights can legitimately yield non-libertarian states. Libertarians must thus remain committed either to robust property rights or the libertarian state. I call this the “Conceptual Dilemma.”

The second dilemma is empirical in nature. Libertarians can try to undermine state property rights by showing that the means by which all present states came to have their property was unjust. However, doing so would presumably undermine almost all the property claims of private individuals. So the dilemma is that libertarians can undermine state property rights only by undermining individual property rights, on the one hand. On the other, libertarians can vindicate private property rights of individuals only by vindicating state property rights. I call this the “Empirical Dilemma.”

I attempt to diffuse both of these dilemmas here. I argue that the Conceptual Dilemma relies on a misunderstanding of the libertarian’s commitments. In particular, I show that libertarians need not think robust property rights can yield states more extensive than Nozick’s minimal state. I then argue that Widerquist ignores libertarian scholarship aimed at meeting the Empirical Dilemma. Many libertarians have attempted to demonstrate that there are legitimate private property rights which are illegitimately disregarded by current states. The upshot of this discussion is that there are no genuine dilemmas posed by Widerquist’s “A Dilemma for Libertarians.”

42. “Single Trial Probability Applications: Can Subjectivity Evade Frequency Limitations?”, by David Howden

Abstract: Frequency probability theorists define an event’s probability distribution as the limit of a repeated set of trials belonging to a homogeneous collective. The subsets of this collective are events which we have deficient knowledge about on an individual level, although for the larger collective we have knowledge its aggregate behavior. Hence, probabilities can only be achieved through repeated trials of these subsets arriving at the established frequencies that define the probabilities. Crovelli (2009) argues that this is a mistaken approach, and that a subjective assessment of individual trials should be used instead. Bifurcating between the two concepts of risk and uncertainty, Crovelli first asserts that probability is the tool used to manage uncertain situations, and then attempts to rebuild a definition of probability theory with this in mind. We show that such an attempt has little to gain, and results in an indeterminate application of entrepreneurial forecasting to uncertain decisions—a process far-removed from any application of probability theory.

[Mises cross-post]

Libertarian Papers vol. 1 (2009), Art. No. 40:  “A Thought Experiment Comparing Austrian and Keynesian Stimulus Packages“, by Wladimir Kraus

Abstract: Essentially, there are two competing views of how to overcome an economy-wide recession/depression. The Austrian view understands the free-play of competition as the most potent means to overcome the short-run mismatch between an excessive boom-level of nominal wages/prices and depressed crisis-level volume of aggregate spending. In the Keynesian view, the disastrous mismatch between desired saving and planned investment inherent in capitalist economies requires the government to step in and take up the burden of spending to infuse the lacking demand for products and labor.

The thought experiment presented in the paper is designed to provide the reader with a direct comparison of major analytical claims of the two competing approaches to assess the ability of each of the two to affect, positively or negatively, employment, capital accumulation, and the general standard of living/real wages.

[Mises blog cross-post]

Libertarian Papers now has 810 Twitter followers and its Facebook group has 750 members.

Libertarian Papers vol. 1 (2009), Art. No. 38: “Areopagitica: Milton’s Influence on Classical and Modern Political and Economic Thought,” by Isaac M. Morehouse.

Abstract: This article draws general economic arguments against central planning, state licensure and regulation from Milton’s Areopagitica, a 17th Century pamphlet on free-speech. Though Milton’s work was written primarily as a defense for moral man and a warning against religious encroachment by government it provides some of the best and most foundational general arguments, both moral and practical, against government intervention in any field. Milton’s accessible and persuasive style and his ability to combine practical and moral arguments made his work a monumental case against censorship. However, the work has more to offer than a defense of free-speech. Libertarian economists can find in Milton many compelling arguments against central planning, licensure and regulation which have been and should continue to be reiterated.

[Mises blog cross-post]

Libertarian Papers vol. 1 (2009), Art. No. 37: “Minarchy Considered,” by Richard A Garner. This paper, a thorough and withering analysis of defects of minarchist theories, highlights one advantage of the online format of Libertarian Papers: the 62-page length of the article, necessary for the in-depth case the author makes, would have been rejected or arbitrarily pared down by most journals.

Abstract: Whilst some defenders of the minimal, limited state or government hold that the state is “a necessary evil,” others would consider that this claim that the state is evil concedes too much ground to anarchists. In this article I intend to discuss the views of some who believe that government is a good thing, and their arguments for supporting this position. My main conclusions will be that, in each case, the proponents of a minimal state, or “minarchy,” fail to justify as much as what they call government, and so fail to oppose anarchism, or absences of what they call government.

[Mises blog cross-post]

Art. No. 36. “The Logic of Law”, by Frank van Dun

Abstract: The general concept of law as an order of persons and the means (and actions) that belong to them is formalized in an axiomatic system. At this stage, no distinction is made between natural and artificial (“legal”) persons. The aim is to explicate the common logical core of most material theories of law in the Western tradition, without going into their semantic and pragmatic aspects. Then the concept of natural law, as an order of natural persons, is given a similar treatment, so that it becomes possible to investigate the status of natural persons in various theories of law that answer to the general concept of law analysed previously. Finally, the concept of human law is introduced to investigate the status in law of human persons.

Libertarian Papers was launched in late January, 2009. The Editorial Board and I are extremely pleased with our progress to date. At this point it is appropriate to briefly assess our first half-year.

First, we were lucky to acquire such an outstanding Editorial Board, with world-class scholars working in the libertarian tradition–a veritable who’s who of Austro-libertarianism. Second, with the generous support of the Mises Institute, we were able to design this handsome and useful website in a short time.

The journal is already included in a number of leading indexing/abstracting services, including Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory; Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities; International Political Science Abstracts; The Philosopher’s Index; Mises Institute Literature Index; Directory of Open Access Journals; HeinOnline; EBSCOhost; and Gale/Cengage. And we have already established the O.P. Alford III Prize in Libertarian Scholarship, a $1000 prize awarded annually to the best article published in Libertarian Papers in the preceding calendar year.

Just as we hoped, the online format of Libertarian Papers has given us the flexibility, speed, and accessibility readers–and authors–love. I am personally most proud of the quality and variety of the 35 articles we have published to date, which include submissions from young and independent scholars–as well as from established libertarian intellectuals such as Narveson, Higgs, van Dun, Salin, Kukathas, Block, and Machan. And, astoundingly, in our first half year we have published five previously unpublished (or, in the case of Leoni, obscure and unavailable) works by towering thinkers such as Mises, Rothbard, Bruno Leoni, and Adolf Reinach.

Further, although we are an online journal, we have produced our first print archive covering the first 17 articles; a second print archive is in the works. And incredibly, we have recruited an army of libertarian volunteers to turn many of our articles into audio versions for our free podcast, and to help copyedit articles. These (mostly young/student) libertarians are amazing, and give reason for optimism about the future in these dark times.

My personal gratitude, therefore, to our Editorial Board, outside referees, volunteer podcast narrators and copyeditors, the Mises Institute, authors, readers, and other supporters.

Stay tuned for things to come! As always, comments and suggestions–and submissions–are welcome.

Yours in liberty, Stephan Kinsella

[Cross-posted at LP and Mises blog]

Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1 (2009), Art. No. 35: “On The Concept of Causality in the Criminal Law,” by Adolf Reinach.

Abstract: Adolf Reinach (1883–1917) was a German phenomenologist and legal theorist. This is a previously-unpublished translation (by Dr. Berit Brogaard) of Reinach’s 1905 dissertation for his PhD earned under Theodor Lipps at the University of Munich, which was published as “Über den Ursachenbegriff im geltenden Strafrecht” (Leipzig: J. A. Barth 1905), and reprinted in Adolf Reinach, Sämtliche Werke. Textkritische Ausgabe [Collected Works: Critical Edition], Karl Schuhmann & Barry Smith, eds., 2 vols. (Munich: Philosophia Verlag, 1989), pp. 1–43.

For further information on Reinach, see Karl Schumann & Barry Smith, “Adolf Reinach: An Intellectual Biography,” in K. Mulligan, ed., Speech Act and Sachverhalt: Reinach and the Foundations of Realist Phenomenology (Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster: Nijhoff, 1987), pp. 1–27; and “Papers on Adolf Reinach.” In addition, Reinach’s thought was examined in a symposium on “Austrian Law and Economics: The Contributions of Reinach and Rothbard” held at the Ludwig von Mises Institute on March 29–30, 2001, papers resulting from which were published in Vol. 7, no. 4 (Winter 2004) of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.

[Mises cross-post]

Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1 (2009), Art. No. 34: “Feser on Rothbard as a Philosopher,” by Gerard Casey

Abstract: In “Rothbard as a philosopher” (Feser 2006) Edward Feser harshly criticises the philosophical abilities of Murray Rothbard. According to Feser, Rothbard seems unable to produce arguments that don’t commit obvious fallacies or produces arguments that fail to address certain obvious objections. His criticism centres on what he regards as Rothbard’s principal argument for the thesis of self-ownership. In this paper, I attempt to show that Feser’s criticism fails of it purpose and that Rothbard is very far from being the epitome of philosophical ineptitude that Feser takes him to be.

Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1 (2009), Art. No. 33: “Reply to Matt Mortellaro on ‘Block’s Paradox’: Causation, Responsibility, Libertarian Law, Entrapment, Threats and Blackmail,” by Walter Block

Abstract: Matt Mortellaro’s “Causation and Responsibility: A New Direction” is a brilliant Rothbardian analysis that makes numerous new and important points. It also critiques some of my own previous publications. In this piece I focus on Mortellaro’s rejoinders to me, and set forth a defense of my own positions.

Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1 (2009), Art. No. 32: “Gold, the Golden Rule, and Government: Civil Society and the End of the State,” by D.G. White

Abstract: Properly speaking, money and law are natural outgrowths of human society, evolving over time via the voluntary cooperation that lies at the heart of the social enterprise. And as gold and the golden rule have for millennia formed the basis, respectively, of society’s money and law, they accordingly constitute the “twin pillars of civilization,” governing the social enterprise such that, in Mises’s words, “the human species has multiplied far beyond the margin of subsistence.” It stands to reason, then, that if money and law are corrupted, the social enterprise will be corrupted as well. And as this is precisely what the state has done, essentially toppling the twin pillars of civilization, it is necessary to understand what the state is, where it came from, and how it has systematically gone about corrupting money and law, and thus the social enterprise as a whole. For only then can money and law be returned to their rightful owners, and only then can the state be put in its proper place. Which is no place so far as the proper functioning of civil society is concerned.

Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1 (2009), Art. No. 31: “The Ethics of US Monetary Policy in Response to the Financial Crisis of 2007-2009,” by George Bragues

Abstract: Since the financial crisis first erupted in the summer of 2007, the US Federal Reserve has sought to contain negative spillovers into the real economy by dramatically loosening monetary policy. Initially, this was done by lowering its key lending rates, but as the crisis has worsened, and rates have approached closer to zero, it has resorted to expanding its balance sheet in a historically unprecedented fashion. The Fed’s total assets have more than doubled to nearly $2 trillion since the summer of 2007.

Much of the debate surrounding the wisdom of this extraordinary increase in the production of money has revolved around its expediency–in other words, will it actually work to rescue the economy? Very little has been said, at least explicitly, about whether it is the morally right thing to do.

This paper seeks to fill this gap by providing a moral analysis of the Fed’s response to the financial crisis. For this purpose, we apply Aristotelian virtue theory, Lockean natural rights philosophy, Kantian deontology, and Benthamite utilitarianism. The idea is that if a consensus, or a strong majority, can be reached from differing philosophic assumptions and starting points, then the resulting judgment ought to be compelling for all neutral observers. On the basis that the Fed’s efforts are likely to result in a marked rise in inflation, we argue that every one of these four moral theories ultimately renders a negative judgment. As such, we conclude that the Fed is pursuing an immoral course.

Just published: Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1 (2009), Art. No. 30: “Mercantilism, Corporations, and Liberty: The Fallacies of ‘Lochnerian’ Antitrust,” by James Rolph Edwards

Abstract: Progressive legal theorist Daniel Crane has argued that libertarians who believe that monopoly results from government intervention should accept antitrust law because the monopoly problem is a result of state government passage of General Incorporation Acts after the Civil War. The resulting corporate consolidation and control of industry necessitated federal antitrust law as a corrective. Crane has all of this wrong. State permission for incorporation was an ancient tool of mercantile grants of monopoly still in practice by state legislatures in the early 19th century, and the General Incorporation Acts were a major expression of a successful Jacksonian antimonopoly policy.

Volunteer Copyeditor Sought for Libertarian Papers

Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1 (2009), Article No. 28. “Why Pr. Block Is Not Entirely Right and Pr. Tullock Is Completely Wrong: The Case for Road Privatization,” by Laurent A.H. Carnis

Abstract: The private provision of road services and road privatisation has been extensively studied and has generated numerous debates among scholars. Block and Tullock exchanged on the possibility of having a completely privatised road system. Tullock defends the idea such a system is not viable, whereas Block shows a free market for road provision can be easily conceived.

This article proposes a re-examination of this debate and defends a pragmatic and realist approach. Although it shares Block’s conclusions on the possibility of having a free market for road services, it justifies them on a different ground. In fact, the ‘physical obstacle’ argument is less important that it could be previously imagined but it reflects more a socialist tendency to pose the problem.

Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1 (2009), Article No. 26. “On the Possibility of Assigning Probabilities to Singular Cases, or: Probability Is Subjective Too!”, by Mark R. Crovelli

Abstract: Both Ludwig von Mises and Richard von Mises claimed that numerical probability could not be legitimately applied to singular cases. This paper challenges this aspect of the von Mises brothers’ theory of probability. It is argued that their denial that numerical probability could be applied to singular cases was based solely upon Richard von Mises’ exceptionally restrictive definition of probability. This paper challenges Richard von Mises’ definition of probability by arguing that the definition of probability necessarily depends upon whether the world is governed by time-invariant causal laws. It is argued that if the world is governed by time-invariant causal laws, a subjective definition of probability must be adopted. It is further argued that both the nature of human action and the relative frequency method for calculating numerical probabilities both presuppose that the world is indeed governed by time-invariant causal laws. It is finally argued that the subjective definition of probability undercuts the von Mises claim that numerical probability cannot legitimately be applied to singular, non-replicable cases.

Also: Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1 (2009), Article No. 27. “Milton Friedman & the Human Good,” by Tibor R. Machan

Abstract: Milton Friedman is among those who have favored a value free, amoral defense of the free society. Here I discuss his basic reason for doing so, namely, that the claim to moral knowledge implies authoritarian politics. I argue that this is wrong because to act morally cannot require coercing people to do so–to quote Immanuel Kant, “ought” implies “can.”