ArticlePDF Available


The benefits of coauthoring vastly outweigh the costs is my own case. So much so that I have engaged in this form of publication on numerous occasions. The present paper (single authored) sets out the advantages and disadvantages, and relates my several decades long experience with this mode of cooperative writing.
Electronic copy available at:
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
Dr. Walter Block1
The benefits of co authoring vastly outweigh the costs in my own case. So much so
that I have engaged in this form of publication on numerous occasions. The present
paper (single authored) sets out the advantages and disadvantages, and relates my
several decades long experience with this mode of cooperative writing.
Key words:
Publication, cooperation, specialization and the division of labor, productivity,
writer’s block
JEL category: Z0
I. Introduction
Why coauthor a book or an article as opposed to writing it entirely on your
The benefits are many and serious; so much so that I have devoted a large
portion of my writing career to just this type of publication. At present, zx refereed
journal articles, zx other publications, for a total of zx, with zx different coauthors,
appear on my curriculum vitae.2 I think I am the only person with whom Murray N.
Rothbard ever co authored any publication. I have thought long and hard about this
process; I have engaged in it over the years with many different people. The present
essay is devoted to giving the reader a bird’s eye view of co-authoring in the fields of
Austrian economics and libertarian political theory. Section II is devoted to an
exploration of the benefits of co authorship, and section III to the pitfalls. In section
IV I discuss some of the nuts and bolts of how co authorship works, at least in my
own case. Several objections to my thesis are considered in section V, and I conclude
in section V.
II. Benefits of co authorship
What are the benefits of co authorship? One of them is that specialization and
the division of labor operate in intellectual pursuits as they do in all others. This
phenomenon can occur in several contexts. Consider first my publication Block and
Murphy (2003). I had written this article all on my own, and had submitted it to Homo
1 Dr. Walter Block, Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics,
College of Business Administration, Loyola University New Orleans, 6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box
15, Miller 321, New Orleans, LA 70118, c.v.:, office: (504)
864-7934, dept: (504) 864-7944, fax: (504) 864-7970,
2 See appendix
Electronic copy available at:
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
Oeconomicus, a journal not noted for its receptivity to Austro-libertarian themes.3 I
was very happy to receive in return a reasonably positive “revise and resubmit” letter.
Not wanting to be type cast as a writer who could only publish in the “ghetto” of
journals receptive to Austro libertarianism, I was very desirous of complying with the
referee’s and editor’s requests for change. The main revision they suggested was
adding a new section showing how my thesis impacted Selten’s Chain Store Paradox
( and various Folk Theorems
(, both aspects of
game theory. Now, I confess, I had never so much as even heard of this area of
“economics” before. When I looked it up and found out what it meant, I very much
wanted to continue my previous ignorance. The costs of acquainting myself with this
material were too high for me. I could have written another half dozen articles in the
time it would have taken me to familiarize myself with this material, and apply it to
my paper. But this I was unwilling to do. That would mean I would have to give up a
perfectly good revise and resubmit offer, and start anew with a completely different
journal. What to do? Co authorship came to the rescue. I sent out a query to the Mises
web asking if anyone were familiar with game theory in general and Selten’s Chain
Store Paradox and the Folk Theorems in particular. I received four expressions of
interest. I chose Bob Murphy since I knew him best of the applicants, and turned my
paper over to him, offering him co-authorship in return for contributing to the paper in
response to the editor and referees of Homo Oeconomicus. He did so, and the revised
paper was eventually published. Bob contributed far less than 50% of the material that
eventually saw the light of day, but I could not have published this paper in that
journal without his input. From both our points of view, this amalgamation was a
clear win-win situation.4
Another example of this phenomenon is my long and very satisfying
collaboration with Roy Whitehead, a legal scholar. Many of my libertarian writings
appear in law reviews coauthored with him. For those of you not familiar with
publishing in law reviews, there is a certain style required, with which I was not too
familiar, nor adept, nor yet desirous of correcting these shortcomings of mine.
Seemingly every single solitary sentence must be footnoted about five times (I
exaggerate, but only slightly). Successful publishing in this venue requires intimate
familiarity with the extant law, with a myriad of court decisions, and technical
terminology. My own interests lay along these lines not at all; instead, my concern
was to trace the logic of the non-aggression axiom and private property rights, and
apply them to issues such as blackmail, discrimination, criminal law and property
3 In my view, scholarly refereed periodicals that qualify under this rubric are the following: American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, Cato Journal, Econ Journal Watch, Independent Review, Journal
of Ayn Rand Studies, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Reason
Papers, Review of Austrian Economics and Spontaneous Order.
4 While I am on the topic of how much each co-author must contribute to the combined paper, let me
mention Block and Gordon (1985). I had asked David for help with a particular daunting part of the
paper. In a phone call he spoke to me quickly and brilliantly, as per usual in his case; his ideas came to
me over the telephone wires so thick and fast that I couldn’t get his thoughts down on paper to my
satisfaction. I asked him if he would write them up. He agreed, and sent me about 5 single spaced pages
of intensely argued prose. This comprised only some 15% of so of the total words of my paper. I could
have summarized his material, publicly thanked him for it in the paper, and included rendition of it.
This seemed rather churlish to me. Instead, I offered him co authorship, which he accepted. In my view,
he immeasurably improved the paper, in a manner of which I was incapable. In my view, half credit for
something really brilliant, thanks to him, was far better than full credit for the more pedestrian paper
that I was only capable of without his help.
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
rights. Roy had had plenty of success in publishing in law reviews before we joined
forces; I had had far less. In a sense, I therefore needed him more than he needed me.
On the other hand, my ideas were far more radical, off base, ok, weird, than were his.
I, too, contributed to our joint efforts. We each helped each other, indicating once
again the benefits of cooperation.
Our typical article would invariably start out with his review of the literature,
and setting the stage for my crack-pot ideas, which came in the second half of the
paper. Usually, we would each contribute very close to 50% of the total verbiage.
While in social science the rule is you can submit an article to only one journal at a
time, there is no such limitation in scholarly legal publishing. Often, Roy and I would
send a manuscript to 100, 200 and even 300 journals at a time. Our “batting average,”
as can be expected, was very poor. Most offers of ours were rejected. Of course, it
only takes one acceptance for a “hit.” Two experiences stand out. Every once in a
while we would get a letter from an editor saying that one part of the paper was
excellent, while the other was pure gibberish and worthless. If we would just drop the
offending portion of the paper, the other section would be accepted by them for
publication. Typically, Roy’s first part of the paper was deemed acceptable, while my
own contributions were deemed suitable only for the round file. But once in a while,
this assessment was reversed. Needless to say, whenever a letter of this sort came
across our desks, one or the other of us would race around to all our colleagues
complaining how we were “carrying” the other. Happily, we never took up any of
these editors’ offers to publish half a paper; we persevered, and eventually had
everything we ever wrote together accepted for publication.
The other experience was this. On several occasions journal A would accept
our paper. Whereupon, a week or so later, journal B would also announce its
willingness to publish it. Of course, while it is one thing to make multiple submissions,
it is quite another, and totally unkosher, to publish the same paper in two different law
reviews. Having given our word to journal A, we had to reject the offer to publish
from journal B. However, Roy and I usually had several papers “working” at any
given time; that is, making the rounds of journals. On several occasions we were able
to parley the acceptance from journal B for our first paper into an acceptance for an
entirely different one. We would write journal B along the following lines: “Thanks
for accepting our paper I. However, we cannot allow you to publish it, since we have
just recently accepted a publication offer from another journal. However, since you
liked our paper I and cannot publish it, we take the liberty of sending you paper II,
enclosed. If you accept this within two weeks, we promise it to you.”
A less dramatic example of two heads being better than one is that co-
authorship gives both partners an opportunity to bat ideas around, bounce them back
and forth, each one adding something more every time the paper is on his own side of
the net. Did you ever get brain gridlock, or writers’ block? Having a co author to blast
you out of that condition is a great help to writing and publishing.
In this regard, let me tell you the story of my short in years but very powerful
and profound collaboration with Bill Barnett. But a bit of background first. I arrived at
Loyola University New Orleans in the fall of 2001, and was given an office right next
to his. Looking back at that time at my own recent writings, I felt a slight disquiet.
Too many of them for my taste were on libertarian theory, and too few on (Austrian)
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
economics. 5 I was going through my “blackmail” phase, 6 and many of my
publications in the last few years at that time reflected that fact. Even my economics
publications were less than fully satisfactory. They concerned topics I regarded as too
easy: it is like shooting fish in a barrel to make the case against minimum wages or
for markets in used body parts. Also, within economics, my interests were almost
entirely microeconomic, not macroeconomic.7 This was only a slight unhappiness
with my past record, since I am a strong advocate of the view that I should write about,
at any given time, what is the most fun. Hedonism isn’t in it for me. However, I had
slight guilt feelings, I confess.8
Bill’s experience was almost the opposite of mine.9 His publication record as
of 2001 was sparse. Very sparse. But he was an avid reader of the Austrian literature,
and thought deeply and importantly about what he read. He would indeed write about
Austrian economics, virtually his only professional interest, but would not publish on
this topic. Instead, his habit was to generate a paragraph or two on many, many
different praxeological subjects, particularly macroeconomics as it happened, and
then toss them into a drawer.
We began to have lunch with each other, regularly. Pretty much every such
occasion, especially in the early days, resulted in a topic for us to write about. For
many of these cases, the beginning of the paper was the few paragraphs Bill had
already written about the subject. I would write an abstract, put together a
bibliography, make some snarky comments about his contribution, add a bit of my
own material, and send it back to him. Whereupon, he would further expand his
thoughts, edit my material and return it to me. We would bat a paper back and forth
until we both agreed we could do no more. Then we would send it out for publication.
My contribution was to a large part in this way provoking him to expand on his earlier
unpublished work. Possibly, we could have each published material, separately,
equivalent in quality and quantity to what we did together, but I doubt it. Bill needed
someone to light a fire under him and make sure that projects were finished. Say what
you will about my personal flaws, none of them involve laziness or lack of
pushiness.10 I needed someone to lure me to macroeconomics and, yes, teach me that
5 This phrase is a redundancy in my view.
6 I have published about two dozen essays on this topic.
7 I spent my formative macro economic years at Columbia University, where I had two options. First,
Albert “marble-mouth” Hart, who did indeed discuss the subject, but not in any way I could understand.
Second, Arthur Burns, who spoke clearly and even brilliantly, but all he would talk about was his
lunches with Nixon and his other buddies in Washington D.C. I spent a year with the two of them, and
grew to hate and fear macroeconomics as a result.
8 Don’t make too much of this. People of my ethnic persuasion always feel guilty about something.
Maybe it comes from having had a Jewish mother.
9 We were opposites in other ways too. Bill was almost an intellectual hermit. He had read extensively
in the Austro literature, but knew personally virtually none of the people actively engaged in this
school of thought, apart from those of his Loyola colleagues he himself had converted to this
perspective. My reading in Austrianism was less than his (having spent far more of my time than him
in libertarian pursuits), and I knew virtually everyone who was active in the Austrian field, from my
long association with the Mises Institute.
10 Murray Rothbard used to say that “hatred is my muse” as an inspiration for his writing. On this and
so much else I have modeled myself after him.
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
subject. People might be forgiven for seeing me as the senior partner in this
collaboration. After all, before I arrived on the scene, I had already published a ton of
articles and books, Bill practically none at all. After nine semesters of working
together, our output is monumental. I list 19 publications between us in the appendix,
but this includes only actually published or accepted and thus forthcoming works, and
is thus only the tip of the iceberg. In addition, we have at this time no fewer than 17
papers now making the rounds of journals, some of them far in excess of 50 pages
long. We have a further dozen papers now in the writing process, in various stages of
completion. Not too bad for a collaboration of only four and half years. But nothing
could be further from the truth, in terms of our relative contributions, in my opinion.
He is my mentor in virtually all of our cooperative ventures.
Yet another benefit of co authorship is that it demonstrates ability to work
with others. I don’t want to make too much of this; people who publish on their own
are also perfectly capable of collegiality. Nonetheless, this element on a curriculum
vita can indicate to a hiring or promotion committee that an applicant has involved
himself in research with peers.
I cannot leave this section without relating what is for me perhaps the most
personally satisfying series of co-authorships I have ever enjoyed. At the time this
experience first started, I was living with my family in Vancouver, Canada. There was
a meeting of the Western Economics Association in town in 1994, and I was given
permission by my wife to attend on the weekend, but only if I took my son, then aged
16, along with me. Matthew and I were standing in the hall of the hotel in which the
meeting was held when we were accosted by Gordon Tullock. He tapped me on the
shoulder, and then in the forceful manner for which he is widely noted said: “Block, I
hear that you favor private roads, correct?” When I acquiesced, he threw down the
following challenge, which I now relate from memory: “That is the most idiotic idea I
ever heard. Why, if someone were to build a road from say Boston to San Diego, he
could cut the country in two by not allowing any roads to cross his, nor any entrances
or exits between these two cities.” I protested that no rational businessman would
pursue any such policy since it would hardly be profitable. Gordon stomped off
conceding my point but arguing that it nevertheless could happen the way he
proposed. Therefore, only a moron could hold the view I held.
This was Matthew’s first taste of academic give and take, and to say that he
was enthralled would be an understatement. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that
for the next year we discussed practically nothing else apart from this one question. I
don’t like to brag, ok, ok, I do, in this case, but all during that time his questions and
comments were incisive, inventive, and argued passionately. At the end of that period
I wrote up what was later to become Block and Block (1996), and was then
confronted with a problem: is this a single authored piece of mine? Do I merely give
Matthew credit in a footnote for helping me develop the paper? My thought was that
to do any such thing would be really to steal my son’s ideas, and unduly take credit
for them. He was so intimately involved in every aspect of this paper that to do any
less would be a travesty of justice; plagiarism of a sort on my part.
Matthew initially rejected my offer of co authorship mainly on the ground that
no one would believe that a 16 year old could be responsible for contributing to such a
publication. But I asked him if it was true that his involvement merited this sort of
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
treatment, to which he had to agree. I then stated something to the effect that we
should ignore what people might think and just stick to the truth.11
III. Drawbacks of co authorship
There are several arguments in favor of single authorship. First, the Randians
will think less of you if you take on a writing partner. They will likely accuse you of
collectivism, and this would be bitter pill indeed to swallow. The very idea that Ayn
Rand would coauthor anything with anyone is nothing short of preposterous.
Second, tradition. Here is a necessarily partial list of famous Austrian
economists and libertarian theoreticians who never joined any others in any of their
publications: Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, Kirzner, Spooner, Tucker,
Molinari, Acton, Hume, (I need some help in adding to this list).12
Third, problems can sometimes arise with coauthors. Some are very tardy; I
have been made to wait as much as an entire year for other people to keep their
commitments to joint projects. Needless to say, my enthusiasm for future
collaboration with such people decreases, ceteris paribus.
Sometimes there are disagreements that cannot be compromised or talked out.
A case in point occurred in the case of Block and Gordon (1985). I wanted to be very
critical of Nozick on a certain point and Gordon could not see his way clear to
agreeing with me on it. If we included this material, Gordon would have been forced
to take a position against his will.13 If we deleted it, I would have been an unhappy
camper, since I very much wanted this critique to appear in the paper. How did we
solve this seemingly intractable problem? Footnote 50 of Block and Gordon (1985, 48)
reads as follows: “David Gordon wishes to thank Robert Nozick for very helpful
suggestions, and wishes to deny any responsibility for the material which appears in
section IV after this point.” This may have raised a few eyebrows, but, speaking in
behalf of Gordon, this was a simple and elegant solution to the problem. Where there
is a will, there is usually a way.
Another problem of this sort took place in Barnett and Block (unpublished A).
The paper as a whole is highly critical of the Hayekian triangle, utilized by Austrian
luminaries such as Rothbard and Garrison. This notwithstanding, I still have
something of a soft spot for the use of this geometrical form, while Barnett does not;
at all. We tried to fashion compromise language on this, but did not succeed. In
similar manner, we each stated our own positions, as follows. In our concluding
section, these words appear:
11 Although I had hopes that my son would follow me in my career in Austro libertarianism, he chose a
very different path. But I think this advice will serve him, or anyone else for that matter in good stead,
no matter what calling is chosen.
12 Rothbard’s claim to be included on this list is “marred” by Rothbard and Block (1987). However,
this is only an introductory editorial for a journal, not at all a substantive work of research. As far as the
latter are concerned, the joys of co authorship were unknown to this giant of liberty and Austrian
13 In my view, all coauthors are responsible for every single word that appears under their names,
whether they wrote the specific passage or not.
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
“Here is a statement on this matter from the second listed co-author: … The
triangle is a very valuable heuristic device even for those of us who have been weaned
off this geometrical diagram. Even though the present paper discusses numerous
difficulties with this device, and serious ones at that, I do not recommend a complete
jettisoning of the triangle. When used with full knowledge of its drawbacks, it can still
have some, albeit, limited, advantages.”
Several paragraphs below this appear the following words:
“Here is a statement on this matter from the first listed co-author: … In sum,
the Hayekian triangle is not so much simple as it is simplistic, which should not come
as a surprise as it is an attempt to illustrate the immeasurable complexity of a real
world economy with a simple aggregative structure such as the triangle, or, in slightly
more advanced mathematical terms, with a single 2-variable function. Regrettably, the
Hayekian triangle is fatally flawed, and is of no use whatsoever. It should be
jettisoned on the part of all serious researchers. It should be of interest only to
Then there are those who bring shirking to an art form. I am not talking about
those who do less than 50%, 40% or even 30%. These ventures rarely result in exact
equality in my experience. I am talking about cases where a boss of mine in the long
distant past insisted, with the not so veiled threat of firing me, of putting his name on
a piece written entirely by myself. I don’t much like taking credit for the work of
others; nor, giving it away either.
Third, it is never clear, at least to outsiders, as to which of several people
mentioned in a publication were responsible for making what contributions. This can
be important in academia. I once served on a tenure committee where the candidate
offered only coauthored articles. There were a sufficient number of them, and they
were of high quality, but I and several other committee members had great misgivings
since we could never be sure of who was riding on whose coat tails. The answer here,
I think, is that if you engage in this practice, limit it to a minority of your publications.
Otherwise it will be reasonably asked of you, are you capable of publishing anything
on your own?
IV. Nuts and bolts of co authorship
Who can and/or should ask whom to coauthor? Who, properly, makes the
initial overture? It is easy between peers; anyone should feel comfortable asking
anyone else. I and probably most people would feel uncomfortable inviting a person
clearly more senior than they to coauthor a paper; I suppose that is reasonable.
Chutzpahnick that I am, I never would have had the temerity to ask someone like
Murray Rothbard, Israel Kirzner, Friedrich Hayek or Ludwig von Mises, all of whose
professional lives overlapped with my own, to coauthor anything with me. On the
other hand, I have several times been recently approached by relative newcomers to
the Austro-libertarian camp for this purpose, and have felt flattered rather than
anything else.
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
In my own case, although 1981 was the first year I engaged in cooperative
writing projects, I didn’t get started in a big way14 until the mid 1990s. I began with a
whole slew of co-authorships with my students at Holy Cross that started hitting the
presses in 1996. At that time I didn’t think student essays would be acceptable with
refereed journals, so I confined my aim to places like The Freeman, The Chalcedon
Report, Consent, and various libertarian publications. The next step, was to try peer
reviewed periodicals. The idea for this came to me in a light bulb sort of a way. I was
sitting at my desk with a whole pile of student term papers in front of me. They were
destined, I think, to be published in the same non-refereed venues. On the phone (this
was in the days before I got involved in e mail) was a frantic editor of a law review
who I had just had to disappoint; his was the second journal that had accepted a paper
of mine, I could not allow him to publish it, and he was desperate for material at the
last moment. He pleaded with me: didn’t I have anything else I had written I could
send to him. Remember, there, staring me in the face was a large pile of student
essays. I told this law review editor, that I would get something to him in a few days.
Thus began my practice of publishing articles coauthored with students in
professional journals.15 16
I think it a good practice to try always to bend over backwards to give more
credit, and/or accept less, than I think I deserve. When in doubt, leave your name out.
I remember once going over a paper in galley format that I had co authored with Bill
Barnett. I was reading it carefully, one last time before publication, looking for typos,
as a good author would. The trouble was, I didn’t see enough of me in the piece to
justify co authorship, so I demanded that my name be taken off the paper. Bill has
upon several occasions followed the same policy.
Females, as always, present unique problems; in this case for co authorship. I
have coauthored articles with only three different females who were not students.17
Part of the reason for this is that there are very few women Austro libertarian
academics.18 Another reason is that in an academia earmarked with heightened, nay,
hysterical sensitivity toward possible sexual harassment abuses, a male has to be
courageous indeed to take on a female coauthor on a solo basis.19 For coauthoring is
14 From 1981 until 1995, I was involved in only 24 joint publication projects, an average of only 1.6 per
15 Bob McGee, with whom I also co-authored on numerous other occasions, was extraordinarily helpful
to me in working on these student papers.
16 Due to my outspoken nature, and radical views, I have had a spotty academic career, being fired
from far more than my fair share of institutions, and not attaining tenure until I was 60 years old.
However, my ability to coauthor refereed journal articles with students has been an important
compensating differential for me. Several jobs were offered to me on this basis, as administrators are
highly impressed by this practice.
17 Attempting to coauthor papers with male students only would not have been fair. Minor point: it
would have also gotten me fired at Holy Cross where I had no tenure.
18 In all three of these cases, it turned out that I was “chaperoned” by one or more additional coauthors.
I imply nothing whatsoever about these three women. I am making a statement not about any specific
individuals; rather, about a pernicious mindset that now pervades academia.
19 Autobiographical note: I have never had even the hint of any such difficulties with any of my female
coauthors. But that does not stop my paranoia about the subject.
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
an intimate process. There is give and take; there is sometimes, gulp!, shouting
involved. The last thing any professor wants to be involved in is a sexual harassment
hearing. This, of course, has negative implications for the mentoring of female
colleagues. But the cause is not chauvinist piggery. The fault lies very much
Does the co author’s office have to be located down the hall, a situation I
enjoyed with Roy Whitehead for four years, or right next door, my present situation
with Bill Barnett? Judging from my own experience, this is a definite help, but it is
hardly required. Roy’s example shows it is possible to work at long distance. We
worked together on many projects during my years at the University of Central
Arkansas (1997-2001), but are still going strong some five years later. But it is better
to be up close and personal, at least in my experience, as shown by the fact that many
of my co authorships were with colleagues when we were both at the same university.
And this is to say nothing of the many, many collaborations I have had with people
located thousands of miles away from me.
What is the maximum number of coauthors that is workable? The most
coauthors I have involved myself with in any one paper is 6 (Anderson, et. al. 2001).
However, here are articles sometimes shorter in length than the list of their hundreds
of co authors. This occurs mainly in physics and chemistry. For example, Abbot, et.
al. (2005) lists about 450 coauthors from almost 50 different institutions.20 I don’t
suggest anything like that. Indeed, the whole idea of that many coauthors falls out of
my realm of experience. My practice is to work with one coauthor at a time; then,
when the paper is set to the satisfaction, work with a third or fourth coauthor,
ultimately giving everyone a veto power over each word, or trying to mediate
disagreements. Even in the case of Anderson, et al. (2001) this process had to be
severely truncated.
V. Objections
One possible objection to the thesis put forth above concerns individualism.
Murray (2003, 394, emphasis added in bold) defines autonomy (which in his
view, undoubtedly correct in my opinion, helps promote human excellence) as
follows: “A major stream of human accomplishment is fostered by a culture that
encourages the belief that individuals can act efficaciously as individuals, and
enables them to do so.” He continues (2003, 394-395): “Autonomy refers to a
person’s beliefs that it is in his power to fulfill that meaning through his own acts.
Own acts is a crucial element, for the creative act is both audacious and individual by
nature. This is not equivalent to saying that great accomplishment always occurs
among people acting alone. Scientific knowledge is advanced by sharing ideas with
colleagues, and there is the occasional example of a great collaboration in the arts. But
creativity ultimately comes down to small, solitary acts in which an individual
conceives of something new and gives it a try, without knowing for sure how it will
turn out.” Murray (2003, 399, emphasis added in bold) states: “Even in today’s Japan,
a century and a half after that nation began Westernizing, it is commonly observed
that Japan’s technological feats far outweigh its slender body of original discoveries.
20 I owe this cite to Allan Walstad.
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
One ready explanation for this discrepancy is the difference between progress that can
be made consensually and hierarchically versus progress that requires individuals
who insist that they alone are right.
From this one might readily infer that Murray opposes co authorship. True, he
makes an exception for “the occasional example of a great collaboration in the arts.”
But this would not appear, for him, to carry over in to the sciences. Although Murray
(2003) explicitly eschews the social sciences, my main area of interest, it is highly
possible that he sees individual acts, not those of groups of scholars, as the last best
hope for progress in this domain as well.21
This could readily be taken as a criticism of the burden of this paper, extolling
the virtues and benefits of collaborative intellectual activity. In some sense it is, and,
also, in some sense it is valid. Co authorship may not be best for everyone. Some
people are just better at singles tennis or handball, others are more comfortable with
doubles. Methodological individualism I think serves best in this context.
21 Although quite possibly not, as the magisterial Herrnstein and Murray (1994) was of course a
collaboration of Murray and his co author, Herrnstein.
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
Abbot, B., et. al. 2005.First all-sky upper limits from LIGO on the strength of periodic gravitational
waves using the Hough transformPhysical Review D (Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology-
15), November 2005, Volume 72, Number 10;
Block, Walter and David Gordon. 1985. "Extortion and the Exercise of Free Speech Rights: A Reply to
Professors Posner, Epstein, Nozick and Lindgren," Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol. 19, No. 1,
November, pp. 37-54;
Barnett, William and Walter Block. Unpublished A. “On Hayekian Triangles”
Murray, Charles. 2003. Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences,
800 B.C. to 1950. New York: Harper Collins
Herrnstein, Richard J., and Murray, Charles. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in
American Life, New York: The Free Press
Rothbard, Murray N. and Walter Block. 1987. "Introductory Editorial." The Review of Austrian
Economics, Vol. 1, pp. ix-xiii
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
Appendix: Walter Block’s Co Authorships (only articles in refereed journals are numbered)
1. Block, Walter and William Barnett II. Forthcoming. “Austrian Economics, Praxeology and
Intervention,” Advances in Austrian Economics
2. Barnett, William, Walter Block and Michael Saliba. Forthcoming, 2005. "Perfect Competition: A
Case of ‘Market-Failure,’” Corporate Ownership & Control. Vol. 2, No. 4, summer, p. 70-75
3. Block, Walter and Robert Lawson. Forthcoming. "Promotion, Turnover and Preemptive Wage
Offers: Comment on Bernhardt and Scoones. Humanomics.
4. Block, Walter and William Barnett II. Forthcoming. “A positive program for laissez faire capitalism”
Issue 19, The Journal of Corporate Citizenship.
5. Block, Walter and William Barnett II. 2006. “The economic case for laissez faire capitalism.”
Humanomics. Vol. 21, No.3-4
6. Kilchrist, Erica and Walter Block. Forthcoming. “Distributive Justice.” International Journal of
Social Economics
7. Tinsley, Patrick, N. Stephan Kinsella and Walter Block. Forthcoming. “In Defense of Evidence and
Against the Exclusionary Rule: A Libertarian Approach” forthcoming, Southern University Law
8. Whitehead, Roy and Walter Block. Forthcoming. “Christian Landlords and the Free Exercise Clause:
Sinners Need Not Apply,” The Akron Law Review (Roy has to edit);
9. Barnett, William II, and Walter Block. Forthcoming. "Rothbard on V shaped average and total cost
curves." Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
10. Block, Walter, William Barnett II and Joseph Salerno. Forthcoming, 2006. “Relationship between
wealth or income and time preference is empirical, not apodictic: critique of Rothbard and Hoppe,”
Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 19, No. 2
11. Block, Walter and William Barnett, II. Forthcoming. “Reply to Hummel on Austrian Business
Cycle Theory.” Reason Papers
12. Barnett, William II and Walter Block. Forthcoming. "On Gallaway and Vedder on Stabilization
Policy" Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
13. Barnett, William II and Walter Block. Forthcoming. “Professor Tullock on Austrian Business Cycle
Theory,” Advances in Austrian Economics
14. Barnett, William II and Walter Block. 2005. In Defense of Fiduciary Media - A Comment or
What’s Wrong with “Monopoly” (or Play) Money? Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics; Vol. 8,
No. 2, Summer, pp. 55-69
15. Delery, Jeanette and Walter Block, “Corporate Welfare,” Markets and Morality, Vol. 9, No. 2
16. Block, Walter, William Barnett II and Gene Callahan. Forthcoming. “The Paradox of Coase as a
Defender of Free Markets,” NYU Journal of Law & Liberty
17. Barnett, William II, and Walter Block. Forthcoming, 2005. “Mises, Rothbard and Salerno on
Costs.” Corporate Ownership & Control, September, No. 1, Vol. 3.
18. Saliba, Michael, Nick Capaldi and Walter Block. Forthcoming. “Justice: Plain Old, and Distributive;
Rejoinder to Charles Taylor.” Human Rights Review
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
19. Block, Walter, Jerry Dauterive and John Levendis. Forthcoming. “The Iron Law of Wages is
Rusty.” Journal of Income Distribution
20. Saliba, Michael, Walter Block and John Levendis. Forthcoming. “Tariffs on Steel: Special Interests
vs. Free Enterprise,” The Indian Journal of Economics and Business
McGee, Robert W. and Walter Block. Forthcoming. “An Ethical and Economic Look at Insider
Trading.” Ordered Anarchy: Festschrift Essays in Honor of Anthony de Jasay. Aschwin de Wolf, ed.
Arlington, VA: Singularity Press.
19. Block, Walter and Matthew Block. 2005. “Private Parks and Walkways Under Free Enterprise.”
Ethics, Place and Environment: A Journal of Philosophy & Geography. Vol. 8, No. 2, June, pp 201-
20. Christie Laporte, and Walter Block. 2005. “A Free-Market Environmentalist Approach to
Genetically Modified Foods.” Santa Clara Journal of International Law; Vol. III, Issue, No. 2.;;
21. Barnett, William II, and Walter Block. 2005. “Money: Capital Good, Consumers’ Good, or
(Media of) Exchange Good?” Review of Austrian Economics. 18 (2): 179-194;
22. Block, Walter and Roy Whitehead. 2005. “Compromising the Uncompromisable: A Private
Property Rights Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy,” Appalachian Law Review, 4 (2) 1-
Block, Walter and Stephan Kinsella. 5/24/05. “Federalism.”
23. Whitehead, Roy and Walter Block. 2004. “The Boy Scouts, Freedom of Association and the Right
to Discriminate: A Legal, Philosophical and Economic Analysis,” Oklahoma City Law Review, Vol.
29, No. 3, Fall, pp. 851-882;
24. Walker, Deborah, Jerry W. Dauterive, Elyssa Schultz and Walter Block. 2004. "The Feminist
Competition/Cooperation Dichotomy: A Critique," Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 55, No. 3,
December, pp. 241-252
25. Whitehead, Roy, Catherine Gould and Walter Block. 2004. “The value of private water rights: from
a legal and economic perspective,” Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal. Vol. 9, No. 2, pp.
26. Whitehead, Roy and Walter Block. 2004. “Pleasing the Interested Investor: The Rational Basis for
the Compensation of Corporate Executive Officers,” Managerial Finance, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 93-111
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
27. Barnett, William and Walter Block. 2004. “On the Optimum Quantity of Money,” Quarterly
Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 39-52;
28. Goolsby, Jerry R. and Walter Block. 2003-2004. “Education and Bureaucracy: National Testing
and School Privatization,” Texas Education Review;;
29. Whitehead, Roy and Walter Block. 2003. “Taking the assets of the criminal to compensate victims
of violence: a legal and philosophical approach,” Wayne State University Law School Journal of Law
in Society Vol. 5, No. 1, Fall, pp.229-254
30. Block, Walter and Gene Callahan. 2003. “Is There a Right to Immigration? A Libertarian
Perspective,” Human Rights Review. Vol. 5, No. 1, October-December, pp. 46-71
31. Block, Walter, Katherine Wingfield and Roy Whitehead. 2003. “Re-Evaluating America’s Failing
Drug Control Laws: A Legal, Philosophical, and Economic Proposal,” Oklahoma City Law Review,
Vol. 28, No. 1, Spring, pp. 119-159;
32. Dreuil, Emile, James Anderson, Walter Block and Michael Saliba. 2003. “The Trade Gap: The
Fallacy of Anti World-Trade Sentiment,” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 45, No. 3, July, pp. 269-281
33. Block, Walter and Robert Murphy. 2003. “The Economics of the Very Long Run,” Homo
Oeconomicus, Vol. XIX, No. 4, pp. 507-517
Block, Walter and William Barnett. 2003. “Voluntary Taxes: Abusive Language and Politicians,” July
34. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann and Walter Block. 2002. "Property and Exploitation," International Journal
of Value-Based Management, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 225-236;
35. Miller, James T., and Walter Block. 2002. “Broken Windows: A Perspective on the Japanese
Economy,” Asian Economic Review, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 20-25
36. Whitehead, Roy and Walter Block. 2002. “Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A Property Rights
Perspective,” University of Utah Journal of Law and Family Studies, Vol. 4, pp.226-263;
37. Block, Walter. William Barnett II and Stuart Wood. 2002. “Austrian Economics, Neoclassical
Economics, Marketing and Finance,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Summer, Vol. V, No.
2, pp. 51-66;
38. Whitehead, Roy and Walter Block. 2002. “Environmental Takings of Private Water Rights: the
Case for Full Water Privatization,” Environmental Law Reporter, October, pp. 11162-11176
39. Clay, Megan and Walter Block. 2002. “A Free Market for Human Organs,” The Journal of Social,
Political and Economic Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2, Summer, pp. 227-236
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
40. Dirmeyer, Jenny, Fred Tulley and Walter Block. 2002. "Should Airlines be Subsidized in an
Emergency? The Libertarian View," The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, Spring,
Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 65-81
41. Horton, Marshall and Walter Block. 2001-2002. “Was Marx an Adjunct? An Analysis of the
Proposition That Part-time Faculty Are Economically Exploited,” Texas Education Review, Vol. 1, No.
IV, Winter, pp. 43-46.
42. Evans, Jason and Walter Block. 2002. “Labor Union Policies: Gains or Pains?” Cross Cultural
Management, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 71-79
Block, Walter. David Lorch, Bobby Midkiff and Keith Reid. 2002. “Social Security Privatization”
Economic Affairs Journal, March, pp. 17-23
Block, Walter and William Barnett II. 2002. “The Living Wage: What’s Wrong,” Ideas on Liberty,
December, Vol. 52, No. 12, pp.23-24
43. Whitehead, Roy and Walter Block. 2001. “Should the Government be Allowed to Engage in Racial,
Sexual or Other Acts of Discrimination?” Northern Illinois University Law Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, Fall,
pp. 53-84
44. Block, Walter and Gary Anderson. 2001. “Blackmail, Extortion and Exchange,” New York Law
School Law Review, Vol. 44, No. 3-4, pp. 541-561.
45. DiLorenzo, Tom and Walter Block. 2001. “Constitutional Economics and the Calculus of
Consent,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3, Summer, pp. 37-56;
46. Block, Walter and Tom DiLorenzo. 2001. "The Calculus of Consent Revisited," Public Finance
and Management, Vol. 1, No. 3; <>;;
47. Anderson, William, Walter Block, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Ilana Mercer, Leon Snyman and
Christopher Westley. 2001. “The Microsoft Corporation in Collision with Antitrust Law,” The Journal
of Social, Political and Economic Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1, Winter, pp. 287-302;
Block, Walter and Brian Branch. 10/29/01. “Wanted: Parking Efficiency,” New Orleans City Business,
pp. 24-26
Block Walter and William Barnett. 2001. “Arm the Coeds,” November 10.
Block, Walter and William Barnett II. 2001. “Required Gun Possession the Answer to Attacks,” Loyola
University New Orleans The Maroon, November 30, p. 9; “Arm the Coeds,”;
48. McCormick, Paul and Walter Block. 2000. "The Minimum Wage: Does it Really Help Workers,"
Southern Connecticut State University Business Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, Fall-Spring, pp. 77-80.
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
49. Block, Walter and Tom DiLorenzo. 2000. “Is Voluntary Government Possible? A Critique of
Constitutional Economics,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, Vol. 156, No. 4,
December, pp. 567-582
50. Block, Walter and Matthew Block. 2000. “Toward a Universal Libertarian Theory of Gun (Weapon)
Control,” Ethics, Place and Environment, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 289-298
51. Block, Walter, Roy Whitehead, Clint Johnson, Mana Davidson, Alan White and Stacy Chandler.
1999-2000. “Human Organ Transplantation: Economic and Legal Issues,” Quinnipiac College School
of Law Health Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 87-110;
52. Block, Walter. Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. 2000. “The Second Paradox of
Blackmail,” Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 3, July, pp. 593-622
53. Cussen, Meaghan and Walter Block. 2000. “Legalize Drugs Now! An Analysis of the Benefits of
Legalized Drugs,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 59, No 3, July, pp. 525-536
54. Whitehead, Roy and Walter Block. 2000. “Environmental Justice Risks in the Petroleum Industry,”
William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, Winter, pp. 67-88;
55. Whitehead, Roy and Walter Block. 2000. “Direct Payment of State Scholarship Funds to Church-
Related Colleges Offends the Constitution and Title VI,” Brigham Young University Journal of Public
Law, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 191-207;;,%201999.doc
56. Block, Walter and Guillermo Yeatts. 1999-2000. “The Economics and Ethics of Land Reform: A
Critique of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace’s ‘Toward a Better Distribution of Land: The
Challenge of Agrarian Reform,’” Journal of Natural Resources and Environmental Law, Vol. 15, No. 1,
pp. 37-69
Betts, Gail and Walter Block. 2000. “Entrepreneurship: The Spirit of Capitalism,” The Chalcedon
Report, No. 421, August, pp. 19-21
57. Block, Walter, Robert W. McGee and Kristin Spissinger. 1999. "No Policy is Good Policy: A
Radical Proposal for U.S. Industrial Policy," Glendale Law Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 47-58
58. LaBletta, Nicole and Walter Block. 1999. "The Restoration of the American Dream: A Case for
Abolishing Welfare," Humanomics, Vol. 15, No 4, pp. 55-65
59. Coffey, Daniel and Walter Block. 1999. "Postponing Armageddon: Why Population Growth Isn't
Out of Control," Humanomics. Vol. 15, No 4, pp. 66-79
60. Yoon, Yeomin, Robert W. McGee and Walter Block. 1999. “Antidumping and the People’s
Republic of China: Five Case Studies,” Asian Economic Review, Vol. 41, No. 2, August, pp. 208-217
61. Young, Andrew and Walter Block. 1999. “Enterprising Education: Doing Away with the Public
School System,” International Journal of Value Based Management, Vol.12, No. 3, pp. 195-207;
62. Whitehead, Roy, Walter Block and Lu Hardin. 1999. “Gender Equity in Athletics: Should We
Adopt a Non-Discriminatory Model?” The University of Toledo Law Review, Vol. 30, No. 2, Winter,
pp. 223-249;
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
63. Whitehead, Roy and Walter Block. 1999. “Mandatory Student Fees: Forcing Some to Pay for the
Free Speech of Others,” Whittier Law Review, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 759-781;
64. Block, Walter and Robert W. McGee. 1999. “Blackmail as a Victimless Crime,” Bracton Law
Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 24-48;
65. Block, Walter and Roy Whitehead. 1999. “The Unintended Consequences of Environmental
Justice,” Forensic Science International, Vol. 100, Nos. 1 and 2, March, pp. 57-67;
67. Block, Walter and Robert W. McGee. 1999. “Blackmail from A to Z: A Reply to Joseph
Isenbergh’s ‘Blackmail from A to C,’” Mercer Law Review, Vol. 50, No. 2, winter, pp. 569-601
Block, Walter. William Kordsmeier and Joseph Horton. 1999. “The Failure of Public Finance,”
Journal of Accounting, Ethics and Public Policy, Vol.2, No. 1, winter, pp. 42-69
Block, Walter and Christopher E. Kent. 1999. “Blackmail,” Magill’s Legal Guide, Pasadena, CA:
Salem Press, p. 109.
Co editor
The Journal of Libertarian Studies, co-editor (with David Gordon, Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Joseph
Salerno), from Vol. XI, No. 2, 1994, to Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter 1998-1999.
The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, co-editor (with Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Joseph
Salerno), from Vol. 1, No. 1, Spring 1998 to Vol. 2, No. 2, Summer 1999.
Kerr, Jonathan and Walter Block. 1999. "Should Drugs be Illegal?" West Coast Libertarian, Vol. 19,
No. 2, April, pp. 6-7.
68. Johnson, Clint, Walter Block and Thomas Oxner. 1998. "Notes on Health Care Financing and Free
Markets," Journal of Accounting, Ethics and Public Policy, Vol. 1, No. 3, Summer 1998, pp. 488-502.
69. Block, Walter. Joseph Horton and Debbie Walker. 1998. “The Necessity of Free Trade,” Journal of
Markets and Morality, Vol. 1, No. 2, October, pp. 192-200;;
70. Block, Walter. Joseph Horton and Ethan Shorter. 1998. “Rent Control: An Economic
Abomination,” International Journal of Value Based Management, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 253-263
71. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann, with Guido Hulsmann and Walter Block. 1998. "Against Fiduciary Media,"
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 19-50,;; translated into Spanish and published as "Contra los
medios fiduciaros," Libertas, No. 30, May 1999, pp. 23-73.
Gries, Michael and Walter Block. 1998. "Predator: Anti-Dumping Regulations," Consent, #29, March,
pp. 9-10.
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
Holloway, Jason and Walter Block. 1998. "Should Drugs Be Legalized?" West Coast Libertarian, Vol.
18, No. 2, April, pp. 6-7
72. Yoon, Yeoman, Robert McGee and Walter Block. 1997. “Do we need protectionism,” Asian
Economic Review, Vol. 39, pp. 237-
73. McGee, Robert W. and Walter Block. 1997. "Ethical Aspects of Initiating Anti Dumping Actions,"
International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 599-608;
74. Block, Walter and Robert W. McGee. 1997. "Must Protectionism Violate Rights?" International
Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 393-407;
Co editor:
The Review of Austrian Economics, co-editor (with Murray N. Rothbard), from Vol. I, 1987 to Vol.
VIII, No. 1, 1994; co-editor (with Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Joseph Salerno) from Vol. VIII, No. 2,
1995 to Vol. 10, No. 2, 1997.
McGee, Robert W. and Walter Block. 1997. “Academic Tenure: An Economic Critique,” in DeGeorge,
Richard T., ed. Academic Freedom And Tenure: Ethical Issues, Rowman & Littlefield, 1997, a reprint
of McGee, Robert W. and Walter Block. 1991. "Academic Tenure: A Law and Economics Analysis,"
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 14, No. 2, Spring, pp. 545-563
Boland, Brian and Walter Block. 1997. "Outsourcing: A Benefit to Workers and to all of Society," The
Freeman, January, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 38-40,; reprinted in the
Delaware County Sunday Times, 19 January 1997; Daily Reporter, Martinsville, IN, 20 January 1997;
Human Events, 7 February 1997; El Economista, (Mexico), February 1997; Cotidianul, (Romania),
May 1997; La Hora, (Guatemala), 10 April 1997; Ngabo, (Uganda), April 1997.
Cadin, Michelle and Walter Block. 1997. "Privatize the Public Highway System," The Freeman,
February, Vol. 47, No. 2., pp. 96-97;
English, Patrick and Walter Block. 1997. "Overpopulation or Lack of Economic Freedom: Which is the
Real Cause of Poverty?" Fundamentals of Prosperity, Essay #2, February, Center for World Capitalism
of the James Madison Institute, pp. 1-11.
Bandoch, William and Walter Block. 1997. "New Technology: The End of the World as We Know
It . . . and We Should Be Thankful," The Freeman, March, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 158-159,; reprinted in La Hora, (Guatemala), 12 June 1997; The
Market Place, (Uganda) 25-31 July 1997; The Social Critic, Spring 1997; Enterprise, 17 April 1997;
Washington Times, 15 May 1997; Ngabo, (Uganda), 2 June 1997; Chalcedon Report, No. 386,
September 1997, p. 25.
Badavas, Vicky and Walter Block. 1997. "The $4.25/Hour Syndrome," The Chalcedon Report, May,
No. 382, pp. 17-19.
Callen, Mark and Walter Block. 1997. "The Blessings of Saving Under Free Enterprise," Consent, May,
#27, pp. 6-8.
Larson, Elizabeth and Walter Block. 1997. "Bottom Rung," Consent, May, #27, pp. 8-9.
McDonough, Gene and Walter Block. 1997. "The Evils of Rent Control," Consent, #27, May, pp. 10-
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
Cushing, Michelle and Walter Block. 1997. "Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward," The Chalcedon
Report, No. 385, August, pp. 20-22.
Regnery, Frederick and Walter Block. 1997. "Capitalism: Friend or Foe?" The Chalcedon Report,
September, No. 386, pp. 21-22.
Mulcahy, Tim and Walter Block. 1997. "Affirmative Action: Institutionalized Inequality," Freeman,
October, Vol.47, No. 10, pp. 613-614,
Sohr, Kevin and Walter Block. 1997. “Minimum Wage,” Freeman, Vol. 47, No. 11, November, pp.
Spissinger, Kristin and Walter Block. 1997. "Free Trade Is The Cure," Consent, #28, December, pp. 9-
75. Lawson, Robert and Walter Block. 1996. "Government Decentralization and Economic Freedom,"
The Asian Economic Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, December, pp. 421-434
76. Block, Walter and Matthew Block. 1996. “Roads, Bridges, Sunlight and Private Property Rights,"
Journal Des Economistes Et Des Etudes Humaines, Vol. VII, No. 2/3, June-September, pp. 351-362;
77. Block, Walter and Kenneth Garschina. 1996. "Hayek, Business Cycles and Fractional Reserve
Banking: Continuing the De-Homogenization Process," Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 9, No. 1,
pp. 77-94;;
Gwartney, James, Robert Lawson and Walter Block. 1996. Economic Freedom of the World, 1975-
1995 Vancouver, B.C. Canada: the Fraser Institute
Block, Walter, Michael Walker, James Gwartney and Robert Lawson. 1996. “El concepto y la medida
de la libertad economica,” Libertad Economica Y Progresso: Un Marco Conceptual, Madrid: Estudios
Layden, William R. and Walter Block. 1996. "Health Security," Nomos, July, No. 47/48, pp. 38-45.
O'Leary, Ellen and Walter Block. 1996. "The Right to Bear Arms," The Chalcedon Report, August, No.
373, pp. 26-28.
Amalfitano, Theresa and Walter Block. 1996. "The Candle Makers: Technology as the Cause of
Unemployment?" Consent, September, #26, pp. 4-5.
Ragan, Matthew and Walter Block. 1996. "The Bright Side of Failure," The Freeman, October, Vol. 46,
No. 10, pp. 687-690,; reprinted in La Hora, (Guatemala), 8
June 1997; Ngabo, (Uganda), 21 April 1997; Contidianul, (Romania).
Sordillo, Alizabeth and Walter Block. 1996. "Free Trade Is Economically Efficient," Fundamentals of
Prosperity, Essay #1, October, Center for World Capitalism of the James Madison Institute, pp. 1-7.
Santoriello Andrea and Walter Block. 1996. "Externalities and the Environment," The Freeman,
November, Vol. 46, No. 11, pp. 755-756,; reprinted in El
Diario, (Bolivia), July 1997.
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
Gwartney, James, Robert Lawson, and Walter Block. 1996. “Economic Freedom of the World,”
Madison Review, v. 1, n. 3, Spring, pp. 35-39.
78. Anderson, Gary M. and Walter Block. 1995. "Procrastination and Obedience: A Reply to Akerlof,"
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 54, No. 2, April, pp. 201-215; abstracted in Sage
Public Administration Abstracts, Vol. 22, No. 3, October, p. 411
79. McGee, Robert W. and Walter Block. 1994. "Pollution Trading Permits as a Form of Market
Socialism and the Search for a Real Market Solution to Environmental Pollution," Fordham University
Law and Environmental Journal, Vol. VI, No. 1, Fall, pp. 51-77
80. Anderson, Gary M. and Walter Block. 1993. "Guaranteed Annual Unemployment: a comment on
Derek Hum and Wayne Simpson," The Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 11, No. 1, Part 2, January, pp.
Co editor:
The Journal of Labor Economics, guest co-editor (with Michael A. Walker), Vol. 11, No. 1, Part 2,
Gwartney, James, Walter Block and Robert Lawson. 1992. "Measuring Economic Freedom", Rating
Global Economic Freedom, Stephen T. Easton and Michael A. Walker, eds., Vancouver: The Fraser
Institute, pp. 153-229.
Block, Walter and Robert W. McGee. 1992. "Insider Trading," Business Ethics and Common Sense,
Robert W. McGee, ed., New York: Quorum Books, pp. 219-229.
82. McGee, Robert W. and Walter Block. 1991. "Academic Tenure: A Law and Economics Analysis,"
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 14, No. 2, Spring, pp. 545-563; reprinted as McGee,
Robert W. and Walter Block. “Academic Tenure: An Economic Critique,” in DeGeorge, Richard T.,
ed., 1997. Academic Freedom And Tenure: Ethical Issues, Rowman & Littlefield, 1997;
Block, Walter and George Lermer, eds. 1991. Breaking the Shackles; the Economics of Deregulation:
A Comparison of U.S. and Canadian Experience, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute
Block, Walter, ed. 1990. Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation, Vancouver: The Fraser
Institute; Bennett, Jeff and Walter Block, eds., Australian edition, Reconciling Economics and the
Environment, Melbourne: Australian Institute for Public Policy, 1992, ed.; translated into Portuguese as
Economia e Meio Ambiente: A Reconciliacao, Airton Ortiz, ed., Porto Alegre, Brasil: Instituto de
Estudios Empresariais, 1992.
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
83. McGee, Robert W. and Walter Block. 1989. "Information, Privilege, Opportunity and Insider
Trading," Northern Illinois University Law Review, December, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-35.
84. Block, Walter and Michael A. Walker. 1988. "Entropy in the Canadian Economics Profession:
Sampling Consensus on the Major Issues," Canadian Public Policy, Vol. XIV. No. 2, June, pp. 137-
Block, Walter and Michael A. Walker. 1988. Lexicon of Economic Thought, Vancouver: The Fraser
Block, Walter and Llewellyn H. Rockwell, eds. 1988. Man, Economy and Liberty: Essays in Honor of
Murray N. Rothbard, Auburn University, The Mises Institute.
Rothbard, Murray N. and Walter Block. 1987. “Introductory Editorial,” Review of Austrian Economics,
Vol. 1, pp. ix-xiii;
Block, Walter and Irving Hexham, eds. 1986. Religion, Economics & Social Thought, Vancouver: The
Fraser Institute.
85. Block, Walter and David Gordon. 1985. "Extortion and the Exercise of Free Speech Rights: A
Reply to Professors Posner, Epstein, Nozick and Lindgren," Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, Vol.
19, No. 1, November, pp. 37-54;
Block, Walter and Michael A. Walker. 1985. Focus on Employment Equity: A Critique of the Abella
Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.
Block, Walter and Donald Shaw, eds. 1985. Theology, Third World Development and Economic
Justice, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.
Block, Walter. Geoffrey Brennan and Kenneth Elzinga, eds. 1985. Morality of the Market: Religious
and Economic Perspectives, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.
Block, Walter and Michael A. Walker, eds. 1984. Taxation: An International Perspective, Vancouver:
The Fraser Institute.
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
Block, Walter and Michael Walker. 1984. "Taxation: International Evidence," Taxation: An
International Perspective. Walter Block and Michael A. Walker, eds., Vancouver: The Fraser Institute,
pp. 3-19.
Block, Walter and Michael A. Walker, eds. 1982. Discrimination, Affirmative Action and Equal
Opportunity, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.
86. Block, Walter and Walter E. Williams. 1981. "Male-Female Earnings Differentials: A Critical
Reappraisal," The Journal of Labor Research, Vol. II, No. 2, Fall, pp. 385-388;
Block, Walter and Edgar Olsen, eds. 1981. Rent Control: Myths & Realities, Vancouver: The Fraser
Appendix: Number of different co authorships or co editorships (in parentheses):
Professional Colleagues:
Gary Anderson (3) Professor of economics at California State University, Northridge
William Anderson (1) Assistant Professor of economics at Frostburg State University
William Barnett (19) Colleague at Loyola University New Orleans
Jeff Bennett (1) Professor of Environmental Management, Australian National University
Matthew Block (3) my son, who works in the computer industry; Redmond WA
Geoffrey Brennan (1) Professor of economics at Australian National UniversityGene Callahan (2) PhD
candidate in philosophy at the London School of Economics
Nick Capaldi (1) Colleague at Loyola University New Orleans
Jerry Dauterive (2) Colleague at Loyola University New Orleans
Tom DiLorenzo (4) Professor of economics at Loyola College Maryland
Kenneth G. Elzinga (1) Professor of economics at University of Virginia Charlottesville
Jerry R. Goolsby (1) Colleague at Loyola University New Orleans
David Gordon (2) Mises Institute
James Gwartney (4) Professor of economics at Florida State University, Tallahassee
Lu Hardin (1) President of the University of Central Arkansas
Irving Hexham (1) Professor of Religion, University of Calgary, Canada
Hans Hoppe (6) Professor of economics at University of Nevada, Law Vegas
Joseph Horton (3) Colleague at University of Central Arkansas
Marshall Horton (1) Professor of economics at Southern Arkansas University
Guido Hulsmann (1) Professor of economics at University of Angers, France
Clint Johnson (2) Colleague at University of Central Arkansas
Christopher E. Kent (1) Editor, Magill’s Legal Guide
Stephan Kinsella (3) Lawyer in private practice
William Kordsmeier (1) Colleague at University of Central Arkansas
James Lawson (6) George H. Moor Chair in Business & Economics, Capital University
George Lermer (1) Professor of economics at Lethbridge University, Canada
John Levendis (2) Colleague at Loyola University New Orleans
Robert McGee (14) Professor of economics at Berry College
Ilana Mercer (1) Independent Scholar, US-based libertarian writer
Robert Murphy (1) Assistant Professor of economics at Hillsdale College
Edgar Olsen (1) Professor of economics at University of Virginia Charlottesville
Thomas Oxner (1) Colleague at University of Central Arkansas
Joseph Salerno (4) Professor of economics at Pace University
Michael Saliba (4) Colleague at Loyola University New Orleans
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
Llewellyn H. Rockwell (1) Mises Institute
Murray Rothbard (1) University of Nevada, Las Vegas (1926-1995)
Elyssa Schultz (1) Colleague at Loyola University New Orleans
Donald Shaw (1) Dean, University of Regina, Canada
Deborah Walker (1) Professor of economics at Denver University
Christopher Westley (1) Assistant Professor of economics, Jacksonville State University
Roy Whitehead (16) Colleague at University of Central Arkansas
Walter E. Williams (1) Professor of economics at George Mason University
Stuart Wood (1) Colleague at Loyola University New Orleans
Guillermo Yeatts (1) Independent Scholar and Businessman, Argentina
Yeoman Yoon (2) Professor of finance and business at Seton Hall University
Holy Cross College (1991-1997)
Theresa Amalfitano
Vicky Baderas
William Bandoch
Brian Boland
Michelle Cadin
Michelle Cushing
Mark Callen
Daniel Coffey
Meaghan Cussen
Patrick English
Kenneth Garschina
Michael Gries
Jason Holloway
Jonathan Kerr
Nicole LaBletta
Elizabeth Larson
William R. Layden
Paul McCormick
Gene McDonough
Tim Mulcahy
Ellen O'Leary
Matthew Ragan
Frederick Regnery
Andrea Santoriello
Alizabeth Sordillo
Kevin Sohr
Kristin Spissinger (2)
Patrick Tinsley
Andrew Young (now assistant professor of economics at Ole Miss)
University of Central Arkansas (1997-2001)
Gail Betts
Mana Davidson
Jason Evans
Bobby Midkiff
James T. Miller
Keith Reid
Ethan Shorter
Leon Snyman
Debbie Walker
Alan White
Loyola University New Orleans (2001- pres)
James Anderson
Brian Branch
Walter Block
СписаниеДиалог”, 3. 2007
Megan Clay
Jeanette Delery
Jenny Dirmeyer
Emile Dreuil
Catherine Gould
Erica Kilchrist
Christie Laporte
Fred Tulley
Katherine Wingfield
David Lorch, my nephew, Harvard University
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
For several years, the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) annual reports large set of nations around the world. 1 This index is designed to measure the degree to which a nation's policies and institutions protect its citizens' economic freedom. In this article, we explain the basic methodology employed in constructing the index and summarize the study's findings. What Is Economic Freedom? Any attempt to quantify economic freedom must begin with a solid theoretical under-standing of the concept. The EFW report holds the key ingredients of economic freedom to be personal choice, voluntary exchange, freedom to compete, and protection of person and property. Institutions and policies are consistent with economic freedom when they provide an infrastructure for voluntary exchange and protect individuals and their property from aggressors who seek to use violence, coercion, and fraud to seize things that do not belong to them. Legal and monetary arrangements are especially important: governments promote economic freedom when they provide a legal structure and a law-enforcement system that protect the property rights of owners and enforce contracts in an even-handed manner. They also enhance economic freedom when they facilitate access to sound money. In some cases, the government itself may provide a currency of stable value. In other instances, it may simply remove obstacles that retard the use of sound money that is 1 The most recent report is Gwartney and Lawson 2004. In this article, we draw heavily from the first chapter of that report.
Full-text available
T he latest on the minimum-wage front, brought to us by the academic minions of "social justice," is a private, not a public, effort to raise the pay of low-wage workers. Emanating first from presti-gious institutions of higher learning such as Harvard and Yale, this initiative has spread like wildfire to colleges all around the country. The gist of the program is to raise the wages of janitors and others at the lower end of the pay distribution to $10 or $12 an hour, and to boycott suppliers who do not undertake a similar program. A minimum wage of $5.15, it would appear, might be all well and good, but something twice that amount is necessary if it is to be a "living wage." It is entirely legitimate for a private uni-versity to offer whatever pay scale it wishes and to boycott any businesses whatsoever, for any reason it chooses. However, institu-tions of higher learning are supposedly dis-tinguished by rational dialogue, and it is in this vein that we wish to register an objec-tion to this unwise policy. Let us consider several reasons for declin-ing to pay labor more than is necessary to attract a sufficient number of job applicants and for ending discrimination against firms that pay market wages. 1. Universities attempt to raise funds from the entire business community (among many other constituents). Making invidious com-parisons between firms—singling out those that operate under market conditions for implicit condemnation—can hardly be conducive to this end. But this is mere prag-matism, unworthy perhaps of even being considered. 2. The program will likely not have its intended effect of boosting the wages of low-skilled workers. Suppose the typical univer-sity subcontractor pays its unskilled employ-ees $6 an hour and the "social justice" wage is $10. People in this stratum of the labor force would give their eyeteeth for such a position, since it pays 40 percent more than the market says the job is worth. Would not everyone and his uncle making under $10 gladly take up such a job? How will the lim-ited number of spaces be allotted to the vast hordes of people? Would it unduly challenge credulity to think that some of the few selected would be willing to make a side pay-ment to the hiring staff? Or that this might be demanded of applicants? Or that nepo-tism, favoritism, and other forms of discrim-ination might arise? After all, if prices are not allowed to allocate labor resources, other criteria will be used. 3. If you want to give money to poor peo-ple, why not just go ahead and do it? Why tie it to their jobs of all things? That is, why Walter Block ( holds the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair in Economics at Loyola University in New Orleans. William Barnett II ( is an associate professor of economics at the university.
Praxeology is defined by Rothbard (1962, p. 64) as “The formal implication of the fact that men use means to attain various chosen ends.” While men use means to attain ends in areas other than economics (e.g., war, voting), the dismal science is the only deeply elaborated subdivision of praxeology. Rothbard (1962, p. 63) defines praxeological economics in contrast withpsychology [and]…the philosophy of ethics. Since all these [three] disciplines deal with the subjective decisions of individual human minds, many observers have believed that they are fundamentally identical. This is not the case at all. Psychology and ethics deal with the content of human ends; they ask, why does the man choose such and such ends, or what ends should man value? Praxeology and economics deal with any given ends and with the formal implications of the fact that men have ends and employ means to attain them.
The debate over gun control has taken place in complete isolation from geographical considerations. It focuses on, for the most part, whether legalization would bring about more or fewer accidental deaths, and murders of innocents, than prohibition, and in the USA on the precise meaning of the second amendment to the Constitution. However, these deliberations, argue the authors of the present paper, can be enriched by incorporating into them a spatial context. When this is done, and they are combined with the property rights philosophy of libertarianism, some very different conclusions are drawn.
Rothbard (1993, pp. 638-45) refuted the important economic fallacy that excess capacity is a normal consequence of profit maximizing behavior by businesses in some industries when they are in long-run equilibrium. And, in so doing provided a manifest example of misuse of mathematics in modern economics.According to standard theory, given a U-shaped, average-cost curve (ACC), in equilibrium, a firm whose demand is perfectly competitive will operate at the point where its horizontal demand curve is just tangent to the ACC; i.e., at the point where average cost (AC) is at its minimum. Alternatively, a firm in an industry characterized by monopolistic competition will face a downward-sloping demand curve. In that case, again in equilibrium, the firm will operate where the demand curve is just tangent to the U-shaped ACC. However, in that case, the point of tangency will occur at lesser quantity than that at which AC is at its minimum.