Walter Block: "I would say that 75% of libertarians favor Israel" regarding the Gaza invasion

I regard the Mises Institute as the preeminent Austro-libertarian group.  However, that's only the Mises Institute.  There's the Cato Institute which is much more pro-Israel, Reason Foundation is much more pro-Israel...  I would say that 75% of libertarians favor Israel and 25% don't, which is roughly my assessment of the overall population of the U.S.

~ Walter Block, "Is Zionism a Libertarian Movement?," Gilad Alper, 1:01:00 mark, May 18, 2024

Walter Block on the difference between how Hamas and Israel treat civilians in the conflict

Yes, Israel made mistakes here, there and everywhere.  They're imperfect people, sue 'em.  But who's worse?  It's like a drop in the bucket compared to the whole bucket.  Yes, Israel made a mistake here and there, but the Arabs, they purposely target civilians!  On October 7th they were aiming at civilians, Israel never aimed at civilians.  Yes, there was collateral damage and it was regretted.  And it was due to the fact that they imbed themselves and use them as shields.  So [there is a] gigantic, humongous difference between Israel and its enemies and Israel is very much on the good side.

~ Walter Block, "Block, Futerman on Hoppe, Israel and Hamas," Individualist Origins, 1:06:25 mark, May 15, 2024

Hans-Hermann Hoppe on Walter Block's defense of Israel's retaliation for the October 7 Hamas attack

Grotesque.  If anything, this assessment of Block’s only indicates that he has lost any sense of measure and proportion...  [H]is call for total and unrestricted war and the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent civilians is actually the complete and uninhibited rejection and renunciation of the non-aggression principle that constitutes one of the very cornerstones of the Rothbardian system.  To believe that Rothbard would have given serious consideration to his WSJ piece is simply ridiculous and only indicates that Block’s understanding of Rothbard is not nearly as good as he himself fancies it to be.  The Rothbard I knew would have denounced the piece in no uncertain terms as monstrous and considered it an unforgivable aberration and disgrace.

~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "On Open Letter to Walter E. Block," LewRockwell.com, January 31, 2024

Walter Block and Alan Futerman on Israel's response to the October 7 Hamas attack

The West needs to understand that to defend human life and dignity, it isn’t enough to claim to side with Israel.  It needs to understand what this means: total, unrestrictive support.  That is nothing less than allowing this beleaguered country to defend itself fully.  To recognize that Hamas needs to be destroyed for the same reason and by the same method that the Nazis were.  Israel is entitled to do whatever it takes to uproot this evil residing next to it.  And, more important, that once it begins to proceed in that direction, it won’t be demonized for defending that which is the core of Western civilization and which its enemies hate the most: the love of everyone’s right to human life, dignity and happiness. 

In other words, it needs to support a complete, total and decisive Israeli victory.  If this implies an overwhelming, unprecedented use of military force, so be it.  Hamas is and will be responsible for any civilian casualties.  Cause and effect.  They created their own destruction, and its consequences.

~ Walter Block and Alan Futerman, "The Moral Duty to Destroy Hamas," The Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2023

(Note: emphasis mine)

Walter Block on prostitution

Some of these things should be stigmatized.  We shouldn't use heroin.  Heroin is not good.  I'm against using heroin and I'm against prostitution.  Look, I have a wife.  I have a mother; well, she's passed away.  I have a sister, a daughter.  I wouldn't want any of them to be a prostitute.  I think prostitution is very bad.  So I want it to remain stigmatized.  I want young people to be told, "Don't engage in prostitution.  There are better ways of relating with each other."  I'm sort of conservative in that way.  So I don't really want to destigmatize it, but I don't want prostitutes to be arrested, because that would violate the non-aggression principle.  I want to promote liberty.

~ Walter Block, "Defending the Undefendable - Walter Block Returns!," interview with The Politicrat, 12:30 mark

Murray Rothbard on the scapegoats of American society defended by Walter Block

All right, some readers might concede, we grant that these people [the pimp, prostitute, scab, slumlord, etc.] are performing valuable economic services.  Why is the pimp or the medical quack any more "heroic," and therefore in a sense more moral, than other, more respectable producers: the grocers, clothiers, steel manufacturers, etc."?  The explanation is precisely wrapped up in the extreme lack of respectability of Professor Black's scapegoats.  For the grocer, the steel producer, and the others are generally allowed to go about their business unmolested, and indeed earn respect and prestige from the fellow members of the community.  Not so these scapegoats; for not only are their economic services unrecognized, but they face the universal bile, scorn and wrath of virtually every member of society, plus the additional restrictions and prohibitions that governments have almost universally placed upon their activities.  Scorned and condemned unmercifully by society and state alike, social outcasts and state-proclaimed outlaws, Professor Block's collection of scapegoats go about their business nevertheless; heroically proceeding to confer their economic services in the teeth of universal scorn and outlawry.  They are heroes indeed; made so by their unjust treatment at the hands of society and of the state apparatus.

Heroes yes, but not necessarily saints.  When the author confers the moral stature of hero on the scab, the usurer, the pimp, and so on, he does not mean to imply that these activities are intrinsically more moral than any other.  In a free market, and in a society that treats the usurer, slumlord, and sweat shop employer precisely the same just way as it treats other occupations, they would no longer be heroes, and they would certainly be no more moral than anyone else.  Their heroic status, for Professor Block, is solely a function of the unjust restrictions that other men have been placing upon them.  It is the happy paradox of this book that if its implicit advice is followed, and the men and women described in these pages are no longer treated to scorn and legal coercion, then and only then will they no longer be heroes.  If you don't like the idea of a usurer or a slumlord being a hero, then the only way to deprive him of this stature is to remove the shackles that misguided people have placed upon him.

~ Murray N. Rothbard, forward to Defending the Undefendable (1976)

Walter Block on morality vs. the marketplace

This book does not claim that the marketplace is a moral economic institution.  True, the profit and loss business system has brought mankind a plethora of consumer goods and services unkown in the entire history of the world.  These benefits are the envy of all peoples not fortunate enough to live under its banner.  Given the tastes, desires, preferences of the ultimate consumer, the market is the best means known to man for providing for his satisfaction.

But the marketplace also produces goods and services – such as gambling, prostitution, pornography, drugs (heroin, cocaine, etc.) alcohol, cigarettes, swinger’s clubs, suicide abetment – whose moral status is, to say the least, highly questionable and in many cases highly immoral. The free enterprise system, thus, cannot be considered a moral one. Rather, as a means of consumer satisfaction, it can only be as moral as are the goals of the market participants themselves. Since these vary widely, all the way from the completely depraved and immoral to the entirely legitimate, the market must be seen as amoral – neither moral nor immoral.

The market in other words is like fire, or a gun, or a knife or a typewriter: a splendidly efficient means towards both good and bad ends.  Through free enterprise we are capable of achieving virtuous actions, but also their very opposite as well.

How, then, can we defend the immoral activitys of some market actors?  This stems from the philosophy of libertarianism, which is limited to analyzing one single problem.  It asks, under what conditions is violence justified?  And it answers, violence is justified only for purposes of defense, or in response to prior aggression, or in retaliation against it.  This means, among other things, that government is not justified in fining, punishing, incarcerating, imposing death penalties on people who act in an immoral manner - as long as they refrain from threatening or initiating physical violence on the persons or property of others.  Libertarianism, then, is not a philosophy of life.  It does not presume to indicate how mankind may best live.  It does not set out the boundaries between the good and the bad, between the moral and the immoral, between propriety and impropriety.

The defense of such as the prostitute, pornographer, etc., is thus a very limited one.  It consists solely of the claim that they do not initiate physical violence against non-aggressors.  Hence, according to libertarian principles, none should be visited upon them.  This means only that theses activities should not be punished by jail sentences or other forms of violence.  It decidedly does not mean that these activities are moral, proper or good.

~ Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable, introduction

Walter Block on protectionism

Protectionism is a misnomer.  The only people protected by tariffs, quotas and trade restrictions are those engaged in uneconomic and wasteful activity.  Free trade is the only philosophy compatible with international peace and prosperity.

~ Walter Block

Friedrich Hayek on Walter Block's libertarian classic

Looking through Defending the Undefendable made me feel that I was once more exposed to the shock therapy by which, more than 50 years ago, the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position.  Even now I am occasionally at first incredulous and feel that this is going too far, but usually find in the end that you are right.  Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good, even if they hate it.  A real understanding of economics demands that one disabuses onself of many dear prejudices and illusions.  Popular fallacies in economics frequently express themselves in unfounded prejudices against other occupations and, in showing the falsity of these stereotypes, you are doing a real service, although you will not make yourself more popular with the majority.

~ Friedrich Hayek, commentary about Defending the Undefendable, 1991 edition

Walter Block on the occupation in Afghanistan

Then there is the debacle of Afghanistan.  The U.S. poured billions in treasure, and thousands of precious lives, into an attempt to turn that country into an Asian version of New Hampshire.  They learned nothing from the failure of the French, and then our American forebears, to accomplish something similar in Vietnam, nor from the Russian decades-long failure in Afghanistan to impose institutions that are foreign to the Afghans.  The U.S. military, instead of focusing on preparedness, turned its attention on a whole host of mission-irrelevant politically correct social justice concerns.  Perhaps that is all to the good if it lessens U.S. adventurism abroad.  Unfortunately, this is not bloody likely.  This institution is like a small weak boy who is mouthy and derisive: not a good combination.

~ Walter Block, "It is all the wokesters' and government's fault," American Thinker, September 1, 2021

Atilla Mert Sulker on the great productivity of Walter Block

Here is a man – even at 78 years young – who continues churning out well thought out papers like a machine. He doesn’t seem to waste a minute of his life and always remains incredibly productive. He’s already published some 500 papers, both independently and with others. He’s sparked viciously rigorous debates in academic circles that have resulted in endless cycles of rejoinders.

I think it’s safe to say that Walter Block is what business magnate Dan Peña would call a “high performance person” – “being all that you can be, every day, 24/7, 365.” It’s hard not be inspired by such individuals. At the end of the day, the same lessons of discipline and high-performance apply, regardless of how one leads their life.

Whether one wants to go into the realm of business, academia, or entrepreneurship, the Walter Block mindset is one worth adopting.

~ Atilla Mert Sulker, "In Defense of Walter Block - Bulwark Against Leftist Academic Takeover," LewRockwell.com, June 29, 2020

Kevin Duffy on the left targeting Walter Block

The left has absolutely no interest in discussing ideas (with a few exceptions). Their agenda is to suppress speech through intimidation (shouting, looting, and ultimately the state).

Sadly, in the Land of the Free, libertarians account for a tiny part of the population (5%?). Yet the left despises libertarians. Why? We promote non-violence and have the audacity to apply the same principle to government. Now these people are targeting one of the world's greatest living libertarians, Walter Block. DISGUSTING.

Wake up, America. If Dr. Block gets run out of academia, your freedoms won't be far behind.

~ Kevin Duffy, Facebook post, July 1, 2020

Tom Woods defends Walter Block against cries of racism and sexism

By far the most prolific living libertarian is Walter Block, who has written countless books and close to 600 scholarly articles — an accomplishment I am uncertain if any academic in any discipline could match today, or ever.

Walter has also co-authored over 100 scholarly articles with students. That’s unheard of. What an extraordinary advantage that gives Walter’s students over their peers — how many students of other professors can say they published an article in an academic journal while they were undergraduates?

Loyola University, New Orleans, where Walter teaches, must be beaming with pride, right?

Well, a group of students are currently circulating a petition to get Walter fired on the grounds that — you’ll never guess — he is a “racist” and a “sexist.”

This is because, like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, Walter Block does not believe that “discrimination” is the universal, no-analysis-necessary explanation for the various disparities between blacks and whites, or men and women. And of course he is quite correct to take that position, since the “discrimination” view is ridiculous on its face to anyone familiar with the data. (Sowell’s overlooked book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? dismantles the “discrimination” school.)

~ Tom Woods, "Now the Savages Are Trying to Take Down One of Our Own," LewRockwell.com, June 23, 2020

Tom Woods and Walter Block in chess duel

Walter Block endorses Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson

People instinctively are anti-market.  And it takes an effort of will, or understanding, or knowledge of the sort that Henry Hazlitt so magnificently supplies [in Economics in One Lesson] to pierce through this ignorance.

Walter Block, interview with Jeffrey Tucker about Economics in One Lesson, (9:04), 2008

Walter Block on how the truth about Friedman, Reagan, and the Great Depression is distorted by language

Walter: Well, we spoke of being free to choose earlier; that’s of course the title of a famous book by Milton Friedman, an economist highly regarded by most free-market type people. I must say a word or two about Milton Friedman.

Q: Okay, shoot. Metaphorically; no sectarian violence allowed.

Walter: Murray Rothbard used to say that mainstream economists specialize in what they are bad in. If you look at Milton Friedman’s work, you can see that he’s very good on free trade, minimum wage, rent control, occupational licensure, and other topics…

Q: But he was a monetary interventionist.

Walter: Yes, he was a monetary interventionist – and that was his main thing, apart from educational vouchers, which are also a horrible idea. If someone says “monetarist,” who will most people come up with by association? Milton Friedman. He was just horrible on this; he favored fractional reserve banking, he favored the Fed, all sorts of government monetary and tax intervention, and he had the audacity to name his book Free to Choose. But when people were free to choose, what did they choose? Gold. He’s a disgrace!

Q: Don’t hold back, Walter – tell us what you really think.

Walter: [Chuckles] Well, I don’t mind disagreement. We have to have Krugmans and Keyneses – but the problem is that everyone thinks Friedman was a champion of free enterprise, and people will come to you, and me, and Doug, and tell us were wrong because “even Milton Friedman concedes…”

Q: It’s like the problem arising from Ronald Reagan using libertarian rhetoric to get elected, and then overseeing the biggest acceleration of growth in government ever seen until that time. That had typical results of too much regulation and government spending, and people think that the Reagan years showed that free enterprise doesn’t work. Just as people are taught that the Great Depression proves that “unbridled laissez-faire capitalism” doesn’t work – when, in fact, the Depression was the result of government intervention into the economy.

Walter: Precisely.

~ Walter Block, "Walter Block: Doug Casey is an Optimist," LewRockwell.com, April 13, 2013

Walter Block on politics and hypocrisy

Most conservatives (and left liberals too) hate the government, except when it is bombing innocents abroad. Most western socialist intellectuals decry income inequality, as they drive their Mercedes, vacation abroad and swill down expensive wines. And then there are the environmental watermelons (red on the inside, green on the outside) who whine about the plight of the planet while jetting from one conference to another, which they should not do, if their own analysis of the problem is correct.

~ Walter Block, "You Are a Rotten Kid," LewRockwell.com, February 27, 2010

Walter Block on charity vs. welfare

[T]here are those who view charity as a blessed state, and consider contributions a moral obligation. Such people would make charity compulsory, if they could. If, however, an act is made compulsory, it is not charity, for charity is defined as voluntary giving. If an individual is forced to give, he is not a contributor to charity, he is the victim of a robbery.

~ Walter Block, Defending the Undefendable, p. 124