<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Libertarian Papers &#187; Latest Articles</title>
	<atom:link href="http://libertarianpapers.org/archive/latest-articles/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://libertarianpapers.org</link>
	<description>An Online Journal for Libertarian Scholarship</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 18:53:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>8. &#8220;Christian Anarchism: Communitarian or Capitalist?&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/8-salter-christian-anarchism/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=8-salter-christian-anarchism</link>
		<comments>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/8-salter-christian-anarchism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:31:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew McCaffrey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 4 (2012)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=2165</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Alexander W. Salter Abstract: I build on Christoyannopoulous’s (2011) compendium of Christian anarchist thought to shed light on the divergence between Christian anarcho-communitarians and Christian anarcho-capitalists. The anarcho-communitarians believe the institution of private property is contrary to the Word of Christ, while the anarcho-capitalists hold it is justifiable. I show that the anarcho-communitarians misunderstand [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Alexander W. Salter</p>
<p><a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-8.pdf"><img title="View the .pdf for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/pdf.png" alt="View the .pdf for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a> <a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-8.doc"><img title="View the .doc for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/doc.png" alt="View the .doc for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a><span id="more-2165"></span></p>
<p>Abstract: I build on Christoyannopoulous’s (2011) compendium of Christian anarchist thought to shed light on the divergence between Christian anarcho-communitarians and Christian anarcho-capitalists. The anarcho-communitarians believe the institution of private property is contrary to the Word of Christ, while the anarcho-capitalists hold it is justifiable. I show that the anarcho-communitarians misunderstand the nature of property, rendering them unable to reconcile an apparent contradiction between Christ’s command to renounce violence and His violent cleansing of the temple. The Christian anarcho-capitalists, drawing upon the philosophy of natural law, face no such difficulty. Although their position is far from unassailable, the Christian anarcho-capitalist paradigm is currently the only theoretically consistent interpretation, and will remain so unless the Christian anarcho-communitarians can discover and advance a new theoretical framework.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/8-salter-christian-anarchism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>7. &#8220;Book Review: Lewis D. Solomon The Privatization of Space Exploration&#8220;</title>
		<link>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/7-book-review-the-privatization-of-space-exploration/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=7-book-review-the-privatization-of-space-exploration</link>
		<comments>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/7-book-review-the-privatization-of-space-exploration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew McCaffrey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 4 (2012)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=2119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Timothy D. Terrell]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Timothy D. Terrell</p>
<p><a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-7.pdf"><img title="View the .pdf for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/pdf.png" alt="View the .pdf for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a> <a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-7.doc"><img title="View the .doc for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/doc.png" alt="View the .doc for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a><span id="more-2119"></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/7-book-review-the-privatization-of-space-exploration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>6. &#8220;Francis Wemyss-Charteris-Douglas: Champion of Late-Victorian Individualism&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/6-francis-wemyss-charteris-douglas/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=6-francis-wemyss-charteris-douglas</link>
		<comments>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/6-francis-wemyss-charteris-douglas/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 18:18:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew McCaffrey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 4 (2012)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=2102</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Alastair M. Paynter Abstract: By the 1880s it had become clear that the intellectual tide in Britain was turning against the idea of a minimal state. Under the influence of the New Idealists, the Liberal Party, once the champion of individual liberty, had changed into an organ for interventionist legislation. Challenging this movement was [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Alastair M. Paynter</p>
<p><a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-6.pdf"><img title="View the .pdf for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/pdf.png" alt="View the .pdf for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a> <a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-6.doc"><img title="View the .doc for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/doc.png" alt="View the .doc for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a><span id="more-2102"></span></p>
<p>Abstract: By the 1880s it had become clear that the intellectual tide in Britain was turning against the idea of a minimal state. Under the influence of the New Idealists, the Liberal Party, once the champion of individual liberty, had changed into an organ for interventionist legislation. Challenging this movement was an assortment of anti-collectivists including Old Liberals, Tories, and radical individualists. Spearheading the defence of individualism was the 10th Earl of Wemyss, Francis Wemyss-Charteris-Douglas. Most famous for his role in the formation of the Liberty and Property Defence League, Wemyss worked tirelessly in parliament to obstruct legislation deemed inimical to liberty, as well as to organise a mass educational effort to instruct the public about the errors of collectivist philosophy and policy. This paper examines the role Wemyss played within late Victorian individualism and considers how the melding of traditionalism and individualism provided an intellectual home for libertarianism on the Right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/6-francis-wemyss-charteris-douglas/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>5. &#8220;Man and Matter: How the Former Gains Ownership of the Latter&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/5-bylund-man-and-matter/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=5-bylund-man-and-matter</link>
		<comments>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/5-bylund-man-and-matter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:05:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew McCaffrey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 4 (2012)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=2085</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Per Bylund Abstract: This study seeks to investigate the nature of ownership of land, and how the right to its control and use can be inferred from self-ownership as a premise. Hence, the question asked is how ownership (of land) can be justified considering the nature of man from a natural rights point of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Per Bylund</p>
<p><a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-5.pdf"><img title="View the .pdf for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/pdf.png" alt="View the .pdf for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a> <a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-5.doc"><img title="View the .doc for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/doc.png" alt="View the .doc for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a><span id="more-2085"></span></p>
<p>Abstract: This study seeks to investigate the nature of ownership of land, and how the right to its control and use can be inferred from self-ownership as a premise. Hence, the question asked is how ownership (of land) can be justified considering the nature of man from a natural rights point of view. The starting point for the argument is self-ownership as being, where man is identified as an indivisible entirety with inalienable rights to his self emanating from his complex nature. This identification is the point of departure in examining the relation between man and the world, and the concept of ownership. Man&#8217;s right to self implies the right to use externals through choice, to &#8220;focus his consciousness&#8221; in order to achieve values beneficial to his being. The discussion on ownership, as inferred from self-ownership as being, ends in a discussion of the distinct features of land, and how ownership of such can be obtained. The conclusion is that man as a rights-bearer to self can obtain natural use-rights through possession and constructive use of resources, rights which are valid throughout the value-achieving process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/5-bylund-man-and-matter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>4. &#8220;Recompense for Fear: Is Forced Russian Roulette Just?&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/4-robins-recompense-for-fear/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=4-robins-recompense-for-fear</link>
		<comments>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/4-robins-recompense-for-fear/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:23:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew McCaffrey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 4 (2012)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=2067</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by David B. Robins Abstract: In this paper I examine Dr. Walter Block’s argument that a criminal should be forced to play Russian roulette with himself to compensate for the fear he caused his victim, with the number of bullets and chambers reflecting the fear caused. I argue that although this will yield the necessary [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by David B. Robins</p>
<p><a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-4.pdf"><img title="View the .pdf for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/pdf.png" alt="View the .pdf for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a> <a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-4.doc"><img title="View the .doc for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/doc.png" alt="View the .doc for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a><span id="more-2067"></span></p>
<p>Abstract: In this paper I examine Dr. Walter Block’s argument that a criminal should be forced to play Russian roulette with himself to compensate for the fear he caused his victim, with the number of bullets and chambers reflecting the fear caused. I argue that although this will yield the necessary fear that is part of the retributive justice due to the criminal, it is not libertarian justice because of the statistical expected value of the harm done to the criminal. Even if the threat of death is only used as leverage for the victim to demand a large payout to prevent it, thus preventing wealthy criminals from buying their way out of crimes, this leverage is unjust and leads to unjust exchanges.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/4-robins-recompense-for-fear/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>3. &#8220;Norms and the NAP&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/3-borer-norms-and-the-nap/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=3-borer-norms-and-the-nap</link>
		<comments>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/3-borer-norms-and-the-nap/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:07:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew McCaffrey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 4 (2012)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=2061</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Kris Borer Abstract: There are many factors that may affect the analysis of ethical problems: the physical acts that occur, the relevant history, verbal communication, contracts, etc. One factor that can be difficult to incorporate is the role that socials norms play. This is because norms can vary widely between societies, and even within [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Kris Borer</p>
<p><a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-3.pdf"><img title="View the .pdf for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/pdf.png" alt="View the .pdf for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a> <a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-3.doc"><img title="View the .doc for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/doc.png" alt="View the .doc for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a><span id="more-2061"></span></p>
<p>Abstract: There are many factors that may affect the analysis of ethical problems: the physical acts that occur, the relevant history, verbal communication, contracts, etc. One factor that can be difficult to incorporate is the role that socials norms play. This is because norms can vary widely between societies, and even within societies individuals are not usually consciously aware of the norms that they act upon. This paper examines how norms can effect ethical problems and gives one approach for investigating their effect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/3-borer-norms-and-the-nap/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2. &#8220;The Internal Contradictions of Recognition Theory&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/2-perez-internal-contradictions-of-recognition/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=2-perez-internal-contradictions-of-recognition</link>
		<comments>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/2-perez-internal-contradictions-of-recognition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 19:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew McCaffrey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 4 (2012)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=2057</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Nahshon Perez Abstract: This article offers a critical examination of theories that emphasize the importance of governmental provision of self-esteem to citizens. Self-esteem is the feeling that one’s abilities and achievements are positively appraised by the surrounding society, and in some cases the legal system. Such theories are becoming fashionable, following the influence of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Nahshon Perez</p>
<p><a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-2.pdf"><img title="View the .pdf for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/pdf.png" alt="View the .pdf for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a> <a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-2.doc"><img title="View the .doc for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/doc.png" alt="View the .doc for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a><span id="more-2057"></span></p>
<p>Abstract: This article offers a critical examination of theories that emphasize the importance of governmental provision of self-esteem to citizens. Self-esteem is the feeling that one’s abilities and achievements are positively appraised by the surrounding society, and in some cases the legal system. Such theories are becoming fashionable, following the influence of scholars such as Axel Honneth, Nancy Fraser, and others.</p>
<p>The author argues that such theories face major challenges, on two accounts. First, trying to provide universal self esteem would imply that people would be under a duty to positively appraise the achievements of any given person, and that might violate the free exercise of judgment. Second, the dominant theories of recognition also emphasize the importance of self-respect. Such theories usually understand self-respect as ‘the relation of a person to herself/himself, that concerns their intrinsic worth’. The ability to positively or negatively appraise the conducts/achievements of other people is an integral part of this ‘intrinsic worth’. The attempt to provide universal positive appraisals (and therefore self-esteem) means therefore that a simultaneous achievement of self respect and self esteem is not possible as a social goal. Recognition theories face therefore not only an external critique by libertarian and (many) liberal approaches, but also internal problems of consistency between different parts of their own theories.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/2-perez-internal-contradictions-of-recognition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>1. &#8220;The Role of Work: A Eudaimonistic Perspective&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/1-reber-role-of-work/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=1-reber-role-of-work</link>
		<comments>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/1-reber-role-of-work/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew McCaffrey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 4 (2012)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=2047</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Michael F. Reber Abstract: For more than two centuries in industrialized societies an inherent problem has persisted regarding the role of education and work. This is due in part to the entrenched cultural dogma of the Cartesian/Newtonian paradigm which views the world as a mechanical device and people as organic machines operating within such [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Michael F. Reber</p>
<p><a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-1.pdf"><img title="View the .pdf for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/pdf.png" alt="View the .pdf for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a> <a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-1.doc"><img title="View the .doc for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/doc.png" alt="View the .doc for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a><span id="more-2047"></span></p>
<p>Abstract: For more than two centuries in industrialized societies an inherent problem has persisted regarding the role of education and work. This is due in part to the entrenched cultural dogma of the Cartesian/Newtonian paradigm which views the world as a mechanical device and people as organic machines operating within such a world. More recently, it includes the scientific management approach of Frederick W. Taylor which defines individuals as “human capital” to be used and disposed of at will for the benefit of an organizational enterprise or national economy. In opposition to this view the progressive educational movement was born and John Dewey as one of its champions developed a holistic approach to education and work. Over the course of time Dewey’s approach became the cornerstone of holistic education and more recently the <em>eudaimonistic</em> philosophical school in American culture. In parallel with Dewey’s progressivism, the field of systems thinking was developing and a prevalent belief emerged, which holds that all systems, both biological and social, evolve toward greater complexity and that a linear approach to understanding complex systems is ineffective. Therefore, it is the purpose of this paper to propose 1) a <em>eudaimonistic</em> definition of education and work and 2) a systems thinking approach toward human resources in order to create a more humane world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://libertarianpapers.org/2012/1-reber-role-of-work/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>38. &#8220;Explorations in Property Rights: Conjoined Twins&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/38-dyke-block-conjoined-twins/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=38-dyke-block-conjoined-twins</link>
		<comments>http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/38-dyke-block-conjoined-twins/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:22:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stephan Kinsella (Editor)</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 3 (2011)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=1965</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Jeremiah Dyke &#38; Walter E. Block Abstract: We attempt to shed light on property rights by examining the case of conjoined twins. We do so since their situation is perhaps among the most challenging of all cases of separating &#8220;mine&#8221; from &#8220;thine.&#8221;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by Jeremiah Dyke &amp; <a href="http://www.walterblock.com/">Walter E. Block</a></p>
<p><a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-38.pdf"><img title="View the .pdf for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/pdf.png" alt="View the .pdf for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a> <a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-38.doc"><img title="View the .doc for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/doc.png" alt="View the .doc for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a><span id="more-1965"></span></p>
<p>Abstract: We attempt to shed light on property rights by examining the case of conjoined twins. We do so since their situation is perhaps among the most challenging of all cases of separating &#8220;mine&#8221; from &#8220;thine.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/38-dyke-block-conjoined-twins/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>37. &#8220;Response to Wisniewski on Abortion, Round Three&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/37-block-response-to-wisniewski-on-abortion/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=37-block-response-to-wisniewski-on-abortion</link>
		<comments>http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/37-block-response-to-wisniewski-on-abortion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:33:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stephan Kinsella (Editor)</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Volume 3 (2011)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://libertarianpapers.org/?p=1964</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Walter E. Block Abstract: Most people are aware of the pro-choice and the pro-life perspectives on abortion. But there is a third one, based on libertarianism called evictionism. I have written on this philosophy on numerous occasions (Block, 1977, 1978, 2004, 2008, 2010A, 2010B, 2010C, 2011, forthcoming, Block and Whitehead, 2005). Wisniewski (2010A, 2010B, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>by <a href="http://www.walterblock.com/">Walter E. Block</a></p>
<p><a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-37.pdf"><img title="View the .pdf for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/pdf.png" alt="View the .pdf for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a> <a href="http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-37.doc"><img title="View the .doc for this article" src="http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/doc.png" alt="View the .doc for this article" width="16" height="16" /></a><span id="more-1964"></span></p>
<p>Abstract: Most people are aware of the pro-choice and the pro-life perspectives on abortion. But there is a third one, based on libertarianism called evictionism. I have written on this philosophy on numerous occasions (Block, 1977, 1978, 2004, 2008, 2010A, 2010B, 2010C, 2011, forthcoming, Block and Whitehead, 2005). Wisniewski (2010A, 2010B, 2011) has criticized this viewpoint. The present essay is a response to Wisniewski (2011).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/37-block-response-to-wisniewski-on-abortion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: basic
Database Caching using disk: basic

Served from: libertarianpapers.org @ 2012-05-21 13:03:14 -->
