This is a follow up to a correspondence I had with CW, on environmental economics in general, and the challenge of pollution to libertarian theory in particular.

—–Original Message—–
From: CW
Sent: Sun 8/14/2016 1:03 PM
To: Walter Block
Subject: Re: Natural Rights and Climate Change

Dear Professor Block,

Thank you very much for your advice, I read most (nobody’s perfect) of the articles you recommended and they greatly helped my grasp of the topic. I definitely agree with you about Rothbard’s article being the best thing ever written on this subject and it is my goal to apply his analysis to the issue of climate change. I have attached a draft of what I have written so far, if you are interested feel free to read it, but I understand you are busy so will not take offense if you don’t have the time. I confess to being still somewhat confused on the distinction between harm and aggression and I think perhaps my interpretation of this distinction might be the achilles heel of my analysis. For now I will keep striving to improve my knowledge and understanding of these complex issues. Thank you for everything you do to advance the cause of liberty and sound economics, I hope you are aware of how much your work means to people like myself. Cheers, CW

Dear CW:

I will look at your article and get back to you on it. It is the least I can do; I’m trying to hand on to younger people the baton that Murray Rothbard and others older than me in the movement handed on to me, and, I trust you’ll do the same when younger people ask you to do so.

Yes, indeed, this is the best essay ever written on environmental law and economics:

Rothbard, Murray N. 1982. “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution,” Cato Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring; reprinted in Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation, Walter E. Block , ed., Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1990, pp. 233-279. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf; http://mises.org/story/2120

The way I see matters, under libertarian law we are allowed to “harm” each other. For example, A opens up a bakery across the street from B’s bakery, and A “steals” half of B’s customers from him. A has “harmed” B, but has not violated his rights. Or, C seduces D’s girlfriend away from him, not using any violence or threats; C has every right to do so, even though D is harmed. Indeed, every time we compete with each other we “harm” some people. I buy a loaf of bread. As a result, the price of this item rises, by a very small amount to be sure. But, in so doing, I have “harmed” all other buyers in this market, without in the slightest violating any of their rights.

The Best of Walter E. Block