Affiliation:
1. Loyola University New Orleans
2. Nicolaus Copernicus University, Torun
Abstract
Kvasnička (2008) presented a thorough critique of Rothbard (1956): “1) His approach is inconsistent with Pareto’s rule (while claiming the opposite), 2) it is inconsistent with common sense, 3) it is incoherent (its two welfare theorems cannot be defended at the same time), and 4) it is inconsistent with Rothbard’s own claims made elsewhere.” The present paper is an attempt to refute the former author and support the latter one. We do so on all four counts.
Reference42 articles.
1. Barnett, W. II. (2003). The Modern Theory of Consumer Behavior: Ordinal or Cardinal? The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 6(1), 41–65. Retrieved from http://www.qjae.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae6_1_3.pdf
2. Barnett, W. II, & Block, W. (2009). Coase and Bertrand on Lighthouses. Public Choice, 140(1), 1–13.
3. Block, W. E. (1977). Coase and Demsetz on Private Property Rights. The Journal of Libertarian Studies: An Interdisciplinary Review, 1(2), 111–115.
4. Block, W. E. (1980). On Robert Nozick’s ‘On Austrian Methodology’. Inquiry, 23(4), 397–444. Retrieved from http://www.walterblock.com/publications/on_robert_nozick.pdf
5. Block, W. E. (1995). Ethics, Efficiency, Coasean Property Rights and Psychic Income: A Reply to Demsetz. Review of Austrian Economics, 8(2), 61–125.