The Trolley: a Libertarian Analysis

Walter E. Block
Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business
Loyola University New Orleans
wblock@loyno.edu

The Trolley: a Libertarian Analysis

ABSTRACT

In the trolley case, an individual is faced with killing one man in order to save five equally innocent people. This philosophical conundrum pits deontology (do not murder) against utilitarianism (saving lives). Numerous non-libertarian commentators have weighed in on this challenge. The present paper offers a libertarian analysis of this case.

KEYWORDS 

Murder, rights, deontology, utilitarianism.

I. Introduction 

Foot (1967, 1) discusses “the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed.”

Another classic statement of the trolley challenge reads as follows (Thomson, 1976, 206):
David is a great transplant surgeon. Five of his patients need new parts – one needs a heart, the others need, respectively, liver, stomach, spleen, and spinal cord – but all are of the same, relatively rare, blood-type. By chance, David learns of a healthy specimen with that very blood-type. David can take the healthy specimen’s parts, killing him, and install them in his patients, saving them. Or he can refrain from taking the healthy specimen’s parts, letting his patients die.

If David may not even choose to cut up one where five will thereby be saved, surely what people who say “Killing is worse than letting die” mean by it must be right!

On the other hand, there is a lovely, nasty difficulty which confronts us at this point. Philippa Foot says2 – and seems right to say- that it is permissible for Edward, in the following case, to kill:
(5) Edward is the driver of a trolley, whose brakes have just failed. On the track ahead of him are five people; the banks are so steep that they will not be able to get off the track in time. The track has a spur leading off to the right, and Edward can turn the trolley onto it. Unfortunately there is one person on the right-hand track. Edward can turn the trolley, killing the one; or he can refrain from turning the trolley, killing the five.

If what people who say “Killing is worse than letting die” mean by it is true, how is it that Edward may choose to turn that trolley?

If what people who say “Killing is worse than letting die” mean by it is true, how is it that Edward may choose to turn that trolley?

The philosophers usually credited with plagueing us with this challenge are Foot, 1967; and Thomson, 1976, 1985. Since then there have been literally hundreds of discussions of this issue. But not a one of them has been written from a libertarian perspective. The contribution of the present paper is to offer a distinctively libertarian analysis of the trolley problem.

We do well, then, to at least briefly discuss this particular political economic philosophy (Rothbard, 1998; Hoppe 1989, 1993; Huebert, 2010; Kinsella, 1992, 1996). Libertarianism is not a theory of law, nor is it an analysis of rights, nor, yet, ethics. Rather, it is an attempt to discern what the proper law should be; an analysis of the just use of violence. As a first approximation, there is the nonaggression principle (NAP). According to this axiom of libertarianism, it should be legal for a person to do whatever he wants to do, (1) provided, only, that he refrain from initiating aggressive violence against anyone else and his legitimately owned property. Libertarianism does not say people should adhere to the NAP; that it would be right for them to do so. It only maintains that if they do not so restrict themselvs, they are in violation of libertarian law. But that is merely a first approximation. At bottom, libertarianism is a theory of what constitutes just punishment (2) for law breakers.

It is only the first approximation of libertarianism to aver: do not violate rights. The more sophisticated version, is that libt is a theory of punishment: if you violate rights, we punish you in thus and such a manner.

This is in sharp contrast to the non libertarians who have tried to wrestle with the trolley challenge. For example, states Thomson (1976, 204, emphasis added): “Alfred kills his wife out of a desire for her death. Bert lets his wife die out of a desire for her death. But what Bert does is surely every bit as bad as what Alfred does. So killing isn’t worse than letting die.” Note that this philosopher is not concerned with proper law, and punishment, use of violence against, criminals. Rather, she, like so many others (Unger, 1992, 1996; Kamm, 1989; Barcalow, 2007; Singer, 2005; Mikhail, 2007; Norcross, 2008; Otsuka, 2008; Hauser, et al, 2007), focuses on the good and the bad, the bad and the worse, what people should do and refrain from doing. It cannot be denied that of course there is a strong overlap between these two different concerns, but it is the divergences that distinguish the libertarian analysis of the trolley case from that of all others.

One more element of libertarianism. In this view, there is no such thing as positive rights. There are only negative rights (Block, 1986; Gordon, 2004; Katz, undated; Long, 1993; Mercer, 2001; Rothbard, 1982; Selick, 2014). A right implies an obligation. If Smith has a (negative) right not to be murdered, raped, robbed, then everyone else has a negative obligation not to murder, rape or rob him. It is incumbent upon all others to refrain from initiating violence against him. If Smith has a (positive) right to food, clothing and shelter, then all other people have a positive obligation to give him these goods. But, if so, then their own negative rights to their private property will have been violated.

We are now in a position to shed some light on the issue of killing an innocent person on the one hand, and letting him die on the other. Under the libertarian code, the former would be considered murder, and punished severely. However, allowing someone to die, standing idly by while another person perishes, would not be considered a crime. Now, it may not be nice to do so, it may not be moral or ethical to fail to come to the aid of a potential victim, but, qua libertarianism, that is not, cannot be, our concern. Rather, we focus, very narrowly, on whether or not an NAP violation, an uninvited (personal) border crossing has taken place, and, if so, what violent repercussion would be justified.

Pinker (2011, 328) states: “Most of us agree that it is ethically permissible to divert a runaway trolley that threatens to kill five people onto a side track where it would kill only one. But suppose it were a hundred million lives one could save by diverting the trolley, or a billion, or ─ projecting into the indefinite future ─ infinitely many. How many people would it be permissible to sacrifice to attain that infinite good? A few million can seem like a pretty good bargain.”

What is the libertarian analysis of someone who diverts the trolley from its present track where it will kill, say, a billion people, and onto a path where it will murder a single individual? Utilitarians would speak out as one: such an act would be justified, since it would save one billion minus one lives. Most commentators would agree. (3)

But things are different for the libertarian. The diverter of the trolley is a murderer. We must not lose sight of this primordial fact. As such, he must be punished to the full extent of the law. And what, pray tell, is the full extent of the law? His life is forfeit, since he took someone else’s life. However, if the heirs of the victim, all of them, all five billion of them, forgive this murderer his crime, then and only then may he go free. But if even one of these heirs wants to impose the death penalty of our savior of five billion lives, he has the right to insist upon this punishment. (4)

This brings us to the libertarian concentration camp guard (Block, 2009). Here is the situation. All such criminals must murder 100 innocent Jews, gypsies, blacks, gays, other non Ayrians, per day. However, we posit that a libertarian guard can get away with murdering only 90 victims daily. If he goes below this figure, say, to a mere 89 or fewer murders, he will be found out, and himself summarily executed. Of course, our libertarian hero engages in this dangerous pursuit not to murder 90 people daily, but rather to save 10, who, we posit, would perish were it not for his admirable (5) and courageous acts. A week goes by, the war is over, and our libertarian murderer is in the dock at the Nuremberg trial. He has murdered 630 people, but saved 70. Should he be put to death for his evil deeds? Yes, unless all of the heirs of the 630 victims agree to forgive him his trespasses. Our hero may plead with these people: “I wish I could have saved your parent, your child, your spouse, but I could not. I could only save 10 people per day. That is why I embarked upon this dangerous acts of mine. If I had saved even as few as one more person daily, I would have been discovered, and prevented from saving any more victims of Nazi oppression.” Whether or not he prevails, he deserves, once again, a medal, a parade in his honor, and the thanks of all civilized people.

In order to further highlight the differences on the Trolley question between a libertarian and members of other philosophical traditions, I offer my responses to a popular query on this subject (http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/). My responses are in italics.

II. Should You Kill the Fat Man? Preliminary Questions 

This activity is a treatment of some of the issues thrown up by a thought experiment called ‘The Trolley Problem’, which was first outlined by the philosopher Philippa Foot, and then developed by Judith Jarvis Thomson and others. But before we start properly, we need to ask you four preliminary questions so we get a sense of the way that you think about morality. There are no right or wrong answers. Just select the option that most corresponds to your view.

Question 1: Torture, as a matter of principle, is always morally wrong.

I answered no. As a libertarian, I have no views on this. No, I go further. Qua libertarian, I am precluded from having an opinion on this vital issue. Because it asks about morality, and libertarianism, in sharp contrast, deals only with what the law should be. So, I can only answer as a citizen, as a moralist. I can think of cases where it would be justified. For example, if the criminal tortured a victim, it would be just, under the libertarian code, to torture him back.

Question 2: The morality of an action is determined by whether, compared to the other available options, it maximises the sum total of happiness of all the people affected by it.

I responded in the negative to this one, too. Not because I have strong views about morality; I don’t. I answered in this way because utilitarianism turns me off, and this sounded pretty utilitarian to me.

Question 3: It is always, and everywhere, wrong to cause another person’s death – assuming they wish to stay alive – if this outcome is avoidable.

This one, too, got a thumbs down from me. Again, as a libertarian, I know of nothing “wrong” except that which violates the NAP. But, surely, given that the death penalty is justified, and as a libertarian I maintain it is (Block, 2006), it would be justified to execute a murderer, even assuming he wished to stay alive.

Question 4: If you can save the lives of innocent people without reducing the sum total of human happiness, and without putting your own life at risk, you are morally obliged to do so.

I responded positively to this question, since in my own vision of morality, it would be immoral not to save someone’s life if I could do so with trivial cost to myself. However, speaking as a libertarian, I would oppose laws requiring that we give aid to each other, as this would be a positive obligation, and libertarians support only negative rights.

Next question:

Should You Kill the Fat Man? – The Scenarios

You will now be presented with four different scenarios to test your moral intuitions against the answers you gave to the first four questions.

The Runaway Train (Scenario 1 of 4)

The brakes of the train that Casey Jones is driving have just failed. There are five people on the track ahead of the train. There is no way that they can get off the track before the train hits them. The track has a siding leading off to the right, and Casey can hit a button to direct the train onto it. Unfortunately, there is one person stuck on the siding. Casey can turn the train, killing one person; or he can allow the train to continue onwards, killing five people.

Should he turn the train (1 dead); or should he allow it to keep going (5 dead)?

I do not know what Jones “should” do. I do know that if he turns the train he is a murderer, if he allows it to keep going he is not. Based on the analysis offered above, if he turns the train to save four lives, he fits the bill of “heroic murderer. I had to answer, otherwise I couldn’t finish the quiz, so I filled in “turn the train,” making him into a heroic murderer.

I was then presented with the following:

Interesting. you do not believe there is any general moral requirement to maximise the happiness of the greatest number of people, yet you think that Casey Jones ought to divert the train. There’s no contradiction here, but it would be interesting to know what thoughts motivated your decision. For now, though, let’s see what you make of the scenario below.

The Fat Man on the Bridge (Scenario 2 of 4)

Marty Bakerman is on a footbridge above the train tracks. He can see that the train approaching the bridge is out of control, and that it is going to hit five people who are stuck on the track just past the bridge. The only way to stop the train is to drop a heavy weight into its path. The only available heavy enough weight is a (very) fat man, who is also watching the train from the footbridge. Marty can push the fat man onto the track into the path of the train, which will kill him but save the five people already on the track; or he can allow the train to continue on its way, which will mean that the five will die.

Should he push the fat man onto the track (1 dead); or allow the train to continue (5 dead)?

I voted for pushing the fat man onto the track, so as to make Bakerman, also, into a heroic murderer. I might as well be consistent, I thought. But, I could as easily have gone the other way, if I wanted to reduce the incidence of murder.

Next, I was presented with the following:

That’s an interesting response. Previous research has indicated that most people disagree with you that it would be right to push the fat man off the bridge into the path of the train. However, your response is certainly consistent with your claim that Casey Jones should divert the runaway train so that it only kills one person rather than five. However, as before, there is a puzzle in that you do not think there is any general moral requirement to maximize happiness, which makes the reason why you think it is justified to kill the fat man to save five people unclear. Perhaps your response to the scenario below will help to clarify your thinking here.

The Saboteur (Scenario 3 of 4)

Okay so this scenario is identical to the preceding scenario but with one crucial difference. This time Marty Bakerman knows with absolute certainty that the fat man on the bridge is responsible for the failure the train’s brakes: upset by train fare increases, he sabotaged the brakes with the intention of causing an accident. As before, the only way to stop the train and save the lives of the five people already on the track is to push the fat saboteur off the bridge into the path of the train.

Should Marty push the fat saboteur onto the track (1 dead); or allow the train to continue (5 dead)?

I elected to shove fatty onto the track; he richly deserved to die, as he was a murderer. And, if this could save five innocent people, that is even better.

Whereupon, I was presented with this material:

Your belief that the right thing to do is to throw the saboteur off the bridge is not surprising given your previous response that it would be right to throw an ‘innocent’ (fat) man off the bridge if it had the effect of saving five people. We noted a tension in your earlier response in that it wasn’t clear why you thought it justified to kill the innocent man given that you do not think there is any general moral requirement to maximize happiness. However, this tension is less pronounced this time around, since presumably thoughts to do with culpability are part of the moral calculus in deciding whether it is justified to throw the saboteur off the bridge. It is possible that similar thoughts about culpability will be a part of how you think about the scenario below.

The Fat Man and the Ticking Bomb (Scenario 4 of 4)

The fat man, having avoided being thrown in front of the runaway train, has been arrested, and is now in police custody. He states that he has hidden a nuclear device in a major urban centre, which has been primed to explode in 24 hours time. The following things are true:

  1. The bomb will explode in 24 hours time.
  2. It will kill a million people if it explodes.
  3. If bomb disposal experts get to the bomb before it explodes, there’s a chance it could be defused.
  4. The fat man cannot be tricked into revealing the location of the bomb, nor is it possible to appeal to his better nature, nor is it possible to persuade him that he was wrong to plant the bomb in the first place.
  5. If the fat man is tortured, then it is estimated there is a 75% chance that he will give up the bomb’s location.
  6. If the fat man does not reveal the location, the bomb will explode, and a million people will die: there is no other way of finding out where the bomb is located.

Should the fat man be tortured in the hope that he will reveal the location of the nuclear device?

I opined that yes, the fat man should be tortured.

The reaction to my answers to this quiz was as follows:

Should You Kill the Fat Man? – Analysis 1

A Matter of Consistency

The first thing to note is that your consistency score is 100%. This is higher than the average score for this test (where higher is better), which is 78%.

It is often thought to be a good thing if one’s moral choices are governed by a small number of consistently applied moral principles. If this is not the case, then there is the worry that moral choices are essentially arbitrary – just a matter of intuition or making it up as you go along. Suppose, for example, you think it is justified to divert the train in the first scenario simply because it is the best way to maximize human happiness, but you do not think this justification applies in the case of the fat man on the bridge. The problem here is that unless you’re able to identify morally relevant differences between the two scenarios, then it isn’t clear what role the justification plays in the first case. Put simply, it seems that the justification is neither necessary nor sufficient for the moral judgement that it is right to divert the train.

You’ve done better than average in this test, but now is not the time to rest on your laurels, because let’s face it, most people don’t think very clearly about morality. However, before you embark on any further study(!) we suggest you check out the next page of analysis.

My reaction. Whoa, I am not sure that I like this even one tiny bit. If a non libertarian thinks I am logically consistent, perhaps I have erred somewhere along the line, for, as I say, there is a gigantic chasm between the thinking of those who favor, and oppose, the freedom philosophy.

The next response of the quizmaster is this:

The Trolley Problem – Analysis 2

The scenarios featured in this activity have been constructed to elicit contrasting intuitions about whether it is justified to end the life of one person in order to save the lives of some other greater number of people.

Part of what is interesting here is what this tell us about consequentialist approaches to moral thinking. For example, straightforward utilitarianism, which holds that an act is morally right to the extent that it maximizes the sum total of happiness of all the people affected by it (when compared to the other available options), would seem to require an affirmative response to all the questions below. However, we know from previous research that such a consensus is unlikely. In particular, very few people tend to think that the fat man should be pushed off the bridge in order to save the lives of the five people stuck on the track. The fact that this option is so counterintuitive to so many people represents a significant challenge to straightforward utilitarian thinking.

I am not sure of what to make of all of this, but I report it, just to be thorough.

I opted to torture this fat pig of a man. This seems like a no brainer to me. Such an ogre deserves the most heinous punishment imaginable, and torture would appear to fit the bill. I resist the notion, however, that there is any “tension” in my answers. Yes, this is a reasonable position for a non-libertarian to take of an adherent of this position, but this is a two way street. I, too, see a “tension” in the mainstream view, not to say an utter contradiction, with the NAP.

The point of this exercise is not to cast aspersions on the quiz. It is well thought out, and interesting. Rather, my goal here is to establish that there is rather a large chasm between the thinking of non libertarian philosophers, who, I assume, concocted this quiz, and libertarians such as myself, who fit into this model as do round pegs into square holes or vice versa.

When asked about morality, I chose to call the heroic murderer “moral.” I could have easily gone the other way around, since I have no strong views on ethics or morals. (I only have an established perspective on what the law should be: to punish murderers, heroic or not, unless forgiven for their crimes). If I had indicated this, I suspect, my opinion would not have been characterized as 100% consistent by the non-libertarian creator of this quiz.

References

Barcalow, Emmett. 2007. Moral Philosophy: Theories and Issues. Belmont, CA: Wadswort.

Block, Walter. 1986. The U.S. Bishops and Their Critics: An Economic and Ethical Perspective, Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.

Block, Walter. 1990. “Earning Happiness Through Homesteading Unowned Land: a comment on ‘Buying Misery with Federal Land’ by Richard Stroup,” Journal of Social Political and Economic Studies, Vol. 15, No. 2, Summer, pp. 237- 253.

Block, Walter. 1999. “Market Inalienability Once Again: Reply to Radin,” Thomas Jefferson Law Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, Fall, pp. 37-88; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/market_inalienability.pdf.

Block, Walter E. 2001B. “Jonah Goldberg and the Libertarian Axiom on NonAggression.” June 28; http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/block1.html.

Block, Walter E. 2002. “Radical Privatization and other Libertarian Conundrums,” The International Journal of Politics and Ethics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 165-175.

Block, Walter. 2002A. “Homesteading City Streets; An Exercise in Managerial Theory,” Planning and Markets, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 18-23; September, http://wwwpam.usc.edu/volume5/v5i1a2s1.html;
http://www-pam.usc.edu/.

Block, Walter. 2002B. “On Reparations to Blacks for Slavery,” Human Rights Review, Vol. 3, No. 4, July-September, pp. 53-73.

Block, Walter. 2002-2003. “Berman on Blackmail: Taking Motives Fervently,” Florida State University Business Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 57-114.

Block, Walter. 2003a. “Libertarianism vs. Objectivism; A Response to Peter Schwartz,” Reason Papers, Vol. 26, Summer, pp. 39-62.

Block, Walter E. 2003B. “The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism,” February 17; http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html.

Block, Walter E. 2004. “Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Part I” Reason Papers, Vol. 27, Fall, pp. 117-133; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radicallibertarianism-rp.pdf.

Block, Walter. 2004a. Austrian Law and Economics: The Contributions of Adolf Reinach and Murray Rothbard, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol. 7, No. 4, Winter, pp. 69-85.

Block, Walter. 2004b. “Reply to Frank van Dun’s ‘Natural Law and the Jurisprudence of Freedom,’” Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 18, No. 2, Spring, pp. 65-72.

Block, Walter E. 2006. “Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government, Part II” Reason Papers, Vol. 28, Spring, pp. 85-109; http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-radicallibertarianism-rp.pdf; http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf; http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/28/rp_28_7.pdf.

Block, Walter E. 2009. “Libertarian punishment theory: working for, and donating to, the state” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1; http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2009/lp-1-17.pdf;
http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/17-libertarian-punishment-theory-working-forand-donating-to-the-state/#comments.

Block, Walter E. 2009A. “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Guilt and Punishment for the Crime of Statism” in Hulsmann, Jorg Guido and Stephan Kinsella, eds., Property, Freedom and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, pp. 137-148; http://mises.org/books/hulsmann-kinsella_property-freedom-society-2009.pdf 

Block, Walter. 2009B. “Libertarian punishment theory: working for, and donating to, the state” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 1; http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/17-libertarian-punishment-theory-working-forand-donating-to-the-state/. 

Block, Walter E., William Barnett II and Gene Callahan. 2005. “The Paradox of Coase as a Defender of Free Markets,” NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1075-1095; http://tinyurl.com/2hbzd4. 

Block, Walter E. and Michael R. Edelstein. 2012. “Popsicle sticks and homesteading land for nature preserves.” Romanian Economic and Business Review. Vol. 7, No. 1, Spring, pp. 7-13; http://www.rebe.rau.ro/REBE%207%201.pdf. 

Block, Walter v. Richard Epstein. 2005. “Debate on Eminent Domain.” NYU Journal of Law & Liberty, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 1144-1169. 

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. 

Bylund, Per. 2005. “Man and Matter: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Justification of Ownership in Land from the Basis of Self-Ownership.” Master thesis, Lund University, spring semester (June); http://www.uppsatser.se/uppsats/a7eb17de8f/; http://perbylund.com/academics_polsci_msc.pdf;
http://www.essays.se/essay/a7eb17de8f/;
http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=24965&postid=1330482

Bylund, Per. 2012. “Man and matter: how the former gains ownership of the latter.” Libertarian Papers, Vol. 4, No. 1; http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2012/lp-4-1-5.pdf

Costa, Michael J. 1987. “Another trip on the trolley.” The Southern Journal of Philosophy Volume 25, Issue 4, pages 461–466, Winter; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2041-6962.1987.tb01636.x/abstract

Foot, Philippa. 1967. “The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect.” Oxford Review, Number 5. 

Gordon, David. 2004. “Liberty and Obedience.” The Mises Review. Fall; http://mises.org/mises review detail.aspx?control=262. 

Gregory, Anthony and Walter E. Block. 2007. “On Immigration: Reply to Hoppe.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 21, No. 3, Fall, pp. 25-42; http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_2.pdf

Grotius, Hugo. 1625. Law of War and Peace (De Jure Belli ac Pacis), 3 volumes; translated by A.C. Campbell, London, 1814.

Hauser, Marc, Fiery Cushman , Liane Young , R. Kang-xing Jin and John Mikhail. 2007. A Dissociation Between Moral Judgments and Justifications, Mind & Language, Vol. 22 No. 1 February, pp. 1–21; http://web.mit.edu/~lyoung/www/Site/Publications_files/Mind_Lang_2007.pdf. 

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1989. A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. Economics, Politics, and Ethics, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications/Soc&Cap.pdf. 

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 1993. The Economics and Ethics of Private Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy, Boston: Kluwer. 

Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. 2011. “Of Private, Common, and Public Property and the Rationale for Total Privatization,” Libertarian Papers Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1-13. http://libertarianpapers.org/2011/1-hoppe-private-common-and-public-property/. 

Huebert, Jacob. 2010. Libertarianism Today. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Kagan, Shelly. 1989. The Limits of Morality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kamm, 

Francis Myrna. 1989. Harming Some to Save Others, 57 Philosophical Studies 227- 60. 

Katz, Joshua. Undated. “Why libertarians should reject positive rights.” http://mises.org/journals/scholar/katz.pdf

Kinsella, Stephan. 1992. “Estoppel: A New Justification for Individual Rights,” Reason Papers No. 17, Fall, p. 61; http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/17/rp_17_4.pdf

Kinsella, Stephen. 1996. “Punishment and Proportionality: the Estoppel Approach,” The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring, pp. 51-74; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf

Kinsella, Stephan N. 2003. “A libertarian theory of contract: title transfer, binding promises, and inalienability” Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2, Spring, pp. 11–37; http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/17_2/17_2_2.pdf

Kinsella, Stephan N. 2006. “How we come to own ourselves” September 7; http://www.mises.org/story/2291

Locke, John. 1948. An Essay Concerning the True Origin, Extent and End of Civil Government, in E. Barker, ed., Social Contract, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 17-19. 

Long, Roderick T. 1993. “Abortion, Abandonment, and Positive Rights: The Limits of Compulsory Altruism,” Social Philosophy and Policy vol. 10 no.1 (Winter). 

Mercer, Ilana. 2001. “Stealing Our Words” August 8; http://mises.org/story/750

Mikhail, John. 2007. Universal Moral Grammar: Theory, Evidence, and the Future, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 143-152. 

Morris, Herbert. 1968. “Persons and Punishment.” The Monist. Volume 52, Issue 4: October, pp. 475 – 501; http://www.lawlib.utoronto.ca/bclc/crimweb/bboard/personsandpunishment.pdf.

Norcross, Alastair. 2008. “Off Her Trolley? Frances Kamm and the Metaphysics of Morality.” Utilitas, Vol. 20, Issue 1, March , pp 65-80; http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1729500&fileId=S0953820807002919

Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia, New York: Basic Books . 

Olson, Charles B. 1979. “Law in Anarchy.” Libertarian Forum. Vol. XII, No. 6, November-December, p. 4; http://64.233.167.104/u/Mises?q=cache:gFT18_ZusWoJ:www.mises.org/journals/lf/1979/1979_11-12.pdf+two+teeth+for+a+tooth&hl=en&ie=UTF-8.

Otsuka, Michael. 2008. “Double Effect, Triple Effect and the Trolley Problem: Squaring the Circle in Looping Cases.” Utilitas, Volume 20, Issue 1,March, pp 92-110; http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=2908B7C2E703A F3478ED9472BD14BF24.journals?fromPage=online&aid=1729524. 

Paul, Ellen Frankel. 1987. Property Rights and Eminent Domain. Livingston, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. 

Pinker, Steven. 2011. The better angels of our nature: why violence has declined. New York, NY: Viking. 

Pufendorf, Samuel. 1673. Natural law and the law of nations (De officio hominis et civis prout ipsi praescribuntur lege naturali). 

Rothbard, Murray N. 1973. For a New Liberty, Macmillan, New York; http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

Rothbard, Murray N. 1998. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

Rozeff, Michael S. 2005. “Original Appropriation and Its Critics.” September 1. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff18.html

Selick, Karen. 2014. “Housing rights case illustrates why positive rights are phony rights.” National Post. December 29; http://business.financialpost.com/2014/12/29/housing-rights-case-illustrates-whypositive-rights-are-phoney-rights/.

Singer, Peter. 2005. Ethics and Intuitions The Journal of Ethics. http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200510–.pdf

Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1976. “Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem,” 59(2), 204- 217 The Monist; http://www.jstor.org/stable/27902416?seq=3#page_scan_tab_contents

Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1985. “The Trolley Problem,” 94(6) Yale Law Journal. May, 1395-1415; http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/thomsonTROLLEY.pdf

Unger, Peter. 1992. “Causing and Preventing Serious Harm.” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 65:227–255. 

Unger, Peter. 1996. Living High and Letting Die, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Watner , Carl. 1982. “The Proprietary Theory of Justice in the Libertarian Tradition.” Journal of Libertarian Studies. Vol. 6, No. 3-4, Summer/Fall, pp. 289- 316; http://mises.org/journals/jls/6_3/6_3_6.pdf

Whitehead, Roy and Walter E. 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

Notes

(1) With his own person and justly owned property, based on homesteading (Block, 1990, 2002A, 2002B; Block and Edelstein, 2012; Block and Yeatts, 1999-2000; Block vs Epstein, 2005; Bylund, 2005, 2012; Grotius, 1625; Hoppe, 1993, 2011; Kinsella, 2003, 2006; Locke, 1948; Paul, 1987; Pufendorf, 1673; Rothbard, 1973, 32; Rozeff, 2005; Watner, 1982) and legitimate title transfer (Nozick, 1974)

(2) In the view of Rothbard (1998, p. 88, ft. 6): “It should be evident that our theory of proportional punishment—that people may be punished by losing their rights to the extent that they have invaded the rights of others—is frankly a retributive theory of punishment, a ‘tooth (or two teeth) for a tooth’ theory. Retribution is in bad repute among philosophers, who generally dismiss the concept quickly as ‘primitive’ or ‘barbaric’ and then race on to a discussion of the two other major theories of punishment: deterrence and rehabilitation. But simply to dismiss a concept as ‘barbaric’ can hardly suffice; after all, it is possible that in this case, the ‘barbarians’ hit on a concept that was superior to the more modern creeds.” See also Block, 1999, 2002-2003, 2003a, 2003b, 2004a, 2004b, 2006, 2009A, 2009B; Block, Barnett and Callahan, 2005; Gregory and Block, 2007; Kinsella, 1996; Morris, 1968; Olson, 1979; Rothbard, 1998, 88; Whitehead and Block, 2003

(3) Thomson (1976, 206) states: “Edward may turn that trolley to save his five (people, at the cost of one life).” If so, she would certainly favor saving a billion people even though one innocent man must be murdered.

(4) However, some of us will hold a ticker tape parade in honor of this murderer, and pin a big medal on this chest before the execution. After all, he is a hero. He lives, we may suppose, in a libertarian society and full well knows the penalty for murder: execution. Yet, he engaged in this heroic murder in order to save the lives of five billion people. We cannot do this qua libertarian, since this very narrow philosophy admits of no such actions. But, we can do this as decent human beings.

(5) We say this not qua libertarian, which, we insist, is a very narrow philosophy, concerned only with justified punishment for criminal behavior. See Block 2001B, 2002, 2003B, 2004, 2006

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Walter Block

Walter Block

Walter Block is the Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair in Economics at Loyola University, senior fellow of the Mises Institute, and regular columnist for LewRockwell.com.

This Post Has 201 Comments

  1. Amazing! This blog looks just like my old one! It’s on a entirely different
    subject but it has pretty much the same layout and design. Wonderful choice of colors!

  2. great points altogether, you simply won a logo new reader.

    What would you suggest in regards to your publish that you simply made
    some days ago? Any sure?

  3. I absolutely love your site.. Great colors & theme. Did you build this web site yourself? Please reply back as Iím looking to create my own site and want to find out where you got this from or just what the theme is called. Cheers!

  4. Everyone loves it when folks come together and share thoughts. Great website, keep it up!

  5. Good day! I could have sworn Iíve been to this site before but after looking at a few of the posts I realized itís new to me. Anyways, Iím certainly happy I discovered it and Iíll be bookmarking it and checking back often!

  6. This blog was… how do I say it? Relevant!! Finally I have found something that helped me. Appreciate it!

  7. I must thank you for the efforts you’ve put in penning this site. I really hope to check out the same high-grade blog posts from you in the future as well. In truth, your creative writing abilities has motivated me to get my very own site now 😉

  8. Aw, this was an exceptionally nice post. Taking the time and actual effort to make a really good articleÖ but what can I sayÖ I hesitate a lot and never manage to get nearly anything done.

  9. Your style is unique compared to other folks I’ve read stuff from. Many thanks for posting when you’ve got the opportunity, Guess I’ll just book mark this blog.

  10. I will right away grasp your rss feed as I can’t in finding your email subscription link or
    newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Kindly permit me
    recognize in order that I could subscribe. Thanks.

  11. Just want to say your article is as astounding.

    The cclearness iin your post is just excellent and i can assume you are ann expert on this subject.
    Well with your permission allow me too grab your RSS
    feed to keep updated with forthccoming post. Thanks a million and please continue the enjoyable
    work.

  12. We’re a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community.
    Your web site offered us with useful information to work on.
    You’ve done an impressive task and our whole community will likely be grateful to you.

    Also visit my page :: http://www.craksracing.com/

  13. I’ve been surfing online more than 3 hours
    today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours.

    It is pretty worth enough for me. Personally, if all webmasters and bloggers made good content as
    you did, the web will be a lot more useful than ever before.

    Also visit my web-site … mpc-install.com

  14. Heya i am for the first time here. I came across this board and I find It truly useful & it helped me out
    a lot. I hope to give something back and aid others like you helped
    me.

  15. Hi, Neat post. There’s a problem along with your website in web explorer, would check this…
    IE still is the marketplace leader and a good component to other folks will leave out your fantastic writing because of this problem.

    Also visit my web site :: InstaFrost Portable AC

  16. Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a very well written article.

    I will make sure to bookmark it and return to read more of
    your useful information. Thanks for the post. I’ll definitely return.

    Have a look at my homepage … https://dream-ro.com

  17. Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it.
    Look advanced to far added agreeable from you! By the way, how could
    we communicate?

  18. I think the admin of this web site is really working hard for his
    web site, since here every information is quality based material.

  19. I really love your blog.. Excellent colors & theme.

    Did you create this website yourself? Please reply back
    as I’m wanting to create my own blog and want to learn where you
    got this from or exactly what the theme is named. Cheers!

  20. We are a group of volunteers and opening a brand new
    scheme in our community. Your website provided us with useful information to work on. You’ve performed a formidable
    job and our entire community might be thankful to you.

  21. Hello egery one, here every one is sharing these know-how, therefore it’s nice to read this
    blog, and I used to visit this blog all the
    time.

  22. My partner and I stumbled over here by a different
    web address and thought I may as well check things out.
    I like what I see so i am just following you.
    Look forward to exploring your web page yet again.

  23. Thanks for finally writing about > The Trolley: a Libertarian Analysis – Walter E.
    Block < Liked it!

  24. Nice post. I was checking continuously this blog and I’m impressed!
    Extremely helpful information specially the last part 🙂 I care for such info much.
    I was seeking this particular info for a long time. Thank you and
    good luck.

  25. This is a very good tip especially to those fresh to the blogosphere.
    Brief but very accurate info? Thanks for sharing this one.

    A must read post!

    Look at my website: Renown CBD

  26. sexplique stromectol for scabies dosage
    sited stromectol dosage for humans
    stromectol – ivermection
    – ivermectin side effects in humans
    [url=http://ivermectin-3mg.com/#]buy generic stromectol
    [/url] virtualni ivermectin tapeworm

  27. keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.

  28. May I simply say what a relief to find an individual who
    actually knows what they’re discussing on the web. You definitely realize how to bring an issue to light and
    make it important. More people have to check this out and understand this side of your story.
    It’s surprising you’re not more popular given that you most
    certainly have the gift.

  29. Awsome article and right to the point. I don’t know if this is actually the
    best place to ask but do you guys have any ideea where to employ some professional writers?
    Thanks in advance 🙂

  30. Hi, i think that i saw you visited my site so i got here to return the want?.I am trying to in finding issues to improve my web site!I suppose its good enough to make use of a few of your
    ideas!!

  31. If you would like to improve your experience just keep visiting this
    site and be updated with the most up-to-date news update posted here.

  32. Hi there Dear, are you actually visiting this site daily, if so then you will without doubt get
    fastidious knowledge.

  33. Hello, yeah this piece of writing is really nice and I have learned lot of things from it about blogging.
    thanks.

  34. I do believe all the concepts you’ve presented to your post.
    They’re very convincing and can certainly work.
    Still, the posts are very quick for novices. May you please prolong them
    a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.

  35. Someone essentially help to make significantly posts I’d
    state. This is the very first time I frequented your website page and up to now?

    I amazed with the analysis you made to create this
    actual publish incredible. Wonderful task!

  36. We’re a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community.
    Your website provided us with valuable info to work on. You’ve done a formidable
    job and our entire community will be grateful to you.

  37. Hey I know this is off topic but I was wondering if
    you knew of any widgets I could add to my blog that automatically tweet my newest twitter updates.

    I’ve been looking for a plug-in like this for quite some time and was
    hoping maybe you would have some experience with something like this.
    Please let me know if you run into anything. I truly enjoy
    reading your blog and I look forward to your new updates.

  38. Nice answer back in return of this difficulty with real arguments and telling the whole thing about that.

  39. When some one searches for his necessary thing, therefore he/she wants to be available that in detail, thus that thing
    is maintained over here.

  40. Hey there would you mind letting me know which web host you’re working with?
    I’ve loaded your blog in 3 completely different
    browsers and I must say this blog loads a lot quicker then most.

    Can you recommend a good hosting provider at a honest price?
    Thanks a lot, I appreciate it!

  41. Good article! We are linking to this particularly great
    content on our site. Keep up the good writing.

  42. If you would like to improve your knowledge simply keep visiting this web
    page and be updated with the most up-to-date news posted here.

  43. Do you have a spam problem on this site; I also am a blogger, and I was wanting
    to know your situation; we have created some nice methods and we are looking
    to swap solutions with others, please shoot me
    an email if interested.

  44. I’m really enjoying the design and layout of your website. It’s
    a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more
    enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a developer to create your theme?
    Great work!

  45. What’s Going down i’m new to this, I stumbled upon this I have discovered It absolutely helpful and it
    has helped me out loads. I am hoping to contribute & assist other customers
    like its helped me. Great job.

  46. Excellent blog! Do you have any tips for aspiring writers?

    I’m planning to start my own site soon but I’m a little lost on everything.
    Would you propose starting with a free platform like WordPress
    or go for a paid option? There are so many choices out there that I’m completely
    confused .. Any recommendations? Cheers!

  47. I do agree with all of the ideas you have offered on your
    post. They are very convincing and will definitely work.
    Nonetheless, the posts are very quick for starters.
    May just you please prolong them a little from next time?
    Thanks for the post.

  48. I go to see everyday a few blogs and websites to read articles or reviews, however this weblog gives feature based writing.

  49. Hi there everyone, it’s my first go to see at this site,
    and post is truly fruitful in support of me, keep up posting these types of posts.

  50. Amazing issues here. I’m very glad to see your article.
    Thanks so much and I am looking forward to contact you.

    Will you please drop me a mail?

  51. I have been exploring for a little for any high-quality articles or blog posts in this sort of house .
    Exploring in Yahoo I eventually stumbled upon this website.
    Studying this information So i’m satisfied to exhibit that I
    have a very just right uncanny feeling I found out exactly what I needed.
    I such a lot undoubtedly will make certain to don?t forget
    this web site and give it a glance on a constant basis.

  52. Hi colleagues, pleasant article and fastidious arguments commented at
    this place, I am in fact enjoying by these.

  53. After looking at a handful of the blog posts on your website, I
    really appreciate your way of writing a blog. I book-marked it to my bookmark site list and will be checking back soon. Please check out my web site as well and let me know how you feel.

  54. great publish, very informative. I wonder why the other experts of this sector
    don’t notice this. You should continue your writing. I’m confident, you have a great readers’ base already!

  55. Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to
    say that I have truly enjoyed surfing around your blog posts.
    In any case I will be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again very soon!

  56. Hey would you mind stating which blog platform you’re working with?
    I’m going to start my own blog soon but I’m having a
    tough time choosing between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and
    Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design and style seems
    different then most blogs and I’m looking for something unique.
    P.S Apologies for getting off-topic but I had to ask!

  57. Hi there to every body, it’s my first pay a
    visit of this webpage; this webpage consists of remarkable and really fine information designed for
    readers.

  58. What’s up to all, because I am truly eager of reading this web site’s post to be updated regularly.
    It carries fastidious stuff.

  59. For most recent news you have to visit web and on world-wide-web I
    found this web page as a most excellent site for most up-to-date updates.

  60. I get pleasure from, cause I discovered just
    what I was looking for. You’ve ended my 4 day lengthy hunt!

    God Bless you man. Have a great day. Bye

  61. Hello There. I found your blog using msn. This is a really well written article.
    I’ll make sure to bookmark it and return to read more
    of your useful info. Thanks for the post. I’ll definitely comeback.

  62. Good day! Do you know if they make any plugins to help with SEO?

    I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good success.
    If you know of any please share. Appreciate it!

  63. Pretty section of content. I just stumbled upon your blog and in accession capital
    to claim that I get actually enjoyed account your blog posts.
    Anyway I’ll be subscribing for your augment or even I achievement you get right of entry to persistently fast.

  64. Very nice article, totally what I needed.

  65. Right here is the perfect website for everyone who wants to understand this topic.
    You realize so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I
    actually will need to…HaHa). You certainly put a new spin on a subject which has been discussed
    for decades. Wonderful stuff, just great!

  66. Hi there mates, its wonderful paragraph concerning teachingand completely defined, keep it up
    all the time.

  67. Please let me know if you’re looking for a article author for your blog.
    You have some really good posts and I believe I would be a good asset.
    If you ever want to take some of the load off,
    I’d really like to write some content for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine.
    Please send me an email if interested. Many thanks! asmr https://app.gumroad.com/asmr2021/p/best-asmr-online asmr

  68. I got this web page from my buddy who told me concerning this
    website and at the moment this time I am visiting
    this site and reading very informative content at this place.
    quest bars http://bit.ly/3C2tkMR quest bars

  69. I was suggested this website by my cousin. I am not sure whether this post is written by him as nobody else know such detailed about my difficulty.
    You’re incredible! Thanks! cheap flights http://1704milesapart.tumblr.com/ cheap flights

  70. I was wondering if you ever considered changing the page
    layout of your blog? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say.
    But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better.
    Youve got an awful lot of text for only having 1 or two images.
    Maybe you could space it out better? quest bars https://www.iherb.com/search?kw=quest%20bars quest bars

  71. Hmm it looks like your site ate my first comment (it
    was extremely long) so I guess I’ll just sum it up what I submitted and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog.
    I as well am an aspiring blog blogger but I’m still new
    to the whole thing. Do you have any points for first-time blog
    writers? I’d definitely appreciate it. scoliosis surgery https://0401mm.tumblr.com/ scoliosis surgery

  72. May I simply just say what a relief to uncover an individual who truly
    understands what they are talking about online. You definitely realize
    how to bring an issue to light and make it important.
    More people have to read this and understand this side of your story.
    I was surprised you aren’t more popular because you most certainly have the gift.

  73. Excellent way of explaining, and nice article to take facts concerning
    my presentation subject, which i am going to deliver in academy.

  74. Pretty great post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to mention that I have
    truly loved surfing around your weblog posts. In any
    case I will be subscribing to your rss feed and I am hoping you write once
    more very soon!

  75. Hey there! This is my 1st comment here so
    I just wnted to ggive a quick shout out and say I truly enjoy reading
    through your articles. Can you recommend any other blogs/websites/forums that cover the same topics?
    Thank you so much!

  76. Having read this I believed it was rather enlightening.
    I appreciate you taking the time and energy to put this
    article together. I once again find myself personally spending a significant amount of
    time both reading and posting comments. But so what, it was still worth it!

  77. Have you ever considered publishing an e-book or guest authoring on other websites?
    I have a blog ased upon on the same topics you discuss and would really like to have you share some stories/information.
    I know my subscribers would enjoy your work.
    If you’re even remotely interested, feel free to shoot mee an e-mail.

  78. My spouse and I absolutely love your blog and find many
    of your post’s to be exactly what I’m looking for. Do you offer
    guest writers to write content available for you?
    I wouldn’t mind creating a post or elaborating on many of the subjects you write in relation to
    here. Again, awesome web log!

  79. I am sure this piece of writing has touched all the
    internet people, its really really good paragraph on building up new web site.

  80. The eventual winner, though, was the Nationals, who have been 25-1.

  81. I’ve learn a few good stuff here. Certainly value bookmarking for revisiting.
    I surprise how so much attempt you place to make one of these wonderful informative web site.

  82. Paragraph writing is also a fun, if you know after that you can write if not it is complex to write.

  83. Hello there! I know this is somewhat off topic but I was wondering
    if you knew where I could get a captcha plugin for my comment form?
    I’m using the same blog platform as yours and I’m having trouble finding one?

    Thanks a lot!

    my webpage :: 12bet

  84. What’s up, I would like to subscribe for this
    web site to get latest updates, so where can i do it please assist.

  85. I was recommended this web site by my cousin. I’m nnot sure
    whether this post is written by him as noo one else know such
    detailed about myy problem. You are wonderful! Thanks!

  86. You have mentioned very interesting points! ps decent website.

  87. This paragraph gives clear idea in favor of
    the new users of blogging, that genuinely hhow to do blogging and site-building.

  88. I feel this is among the so much vital information for me.
    And i’m glad reading your article. However wanna remark on some common issues, The website taste is great,
    the articles is in reality nice : D. Just right job, cheers

  89. I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own weblog and
    was curious what all is needed to get setup? I’m assuming
    having a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny?
    I’m not very web smart so I’m not 100% sure. Any suggestions or
    advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you

  90. My brother recommended I might like this website. He
    was entirely right. This post actually made my day. You can not
    imagine just how much time I had spent for this information! Thanks!

  91. If some one wants to be updated with most up-to-date technologies afterward he must be go
    to see this web page and be up to date every day.

  92. Hmm is anyone else having problems with the images on this blog loading?
    I’m trying to determine if its a problem on my end or if it’s the
    blog. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

  93. What’s Going down i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I have discovered It positively helpful and it
    has aided me out loads. I’m hoping to contribute & aid
    other users like its helped me. Good job.

  94. I think that what you posted was actually very logical.
    However, what about this? what if you were to write a awesome headline?
    I am not saying your information isn’t solid, but suppose
    you added something that grabbed people’s attention?
    I mean The Trolley: a Libertarian Analysis – Walter E.
    Block is kinda vanilla. You might glance
    at Yahoo’s home page and note how they create post headlines
    to get people interested. You might add a related video or a pic or two to grab people excited about everything’ve written. In my
    opinion, it could make your posts a little livelier.
    part time jobs hired in 30 minutes https://parttimejobshiredin30minutes.wildapricot.org/

Leave a Reply