These are the party-line libertarian arguments against banning various kinds of "bad" activities; basically arguing that anything which isn't a violation of the non-aggression principle and property rights shouldn't be prohibited by government. The problem is that it doesn't argue that these bad things are "good", only that banning them is "bad", and a lot of people don't accept this argument.

To many people, government banning "bad" things is desirable. To a smaller number of people, it's still ok to ban things which are "bad" when the harms of banning those bad things are less than the harms of those things. Other people think anything which isn't illegal is endorsed or good, and thus the legal system needs to ban a lot of things.

I tend to agree with the AnCap viewpoint of a government protecting only property rights, and then other systems (private law, etc.) protecting other values, allowing people to choose which other restrictions and enforcement mechanisms they want. This book makes a reasonable argument against government regulations, but probably won't be particularly convincing to most people who believe the role of government is to do more than protect property. ( )

This book is very enlightening, and is full of (mostly) much-needed common sense. The chapter on the stupidity of minimum wage laws is excellent, and was one of my favorite chapters. Some chapters were better than others, and I thought the chapter on child labor didn't really make sense, but overall this book is full of economic wisdom. ( )

In this unique book, economics professor Walter Block defends people who follow controversial practices. Each chapter is devoted to a different type of person - most of whom the average American would consider the lowest of the low. Pimps, drug pushers, blackmailers, ticket scalpers, dishonest cops, slumlords, litterers, fat capitalist pigs, and child labor employers to name a few of the more than 30 practices discussed in this book.

After reading "Defending", one is not meant to come away with a new found appreciation for sex workers, outlaws or cheats, it is merely a book meant to make you think - and it does just that. It is meant to release you from the bonds of mainstream thinking and get you to open your mind and ask yourself, "why is this practice so bad?" It teaches you to think for yourself and how to stand up and defend your own positions. After reading this book I came away with a great respect for Dr. Block because through his book I had received a great lesson in critical thinking.

If you want to read an entertaining, politically incorrect book that really makes you open your mind, read "Defending the Undefendable" by Walter Block. Regardless of your opinion of the practices discussed within its pages you will find yourself enjoying its contents immensely. ( )

In the first couple of sections, Sexual & Medical, he presents some good arguments in favor of less government interference & that's not surprising, given his Libertarian stance that he warns about in the introduction. His arguments are somewhat thin, but not too bad.I found that the third section on free speech lost some cohesiveness of argument. His arguments for not regulating blackmail, slander & libel were very thin. His comparisons against 'academic freedom' aren't particularly valid. He presupposes rationality & responsibility on the part of businesses that I don't believe exist, especially in his case for free speech against the yelling of, "Fire!" in a movie theater. This is an unfortunate habit of Libertarians. He puts up a fair defense for advertising & overall brings up some good points, but they lack the conviction & depth of his earlier arguments supporting sex & drugs. His arguments for unregulated cab drivers are OK, immediately followed by poor arguments supporting ticket scalping. Over & over he does this. He makes valid points & then weak ones usually due to faulty premises, not the logic inherent to his argument until he gets to 'The Dishonest Cop' & here his logic & premises fall apart. He takes his theories over the top into absurdity in his discussions about counterfeiting money, saying that only gold & silver are real money, again showing his premises are incorrect. He forgets (or ignores) that currency is a consensus of worth. Precious metals, jewels & even seashells were historically used because they were not counterfeitable, fairly rare & ornamental. They had no use in industry, yet everyone wanted them & agreed on their worth. The current global consensus is not to base money on any specific goods since there isn't enough of anything that would make sense & their value would affect significant industries. He shows that he understands debasement, inflation & other ills that can befall a currency, yet makes specious arguments for allowing counterfeiting on the grounds that the government already does it. Silly.The book gets worse, if possible, after this in sections V, VI & VII, Finaces, Business & Ecology, respectively. Several categories don't need any defense; inheritors & speculators. Others, profiteers, stripminers & litterers, are improperly defined, poorly defended & a waste of time to read. He goes out of his way to make completely improper comparisons in his rant against the establishment & its departure from his Libertarian values.He gets somewhat back on track with section VIII, Labor, & his discussion on the minimum wage law, but fails to take into account the growth of technology, which undermines one of his major arguments. That's the pattern - make a somewhat convincing argument & then blow it through neglect or diatribe. He follows this near success with the most specious & horrible arguments for child labor. I guess he doesn't read much history, as he actually writes, "Moreover, the institution of child labor is an honorable one, with a long and glorious history of good works." Abortion wasn't legal when this book was written, so one of his main arguments against parental responsibility is void.Basically, the book was a waste of time. If it teaches anything, it's to watch what you spend time reading. ( )

My 3-star review is a bit disingenuous. I give it 5+ for being a terrific slap in the face book for people who can't get into the right frame of mind to look at things "economically." However, as an actual econ major I give it 3 stars for being Randian in its selective ignoring of some aspects- namely the harm to society caused by the violence of pimps, the rampant public health problems of slums (resurgence of TB, anyone?) etc. The "side effects" (externalities in econ lingo) of these activities are glossed over. ( )