For my articles about physics see here.
As a libertarian, I try to find systems which can be created in a libertarian society without the need of force and are better than the systems actually used by the state.
As a libertarian system of enforcement of contracts, one can use a black list of contract breakers. It should be organized in such a way that the consistency of the records can be checked automatically. For this, it is sufficient that the record contains:
This would be the key ingredient in a libertarian reputation-based society.
Just land tax: A proposal for a fair system of taxation of land.
Libertarian taxation sounds like an oxymoron, but the proposal solves the problem how to get money for building infrastructure. It is libertarian because the structure which has the right to tax the landowners could be created on a completely volitional base as a system of shareholder companies of the landowners.
There is a strong correlation between Austrian economics (a particular direction of economic theory) and libertarian economics (economic thinking which does not support the state).
This has historical reasons – some leading libertarian economists, in particular Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Hans Hoppe, are Austrian economists, and, on the other hand, defenders of the state ignore Austrian economics. While I like many writings of Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe, I have found something to object:
Remarkably, all three articles argue in favour of Austrian economics becoming more mainstream. In fact, not an accident, similar to the situation in physics, where the rejection of the mainstream position is focussed on one central point – the acceptance of a preferred frame. In economics, my rejection of the mainstream is similarly localized: I reject the state as a criminal organization.
In the article "what is wrong with modern science?" I consider the situation in fundamental physics – the dominance of string theory criticized by Woit as "not even wrong" – from an economic point of view: The actual economic organization of state science forces scientists to follow the mainstream, even if it is only a purely speculative proposal. Thus, this organization is a serious danger for freedom of science.
In some mainstream forum I was confronted with an economic argument in favor of a ban of child labor in some particular situation - the claim was that without such an intervention, the society could remain catched in a local economic equilibrium with child labor, while there would be another one without child labor but higher wages for adults. But the two equilibria appeared to be a fake, created by excluding part-time child labor from the model. See my article "About multiple equilibria in a child labor market" for the explanation.