[
Barker, Melissa A. (1983), “The Doctrines of Specification and Accession: Potential Bases for Legal Ownership through Labor?,” Economic and Industrial Democracy, 4(1), 1–17.10.1177/0143831X8300400102
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Birks, Peter (2005), Unjust Enrichment, Oxford University Press, New York.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276981.001.0001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Block, Walter E. (2018a), Defending the Undefendable, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Block, Walter E. (2018b), Defending the Undefendable II, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Block, Walter E. (2016), “Forestalling, Positive Obligations and the Lockean and Blockian Provisos: Rejoinder to Stephan Kinsella,” Ekonomia–Wroclaw Economic Review, 22(3), 27–41.10.19195/2084-4093.22.3.2
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Block, Walter E. (2013), Legalize Blackmail, Straylight Publishing, Chalmette.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Block, Walter E. (2004), “Libertarianism, Positive Obligations and Property Abandonment: Children’s Rights,” International Journal of Social Economics, 31 (3), 275–286.10.1108/03068290410518256
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Block, Walter E. (2019), “Libertarian Punishment Theory and Unjust Enrichment,” Journal of Business Ethics, 154, 103–108.10.1007/s10551-017-3469-7
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Block, Walter E. (2010), “Van Dun on Freedom and Property: A Critique,” Libertarian Papers, 2 (Art. 4), 1–11.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dannemann, Gerhard (2009), The German Law of Unjustified Enrichment and Restitution, Oxford University Press, New York.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199533114.001.0001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
The Digest of Justinian (1985), English translation edited by Alan Watson, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dominiak, Łukasz & Block, Walter E. (2017), “Libertarian Theory of Bribery and Incitement: A Reformulation,” MEST Journal, 5(2), 95–101.10.12709/mest.05.05.02.10
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dominiak, Łukasz (2017), “The Blockian proviso and the rationality of property rights,” Libertarian Papers 9(1): 114–128.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dominiak, Łukasz (2019), “Must right-libertarians embrace easements by necessity?,” Diametros: An Online Journal of Philosophy, 16 (60): 34–51.10.33392/diam.1241
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Dominiak, Łukasz (2021), “Libertarian easements revisited,” Ekonomia — Wroclaw Economic Review, 27(1): 27–35.10.19195/2658-1310.27.1.2
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hohfeld, Wesley N. (1913), “Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning,” Yale Law Journal, 23(1), 16–59.10.2307/785533
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Feinberg, Joel (1984), Harm to Others, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Fletcher, George P. (2000), Rethinking Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, New York.10.1093/oso/9780195136951.001.0001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (2001), Democracy — The God That Failed, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kinsella, Stephan N. (2007), “The Blockian Proviso,” Mises Wire, September 11, URL = https://mises.org/blog/blockean-proviso [Accessed 24.08.2018].
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lorenzen, Ernest G. (1925), “Specification in the Civil Law,” Yale Law Journal, 35(1), 29–47.10.2307/789534
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Merrill, Thomas W. (2009), “Accession and Original Ownership,” Journal of Legal Analysis, 1(2), 459–510.10.1093/jla/1.2.459
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Moore, Michael S. (1993), Act and Crime: The Philosophy of Action and Its Implications for Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, New York.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Narveson, Jan (2001), The Libertarian Idea, Broadview Press, Peterborough.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Nozick, Robert (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Pérez Medina, Esteban, Bagus, Philipp (2018), “A Critique of the Pure Natural Law Approach to Loan Maturity Mismatching and Fractional Reserve Banking,” Political Dialogues: Journal of Political Theory, 24, 11–22.10.12775/DP.2018.001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rothbard, Murray N. (1998), The Ethics of Liberty, New York University Press, New York.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rothbard, Murray N. (2006), For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rothbard, Murray N. (2009), Man, Economy, and State, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Silsbury v. McCoon, 3 N. Y. 379 (N. Y. 1850).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (1987), “Moral Dilemmas and ‘Ought and Ought Not’,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 17(1), 127–139.10.1080/00455091.1987.10715904
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Stein, Peter (1972), “The Two Schools of Jurists in the Early Roman Principate,” Cambridge Law Journal, 31(1), 8–31.10.1017/S0008197300133951
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Steiner, Hillel (2019), “Asymmetric Information, Libertarianism, and Fraud,” Review of Social Economy, 77(2), 94–107.10.1080/00346764.2019.1602280
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Steiner, Hillel (1994), An Essay on Rights, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
van Dun F. (2009), “Freedom and Property: Where They Conflict,” in J. G. Hülsmann, Stephan Kinsella (eds), Property, Freedom, & Society, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, 223–234.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
von Savigny, Friedrich C. ([1848] 1979), Treatise on Possession; or, the Jus Possessionis of the Civil Law, Hyperion Press, Westport.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wetherbee v. Green, 22 Mich. 311 (Mich. 1871).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wood, Thomas (1721), A New Institute of the Imperial or Civil Law. With Notes Shewing in some Principal Cases amongst other Observations, How the Canon Law, the Laws of England, and the Laws and Customs of other Nations differ from it, Richard Sare, London.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Zhang, Quinn (2020), “Note. Accession on the Frontiers of Property,” Harvard Law Review, 133(2381), 2381–2402.
]Search in Google Scholar
