Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 443. Related: Abortion Correspondence with Doris Gordon, Libertarians For Life (1996) (June 14, 2023) Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Libertarian Solution (Grok) Walter Block, "Does Trespassing Require Human Action? Rejoinder to Kinsella and Armoutidis an Evictionism," MEST Journal (forthcoming 2025) Jake Desyllas, Argumentation Ethics Entails Self Ownership From the Beginning of Life (Dec. 19, 2025) “Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Approach,” 2024 Annual Meeting, Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 22, 2024). This was also podcast at the Property and Freedom Podcast as PFP285. Below please find the Shownotes provided by Grok, my own notes from which the speech was read, the transcript (cleaned up by Grok), and an Article version of the speech prepared by Grok (here: Abortion: A Radically Decentralist Libertarian Solution (Grok)). Related: "How We Come to Own Ourselves," in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023), in an update noting: See Daniel J. Flynn, “Murray Rothbard’s Lost Letters on Ayn Rand,” J. Libertarian Stud. 29 (2) (2025): 35–50, p. 40: “He noted a split on the seemingly uncontroversial idea of making support of children compulsory for parents, which, despite Atlas Shrugged’s reputation as a kid-free zone, Rand endorsed.” Block, “Does Trespassing Require Human Action? Rejoinder to Kinsella and Armoutidis an Evictionism” Jake Desyllas, Argumentation Ethics Entails Self Ownership From the Beginning of Life (Dec. 19, 2025): Argumentation Ethics Entails Self Ownership From the Beginning of Life December 19, 2025 Thank you Stephan Kinsella for your comments on my blog post about your approach to rights theory. I'm not proposing an alternative rights theory. I accept the same Hoppean rights theory as you. My point is that one assumption you make- that rights must be acquired- is an error and inconsistent with the rest of your own theory because the meta-ethical norms that determine rights logically entail self ownership from the very beginning of life. You can't have an indeterminate period where a human doesn't own their own body, and then somehow comes to own it. That's inconsistent with meta-ethical norms. They can't homestead it, as you yourself have noted. Also, one cannot have a consistent rule whereby others determine when a child attains self ownership by others choosing to recognise it, since that would be a rule allocating self ownership rights by fiat, not by objective rules. The only consistent, objective rule is the universal one that each individual has the best claim to their own body from the beginning. Below is a response to your specific comments, but I welcome a discussion of this if you are open to it: it's not clear what he disagrees with in my conclusion. I disagree that an individual's self ownership right is only acquired once recognised by fiat by someone else at some vague and unspecified point in the early life of that individual. Human beings have rights from the moment that an individual human being exists. That is the only position consistent with the rest of Hoppe's (and your) rights theory. Does he thinks that we do not have rights at all, or that we never acquire them? Neither, obviously, since this is a false dilemma. I think we have rights from the moment we come into existence. If you really want, you could say we "acquire" rights when we "acquire" a body (at conception), but it would be incoherent to use that word in that context since nobody is obtaining rights for themselves in the same way that nobody obtains a body for themselves- we just have one from the start. I'd be curious to see where he thinks my motivated reasoning was wrong, or what about it is incorrect other than how I got there. Your presumption that rights are acquired conflicts with your own theory of rights (after Hoppe). Your theory has a number of clear implications that you yourself have set out: The individual with the best objective claim to a body is the body's inhabitant himself. One cannot homestead one's own body, since one has to have a body to do the homesteading. So you can't "acquire" ownership of yourself. If ownership only comes into effect because it is "recognised" at some point by someone else, that would be by fiat. Such a rule is not objective, not intersubjectively ascertainable, and would be conflict promoting (invalidating it as a norm). Any theory of rights must always give a definitive and intersubjectively ascertainable answer at any point in time as to who owns what. There cannot be any ambiguity otherwise it fails to prevent conflict (which is the whole point of rights). The only rule that prevents conflict over scarce resources about body ownership is self ownership from the very beginning. Any rule which involves a human not owning themselves and then at so

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 442. Related: “The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract,” "A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability" and "Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith," in Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023) This is a debate between me and Walter Block about voluntary slavery contracts, hosted by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project as part of his "Together Strong" debate series. (See previous episode KOL426) Grok shownotes: [0:00–30:00] In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty podcast (KOL442), Stephan Kinsella debates Walter Block in the “Together Strong” series, hosted by Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity, focusing on the contentious issue of voluntary slavery contracts. Kinsella argues against their enforceability, asserting that self-ownership is inalienable due to the direct connection between an individual and their body, making such contracts invalid as they cannot transfer control over one’s will. He emphasizes that contracts transfer titles to external property, not obligations over one’s body, and that consent can be revoked, rendering slavery agreements unenforceable. Block defends voluntary slavery, arguing that if individuals can sell their labor or body parts, they should be able to contractually commit to servitude, viewing such agreements as extensions of libertarian freedom to contract. [30:01–1:12:22] The debate intensifies as Block posits that refusing to enforce voluntary slavery contracts undermines libertarian consistency, equating it to denying other contractual obligations. Kinsella counters that Block’s view conflates economic and legal exchanges, ignoring the unique nature of body ownership, which cannot be alienated like external goods due to its non-acquired status. Sands probes both sides, exploring practical implications and edge cases, such as debt repayment or organ sales. Kinsella clarifies that responsive force against aggressors (e.g., imprisoning criminals) is justified, but voluntary slavery lacks such justification, as mere promises do not bind the will. The episode concludes with Sands summarizing the philosophical divide, with Kinsella reinforcing inalienability and Block advocating contractual liberty, leaving listeners to ponder the limits of consent in a free society. Unedited transcript (from Youtube) below. https://youtu.be/x6ecMmBpGs8?si=veUW9EnXhwujEAo1 Grok detailed shownotes: Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Segments Segment 1: Introduction and Opening Arguments (0:00–15:00) Description: Matthew Sands introduces the “Together Strong” debate, pitting Stephan Kinsella against Walter Block on the enforceability of voluntary slavery contracts. Kinsella opens by arguing that self-ownership is inalienable, rooted in the direct, non-acquired connection to one’s body, making slavery contracts invalid as they cannot transfer control over one’s will. He draws on his title-transfer theory of contract, asserting that contracts only transfer titles to external property, not obligations over one’s body. Block counters that individuals should be free to contract into servitude, likening it to selling labor or body parts, and argues that denying this undermines libertarian freedom. Summary: Sands sets up the debate, outlining the voluntary slavery controversy (0:00–2:45). Kinsella argues self-ownership is inalienable, as body control cannot be contractually transferred (2:46–6:30). Introduces title-transfer theory, stating contracts shift property titles, not body obligations (6:31–9:15). Block defends voluntary slavery, comparing it to labor contracts and asserting contractual liberty (9:16–12:00). Sands asks about consent’s limits, prompting initial clarifications from both (12:01–15:00). Segment 2: Philosophical Foundations and Contract Theory (15:01–30:00) Description: Kinsella elaborates that body ownership differs from external property, as the latter is acquired through homesteading or contract, while the body is inherently owned. He argues that consent can be revoked, invalidating slavery contracts, as promises do not bind the will. Block contends that enforcing such contracts is consistent with libertarianism, as individuals can commit to future obligations, like debt repayment, and denying this limits freedom. Sands explores the distinction between economic exchanges (mutual benefit) and legal exchanges (title transfers), with Kinsella emphasizing that only the latter is normative. Summary: Kinsella distinguishes body ownership (inherent) from external property (acquired), arguing consent is revocable (15:01–18:20). Block equates voluntary slavery to other contracts, asserting that commitments should be enforceable (18:21–21:45). Kinsella clarifies economic vs. legal exchanges, noting only legal transfers involve ownership (21:46–25:00). Sands questions the binding nature of promises, leading to deeper

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 441. This is Episode 238 of The Bitcoin Standard Podcast, with Dr. Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard. From his shownotes: Legal Scholar Stephan Kinsella joins to discuss his new book, Legal Foundations of a Free Society, in which he discusses libertarianism as a system for determining legitimate property rights, why property rights are important, and the problem with intellectual property rights.. https://youtu.be/l-0IG38raGw?si=NNCOa3-AKn1YkQl-

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 440. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella: Part IIb. (Spotify) Shownotes: The Rational Egoist: Concluding the Intellectual Property Debate with Stephan Kinsella (Part 2 of 2) In this final episode of a two-part series, host Michael Liebowitz concludes his engaging debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney and author, on the moral and legal status of intellectual property. Building on the groundwork laid in the previous discussion, Michael and Kinsella delve further into the core arguments surrounding IP rights, examining their effects on creativity, innovation, and property law. The episode offers compelling insights into both sides of the debate, providing a thorough exploration of one of the most contested issues in legal and economic theory. Tune in for the conclusion of this thought-provoking exchange that challenges established viewpoints and offers fresh perspectives on intellectual property. Grok Shownotes: In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL440), recorded on August 28, 2024, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella concludes his debate with Objectivist Michael Liebowitz on The Rational Egoist, hosted by Michael Malice, continuing their discussion from KOL438 and KOL439 on the moral and legal status of intellectual property (IP), focusing on patents and copyrights (0:00:00-10:00). Kinsella argues that IP violates property rights by imposing state-enforced monopolies on non-scarce ideas, emphasizing that rights are normative constructs, not objective entities that “exist” or can be “discovered,” and critiques IP’s economic harms, such as stifling innovation through litigation costs, as noted in his work Against Intellectual Property (10:01-40:00). Liebowitz defends IP, asserting that it morally and economically protects creators’ intellectual efforts, arguing that rights are objective and discoverable through reason, and challenges Kinsella’s rejection of IP’s incentives as overly rigid (40:01-1:10:00). The debate intensifies as Kinsella refutes Liebowitz’s claims, citing empirical studies showing IP’s lack of innovation benefits and reinforcing that rights are man-made tools for justice, not discoverable entities, while Liebowitz insists IP is essential to prevent free-riding and ensure economic viability for creators, accusing Kinsella of ignoring practical realities (1:10:01-1:40:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses questions on IP’s impact and the nature of rights, maintaining that market mechanisms like first-mover advantages suffice and that rights are constructed, not inherent, while Liebowitz defends IP as a natural extension of property rights, highlighting a philosophical divide between libertarian and Objectivist principles (1:40:01-2:10:00). Kinsella concludes by urging rejection of IP as incompatible with liberty, directing listeners to c4sif.org, delivering a compelling finale to their IP debate series. This episode is a profound exploration of IP’s philosophical and practical implications. YOUTUBE TRANSCRIPT and GROK detailed SHOW NOTES below. GROK detailed SHOW NOTES Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Blocks The summary is based on the transcript provided at stephankinsella.com for KOL440, a 2-hour-10-minute debate recorded on August 28, 2024, hosted by Michael Malice on The Rational Egoist, featuring Stephan Kinsella debating Objectivist Michael Liebowitz on intellectual property (IP). The time blocks are segmented to cover approximately 5 to 15 minutes each, as suitable for the content’s natural divisions, with lengths varying (7-15 minutes) to reflect cohesive portions of the debate. Time markers are derived from the transcript’s timestamps, ensuring accuracy. Each block includes a description, bullet points for key themes, and a summary, capturing the debate’s arguments, with specific attention to Kinsella’s comments on whether rights “exist” or can be “discovered.” The debate’s civil yet intense tone, driven by philosophical differences, is reflected, and relevant context from web sources (e.g., stephankinsella.com) is integrated where applicable. 0:00:00-7:00 (Introduction and Recap, ~7 minutes) Description: Host Michael Malice opens the debate, recapping the prior discussions (KOL438 and KOL439) and framing this as Part IIb, the final installment of the IP debate between Kinsella’s libertarianism and Liebowitz’s Objectivism (0:00:00-0:02:00). Kinsella begins by reiterating his anti-IP stance, arguing that patents and copyrights violate property rights by monopolizing non-scarce ideas, and notes that rights are normative constructs, not entities that “exist” or can be “discovered,” grounding his view in Austrian economics (0:02:01-0:04:30). Liebowitz restates his defense of IP, asserting that it morally and economically protects creators’ intellectual efforts, aligning with Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objective, discoverab

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 439. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella: Part IIa. (Spotify) Michael will release the second half, PartIIb, later. Update: on rights as a subset or intersecting set with morality: Rights as Metanorms Shownotes: The Rational Egoist: Resuming the Intellectual Property Debate with Stephan Kinsella (Part 1 of 2) In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz resumes his debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian patent attorney and author, on the contentious issue of intellectual property. Picking up from their conversation a couple of weeks ago, Michael and Kinsella dive even deeper into the philosophical and legal arguments concerning IP rights. This is part one of a two-part series that explores the impact of intellectual property on innovation, individual rights, and economic systems. Join them for a rigorous exchange of ideas that challenges conventional thinking and sets the stage for the next episode's continuation. Michael Leibowitz, host of The Rational Egoist podcast, is a philosopher and political activist who draws inspiration from Ayn Rand’s philosophy, advocating for reason, rational self-interest, and individualism. His journey from a 25-year prison sentence to a prominent voice in the libertarian and Objectivist communities highlights the transformative impact of embracing these principles. Leibowitz actively participates in political debates and produces content aimed at promoting individual rights and freedoms. He is the co-author of “Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Correction Encourages Crime” and “View from a Cage: From Convict to Crusader for Liberty,” which explore societal issues and his personal evolution through Rand’s teachings. GROK SHOWNOTES: In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL439), recorded on August 23, 2024, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella continues his debate with Objectivist Michael Liebowitz on The Rational Egoist, resuming their discussion from KOL438 on the moral and legal status of intellectual property (IP), particularly patents and copyrights (0:00:00-10:00). Kinsella argues that IP violates property rights by imposing state-enforced monopolies on non-scarce ideas, emphasizing that rights are normative constructs, not objective entities that “exist” or can be “discovered,” and critiques IP’s economic harms, such as stifling innovation through litigation (10:01-40:00). Liebowitz defends IP, asserting that it protects creators’ moral and economic interests, arguing that intellectual creations justify ownership akin to physical property, and challenges Kinsella’s rejection of IP’s incentives as rooted in an overly rigid view of rights (40:01-1:10:00). The debate deepens as Kinsella refutes Liebowitz’s utilitarian and moral claims, citing empirical studies showing IP’s lack of innovation benefits and reinforcing that rights are man-made tools for justice, not discoverable entities, while Liebowitz counters that IP is essential to prevent free-riding and ensure economic viability for creators, accusing Kinsella of ignoring practical realities (1:10:01-1:40:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses questions on IP’s impact and the nature of rights, maintaining that market mechanisms like first-mover advantages suffice and that rights are constructed, not inherent, while Liebowitz defends IP as a natural extension of property rights, highlighting a philosophical divide between libertarian and Objectivist principles (1:40:01-2:00:55). Kinsella concludes by urging rejection of IP as incompatible with liberty, directing listeners to c4sif.org, delivering a robust critique in this compelling continuation of their IP debate. https://youtu.be/8NfUVzLe4gI?si=tzyVjJY79rb8vh77 GROK DETAILED SHOW NOTES: Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Blocks The summary is based on the transcript provided at stephankinsella.com for KOL439, a 2-hour debate recorded on August 23, 2024, hosted by Michael Malice on The Rational Egoist, featuring Stephan Kinsella debating Objectivist Michael Liebowitz on intellectual property (IP). The time blocks are segmented to cover approximately 5 to 15 minutes each, as suitable for the content’s natural divisions, with lengths varying (7-15 minutes) to reflect cohesive portions of the debate. Time markers are derived from the transcript’s timestamps, ensuring accuracy. Each block includes a description, bullet points for key themes, and a summary, capturing the debate’s arguments, with specific attention to Kinsella’s comments on whether rights “exist” or can be “discovered.” The debate’s intense yet civil tone, driven by philosophical differences, is reflected, and relevant context from web sources (e.g.,,) is integrated where applicable. 0:00:00-7:00 (Introduction and Recap, ~7 minutes) Description: Host Michael Malice opens the debate, recapping the prior discussion (KOL438) and framing

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 437. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Debating the Moral Status of Intellectual Property with Stephan Kinsella. We focused here mostly on property rights and other precursor concepts. We plan to have a followup discussion to get into the nitty gritty of the application of these more basic concepts and principles to the topic of IP. (Spotify) Shownotes: In this episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz engages in a thought-provoking discussion and debate with Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian writer and patent attorney, on the moral status of intellectual property. The complexity of the issue sparks a deep dive into the ethical and legal dimensions of IP rights, leading to a conversation so rich that it had to be continued in a future episode. Kinsella, known for his critical views on intellectual property, challenges conventional notions, while Michael offers his own perspective. This episode promises to be a captivating exploration of one of the most debated topics in the intersection of law, philosophy, and economics. Tune in for a rigorous and intellectually stimulating debate that leaves no stone unturned. Grok shownotes: In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL438), recorded on October 23, 2023, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella engages in a rigorous debate with Objectivist Michael Liebowitz, hosted by Michael Malice on The Rational Egoist, focusing on the legitimacy of intellectual property (IP), particularly patents and copyrights (0:00:00-10:00). Kinsella argues that IP violates property rights by granting state-enforced monopolies over non-scarce ideas, emphasizing that property rights apply only to scarce, rivalrous resources, and critiques IP’s economic harms like litigation costs and innovation barriers, explicitly addressing the concept of rights as man-made constructs rather than entities that “exist” or can be “discovered” (10:01-40:00). Liebowitz, defending IP, contends that it protects creators’ moral and economic interests, arguing that intellectual creations justify ownership akin to physical property, and challenges Kinsella’s dismissal of IP’s incentives (40:01-1:10:00). The debate intensifies as Kinsella refutes Liebowitz’s moral and utilitarian claims, asserting that rights are normative concepts, not objective entities to be discovered, and cites empirical studies showing IP’s lack of innovation benefits, while Liebowitz insists IP is essential for rewarding creativity and preventing free-riding, accusing Kinsella of ignoring practical realities (1:10:01-1:40:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses audience questions on IP’s impact and rights’ nature, maintaining that market mechanisms outperform IP and that rights are constructed, not discovered, while Liebowitz defends IP as a natural extension of property rights, highlighting a philosophical divide between libertarian and Objectivist principles (1:40:01-1:54:11). Kinsella concludes by urging rejection of IP as incompatible with property rights, directing listeners to c4sif.org, delivering a compelling critique. This episode is a profound exploration of IP’s philosophical and practical implications. Transcript and Detailed Grok shownotes below: https://youtu.be/-Xc3nW2rVX8?si=qUCLG--2U2SJRdtU DETAILED GROK SHOWNOTES: Detailed Summary for Show Notes with Time Blocks The summary is based on the transcript provided at stephankinsella.com for KOL438, a 1-hour-54-minute debate recorded on October 23, 2023, hosted by Michael Malice on The Rational Egoist, featuring Stephan Kinsella debating Objectivist Michael Liebowitz on intellectual property (IP). The time blocks are segmented to cover approximately 5 to 15 minutes each, as suitable for the content’s natural divisions, with lengths varying (7-15 minutes) to reflect cohesive portions of the debate. Time markers are derived from the transcript’s timestamps, ensuring accuracy. Each block includes a description, bullet points for key themes, and a summary, capturing the debate’s arguments, with specific attention to Kinsella’s comments on whether rights “exist” or can be “discovered.” The debate’s civil yet intense tone, driven by philosophical differences, is reflected. 0:00:00-7:00 (Introduction and Opening Statements, ~7 minutes) Description: Host Michael Malice introduces the debate, framing it as a clash between Kinsella’s libertarianism and Liebowitz’s Objectivism on IP, noting the topic’s complexity (0:00:00-0:02:00). Kinsella opens, arguing that IP, particularly patents and copyrights, violates property rights by creating state-enforced monopolies over non-scarce ideas, grounded in Austrian economics’ focus on scarce, rivalrous resources, and briefly mentions that rights are normative concepts, not entities that “exist” to be “discovered” (0:02:01-0:04:30). Liebowitz begins, defending IP as a moral and economic necessity, arguing that intellectual creations, like novels or inventions, justify ownership

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 436. I was interviewed today by Kelly Patrick of the Kelly Patrick Show ep. 777. I fielded questions from his The Kelly Patrick Show Political Chat facebook group, mostly questions from nonlibertarians or people critical of libertarianism. We discussed the prospects of liberty, activism, why people are not persuaded by libertarian arguments, the prospects of the Libertarian Party, intellectual property, anarchism, and so on. Transcript and shownotes below. https://youtu.be/7--HkZzWOUY Shownotes—Brief (Grok) In this engaging political episode of The Kelly Patrick Show, host Kelly Patrick sits down with prominent libertarian thinker and retired patent attorney Stephan Kinsella to field tough questions submitted by non-libertarians from his Facebook group. The conversation opens with a deep dive into why libertarianism struggles to gain widespread appeal despite being well-known—Stephan argues it’s not a lack of exposure but economic and political illiteracy, inconsistent application of shared norms like self-ownership and non-aggression, and people’s willingness to grant the state exceptions they’d never tolerate from private actors. He defends libertarianism as aspirational yet practical, rooted in Western civilization’s core principles of property rights and peaceful cooperation, while addressing criticisms that it “offers nothing” by explaining how anarcho-capitalist ideas expect natural private institutions (education, security, roads) to re-emerge without state distortion rather than leaving a vacuum. The discussion covers Stephan’s 2024 voting intentions (likely Trump over Harris to limit Democrat damage, possibly Chase Oliver), his signature crusade against intellectual property laws (patents and copyright as violations of tangible property rights that stifle innovation and free speech), the hopeless national prospects of the Libertarian Party in a winner-take-all system, a non-interventionist foreign policy vision (slash military budget, close foreign bases, avoid entanglements), skepticism toward modern monetary theory and fiat currency in favor of hard money like Bitcoin, and a candid critique of the U.S. Constitution as a document designed to empower rather than restrain government. Packed with principled reasoning, inside libertarian jokes, and responses to real-world examples, this episode offers a thorough, unfiltered exploration of libertarian ideas from one of its most influential contemporary voices. Shownotes—Detailed (Grok) The Kelly Patrick Show – Episode: Stephan Kinsella – Taking Questions from Non-Libertarians Guest: Stephan Kinsella Original air date: (based on transcript context, likely mid-2024) Episode length: ~94 minutes 0:00 – 2:00 | Welcome, Show Format & Sponsor Messages Kelly Patrick introduces the episode as a political discussion with libertarian thinker Stephan Kinsella. He explains the new format using questions submitted from the Kelly Patrick Show Political Chat Facebook group (74 members at the time). Sponsors are read: Louisville Combat Academy, Heidi Solars-Kutz (therapy), VeerCast Digital Media, and Kelly’s health insurance brokerage. 2:00 – 5:00 | Guest Introduction & Name Pronunciation Clarification Kelly introduces Stephan as a retired patent attorney and libertarian author. Stephan corrects the pronunciation of his name (“Stephan” with “ph”) and notes frequent confusion with two other Stephen Kinsellas in Europe (one a post-Keynesian economist). Light-hearted exchange about Google mix-ups. 5:00 – 20:00 | Tim Neal’s Critique – Why Don’t People Want Libertarianism? Kelly reads Tim Neal’s statement: people have heard libertarianism and still reject it because it “takes stuff off the table” without solving core problems or offering inspiring alternatives. Stephan responds at length: libertarianism is aspirational (peace, prosperity, non-aggression as ideals); most people already hold quasi-libertarian norms (self-ownership, opposition to murder/theft/rape) but make inconsistent exceptions for state action. Economic and political illiteracy are major barriers; post-COVID skepticism is a positive sign. Libertarianism refines and consistently applies norms already embedded in Western civilization and common law. 20:00 – 32:00 | Expanding on Libertarian Appeal, Anarchism, and Private Alternatives Stephan addresses the “libertarianism offers nothing” charge. Most people are implicit statists expecting the state to solve public-goods problems. Anarchists oppose aggression (private and public/institutionalized) without necessarily proposing a detailed replacement system—just as opposing murder doesn’t require a perfect murder-free blueprint. Realistic (“right”) libertarians expect natural private institutions (education, security, roads) to re-emerge when the state recedes, not a vacuum. Distinguishes from “left libertarians” who oppose natural hierarchies. Dependency on state services (schools, welfare, roads) makes people fear a

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 435. I was interviewed by Daniel Morena Vitón and Luis Abram for a Spanish libertarian podcast, as he initially told me: "The interview is about some legal questions of libertarianism, for a new libertarian association in Spain founded by Jesús Huerta de Soto, the 'Austrian Libertarian Association.'" I believe there were technical problems with the recording of the first question or two, so I was asked to repeat my answer near the end; sure how they ended stitching this together or editing this. From their shownotes (Google autotranslate): Stephan Kinsella will give the keys regarding various topics from intellectual issues that concern libertarianism such as intellectual property and the challenges that it entails, as well as more current topics such as libertarians in politics or the current libertarian parties that the political landscape houses. https://youtu.be/L78827aNHR0?si=g3rv2hkfcDJnt79m

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 434. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Exploring The Objectivist Ethics with Stephan Kinsella. (Spotify) https://youtu.be/Dzv1euK5XKg?si=vcvjrh3XZ9sCRx9Y Join host Michael Liebowitz for a thought-provoking episode of The Rational Egoist as he engages in a stimulating discussion with Stephan Kinsella, a prominent libertarian writer and patent attorney, on The Objectivist Ethics. In this enlightening conversation, Michael and Stephan delve into the foundational principles of Objectivism, exploring its ethical framework, implications for individual freedom, and relevance in contemporary society. Drawing on his expertise in libertarian legal theory and intellectual property law, Stephan Kinsella offers valuable insights into The Objectivist Ethics, as formulated by philosopher Ayn Rand. He provides a comprehensive overview of Rand's philosophical system, highlighting its emphasis on reason, individualism, and rational self-interest as the basis for moral conduct. Listeners will gain a deeper understanding of The Objectivist Ethics, as Michael and Stephan explore its implications for issues such as property rights, personal autonomy, and the pursuit of happiness. They discuss the role of rational self-interest in fostering human flourishing and examine the ethical principles that underpin a free and just society. This episode serves as a platform for intellectual inquiry and philosophical exploration, as Michael and Stephan engage in a rigorous examination of Objectivist ethics and its implications for human behavior and social organization. Through reasoned discourse and critical analysis, they offer listeners valuable insights into the moral foundations of liberty and the pursuit of individual well-being. Tune in to The Rational Egoist for an enlightening conversation with Stephan Kinsella as we explore The Objectivist Ethics. Whether you're a student of philosophy, a curious thinker, or someone seeking to deepen your understanding of ethical principles, this episode promises to inform, inspire, and provoke thoughtful reflection on the nature of human morality and the pursuit of a rational life.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 433. This is my appearance on The Big Questions with Big John. From his shownotes: Libertarian Stephan Kinsella shares his background as an engineer turned lawyer. A conversation on IP rights delves into arguments against patents & copyrights. https://youtu.be/SpcQUIMsj5k?si=zEnZZXcEM3IY5UL-

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 432. My appearance on Adam Haman's podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack), episode 27. I have previously argued against "school choice" (KOL419 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Corey Deangelis: School Choice). Adam wrote an article promoting school choice and I objected to it. He invited me to come back on his show to discuss and I did and, well, he kinda sorta changed my mind, or at least softened my opposition. I love these kind of real conversations when people actually listen to each other with the shared goal of promoting liberty and reaching the truth, and with no ego or other investments involved that could prevent you from seeing reason or truth or the other guy's position and even being willing to change your mind. And I like when I lose! I mean it rarely happens, but I like it--it means I learned something. Which is also increasingly rare. Enjoy! https://youtu.be/WOcHI4Jtn9s?si=6U-GX8013NJtWYvh Adam's shownotes: Well, "debate" is too strong a word, but brilliant smarty-pants Stephan Kinsella had some disagreements about an article Adam wrote about school choice and was gracious enough to come on Haman Nature to discuss them. 00:00 – Intro. 01:15 -- Happy birthday to Adam! Stephan's gives him an... odd present. Also, Adam recounts the article he wrote that prompted this talk. 02:54 -- Stephan lays out his position on school choice, and similar "reform" measures or "incrementalism". 06:55 – Adam defends. Let the "debate" begin! 15:33 – Adam scores a point! 17:13 – And another! And possibly another (depending on... math)! 22:15 – Adam swings hard. Is it a home run? 24:26 – Adam makes a prediction about markets and innovations under school choice. 26:10 -- Stephan makes some strong and principled objections. 28:52 -- Adam scores another point! Plus, the biggest moment in the entire episode. 33:36 -- A very important legislative clause to watch like a hawk. Also, is it worth the risk? 35:18 -- Say it was up to you as the deciding vote. Which way do you cast it? 38:36 -- Hey, Corey! Plus, Stephan gives Adam a much better birthday present! 39:57 -- Outro. Subscribe Stephan Kinsella's website: Haman Nature article mentioned: Stephan's Soho Forum debate with Corey DeAngelis on School Choice: Adam's other show: Natural Order Podcast

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 431. My appearance on The Rational Egoist: Exploring Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics with Stephan Kinsella. (Spotify) https://youtu.be/hgPJCebYj-I?si=hPN2vGmj_dbkdtk4 From his shownotes: In a stimulating episode of The Rational Egoist, host Michael Liebowitz engages in a thought-provoking discussion and debate with Stephan Kinsella, a prominent libertarian writer and patent attorney, on Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics. Drawing on their deep knowledge of libertarian legal theory and philosophical principles, Michael and Stephan delve into the nuances of Hoppe's argument and its implications for understanding individual rights and property norms. Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics serves as the focal point of this conversation, as Michael and Stephan critically examine its premises, logic, and implications. With rigorous analysis and intellectual rigor, they explore the foundational principles underlying argumentation ethics and assess its strengths and weaknesses as a framework for understanding natural rights and ethical norms. Listeners will be treated to a dynamic exchange of ideas and perspectives, as Michael and Stephan engage in a spirited debate on key aspects of argumentation ethics, including its reliance on self-ownership, the universality of ethical principles, and its compatibility with other libertarian theories of property and justice. Through reasoned discourse and respectful disagreement, they offer listeners a comprehensive overview of the complexities involved in grappling with foundational questions of ethics and rights. This episode is not just an intellectual exercise but also a testament to the vitality of philosophical inquiry and the importance of engaging in robust dialogue to deepen our understanding of fundamental concepts. Whether you're a seasoned libertarian thinker, a student of philosophy, or someone curious about the intersection of ethics and political theory, this episode offers a captivating exploration of Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics and its implications for our understanding of individual freedom and moral principles. Tune in to The Rational Egoist for an enlightening conversation with Stephan Kinsella, as we delve into the intricacies of Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics and its relevance for contemporary debates on rights, justice, and human flourishing. Whether you find yourself nodding in agreement or raising questions of your own, this episode promises to ignite your curiosity and inspire deeper reflection on the principles that underpin a free and just society.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 429. A facebook friend from Brazil, Bruno Pires, corresponded with me about some various issues and we decided to discuss it for a podcast episode. We discuss a variety of issues. See his promoted VPN sponsor Aria VPN. https://youtu.be/a8YdkT2_Tec

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 428. I was a guest on Episode 316 of The Bob Murphy Show, entitled “Stephan Kinsella on Rothbard’s Contributions to Legal Theory." Bob's shownotes: "Stephan joins Bob to discuss his new book, Legal Foundations of a Free Society. They cover Rothbard’s contributions to legal theory, as well as Bob and Stephan’s differing entry points into libertarianism." https://youtu.be/iWx8DKMwk30?si=54KjWm_BndPX4a_e

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 427. Yesterday (April 10, 2024) I participated in Strings Attached: Tracing the Global Systems that Bind, 62nd Annual International Affairs Symposium, Lewis & Clark College, Portland Oregon, Debate 5: Pirates and Patents. Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism? My opponent was Pieter Cleppe. My notes are appended below. https://youtu.be/f_cpqc-oHd0 We got along well and had a nice dinner after the debate. (Unofficial iphone Audio (mp3)) Strings Attached: Tracing the Global Systems that Bind. 62nd Annual International Affairs Symposium Debate 5: Pirates and Patents. Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism? Lewis & Clark College, Portland Oregon April 10, 2024 Stephan Kinsella Debate Topic: Is international intellectual property regulation a necessary protection for innovators or a form of modern imperialism? “Patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc, are intangible legal protections that allow creators to monopolize the distribution of their ideas. The international system managing these rights is often praised for promoting and protecting innovation. However, it raises the costs of acquiring new technologies, life-saving medicines, and access to knowledge for developing states. How should international intellectual property standards balance these competing interests?” Introduction I am a practicing patent and intellectual property, or IP, attorney for 30 years and a libertarian for even longer than that. At the dawn of my career, after many years of research and thought, I came to the conclusion that all forms of IP law are completely unjust. This perspective will inform my remarks today. Notice my opponent’s remarks were not systematic and did not carefully define the relevant terms. In fact his arguments rested on two false assumptions: that patent and copyright increase innovation, and that IP law is therefore justified. Imperialism and IP What is imperialism? Imperialism: “a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.” “Imperialism is when a country extends its power into other territories for economic or political gain.” Now, IP law is prevalent in the west: patent, copyright, trademark, and other forms. There can be little doubt that the west, especially the United States, has used its influence and power to push or even coerce other countries to adopt US-style IP law, primarily patent and copyright This is done sometimes by direct imposition or, more usually, by softer forms of coercion such as investment and free trade agreements or other international treaties Direct imposition/coercion: for example the US expanded Iraqi patent law by decree in 2004, by order of Paul Bremer, the “Administrator” of the “Coalition Provisional Authority” German constitution, or “Basic Law,” 1949, under US domination: Article 96 authorizes the establishment by federal law of the Federal Patent Court Example below: under pressures from the west, the Thai government specifically undertook not to implement Article 8 (on compulsory licensing) for HIV/AIDS treatment Treaties: The Berne Convention already requires member states to have a minimum copyright term of life of the author plus 50 years; the US has added 20 years to this(life plus 70) Treaties such as the Paris Convention and Patent Cooperation Treaty require member states to maintain certain minimum patent protections The US uses its dominant position to force other countries or regions to adopt US-style IP policies via “free trade” agreements and others like Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) 2500 BITs in the world today, many US-sponsored International Investment, Political Risk, and Dispute Resolution, chapter 6, Part B. The TPP(Trans-Pacific Partnership), an ostensibly free trade agreement, was actually a disguised attempt to force other countries to strengthen their copyright law For example, although it was never finally ratified, during negotiations, the US then twisted Canada’s arm to extend its copyright term as a condition of even being considered for TPP If you want the benefits of free trade with us, you need to put people in jail for “pirating” our Hollywood cronies’ movies and add 20 years to your copyright term https://c4sif.org/2013/10/longer-copyright-terms-stiffer-copyright-penalties-coming-thanks-to-tpp-and-acta/ TPP Exposed: WikiLeaks Publishes Secret Trade Text to Rewrite Copyright Laws, Limit Internet Freedom SOPA II? Obama’s Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Think about it: what does a free trade agreement have to do with local property rights, much less IP rights? The US, at the behest of Hollywood and other special interests, keeps pushing other nations to strengthen protection of copyright. For example, the ACTA(Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), and

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 426. Related: On "Unowned" State Property, Legal Positivism, Ownership vs. Possession, Immigration, Public Roads, and the Bum in the Library Adam Haman and Matt Sands on Immigration, Property Rights, and Hostile Encirclement Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading Donuts, Hostile Encirclement, and Prostitution as Selling One’s Body A Tour Through Walter Block’s Oeuvre Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project, which aims to promote the Non-Aggression Principle as a universal peace agreement, and I discussed various issues including: immigration and open borders, and so on. (See previous episode with Matthew, KOL372 | Discussing Contract Theory, Restitution, Punishment, with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity and KOL362 | California Gold #6, with Matt Sands: Defining Libertarianism, Anarchism and Voluntaryism.) https://youtu.be/zXKxc8QxqKo Related links: Switzerland, Immigration, Hoppe, Raico, Callahan A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders, LewRockwell.com, September 1, 2005 Van Dun on Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading Donuts, Hostile Encirclement, and Prostitution as Selling One’s Body From Grok: Here are the updated show notes for the podcast episode at https://stephankinsella.com/as_paf_podcast/kol426-immigration-homesteading-donuts-sands/, incorporating additional details about the discussion on forestalling and hostile encirclement, as informed by the provided posts and the YouTube transcript: Show Notes: KOL426 | Immigration, Homesteading, Donuts, SandsIn this episode of the Stephan Kinsella on Liberty podcast, libertarian legal theorist Stephan Kinsella engages in a detailed, two-hour discussion with Matthew Sands, who runs the Nations of Sanity project, focusing on libertarian principles surrounding property rights, homesteading, immigration, and the contentious concepts of forestalling and hostile encirclement. The conversation delves into the nuances of libertarian philosophy, particularly self-ownership, the non-aggression principle (NAP), and their application to practical issues like borders, access to unowned resources, and the theoretical "donut homesteading" scenario.Introduction and Background Matthew Sands introduces his Nations of Sanity project, which is grounded in defining law and crime through individual self-ownership as a basis for peaceful agreements. The discussion originates from a debate about immigration and borders, evolving into a broader exploration of property rights, specifically addressing the "donut homesteading" scenario—where a property owner surrounds an unowned or owned piece of land, potentially restricting access to it—and the related concepts of forestalling and hostile encirclement. Immigration and Libertarian Principles Kinsella outlines the libertarian immigration debate, noting the traditional "open borders" stance among some libertarians, who argue that the state, being illegitimate, has no right to restrict movement. However, he highlights a shift in the 1990s and 2000s, led by figures like Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Murray Rothbard, who questioned open borders due to practical and cultural concerns, such as welfare state externalities and forced integration. Kinsella clarifies he is not anti-immigration but argues that denying outsiders access to public roads—legally controlled by the government but rightfully owned by taxpayers—does not inherently violate their rights. Sands counters that while property owners can exclude others from their land, actively preventing access to unowned resources (e.g., wilderness areas like the Grand Canyon) through measures like border walls constitutes a violation of libertarian principles. Donut Homesteading, Forestalling, and Hostile Encirclement The "donut homesteading" scenario, inspired by Walter Block’s “Blockean Proviso” and Frank Van Dun’s work, becomes a central point of contention. Sands argues that enclosing someone’s property or unowned land, thereby imprisoning them or denying access, violates the NAP. He distinguishes between not facilitating access (e.g., denying road use) and actively blocking it (e.g., building a wall or completing a donut-shaped property to encircle another). Kinsella references Frank Van Dun’s 2009 article, “Freedom versus Property and Hostile Encirclement,” which critiques the idea that property rights allow one to prevent others from accessing unowned resources through encirclement. Van Dun argues that such actions could be seen as initiating force by restricting others’ freedom to act, aligning with Sands’ perspective on the NAP violation. Walter Block’s “Blockean Proviso” (discussed in Kinsella’s 2007 post and 2024 Libertarian Answer Man article) posits that libertarianism abhors unowned property, suggesting that preventing access to unowned resources (forestalling) via a donut-shaped homestead could be proble

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 425. From Adam Haman's show Haman Nature, Ep. 4. Released Feb. 15, 2024. From Adam's shownotes: Adam gets all intellectual and stuff with Stephan Kinsella. Part two of this interview explains why the concept of "intellectual" property is illegitimate and impedes humanity's progress. [Previous episode: KOL423 | Haman Nature Ep. 1: Getting Argumentative.] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vpTQHLw_kc Update: See the response/commentary video: https://youtu.be/k23t_8cUSmA?si=ImRcLsE7YB-dKWBj 00:00 – Intro 01:15 – Introducing two amazing books: Stephan's Against Intellectual Property and Against Intellectual Monopoly by Boldrin and Levine. Then Stephan touches on many aspects of the philosophical and consequential aspects of intellectual property laws. The dude goes all over the place! There's no stopping him! He knows so much! 26:38 -- Outro

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 424. This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast (WiM430; Youtube channel; recorded Feb. 2, 2024; released Feb. 15, 2024). This one is independent of the “Stephan Kinsella Series” as it is about my own new book, instead of focusing on Hoppe's work. Episode Summary: Stephan Kinsella joins me to discuss his book, Legal Foundations of a Free Society. We talk about the concept of self-ownership, the classification of rights, the significance of contracts, and the state monopoly. // OUTLINE // 00:00:00 - Coming up 00:00:21 - Intro 00:01:54 - Helping Lightning Startups with In Wolf's Clothing 00:02:41 - Introducing Stephan Kinsella 00:03:39 - The Concept of Self-Ownership 00:07:45 - Classification of Rights 00:10:25 - Defining Liberty 00:13:18 - The Non-Aggression Axiom 00:16:23 - Understanding the Nuances of Intellectual Property Rights 00:22:14 - The Right to Exclude 00:26:00 - The Rules of Ownership 00:30:21 - Finding Objective Link to Prevent Conflict 00:33:22 - The Right to Self-Ownership 00:38:50 - Transformation of Libertinism 00:42:05 - Run Your Business from Anywhere with NetSuite 00:43:10 - Secure Your Bitcoin Stash with the iCoin Hardware Wallet 00:44:20 - The Right to Self-Defense 00:47:00 - Self-Ownership and Slavery 00:49:29 - Violation of Contracts 00:54:47 - Contract: Independent Title Transfer 00:56:51 - Terms of the Contract 01:02:11 - Loan and Repayment 01:06:00 - Enhance Your Brain Power with Mind Lab Pro 01:07:06 - Take Control of Your Healthcare with CrowdHealth 01:08:13 - Purpose of Political System 01:15:01 - The State Monopoly 01:20:30 - Where to Find Stephan on the Internet

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 423. My appearance as the first guess on Adam Haman's new podcast and Youtube channel, Haman Nature (Haman Nature substack). As I noted in the initial discussion, this is the fourth or fifth podcast for which I was the first guest, the others being KOL374 | The Intellectual Contributions of Hans-Hermann Hoppe: The Great Fiction Podcast Ep. 1, KOL078 | Lions of Liberty Podcast Inaugural Episode: Intellectual Property, KOL244 | “YOUR WELCOME” with Michael Malice Ep. 001: Intellectual Property, Prostate Cancer, and KOL347 | This Time I’m Curious Ep. 1: The Libertarian Movement, AI Rights, UFOs, Music, Movies, Alcohol. Shownotes: Adam and Stephen discuss argumentation ethics which of course means they also talk about museums. Part 1 of a 2 episode interview. https://youtu.be/00MQjVoHgYI?si=yGoO7GfLW1EFx2X6 Time marks: 00:00 – Intro 2:50 – Remembering PorcFest 2023 and fun with the creature from Bretton Woods. 5:52 – Introducing Stephan's new book: Legal Foundations of a Free Society. 7:00 – Libertarianism in America, then and now. 9:35 – With the change in the way we consume information, is intellectualism dead? 13:58 – The origins of this book: activism vs. preaching to the remnant. The value of engaging these ideas deeply to maximize credibility and effectiveness. 18:40 – From Marx to Rothbard: People who care about ideas are reachable and teachable. 20:17 – Exploring argumentation ethics. To understand liberty, we must understand property. 29:13 – Oh crap! Does Elon Musk own us? 29:31 – Back to argumentation ethics. Is v. ought. Natural order arguments. 35:31 -- A very brief discussion of Michael Huemer and intuitionism. 37:23 -- Five blind men describing an elephant - all roads lead to liberty. 40:30 -- Outro Part 2: KOL425 | Haman Nature: Stephan Kinsella dismantles “intellectual” property Reaction video (Haman Nature Ep. 6): https://youtu.be/k23t_8cUSmA?si=alkIp3G0jolbLp4f Pix of Adam, me and others at Bretton Woods at PorcFest 2023...

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 422. A new podcast by Dumo Denga, ManPatria, has just released an audio narration of my article "What Libertarianism Is" for its first episode, entitled "What is Libertarianism." This narration appears to be based on the original article, not the updated version that appears as chap. 2 of Legal Foundations of a Free Society. There is also a previous narration of this article by Graham Wright (KOL005).

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 421. This is my appearance on Episode 297 of The Local Maximum with host Max Sklar. Recorded Sep. 13, 2023, published Sep. 27, 2023. From their shownotes: Max talks to Stephan Kinsella, a libertarian intellectual property lawyer who ardently challenges the very foundations of IP. Kinsella delves deep into the core arguments underpinning intellectual property and the inherent fallacies. They also discuss the impact of generative AI on the copyright landscape. Transcript below. Transcript Max Sklar: You're listening to the Local Maximum episode 297. Narration: Time to expand your perspective. Welcome to the Local Maximum. Now here's your host, Max Sklar. Max: Welcome everyone, welcome, you have reached another Local Maximum. We are going to get a really interesting perspective on intellectual property today from Stephan Kinsella. He is an intellectual property lawyer who is actually against the whole concept of intellectual property that includes patents, copyright, the whole thing. Now, for those of us on the outside, there's still a lot that we need to learn about IP, like, what are all these different concepts? Why are they considered necessary by the mainstream? So we go back to basics a little bit, go over what patent and copyright is and why you still need to use it and think about it even if you don't agree with it. And then we're going to take a turn into the issues of the day with generative AI models and how copyright law may end up getting applied to these processes, by the authorities, by the powers that be and the harm that this could possibly do. All right. My next guest is a libertarian writer and registered patent attorney in Houston. He has spoken, lectured and published widely on various areas of libertarian legal theory and on legal topics, such as intellectual property law and international law. Stephan Kinsella, you've reached the Local Maximum, welcome to the show. Stephan Kinsella: Thank you, glad to be here. Max: Yeah, really glad to have you and your work on intellectual property and copyright. First of all, that's a topic that, you know, not everyone can make it interesting for me, whenever I listen to your stuff on it, I always I always find it's more interesting. So I appreciate that. And I agree with you on a lot of things. So that's it. I just appreciate the way you present it. You've been opposed to IP for quite a while. When did you come to this kind of full? Well, what is your full position? I think it's like, you know, no patent, no copyright? Is this your full position? And when did you come to this position? Was it before after going into IP law? Stephan: About the same time I was a, I was a libertarian and college and in law school, but I was always unsatisfied with the arguments for IP that I had heard by Ayn Rand and others, I assumed it was a legitimate type of property right because it was in the Constitution, and it's part of so-called capitalism, and everyone was in favor of it. But their arguments didn't make sense to me, because, you know, most of the arguments were either well, they're either utilitarian or incentive based, or they're kind of a deontological, or principle based, like have a natural rights argument. And the natural rights argument just makes no sense because the patent and copyright expire after a certain number of years, which, which is not how other property rights work. So it seems to me like if you're trying to do a natural rights argument, which Ayn Rand did, and then you say, but that copyright should expire in 100 years, and patent should expire in 17 years. It's weird that you just have this arbitrary number, which, of course, the government would have to make up and they have no basis for it. And if you do a utilitarian argument, then I just don't think that you never hear any evidence, you just hear anecdotes and the same old arguments, so I was dissatisfied with it. And when I started practicing law in 1992, I was doing oil and gas law at first in Houston. But then I decided to switch to patent law. So I could move around the country because it's a national field. So I started learning patent law, studying, taking the Patent Bar Exam. At the same time, I redouble my efforts to try to figure out from a libertarian point of view, like, I thought I was going to be the one to come up with the right argument for IP to explain it. So I kept searching and searching and trying and trying and one argument after the other and I kept failing. And finally I realized, well, the reason I'm failing is because this is not justifiable. And as my understanding of property rights got clearer — which I had to sort out to figure this out — I realized that patents are totally illegitimate. Probably around ‘93 or ‘94 right? Right around the time I passed the Patent Bar. So at the moment, I became a patent lawyer, I also reali

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 420. From the recently-concluded Seventeenth Annual (2023) Meeting of the PFS, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 24, 2023). The slide presentation is streamed below (ppt). Video is also below. Also podcast as Property and Freedom Podcast PFP265; see also the panel discussion later in the day (video below). Kinsella talk: https://youtu.be/QEmRgapffNQ Panel discussion: https://youtu.be/aEryCGV2oWU Slides: Notes from the slides: Stephan Kinsella C4SIF.org • StephanKinsella.com @nskinsella Property and Freedom Society 2023 Annual Meeting Bodrum, Turkey September 24, 2023 Overview ► Spoken about intellectual property (IP) before here (in 2010 and 2015), but today I’d like to talk about how I came to my current views § And how figuring this out required coming to a deeper understanding and more clarity about the foundation and nature of rights, and property rights, in general ► I came to the conclusion years ago that all IP law—patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, and others—are completely illegitimate and should all be abolished ► I started publishing articles on various aspects of libertarian theory in the early 1990s—rights and punishment theory, inalienability, legislation, and so on Against IP ► In 2001 I published “Against Intellectual Property” in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. § Original title: “The Legitimacy of Intellectual Property” § Hoppe suggested I change it, just like he suggested the title of today’s talk ► The article was controversial and influential, so I became well known in libertarian circles as being “the IP guy” § Even though it’s not my only area of research § E.g., Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2023) [LFFS] IP Man How I got here ► Libertarian since high school, initially influenced by Ayn Rand ► Never satisfied with her case for patent and copyright ► Initially practiced oil and gas law (1992) but decided to switch to patent law (1994) ► Around the same time I was learning patent and IP law as a lawyer, I tried to come up with a better argument for IP ► Finally I came to my current IP beliefs § I was trying to justify the unjustifiable ► Heavily influenced by the work of Hoppe (on scarcity and property), and Tom Palmer & Wendy McElroy (on IP) § Hoppe was instinctively against IP from the beginning ► Because I understood IP law very well, I put together what I had learned and published “Against Intellectual Property,” and many articles since How I got here ► I kept encountering different objections to my basic argument, so developed further arguments to explain their errors ► Summarized in “Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward,” in LFFS ► Sorting out the basic case against IP and responding to various objections required rethinking and clarifying other aspects of libertarian theory, namely the nature and purpose of property rights, contract theory, and so on ► Figuring out IP and finding ways to explain it to others improved my understanding of other areas of libertarian theory ► I’ve lost track of how many people have written me or told me that my IP work opened their eyes. That’s gratifying for a writer. § See “My IP Odyssey” Absurd Arguments for IP ► “Thank goodness the Swiss did have a Patent Office. That is where Albert Einstein worked and during his time as a patent examiner came up with his theory of relativity.” —Patent attorney Gene Quinn ► “It is true that other means exist for creative people to profit from their effort. In the case of copyright, authors can charge fees for reading their works to paying audiences. Charles Dickens did this, but his heavy schedule of public performances in the United States, where his works were not protected by copyright, arguably contributed to his untimely death.” —Willliam Shughart ► If you are not for IP, you must be in favor of pedophilia. —Sasha Radeta Absurd Arguments for IP ► If you oppose IP, you are advocating slavery. —Wildberry ► “Patents are the heart and core of property rights.” —Ayn Rand ► Song piracy and file-sharing are the cause of stage collapses at concerts.“ § See ”Absurd Arguments for IP” ► This is one of the issues where there really are no good arguments at all for IP § Similar to the drug war. § “There are No Good Arguments for Intellectual Property,” Mises Economics” ► They are usually what I call “libertarian creationism,” or utilitarian, both of which are deeply flawed. Summary of the Case Against IP: The Structure of Human Action ► Humans act: They are aware of and uneasy about an impending future state of affairs. § They are also aware of causal laws and their ability to use available scarce means or resources, to causally interfere with the course of events, to attempt to change some future state of affairs § Note that all successful action requires the actor have scarce means at his disposal, and knowledge (of causal laws; technological and other knowledge) to guide his action Summary: Property Rights and Conflict ► This

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 419. This is my Soho Forum debate held Aug. 21, 2023, in Manhattan, against Corey DeAngelis, of the American Federation for Children, moderated by Gene Epstein. I defended the resolution "Today’s school-choice movement in the U.S. is worthy of support by libertarians…" (taking the negative). Oxford debate rules applied which meant that whoever changed the most minds won. My side went from about 10 to 23 percentage points, gaining about 13; Corey went from about 45 to 64%, gaining about 19, so he won. I was pleased that we had an informative and civil debate about an important issue. (This is my second Soho debate; the first was KOL364 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Richard Epstein: Patent and Copyright Law Should Be Abolished.) My discussion notes are appended below. See also Reason.com article with video; Reason.com article with podcast. Results Today's school-choice movement in the U.S. is worthy of support by libertarians. Pre Post Change Yes 44.90% 64.29% 19.39% No 10.20% 23.47% 13.27% Undecided 44.90% 12.24% -32.65% https://www.youtube.com/live/xZF-lT_1pag?si=nJVtVVz6FKsQ4wjv Update: "Gotta say [Kinsella] is right on this, I have done a 180 on this issue. After seeing how "school choice" has been implemented in Alabama, ... I see now it is exactly what SK has been saying. The program explicitly discriminates against the most productive taxpayers and just opens the door of my kid's expensive private school to the lower class dregs." I debated @DeAngelisCorey a couple years ago. I still oppose the optimize-educational-welfare movement, cleverly self-named "school choice", though it does seem to piss off the right people, for the most part. https://t.co/4D776Y96SM There was some talk of us redoing this in… — Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella) April 25, 2025 School Vouchers Were Supposed to Save Taxpayer Money. Instead They Blew a Massive Hole in Arizona’s Budget. (July 16, 2024) Related: Comments on the Youtube livestream Various comments on twitter: here, here, here, here. Rose City Catholics Fight for LGBTQ Rights—and Start a War With Portland’s Archbishop (July 5, 2023) Educational Scholarship Accounts Lew Rockwell, Education and the Election William Anderson, The Trouble with Vouchers Jacob Hornberger, “School Vouchers Are Anti-Libertarian,” Hornberger’s Blog (Future of Freedom Foundation) (July 5, 2022) ———, “More on Anti-Libertarian School Vouchers,” Hornberger’s Blog (Future of Freedom Foundation) (July 6, 2022) Bob Murphy Show ep 105: Corey DeAngelis Makes the Case for School Choice Jacob Hornberger Makes the Case AGAINST School Vouchers (with Bob Murphy — Bob Murphy show ep. 248) Tom Woods Show: Ep. 2325 Corey DeAngelis and Connor Boyack: The State’s Schools Are Beyond Repair Tom Woods Show: Ep. 2211 Corey DeAngelis on the School Choice Movement KOL112 | Jack Criss Interview on the Voucher System (1989) Kinsella, “Negates freedom of choice,” Letter to the Editor, The Morning Advocate (Dec. 21, 1988), and related correspondence related to the voucher system and school choice, 1988–89 (Note: Written in a more Randian “Objectivist” phase, and before I came to oppose voucher systems.) DISCUSSION NOTES Resolved: Today’s school-choice movement in the U.S. is worthy of support by libertarians A Soho Forum Debate Corey DeAngelis vs. Stephan Kinsella Aug 21, 2023 The Sheen Center, 18 Bleecker Street, New York, NY 10012 MAIN PRESENTATION – NOTES [15 MIN] So there are many ways to explain why intellectual property is illegitimate Oh wait, that’s the wrong debate Resolved: Today’s school-choice movement in the U.S. is worthy of support by libertarians. To answer this question, we need to understand what libertarians should support, and what “Today’s school-choice movement” is Libertarianism is a political philosophy that believes in individual rights to self-ownership and to private property ownership. In short, we oppose “aggression” So libertarians oppose a host of state laws and policies since they themselves commit aggression Such as taxation, war, the drug war, the central bank, and intellectual property (see, IP keeps coming up) Another thing almost all libertarians oppose is public education, more properly named government schools, or state schools, or educational welfare Why do we oppose public education? The three C’s: Compulsory attendance laws; Compulsory financing (by property taxes); government Control over the curriculum The first two are unjust because they involve aggression The third is only possible because of the first two It’s really a result of the first two This Control results in state propaganda and indoctrination be a good citizen believe in global warming and democracy sign up for selective service to fight in the state’s wars mask up, vaccinate, and lock down when we say so! And this predictably results in education that is Too expensive Inferior Full of indoctrination and state propaganda So libertarians o

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 418. See Libertarian Answer Man: TTTC, Contract, Fraud, Conditional Loans, Lottery Tickets This is a followup to KOL414 | Corporations, Limited Liability, and the Title Transfer Theory of Contract, with Jeff Barr: Part I. See that episode for more information and notes. In Part III, we need to talk about corporations. For more on that, see Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation. https://youtu.be/5-Zvt59UlSk For more discussion of the comments below, see Libertarian Answer Man: Future and Conditional Title Transfers Under the Title-Transfer Theory of Contract.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 417. Part 3 of my video commentary on Larken Rose's recent comments on IP. For more information, see the description and links at KOL415: Commentary on Larken Rose, “IP: The Wrong Question”: Part 1. https://youtu.be/Q6dVF-DP-mY

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 416. Part 2 of my video commentary on Larken Rose's recent comments on IP. For more information, see the description and links at KOL415: Commentary on Larken Rose, “IP: The Wrong Question”: Part 1. https://youtu.be/3W7ZSkzjOtQ

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 415. Last year Larken Rose and I appeared on Patrick Smith's Disenthrall show, (( See KOL389 | Disenthrall, with Patrick Smith and Larken Rose: The Morality of Copyright “Piracy”. )) after Rose had posted some videos criticizing libertarians who pirated the HBO show "The Anarchists" as "poopheads," (( See "Pirating" Poopheads. )) even though he technically opposes IP. Or claims to. According to Rose, you should "throwing a couple dollars towards HBO" or something, to avoid being a poophead. He granted that someone pirating an already-leaked video file is not committing aggression (they have no contract with the creator), but they are a "jerk." Or "poop head." After all, the "creator" of the "content" put his "labor" into it and didn't "want it" to be pirated. And his "business model" depends on people "not pirating it." (( See KOL037 | Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory. )) https://youtu.be/Gt3eZBrXcyE Or something. So you are a "poophead" if you mess up their unrealistic business model. In response, I pointed out that if your goal is to produce content—audio, videos, books, etc.—to promote liberty, then you are a "jerk" if you try to paywall it and make it hard for people to access, since you are limiting your content to only rich westerners. Larken was alarmed by this observation and called me a commie, even though I never said you don't have a right to erect a paywall; only that, if you can say someone engaged in the peaceful behavior of "piracy" (( Itself a dishonest, loaded term. See Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft” and “piracy”. )) is a "jerk," then I can say someone who is pretending to be engaged in trying to spread the ideas of liberty is intentionally blocking people from seeing it, they are also subject to criticism. This apparently blew his mind. When I challenged him, he literally conceded that poor Africans who pirate a video, even if they could never afford to pay for it, are being "jerks." (Listen from around 28 to 31 minutes.) Unbelievable. Well now he's back on this theme. Apparently he's involved in some libertarian film Jones Plantation, what appears to be a low-budget libertarian film along the lines of J. Neil Schulman's Alongside Night or the Atlas Shrugged trilogy; let's hope it's better than those (which were both terrible; see this hilarious evisceration of Alongside Night, which seems to have gotten more views than the movie itself). (I intend to buy a copy—yes, buy a copy—and watch it later.) (Pettifogging, well akshually alert: it's not really "buying" a "copy" in a (libertarian) legal sense, since you can't own information; but it's paying a price to get access to a file download. See "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa—A Dissection," in my forthcoming Legal Foundations of a Free Society—which, yes, will be made available free online; no paywalls, baby.) [Update: as I tweeted, I bought a copy and watched it—and it's surprisingly good! Not the Alongside Night-style disaster I was expecting.] I did this response video to elaborate some aspects of IP and libertarian theory that many people are confused about. My video response took longer than expected so I broke this into three parts. Parts 2–4 to follow: Update: See: KOL416: Commentary on Larken Rose, “IP: The Wrong Question”: Part 2 KOL417: Commentary on Larken Rose, “IP: The Wrong Question”: Part 3 Update: See also Patrick Smith's Disenthrall episode commenting on this matter and also on Eric July's use of DMCA takedowns regarding images from his comics appearing on Twitter, etc. https://youtu.be/8HIoVU3n-bU And one more thing. As I wrote to some friends: Another point just occurred to me, which I forgot to mention in my 150-minute screed. It is this. Larken says he's against copyright and that he would never enforce it, right? So in the movie, does he have a copyright notice, or not? Does he have a statement saying "I don't believe in copyright so would never sue pirates, but I'm not gonna make it easy for you—I'm paywalling it". Or more formally, "This work is published under a CC-BY license." Then he would be making clear that he disagrees with copyright and is disavowing federal copyright protection, right? He could still paywall his stuff. But he would just have a work with no copyright on it (in effect). Now if some user uploads it to youtube, they have permission (the CC license is permission—that's what license means: permission) and youtube would not take it down, even if they got a DMCA notice (I think; I suspect; if they took it down and the user appealed, pointing to the C

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 414. Regarding this post, Libertarian Answer Man: Breach of Contract, Binding Obligations, and Impossibility, my old and longtime buddy Jeff Barr, a brilliant attorney and legal scholar and fellow Hoppean-Rothbardian (Jeff studied at UNLV under Rothbard and Hoppe), (( See Murray Rothbard as a Teacher: The UNLV Years—A Panel with Rothbard’s Former Students (AERC 2023). )) discussed these issues in further depth today. (Part 2: KOL418 | Corporations, Limited Liability, and the Title Transfer Theory of Contract, with Jeff Barr: Part II.) https://youtu.be/1jtDoShqnmI Jeff and I, it turns out, to my surprise (given past discussions), agree mostly on corporate limited liability, (( See my post Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation. )) and Jeff claims to also agree with the Rothbard-Evers take on contracts—the title-transfer theory. We also agree on terminology, legal issues, possession vs. ownership, and so on. (( Libertarian Answer Man: Self-ownership for slaves and Crusoe; and Yiannopoulos on Accurate Analysis and the term “Property”; Mises distinguishing between juristic and economic categories of “ownership”. )) Yet Jeff still thinks that failure/inability to pay a future debt is "theft," much like Rothbard (and Block) view this as "implicit theft," thus justifying in principle debtor's prison, although Barr thinks the theft is not even implicit; he thinks it's explicit theft. This is the crux of our disagreement. We talked about some preliminary matters first to make sure we are on the same page, and ended with this disagreement. Now that we've laid the groundwork, and identified some terminology and common ground, we may pick this up in a future discussion. More to come.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 413. I was asked to make a guest appearance on SwanBitcoin's Café Bitcoin Tuesday today Aug. 1, 2023), where we discussed law versus legislation, the impacts of sound money on social character, and related matters. It was also posted on their podcast feed (iTunes; Spotify; google) and I include here my segment. Related: Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2023) Chapter 13, Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society Another Problem with Legislation: James Carter v. the Field Codes (Oct. 14, 2009) Classificationism, Legislation, Copyright, C4SIF (Oct. 25, 2011)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 412. As noted in KOL409 (Part 1: Patent Law) and KOL411 (Part 2: Copyright Law), although I’ve done dozens of speeches and interviews over the past 20 or so years on libertarian aspects of intellectual property, or IP, that is, on IP policy, I’ve never done any in depth lectures for libertarians on IP law itself. In KOL409, I did a brief overview of various types of IP law, and then focused on the patent law and patent application process itself. KOL411 was a tutorial on copyright law. This episode covers other types of IP, including trademark and trade secret, and argues that defamation law should be considered a type of IP law as well. (Recorded May 11, 2023.) GROK SHOWNOTES: In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL412), recorded on May 11, 2023, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella delivers the third and final part of his intellectual property (IP) law tutorial series, focusing on trademark, trade secret, and other forms of IP, including a novel argument that defamation law constitutes a type of IP, aimed at equipping libertarians with a comprehensive understanding of these systems he opposes (0:00-5:00). Kinsella begins by reviewing the series’ context, recapping patent (KOL409) and copyright (KOL411) tutorials, and outlines trademark law’s origins in consumer protection against fraud, detailing its modern framework under the U.S. Lanham Act, which protects marks identifying goods or services, and trade secret law’s basis in confidentiality agreements (5:01-20:00). He explains trademark registration, infringement lawsuits, and trade secret misappropriation, using examples like a sample trademark registration to illustrate their mechanics, while critiquing their expansion beyond original intent as state-granted monopolies that infringe on property rights (20:01-35:00). Kinsella argues that defamation law, protecting reputation, functions as an IP right by restricting speech, aligning with his libertarian view that all IP forms violate property rights by limiting tangible resource use (35:01-50:00). He discusses other IP types, like mask works and boat hull designs, and critiques their niche but restrictive nature, emphasizing the economic and competitive harms of IP, such as litigation costs and barriers to innovation (50:01-1:05:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses audience questions on topics like trademark’s role in brand protection, trade secret enforcement in a free market, and IP’s broader societal impacts, reinforcing his call for IP’s abolition and directing listeners to c4sif.org for resources (1:05:01-1:20:55). He concludes by summarizing the series’ goal to empower libertarians to challenge IP, encouraging further study of his anti-IP works, including Against Intellectual Property (1:20:56-1:20:55). This episode is a critical resource for understanding trademark, trade secret, and defamation laws through a libertarian lens. Youtube Transcript and GROK DETAILED SUMMARY below. Others in the series: KOL409 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 1: Patent Law KOL411 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 2: Copyright Law Further resources: IP Resources Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014) (PDF) A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Intellectual Property Anti-IP Youtube Videos: A Selection KOL409 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 1: Patent Law KOL411 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 2: Copyright Law KOL412 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 3: Trademark, Trade Secret, and Other The slides I used are streamed below and here (powerpoint) and streamed below. https://youtu.be/DQ0MXbBn264 GROK DETAILED SUMMARY Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s KOL412 podcast, recorded on May 11, 2023, is the third and final part of an IP law tutorial series, focusing on trademark, trade secret, and other IP forms, including defamation as a novel IP category. As a libertarian patent attorney opposing IP, Kinsella provides a detailed overview of these laws’ legal frameworks, historical origins, and practical impacts, tailored for libertarians to understand and critique the system. Rooted in Austrian economics, the 80-minute lecture uses examples and slides to clarify mechanics, followed by a Q&A addressing libertarian concerns. Below is a summary with bullet points for key themes and detailed descriptions for approximately 5-15 minute blocks, based on the transcript at the provided podcast link and supported by context from web results (e.g.,). Key Themes with Time Markers Introduction and Series Context (0:00-5:00): Kinsella introduces the tutorial, recapping prior episodes and his anti-IP stance (0:00-2:30). Trademark Law Overview (5:01-20:00): Details trademark’s origins, legal framework

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 411. As noted in KOL409 (Part 1: Patent Law), although I've done dozens of speeches and interviews over the past 20 or so years on libertarian aspects of intellectual property, or IP, that is, on IP policy, I've never done any in depth lectures for libertarians on IP law itself. In KOL409, I did a brief overview of various types of IP law, and then focused on the patent law and patent application process itself. This episode provides a tutorial on copyright law. (Recorded Thursday, April 27, 2023.) See additional note below. GROK SHOWNOTES: In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL411), recorded on April 26, 2023, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella delivers the second part of his intellectual property (IP) law tutorial series, focusing on copyright law, as a resource for libertarians to understand and critique the system he opposes (0:00-5:00). Kinsella begins by reviewing the foundations of copyright law, tracing its historical roots to English censorship practices and the 1710 Statute of Anne, and explains its modern framework under the U.S. Copyright Act, which grants exclusive rights to creators of original works like books, music, and software for extended periods (5:01-20:00). He details the copyright registration process, eligibility criteria (e.g., originality, fixation), and scope of protection, using examples like a sample copyright registration to illustrate how copyrights restrict others’ use of expressive content (20:01-35:00). Kinsella’s tutorial emphasizes his libertarian critique, arguing that copyrights violate property rights by limiting how individuals use their tangible resources. Kinsella further explores copyright enforcement, including infringement lawsuits, remedies like injunctions and damages, and defenses such as fair use, while critiquing the system’s economic and cultural harms, such as stifling creativity and inflating costs (35:01-50:00). He discusses special copyright issues, like the work-made-for-hire doctrine and derivative works, and contrasts copyright’s long term (life of the author plus 70 years) with patent law’s shorter duration, noting its automatic grant without registration (50:01-1:05:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses audience questions on topics like copyright’s impact on open-source software, international copyright treaties, and his ethical stance as an IP attorney, reinforcing his view that copyrights are state-imposed monopolies (1:05:01-1:25:47). He concludes by previewing the final tutorial on trademarks and trade secrets, urging libertarians to use this knowledge to oppose IP, and directing listeners to c4sif.org for resources (1:25:48-1:25:47). This episode is a critical guide for understanding copyright law’s mechanics and libertarian objections. Youtube Transcript and GROK DETAILED SUMMARY below. For other episodes in the series: KOL409 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 1: Patent Law KOL412 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 3: Trademark, Trade Secret, and Other Further resources: IP Resources Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014) (PDF) A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Intellectual Property Anti-IP Youtube Videos: A Selection KOL409 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 1: Patent Law KOL411 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 2: Copyright Law KOL412 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 3: Trademark, Trade Secret, and Other The slides I used are streamed below and here (.pptx) and streamed below. https://youtu.be/1yziV15ZGso In the Q&A session, a participant asked a question about joint ownership of patents and patent licensing. In the lecture I had pointed out that for co-authors of a copyright-protected work, each has the right to license the work, without permission of the other co-author(s), but has to share any profits (make an accounting) with them. The question was what the rule was in the case of patents, and I had forgotten the nuance. In patents the rule is similar, except the inventor-co-owner who grants the license need not make an accounting. Regarding the issue of joint inventors on a patent, I had a brain fart. In copyright, co-authors can each license the work but if they make a profit, they have to account to the other co-author. Under patent law, if there are joint inventors, they all presumably co-own the patent (unless the employer does in the case of work for hire), and each one is entitled to (non-exclusively) license it, just as in the copyright case, but there is no obligation to do an accounting of profits made. As the Patent Act (35 USC §262 - Joint owners) provides: In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, each of the joint owners of a patent may make, use, offer to sell, or sell the patented invention within the United States, or impor

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 410. This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast, Ep. 6 (WiM303) (Youtube channel). This is Ep. 6 of the “Stephan Kinsella Series” (released April 21, 2023). From Robert’s Episode notes: EPISODE SUMMARY Stephan Kinsella joins me to continue our discussion about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. We discuss the impact of incentive schemes on productivity, the fake communism of the USSR, modern-day slavery, and why Bitcoin is the ultimate solution to centralization. EPISODE NOTES Stephan Kinsella joins me to continue our discussion about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. We discuss the impact of incentive schemes on productivity, the fake communism of the USSR, modern-day slavery, and why Bitcoin is the ultimate solution to centralization. // OUTLINE // 00:00:00 - Coming up 00:01:25 - Intro 00:02:59 - Helping Lightning Startups with In Wolf's Clothing 00:03:45 - A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism by Hans-Hermann Hoppe 00:03:59 - Historical Examples of Capitalist vs. Socialist Incentives 00:08:05 - The Fake Communism of the USSR 00:09:56 - The Impact of Incentive Schemes on Productivity 00:15:33 - Property Rights are the Key Incentives of a Productive Economy 00:19:42 - How Political Risk Influences Investments and Productivity 00:22:57 - Pros and Cons of International Treaties 00:26:02 - Bitcoin as a Neutral International Settlement Layer 00:28:13 - The Importance of Treaty Obligations and International Law 00:30:32 - Secure Your Bitcoin Stash with The iCoin Hardware Wallet 00:31:27 - Take Control of Your Healthcare with CrowdHealth 00:32:29 - A Bitcoin Wallet with Privacy Built-In: Wasabi Wallet 00:33:22 - Public vs. Private Means of Production 00:36:04 - Private Slavery vs. Public Slavery 00:38:48 - Modern-Day Slavery 00:44:03 - How to Remove the Shackles of Slavery 00:48:47 - The Natural Law vs. The Fake Law 00:51:46 - Every Law Should Have an Expiration Date 00:53:48 - A Chance to Win Discounted Tickets to the Bitcoin 2023 Conference and 10M SATS 00:54:43 - Hold Bitcoin in the Most Secure Custody Model with Casa 00:55:31 - Can We Return to the Common Law? 00:57:51 - The Case Against Democracy 00:58:54 - How did the U.S. Shift from a Constitutional Republic to a Democracy 01:06:56 - A Movement towards Centralization and Back to Decentralization 01:12:00 - The Case of The Abortion Law in the U.S. 01:13:40 - The Role of the Federal Reserve in Centralization 01:20:22 - Where to Find Stephan's Work

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 409. It occurred to me recently that although I've done dozens of speeches and interviews over the past 20 or so years on libertarian aspects of intellectual property, or IP, that is, on IP policy, I've never done any in depth lectures for libertarians on IP law itself. Today's discussion did a brief overview of various types of IP law, and then focused on the patent law and patent application process itself. It was followed with Q&A at the end. I plan to do followup episodes focusing on copyright and perhaps some other areas. GROK SHOWNOTES: In this episode of the Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (KOL409), recorded on April 19, 2023, libertarian patent attorney Stephan Kinsella delivers the first part of an intellectual property (IP) law tutorial series, focusing on patent law, aimed at providing libertarians with an in-depth understanding of the legal mechanics despite his opposition to IP (0:00-5:00). Kinsella begins by outlining the various types of IP—patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and others—before diving into the specifics of patent law, including its historical roots in mercantilist monopolies and its modern legislative framework under the U.S. Patent Act (5:01-20:00). He explains the patent application process, eligibility criteria (e.g., novelty, non-obviousness), and the prosecution history, using examples like a sample patent application and an issued patent to illustrate how patents function as state-granted rights to exclude others from using certain inventions (20:01-35:00). Kinsella’s tutorial, while technical, is tailored to clarify the system he critiques as a violation of property rights. Kinsella further details the practical aspects of patents, such as their 20-year term, infringement lawsuits, and remedies like injunctions, emphasizing their economic and competitive impacts, such as high litigation costs (35:01-50:00). He critiques the patent system’s inefficiencies, like vague claim language and patent trolling, and contrasts design patents (e.g., Apple’s touchscreen design) with utility patents, noting their distinct scopes (50:01-1:05:00). In the Q&A, Kinsella addresses audience questions on topics like patent assignment, international patent systems, and his libertarian opposition to IP, reinforcing that patents are state privileges, not natural rights, and directing listeners to his resources at c4sif.org (1:05:01-1:20:27). He concludes by previewing future tutorials on copyright and other IP forms, encouraging libertarians to understand the system to better oppose it (1:20:28-1:20:27). This episode is an essential resource for libertarians seeking a clear, critical perspective on patent law’s mechanics and implications. Youtube Transcript and GROK DETAILED SUMMARY below. Other episodes in this series: KOL411 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 2: Copyright Law KOL412 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 3: Trademark, Trade Secret, and Other The slides I used are streamed below and here (.pptx). I also used the following documents in my talk: sample patent application; sample patent prosecution history (USPTO); Sample issued patent 10054762; Apple design patent for touchscreen device with rounded corners; sample red ribbon copy. Further resources: IP Resources Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014) (PDF) A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023) Hello! You’ve Been Referred Here Because You’re Wrong About Intellectual Property Anti-IP Youtube Videos: A Selection KOL409 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 1: Patent Law KOL411 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 2: Copyright Law KOL412 | IP Law Tutorial, Part 3: Trademark, Trade Secret, and Other https://youtu.be/Qrz55dB40TQ GROK DETAILED SUMMARY Bullet-Point Summary for Show Notes with Time Markers and Block Summaries Overview Stephan Kinsella’s KOL409 podcast, recorded on April 19, 2023, is the first part of an IP law tutorial series, focusing on patent law, designed to educate libertarians on the legal mechanics of a system Kinsella opposes as a libertarian patent attorney. Rooted in Austrian economics, the 80-minute lecture provides a detailed overview of patent law’s history, application process, and practical impacts, while maintaining a critical stance on its legitimacy as a state-granted monopoly. Using slides and sample documents, Kinsella clarifies complex legal processes, followed by a Q&A addressing libertarian concerns. Below is a summary with bullet points for key themes and detailed descriptions for approximately 5-15 minute blocks, based on the transcript at the provided podcast link and supported by context from web results (). Key Themes with Time Markers Introduction and IP Overview (0:00-5:00): Kinsella introduces the tutorial series, noting his anti-IP stance and the need for libertarians to u

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 408. This is my appearance on The Soul of Enterprise, Episode 432, with hosts Ed Kless and Greg Tirico. Recorded Friday, March 24, 2023. Their shownotes are below. Ron and Ed recently welcomed patent attorney and advocate for abolishing intellectual property, Stephan Kinsella to the show. We explored what is (and is not) intellectual property and then had a conversation about why Stephan thinks these forms of property should not exist and why the world would be better if they did not. ... Use these notes to follow along with the show: Segment one: Ron first heard Stephan Kinsella on the Tom Woods show, episode 2145. Link is here: https://tomwoods.com/ep-2145-does-intellectual-property-exist/ Stephan started out of law school in a big law firm. He has been a solo practitioner for the last 8-10 years but he’s “pretty much” retired now :) Stephan published the original article about 20 years ago, “Against Intellectual Property” and here is a new, more general approach to the same article: https://c4sif.org/2022/05/against-intellectual-property-after-twenty-years-looking-back-and-looking-forward/ Everyone believes in property rights BUT property rights in any non-Libertarian system is summarized as, “You own your own stuff unless the government says otherwise.” “Wealth is the subjective appraisal of things you own” —Stephan Kinsella Stephan referenced the Sweat of the Brow Doctrine earlier today on the show. Here’s a good starting point for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow Segment two: While working in Big Law, Stephan “billed every tenth of an hour every 6 minutes.” This was referred to internally in the firm as a shizzle. Stephan has a great description of contracts on the show today. Contracts are all about communication by the owner as to whether they will or will not allow other people to use their resources (either temporarily or permanently). The 4 main categories of IP in the United States are: patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secrets. Stephan goes into detail about this during segment two of the show. In theory, patents are effectively monopoly control for 20 years that allows you to charge monopoly prices. There is no evidence that patents induce innovation whatsoever. Patents kill. LITERALLY. Read more from Stephan Kinsella here: https://mises.org/wire/patents-kill-compulsory-licenses-and-genzymes-life-saving-drug Segment three: “The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright” by Stephan Kinsella: https://c4sif.org/2012/10/the-overwhelming-empirical-case-against-patent-and-copyright/ “Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society” by Stephan Kinsella http://libertarianpapers.org/1-law-intellectual-property-stateless-society/ Most libertarians find some areas of libertarian theory more interesting than others. Stephan’s own passion has always been rights theory and related areas, such as the theory of contracts, causation, and punishment. More here: https://mises.org/library/intellectual-property-and-libertarianism Despite the fact that there is widespread copying, the amount of art, design, music, and movies is greater than ever. Piracy/copying is obviously not a hinderance to progress. Segment four: “Attribution have nothing to do with copyright.” —Stephan Kinsella “Plagiarism is simply representing someones work as your own. It has nothing to do with copyright.” —Stephan Kinsella If you buy a fake Rolex for $20, there is no fraud involved. The buyer knows the Rolex is fake. Stephan talked through this during the last segment of our show today. A big THANK YOU to our guest today, Stephan Kinsella. His work is deep and focused on abolishing IP. Check out StephanKinsella.com for links to his work.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 407. This is a short conversation I had with James Cox about copyright and fair use back in 2016 (Feb. 26). We also talk about the safe harbor in the DMCA and the §230 safe harbor in the CDA. https://www.youtube.com/live/wJ2sYz70gc4?feature=share

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 406. This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast, Ep. WiM282 (Youtube channel). This is Ep. 6 of the “Stephan Kinsella Series” (released March 8, 2023). From Robert’s Episode notes: In this episode, Stephan Kinsella joins me for an in-depth conversation about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. We discuss the harmful effects of socialism, how to take proper action in an increasingly uncertain future, and the alternative to socialism. (( From my friend Greg Morin: "Apropos your recent post about people mispronouncing words. Listening to KOL 406 and you horribly mispronounce "verstehen" lol. It's like this: fair-shtay-en. Next time we talk I can say it for you. At least I got something out of my learning German over all these years." )) https://youtu.be/EgeLlOFkC1U

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 405. This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast, Ep. WiM235 (Youtube channel). This is Ep. 5 of the “Stephan Kinsella Series” (released Nov. 9, 2022). From Robert’s Episode notes: Stephan Kinsella is an American intellectual property lawyer, author, and deontological anarcho-capitalist. He joins me for an in-depth conversation about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. https://youtu.be/J-eXmuBp-e4

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 404. This was my Webinar presentation at the Freedom Hub Working Group, billed as: "For Over-Drugging of our Bodies and Food, Blame INTELLECTUAL Property" (Wed., Feb. 9, 2023), with co-hosts Jim Grapek and Charles Frohman. It was released under the title "How Humanity’s Progress Has Been Held Back: The Case Against IP (Intellectual Property)." Rumble: !function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/uc1wv9"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble"); Rumble("play", {"video":"v26kgic","div":"rumble_v26kgic"}); Youtube: https://youtu.be/hRm-PIxHS1Q From their Shownotes: Whenever a politician gets pinned down for the lousy health care system we must endure, they spit out some glib demagoguery about expensive drug prices. None of these politicians know why they’re expensive, especially not the cause of INTELLECTUAL property. Property is sacred, of course, but that’s tangible, and a bit intangible when one considers the property rights we have in our minds – not just what we produce on our own. But as far back as the Constitution, protectionist impulses led our Founders to benefit domestic manufactures with a threat to punish competitors if they dared to compete with the recipient of IP welfare, in the form of a patent, copyright or trademark. But each of these examples of corporate welfare got their start through government coercion. Copyrights emanated from worry over the printing press, and how it could print ideas threatening to the government. Patents originated in piracy – a “legal” form given by the Queen to Drake to plunder the world. IP relates to ideas, which cannot be owned. On the flip side, we know how entrepreneurs seemingly offer us the same thing as a preceding company, but in a manner that better suits our tastes and pocketbook. Should that smart business person be denied selling us this improvement, if the previous supplier got some politician to grant an IP monopoly – for a set period of time? IP is political. It’s not a market creation. Pharma uses IP loopholes to retain monopolies on certain disease cures that lead to patients paying thousands of dollars a month to get well. And treaties over the years have sought global enforcement through the World Trade Organization and related bureaucracies. IP needs abolition. LinkedIn announcement: Prescriptions cost an arm and a leg because they're granted immunity from competition (so-called "Intellectual" property (IP)) and withheld from the market until a decade of trials that don't always prove in disease outcomes superiority to natural alternatives. IP lawyer N. Stephan Kinsella says consumers would be better off if entrepreneurs were allowed to apply to ideas improvements now stymied by IP. From their promo materials: For Over-Drugging of our Bodies and Food, Blame INTELLECTUAL Property IP is a damaging example of corporate welfare With Stephan Kinsella, IP lawyer With co-hosts Jim Grapek, Pavilion founder and award-winning producer/filmmaker; and Charles Frohman, Cash-patient Maker & Health Freedom Lobbyist Thursday, February 9th 12 - 1pm Eastern Time ... Whenever a politician gets pinned down for the lousy health care system we must endure, they spit out some glib demagoguery about expensive drug prices. None of these politicians know why they’re expensive, especially not the cause of INTELLECTUAL property. Property is sacred, of course, but that’s tangible, and a bit intangible when one considers the property rights we have in our minds - not just what we produce or own. But as far back as the Constitution, protectionist impulses led our Founders to benefit domestic manufactures with a threat to punish competitors if they dared to compete with the recipient of IP welfare, in the form of a patent, copyright or trademark. But each of these examples of corporate welfare got their start through government coercion. Copyrights emanated from worry over the printing press, and how it could print ideas threatening to the government. Patents originated in piracy - a “legal” form given by the Queen to Drake to plunder the world. IP relates to ideas, which cannot be owned. On the flip side, we know how entrepreneurs seemingly offer us the same thing as a preceeding company, but in a manner that better suits our tastes and pocketbook. Should that smart businessperson be denied selling us this improvement, if the previous supplier got some politician to grant an IP monopoly - for a set period of time? IP is

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 403. I was a guest today (Jan. 27, 2023) on The Bitcoin Group #343, on the World Crypto Network (Youtube channel), hosted by Thomas Hunt @MadBitcoins. The other panelists included the CryptoRaptor (Dan Eve); Ben Arc; Martin @generalbyltes. We discussed a variety of topics. https://youtu.be/878nyinOyqQ Shownotes: Featuring… Joshua Scigala (https://twitter.com/Vaultoro) Dan Eve (https://twitter.com/cryptopoly) Stephan Kinsella (https://twitter.com/NSKinsella) and Thomas Hunt (https://twitter.com/MadBitcoins)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 402. This is my presentation (audio only) at the Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “Inflation, Money, and the State,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 7–8, 2023); my talk was "Inflation: Its Causes, Effects, Parallels and Death in a Bitcoin World." Previous appearance: KOL371 | Austrian Economics Discord Conference: Law, Decentralized and Centralized. My talk is below. Update: See also thoughts on the nature of money, the barter problems solves, etc., in: KOL337 | Join the Wasabikas Ep. 15.0: You Don’t Own Bitcoin—Property Rights, Praxeology and the Foundations of Private Law, with Max Hillebrand Am I a Bitcoin Maximalist? On the issue if why money needs only solve these problems, and why the idea of smart contracts as one of the useful features of functions of an advanced money is confused, see: my facebook post https://www.facebook.com/nskinsella/posts/10158404058053181; comments on this in LIBERTARIAN ANSWER MAN: Smart Contracts and KOL401 | Sazmining Twitter Space: Bitcoin & Property Rights. https://youtu.be/Uvi05GJE5LM Final trailer: https://youtu.be/890corLQKFM Original trailer: https://youtu.be/AgsocsxhIws For last year's, see: “Law: Decentralized and Centralized,” Austrian Economics Discord Conference: “The Enduring Importance of the Austrian School,” Austrian Economics Discord Server (Jan. 8–9, 2022) [KOL371]. Related material: Paul Cantor, Hyperinflation and Hyperreality Theodore Dalrymple, "Inflation’s Moral Hazard" Guido Hülsmann, The Ethics of Money Production Adam Fergusson, When Money Dies Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, ch. 1 and TSC, p. 27, on the negative effects of inflation on character Jeffrey Tucker, How the End of Negative Interest Rates Affects Your Life ((Generations over hundreds and thousands of years have been acculturated to believe that good things come to those who wait. Sacrifice some now and you earn greater rewards later. Study hard for the exam and you get an A. Study hard for all exams and you graduate with honors. Graduate with honors and you have a better chance of getting a good-paying job.So on it goes with the whole of life. The more you defer your consumption and indulgence in the here and now, and think about the future, the better off you will be. That presumption is naturally built into the financial system. The yield curve in normal times provides a higher payout in the future than it does in the present. It teaches us to defer consumption, forgoing whatever joy there is in the present, in favor of great reward down the line.Again, in normal times, that means that savers win in the long run. Keep socking money away in the bank rather than taking that extra vacation, give it a few years, and you have a solid nest egg.All of economics is supposed to work this way. The guy alone on the island who wants to catch more fish needs to spend a day or two making a net but in order to afford that time away from scooping up fish as he sees them, he needs to save up food to live on while he constructs his capital goods. )) Kinsella, “Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010), (( Longer version: “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132 )) on negative effects of uncertainty (( Negative Effects of UncertaintyLegislation tends to interfere with agreements that courts would otherwise have enforced and thereby makes parties to contracts less certain that the contract will ultimately be enforced. Thus, individuals tend to rely less on contracts, leading them to develop costly alternatives such as structuring companies, transactions, or production processes differently than they otherwise would have."There is much more certainty in a decentralized legal system than in a centralized, legislation-based system."Another pernicious effect of the increased uncertainty in legislation-based systems is the increase of overall time preference. Individuals invariably demonstrate a preference for earlier goods over later goods, all things being equal. When time preferences are lower, individuals are more willing to forgo immediate benefits such as consumption, and invest their time and capital in more indirect (i.e., more roundabout, lengthier) production processes, which yield more or better goods for consumption or for further production. Any artificial raising of the general time-preference rate thus tends to impoverish society by pushing us away from production and long-term investments. Yet increased uncertainty, which is brought about by a legislation-based system, causes an increase in time-preference rates because if the future is less certain, it is relatively less valuable compared to the present.In addition to materially impoverishing society, higher time-preference rates also lead to increased crime. As a person becomes more present oriented, immediate (criminal) gratifications become relativ

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 401. I appeared on a Twitter Spaces discussion Jan. 12, 2023 for Sazmining, for the topic "Bitcoin & Property Rights," with Kent Halliburton and Logan Chipkin. A variety of questions were fielded. A synopsis and transcript are here, and re-pixeled below. Synopsis: Lawyer and libertarian theorist Stephan Kinsella joins Logan Chipkin and Kent Halliburton to discuss Bitcoin from a property rights perspective. If Bitcoin is not physical, how can anyone own it, if at all? Transcript: Kent Halliburton (00:06:31): Sure. Uh, thank you Logan, for the opportunity. You're gonna have to do a little intro for yourself as well. You do an excellent job hosting these spaces, but I operate as the president and COO here at Sats Mining, which means I, uh, manage all the internal affairs. Uh, my first career was in solar, rooftop solar. And, uh, very excited for this conversation to learn from you, Stephan. Um, definitely libertarianism has, uh, has gotten to be in my crosshairs, uh, the further I've gone down my, uh, my Bitcoin journey here. But, um, yeah, been, I think you are the first, uh, first Austro libertarian, uh, that I've spoken to, and, uh, came to learn a lot from you. Stephan Kinsella (00:07:16): Well, glad to, uh, meet you and, uh, prepare to have your mind blown. Logan Chipkin (00:07:21): . Uh, yes. So I'll, a few words about me. So I've been a, I'm a longtime writer, been writing about all sorts of stuff, journalism, physics, economics for years. And now I'm happy to be working with Sats Mining to really create a lot of our content around Bitcoin, Bitcoin mining and energy. Um, so that's a little bit about me. Uh, Stephan, before we start, do you wanna, uh, tell us a little bit about yourself and your background? Stephan Kinsella (00:07:46): Well, I live in Houston, Texas. I am from Louisiana originally. I'm a, I'm an attorney, a retired attorney. I'm a patent attorney, uh, but also have long time been a libertarian speaker, writer and thinker. Uh, uh, mostly influenced by the Austrian economics and anarchist, uh, you know, camp of Rothbard and Mises and these guys. So that's my take. I'm a, I'm a, I'm a, I'm a huge Bitcoin, um, uh, hopeful advocate. I don't know what you want to call it, . So, yeah, that's, that's my take. Plus I was an electrical engineer in, in, in college, so, uh, yeah, I'm, I'm interested in technology and, uh, those related matters too. Logan Chipkin (00:08:31): Perfect. Yeah, I'm just to let the audience know, FYI, I'm also essentially an Austro libertarian. I tend to not use that word, uh, in other contexts 'cause people probably don't often know what that is. But since Stephan's here, I figured why not break open the champagne bottles. Um, so it's nice to be amongst my people as it were. Not that Bitcoiners aren't, but anyway. So before we get into, so today we're gonna talk about Bitcoin and kind, kind of how Bitcoin relates to property rights, uh, and we'll see why that's relevant soon. But Stephan, before we get into that, what is Austro libertarianism and what is the Austro libertarian view of property rights? Stephan Kinsella (00:09:07): Yeah, that's interesting. So, and, and I'm, I'm assuming we have sort of a generic audience who probably doesn't know all this stuff. So, um, yeah, so basically, um, economics is just a study of wealth, how wealth is created in society, right? And so there is a free market economics and socialist economics and things like that. And there's a sub-school called Austrian Economics, which is a special type of approach to economics, pioneered by Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard and these guys. And, um, from, probably, from most of your audience's point of view, the, the fundamental thing to think about, uh, what's unique about Austrian economics is it's, it's focused on the individual look. So every individual is the actor and it's hyper free market. Like we need free market property rights for people to, um, trade with each other and to establish money prices and have an efficient economy. (00:10:10): So it's, it's kind of pro-capitalist. And then libertarianism is more the political side, which is basically an extreme or more principled or more OCD version of the idea that, which most, most Americans, the idea that most Americans believe in, which is that, um, we should have civil liberties, like personal liberties, like right to free speech, right to freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, but we should also have economic liberties, which means the right to trade, the right to profit, the right to own your property. Um, and so that is what I would call soft libertarianism and hard libertarianism would be the way we view it, which is like no exc

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 400. I appeared tonight (Dec. 7, 2022) on the LP Mises Caucus’s Ask an Austrian podcast and youtube channel, episode 11, at the request of Liam McCollum. I fielded as many questions as I could in the allotted time. The questions given to me ahead of the session are posted below, most of which I addressed. https://youtu.be/lcDVXIg_0Lw Questions: Karson Rosander - can you explain the history of the term “intellectual property” and how it’s evolved? How can I use that to explain it’s not like traditional property? Karson Rosander - what have you found to be the best way to sell your position on IP to conservatives? Harrison - Do you think the free market could develop some sort of protection for IP? Do you think blockchain might be a free market solution to IP? Michael - what do you think about Rothbard’s argument for natural law in ethics of liberty? Aaron Harris - what would be the most significant changes in society if IP laws were abolished? Is there a particular way they should be phased out? Chris Forrest - Do you think it's fair to say that public property (such as roads, libraries etc.) is rightfully owned by the taxpayer, as restitution for the aggression committed against them by the state as well as the companies that build these things, seeing as they're guilty of possession of stolen goods (tax money)? Zach Szklarz - why deontological liberty? Are consequentialist arguments wrong, or just not as good as natural-rights arguments? Is it fair to use consequentialist arguments to back up your ideas based on deontological libertarianism? (maybe explain deontological or consequentialist for the rest of the listeners) Adam Thuen - How did IP get established in the US, what was the intent in its adoption and how has it been corrupted? Given the acceleration of tech and its ability to drastically change quality of life, why haven’t timeframes for patents and copyrights been reduced? Adam Thuen - Is there an economic and legal case to abolish these frameworks? Where is the line between a chef trying to protect family recipes and an entrepreneurial person trying to make their way by providing a good or service? How does this play with our globs system? We all know China and other countries engage in corporate espionage (as well as many American companies) Liam - Are you in favor of decentralization on principle or is something like the incorporation doctrine legitimate? Do you think we should oppose centralization in all cases, even if it’s in the name of liberty? Are there any scenarios where a more centralized power should check a lower power? Brady - What is polycentric law? Are you in favor of it? Liam - What would a libertarian court system look like? Is a common-law system more consistent with libertarianism than the current centralized system with the US Supreme Court? Riley Wipf - What is the best way to use Austrian Economics in entry-level business to help create value? Dan Zembiak - The US is over $30 trillion dollars in debt. Who exactly is that debt owed to? Alex Dillard - Do you think it is viable for libertarians to work in coalitions with populist forces (such as independent leftists like Jimmy Dore, as well as paleoconservative and populist conservative forces)? Has the previous LP leadership tried to appeal too much to centrist forces? Joe - are you pessimistic in light of recent foreign policy developments? Sachin Patil - Dear Sir, How would a country (say like US) transform from democracy to Anarcho capitalism? Suppose the entire Government resigns. What then? Wouldn't the vaccum crested be filled by mafia? Or even a foreign country? Sachin Patil - How would defence, Police & Judiciary be privatised? How can we make the transformation from democracy to Anarcho Capitalism? Kareem Maize - What is the ricardian law of association in your own words and how does that relate to social cooperation? Zach Szklarz - what is your #1 non-libertarian book to read?

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 399. This is my appearance on the CryptoVoices podcast, Episode 138, interviewed by host Matthew Mežinskis. Update: To be clear, in my off the cuff comments about some "antiwar" types and Israel and Russia, I had in mind some particular individuals, some private conversations and some others online, but did not mean the good folks at Antiwar.com--I've long been and remain a supporter, financial and otherwise, of Antiwar.com. I should have been clearer with my language. https://youtu.be/JFdUF3jc9B8 Shownotes: Matthew interviews Stephan Kinsella, lawyer and author, and anti-IP advocate. Stephan covers a lot of ground on how to increase liberalism and reduce war, through the lens of the unjust and terrible war being waged by Russia in Ukraine. Though there are a variety of views on NATO, nukes, and strategies for minimizing this and all state wars, the focus on this show is to philosophize and center our arguments on freedom and liberalism and private property, with the important caveat that we live in 2022, not in an anarcho-capitalistic world. Listen on to learn more.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 398. This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast, Ep. WiM229 (Youtube channel). This is Ep. 3 of the “Stephan Kinsella Series” (released Oct. 26, 2022). For Ep. 1, see KOL391 | Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Ep. 1 with Robert Breedlove, of the “What is Money” Show. For Ep. 2, see KOL394 | The Nature of Property, Ep. 2 (WiM216) with Robert Breedlove, of the “What is Money” Show. From Robert’s Episode notes: “Stephan Kinsella is an American intellectual property lawyer, author, and deontological anarcho-capitalist. He joins me for an in-depth conversation about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.” Youtube: https://youtu.be/uduhaHN5QAE

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 397. I was a guest last night (Oct. 25, 2022) on the Libertarian Podcast Review ... podcast, ep. 70, with hosts Tyler Janke and Garbage Mane Andy. We discussed... well... Hoppe. They're like—why are you always the one called on to defend Hoppe? I'm thinking—I dunno, you tell me. Related links: Magness on Hoppe; the Kochtopus and the Mises Caucus Jacob Hornberger on Defamation and Alex Jones Palmer Lies about Involuntary Unemployment–yet again! ha ha ha Palmer on Coase and Hoppe https://youtu.be/NoF_4b6gTmA

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 396. From Decentralized Revolution ep. 87 with Aaron Harris. From the Youtube Shownotes: Stephan Kinsella shares his views on libertarian attacks on Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Hoppe’s actual positions on immigration and monarchy, and the differences between libertarian universalism and decentralization. We discuss my article Magness on Hoppe; the Kochtopus and the Mises Caucus. https://youtu.be/KLnXUjsitrM Further shownotes: Hans-Hermann Hoppe at the Mises Institute “My Dream Is of a Europe Which Consists of 1,000 Liechtensteins” by Hans-Hermann Hoppe Phillip W. Magness at the American Institute for Economic Research “Against the Zeitgeist” by Jeff Deist “The Kochtopus vs. Murray N. Rothbard” by David Gordon “Why the Koch Brothers Went After Murray Rothbard” by David Gordon Open Borders Conference 2022 – Keynote speech by Bryan Caplan TakeHumanAction.com

Note: An article based on the transcript (below) was published as Stephan Kinsella, "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection," The Libertarian Standard (Oct. 25, 2022). An updated and revised version of this article appears as chap. 11 of Legal Foundations of a Free Society (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press, 2023). Archived version below. Conformed version below. See also Pavel Slutskiy, "Yes, You Should Own Bitcoin,” J. Libertarian Stud. 28, no. 1 (2024): 1–19; and KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019). Errata: See also On Kissing the Girl, Changing One’s Mind, Reserving Rights, and Voluntary Slavery *** Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 395. From the recently-concluded Sixteenth Annual (2022) Meeting of the PFS, Bodrum, Turkey (Sep. 17, 2022). The video as well as slide presentation is also streamed below (ppt). I also recorded a version on my iphone. Also podcast at PFP245 | Stephan Kinsella, “Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection” (PFS 2022). See the following panel discussion at PFP246 | Hülsmann, Fusillo, Israel, Polleit, Kinsella, Discussion, Q&A (PFS 2022). Transcript below. See published article based on this talk, here: Stephan Kinsella, "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection," The Libertarian Standard (Oct. 25, 2022; https://libertarianstandard.com/selling-does-not-imply-owning-and-vice-versa-a-dissection/); also at Freedom and Law substack. See also Walter Block's response: Walter E. Block, Block, "Rejoinder to Kinsella on ownership and the voluntary slave contract,” Management Education Science Technology Journal (MESTE) 11, no. 1 (Jan. 2023): 1-8 [pdf] For others, see the PFS YouTube channel, including the PFS 2022 YouTube Playlist. [For those interested in the Hoppe ringtone mentioned in the beginning: see this Facebook post or the opening to this podcast by Jared Howe.] https://youtu.be/5Q7chBHfHEQ Odysee: Panel discussion: https://youtu.be/Q3lvh5UqgxU Related: "Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward," the section "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership" The “If you own something, that implies that you can sell it; if you sell something, that implies you must own it first” Fallacies Libertarian Answer Man: Self-ownership for slaves and Crusoe; and Yiannopoulos on Accurate Analysis and the term “Property”; Mises distinguishing between juristic and economic categories of “ownership” The Non-Aggression Principle as a Limit on Action, Not on Property Rights IP and Aggression as Limits on Property Rights: How They Differ KOL044 | “Correcting some Common Libertarian Misconceptions” (PFS 2011) KOL049 | “Libertarian Controversies Lecture 5” (Mises Academy, 2011) KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery and Inalienability Thoughts on Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery, Alienability vs. Inalienability, Property and Contract, Rothbard and Evers “On Conflictability and Conflictable Resources” How We Come To Own Ourselves Aggression and Property Rights Plank in the Libertarian Party Platform A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability Cordato and Kirzner on Intellectual Property On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse Hoppe, “A Note on Preference and Indifference in Economic Analysis” and “Further Notes on Preference and Indifference: Rejoinder to Block,” both in The Great Fiction Conformed to LFFS version: 11 Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection I delivered this speech at the Property and Freedom Society’s 16th Annual Meeting, in Bodrum, Turkey, in 2022.* It takes aim, in part, at some of my friend Walter Block’s views on voluntary slavery and body-alienability, a topic we’ve disagreed about for a long time.† The transcript was lightly edited for clarity and to add some headings, references, and links, but the colloquial and informal tone has largely been preserved. I published it on my old, mostly defunct site The Libertarian Standard, to which Walter responded in due course.†† This chapter is a lightly-edited version of that article.§ * Kinsella, “KOL395 | Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection (PFS 2022),” Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (Sept. 17, 2022). † See Kinsella, “KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery and Inalienability,” Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (Jan. 27, 2013). †† Kinsella, “Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection,” The Libertarian Standard (Oct. 25, 2022). Walter’s response: “Rejoinder to Kinsella on Ownership and the Voluntary Slave Contract,” Management Education Science Technology Journal (MESTE) 11, no. 1 (Jan. 2023; https://perma.cc/H3AL-WBQJ): 1–8. See also idem, “Toward a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Gordon, Smith, Kinsella and Epstein,” J. Libertarian Stud. 17, no. 2 (Spr

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 394. This is my appearance on Robert Breedlove’s What Is Money podcast, Ep. WiM216 (Youtube channel). This is Ep. 2 of the "Stephan Kinsella Series." For Ep. 1, see KOL391 | Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, Ep. 1 with Robert Breedlove, of the “What is Money” Show. From Robert’s Episode notes: “Stephan Kinsella is an American intellectual property lawyer, author, and deontological anarcho-capitalist. He joins me for an in-depth conversation about the book "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.” Grok summary: [00:01:37 - 00:45:20] In this episode of the "What is Money" podcast, host Robert Breedlove engages with Stephan Kinsella to explore the foundational concepts of property rights, scarcity, and self-ownership, drawing heavily from Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. The discussion begins by addressing how property rights serve as a normative framework to resolve conflicts over scarce resources, which are inherently limited and subject to competing human desires (01:37). Kinsella explains that property rules emerge to facilitate peaceful cooperation by assigning exclusive ownership, preventing violent clashes over resources like a coconut that only one person can consume at a time (04:48). The conversation delves into the capitalistic perspective on time preference, emphasizing how secure property rights enable long-term planning and economic prosperity, contrasting societies with strong property norms, like the West, against those with weaker systems (08:37). The concept of self-ownership is introduced as the prototype of property, with Kinsella clarifying that even in a hypothetical Garden of Eden, the scarcity of one’s body necessitates property rules to avoid conflicts (13:08). [00:45:20 - 01:13:23] The latter half of the episode examines the implications of property rights in relation to inflation, state power, and societal organization. Kinsella critiques the notion of "inflation as theft," arguing that the true aggression lies in the state’s monopolization of money, which enables inflationary policies that erode purchasing power (41:04). This segues into a discussion on the nature of true ownership, where Hoppe’s Garden of Eden analogy illustrates the inherent scarcity of time and the body, forcing individuals to prioritize actions and incur opportunity costs (45:23). The conversation explores how property rights are claimed through first use or consensual transfer, with Kinsella addressing the practical challenges of defending property and the role of the state as a corrupted enforcer of norms (54:36 - 1:03:47). The episode concludes with reflections on the state’s genesis as a response to the need for collective defense and the detrimental effects of modern democratic systems, contrasting them with monarchical systems where rulers have a longer-term interest in preserving their domain (1:03:47). Breedlove and Kinsella underscore the foundational role of private property in enabling civilization and the potential of sound money, like Bitcoin, to reshape societal incentives (1:08:16). Youtube: https://youtu.be/B2a5MnWb0RU Breedlove shownotes: Outline 00:00:00 “What is Money” Intro 00:00:08 Learn about Bitcoin with Swan Private at SwanPrivate.Com 00:01:37 How Private Property Rights Resolve Conflicts Over Scarce Resources 00:08:34 The Capitalistic View on Time Preference 00:13:06 “Individual Self-Ownership” 00:21:47 Defining, “Property”, “Time” and “Scarcity” 00:39:16 Watch "Hard Money with Natalie Brunell" From Swan Studios 00:40:00 Take Control of Your Healthcare with Crowd Health 00:41:03 “Inflation is Theft”: The Dangers of a Legal Monopoly on Money 00:45:20 The Nature of True Ownership in Relation to the Self 00:54:34 Claiming Property Rights 01:03:43 Property Rights and the Role of the State 01:13:23 “What is Money” Outro From Grok: (2) Bullet-Point Summary for Shownotes with Time Block Descriptions Summary Bullet Points with Time Markers: [00:01:37] Property rights resolve conflicts over scarce resources by assigning exclusive ownership, preventing violent clashes (Kinsella explains using Hoppe’s framework). [00:08:37] Capitalism’s low time preference, enabled by secure property rights, fosters long-term planning and prosperity, contrasting prosperous Western societies with others. [00:13:08] Self-ownership is the prototype of property, as even in a Garden of Eden, the body’s scarcity necessitates rules to avoid conflict. [00:21:51] Property, time, and scarcity are defined, with Kinsella distinguishing possession (factual control) from ownership (normative rights). [00:41:04] Inflation is likened to theft due to the state’s coercive monopolization of money, enabling wealth erosion through money printing. [00:45:23] True ownership relates to the self, with time and body scarcity forcing prioritization and opportunity c

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 393. After a Twitter spat with Las Vegas Libertarian about IP (see here and here), I offered to have a discussion with him. I didn't make much headway, but it was a fun, robust discussion. Oh well. I tried. Related: “The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism,” Mises Daily (July 28, 2010) Yet another Randian recants on IP (Feb. 1, 2012) An Objectivist Recants on IP (Dec. 4, 2009) Letter from a UK Grad Student Does Cato’s New Objectivist CEO John Allison Presage Retrogression on IP? Timothy Sandefur, “A Critique of Ayn Rand’s Theory of Intellectual Property Rights,” Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 9, no. 1 (Fall 2007): 139–61 Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward https://youtu.be/k7ebUpmAWHc

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 392. I was asked to make a guest appearance on SwanBitcoin's Café Bitcoin Tuesday today, with host Alex, where we discussed ownership of bitcoin, property rights, bitcoin maximalism, money vs. language, bitcoin and free speech, and related matters. It was also posted on their podcast feed (iTunes; Spotify; google) and I include here my segment. Related: KOL274 | Nobody Owns Bitcoin (PFS 2019) KOL085 | The History, Meaning, and Future of Legal Tender (Crypto-Currency Conference, Atlanta, 2013) Transcript: “You Don’t Own Bitcoin—Property Rights, Praxeology and the Foundations of Private Law,” with Max Hillebrand (May 23, 2021) KOL386 | Toward Anarchy with Michael Storm: IP, Bitcoin, NFTs, Digital Ownership KOL383 | Bitcoin at PorcFest: Patent Trolls, Bitcoin Ownership, the Mises Caucus and the Reno Reset Libertarian Answer Man: Self-ownership for slaves and Crusoe; and Yiannopoulos on Accurate Analysis and the term “Property”; Mises distinguishing between juristic and economic categories of “ownership”